I’m going to kill our baby: a father’s worst nightmare

I can’t recall if I first heard about him through an e-mail or a phone call. But I know that when I spoke to him on the phone, he was desperate. A normal working father who already had three other children, he wanted to know if there was something he could do to stop his wife from killing one of their children.

Now, if I stopped here with the details of my story and let you ponder the paragraph above, you would understandably be horrified. Why would a mother want to kill her youngest child? Why would the father have to call for outside help to stop her? Do nightmares like this actually happen?

In the abortion issue, men are often treated as faceless, voiceless individuals.

Yes. They do. All the time. But the detail I left out is that this father’s youngest child was unborn. Although he and his wife had agreed to have this child – had both wanted this child – she changed her mind one day. And there was nothing he could do about it. Until a baby is born, a father has exactly no say and no rights in whether that child lives or dies.

Though I did what I could to help this father (I had a wonderful counselor talk to his wife and got a great attorney to help him), in the end, his baby was killed anyway. In a heartbreaking turn of events, the mother canceled her first abortion appointment only to schedule another one later on. This situation remains one of the most horrible and discouraging things I have ever been involved with in my life.

As a mere outsider, I experienced such a feeling of helplessness. I can’t imagine what the father experienced. When I heard that the baby had been aborted, I felt responsible. Clearly, I hadn’t said the right thing. Clearly, I hadn’t done enough. What must the father have been going through when his wife broke the news to him? Though it’s been a few years since this occurred, I’m sure the father will never get over the intentional death of his child, caused by the child’s own mother and his own wife. Can a more horrible thing happen to a loving father?

This father would never hold his tiny baby in his strong arms for the very first time. He would never watch her – if she was a daughter – dance in the grass with flowery shoes and a flowing dress. He would never cheer him on – if he was a son – in the final football game of his high school career. This father’s only memory of his child would be how hard he had fought to save its precious life.

I share this story (with changed and omitted details to protect the parties involved) as an illustration of the cruel silencing of men that is taking place in our society. Laura Peredo and Nancy Flanders have already written about why men should have a right to speak out for the lives of children, just as women do. How can the pro-choice side command men to shut their mouths when it comes to saving babies, but demand that they pay for the methods women use to kill those same babies?

In a cruel twist of fate caused by an attempt to elevate women to an “equal” place in society, the baldfaced lies of “it’s my body” and “it’s my choice” have silenced men. Legally speaking, men have zero rights. Fathers who want to protect their children have had their hands tied by the law.

A judge heard the case of the father who was trying to stop his wife from killing their child. And though I am told the judge wanted to rule for the father – you could see it in his eyes – he found no legal basis for doing so. The child’s mother was free to take this precious new life, at her whim and pleasure. (Now, I do think that a judge could find otherwise. In fact, different fathers bringing cases may be one of the ways to change the law concerning fathers’ rights.)

Please, fathers, don’t give up. While I can’t make specific recommendations on individual cases that I’m not familiar with, as an attorney, I would say that fathers in general should consider challenging the law if their wife/girlfriend/child’s mother wants to have an abortion. Her “right” to kill your child can be challenged in court. Speak out for your child. We can never be sure when a father will get in front of the right judge who is willing to change the horrible state of the law when it comes to fathers’ rights.

The baby is not the mother’s body. He or she is a unique individual. The baby’s life should not hang in the balance of the mother’s “choice.” If a father wants to stand up for the right of his child to live, his voice should be welcomed and listened to. He should be given the right to care for that child himself, if he is willing.

Note: If you are a father who wants to stop an abortion, please see this article for helpful information.

  • Rnewton

    That is so sad :( The man wanted that little one so badly. Its so unfair that a woman’s choice to kill a child she and her partner created totally disregards a mans say in the decision of whats going to happen to his own flesh and blood. 

    • techqueen333

      Women bear all of the physical consequences of pregnancy. So, of course, women get the final say.

      • dianiline

        It doesn’t really matter whether the father wants the child or not. “Not being wanted” should not be punishable by death.

        • techqueen333

          What child? We are talking about embryos and fetuses.

          Your argument is a giant logical fallacy dianiline. The issue in abortion is whether or not a pregnant woman believes she can take on the physical, psychological, or even the economic risks/challenges of pregnancy. She has an inalienable right to decide she can’t/won’t and to terminate.

          • Guest

            I wish your mother had said the same thing about you and done with it. we would have one less disgusting creature on this godforsaken planet.
            your comments are so pathetic and disgusting. i don’t know how you live with yourself.

  • JadeSpartan

    How heartbreaking :( Completely unequal rights and unfair to father and child. 

    • techqueen333

      Not at all.

  • Amhunt007

    I know so many people stopped watching “Grey’s Anatomy” after Christina had an abortion earlier this season, but I urge you to watch it again for the very reason this blog was written.  Her husband Owen is struggling with the death of their child- he actually said she killed their child in one episode- and I think it’s good that the father’s perspective and grief is being shown in entertainment media.

    • Californiacutie1993

      This is the biggest reason that I stopped watching Grey’s Anatomy (besides ALL the other crappy drama). I was disgusted with Christina. She was SO selfish! Owen was torn to bits about this. He was desperate, but he was seen as the enemy. As the male pig. He desperately loves Christina and their baby. But she was to selfish to see that. She just saw him as crossing her will. I was so angry at her and so sad! :/

      • pofalici

        Interesting, I can see that this Christina having an abortion has been a teachable moment of pro-life. Perhaps the writers actually intended this?

      • techqueen333

         It was her body. This risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth were all hers. Therefore, the final decision was all hers.

        • “All hers”- you describe pregnancy like a child’s toy or a person’s long-desired dessert. It’s all hers to do with as she pleases! 

          The final decision to- what, why don’t you say it?- murder her child? Abortion crushes, stabs, and vacuums out the life of a pre-born child. Basic sonograms now tell us that the developing babies move as far from the instruments of death as possible, and they do feel horrific pain. Yes, an expectant mother bears the brunt of the child in pregnancy and childbirth, but so many men would support their would-be-child’s mother in raising the child, and yet the law prevents them from doing this. 

          Where laws once in many ways silenced women, now in this most basic way, men are silenced, stripped of the right to be a father to their girlfriend, wife, or partner’s developing child. How is this right?

          • techqueen333

             All hers because the physical consequences are all hers. Women still die in childbirth, and even under the best of conditions, there are physical consequences to both pregnancy and childbirth that men can never experience. Women have no moral imperative to submit to men. We have the final say in whether or not we choose to accept the risk and the consequences of pregnancy/childbirth. I can understand that a man would want a say or that he could grieve for the loss of the possibility of a birthed infant to raise. Most women in loving relationships do weigh the wishes of her partner. However, I cannot for a second understand how you can believe he should have any right to command a woman to put herself at risk in order to gratify his needs and wishes.

            There are also psychological and economic consequences to pregnancy and childbirth. Men can walk away from those.

            Murder is the unjust killing of a birthed person. Abortion fits none of those criteria.  The moral imperative is to protect the bodily autonomy of the woman. There is nothing immoral about evicting an entity from one’s womb, particularly in early stages to protect one’s psychological or physical health, even from an innocent aggressor. Women also seek later term (16-24 weeks) abortions where the fetus has an abnormality inconsistent with life outside the womb and where continuing the pregnancy is correlated with increased suffering for the fetus and increased maternal risk. Further, you must not know much about human development if you would label what is aborted in more than 85% of all cases, because it is different in many ways from a birthed human child.

            Credible medical research has debunked the “pain” theory. See S. Lee et al. “Fetal Pain: A Stytematic Multidisciplinary Review 0f the Available Evidence, JAMA 294, no. 8 (2005): 947-954 and  Cohen, I. G. & Sayeed, S. Fetal Pain, Aboriton, Viability and the Constitution, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 39 (2011): 235-241. What the forced gestation crowd would like you to believe is response to “abortion instruments” is, at most, a reflex.  To quote the 2005 study (which is extensive):
            Pain is an emotional and psychological experience that requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus. Consequently, the capacity for conscious perception of pain can arise only after thalamocortical pathways begin to function, which may occur in the third trimester around 29-30 weeks. ..While the presence of thalamocortical fibers is necessary for pain perception, their mere presence is insufficient, this pathway must also be function.

          • Color-me-brown

            techqueen333 – OMG How many abortions have you had OR performed, in order to move you to justify such a thing so adamantly? Haunted much  in your sleep, are you?

          • Techqueen333

             Not a one Color-me-brown. I justify this so adamantly because the moral imperative is always to protect the bodily autonomy, privacy and health of women.

          • dianiline

            TechqueenHalfofthenumberofthebeast, you think that abortion is a decision “All hers because the physical consequences are all hers”. If that were true you *might* be right.

            You have forgotten that the primary physical consequence is borne by the child. No woman has a right to do to her body what will kill her child.

            If she is so mentally ill as to choose to do some action, knowing that it will kill her child, one would hope she would have loving family around to dissuade her. Certainly her husband ought to do everything in his power to prevent her from killing their child.

            It is a sad thing that you would place the “bodily autonomy, privacy, and health of women” above the true moral imperative, which is to respect the dignity of persons and to protect the weak and helpless from being victimized by the strong and ruthless.

            Healthy women protect their children.

          • techqueen333

            What child? We are talking about potential children/people here. Embryos aren’t children.
            Nice red herring. We are talking about why MEN don’t get to participate in the final decision about whether or not a pregnancy continues.
            However…The physical consequences borne by embryos occur because they rely on the bodies and resources of women for their welfare. Women have every right to refuse to provide those, on the grounds of bodily autonomy, in order protect their own physical, psychological, and economic survival/health. To deny that women do face these consequences…and often dire ones… so you can make a damning and judgment statement about those who choose to evict l is intellectually dishonest.

          • dianiline

            We are not talking about potential children, but actual ones. If there is no child, there is no pregnancy, and there cannot be an abortion.

            Embryos are children. Just like toddlers are children. They just have a special name for their stage of development. Just as children are persons, who have a special name for their stage of development.

            Women have every right to refuse to provide their bodies and resources to potential children; they do this by saying “no”. They choose not to have sex, because sex makes babies, and they don’t want babies. Women who have sex are inviting babies into their wombs. What cads they would have to be, to flush the babies they have so warmly invited.

            The physical consequences borne by embryos occur because of choices made by others more powerful than themselves. They rely on the bodies and resources of those who have chosen to conceive them. They have no voice and no choice in the proceedings, and their interests must be protected from those who would destroy them.

            Women face consequences, as everybody does, for the choices that they make. Women who feel that they cannot afford a child are welcome not to conceive one; they do that by abstaining from sex.

            To conceive the child and then claim the right to kill it because you’ve changed your mind–that is intellectually dishonest.

            To claim that women have rights, and children don’t, is intellectually dishonest.

            To claim that children are only children after they’re born is *really* intellectually dishonest, especially when your whole argument, and everything you want, depends upon that pretense.

            Women are sometimes forced into sex, of course, and such a woman thus is not responsible for the fact that an unborn child depends upon her. She then has every right to the support and protection of society as she provides support and protection that only she can provide, to the child who is her fellow victim.

            She certainly doesn’t have the right to commit a much greater crime against the child, just because she has also suffered.

          • techqueen333

            I’m not going to argue with you over whether or not you can used scientifically inaccurate, loaded language or not. “Unborn child” is an example of such a loaded term.
            My argument does NOT depend on whether one considers a zygote to be a child. Not at all.
            Women have an inalienable right not to allow any other living entity to exist in what is essentially (except that its the same species) parasitic relationship with her. It doesn’t matter one whit whether or not she chose to have sex. Sex is a basic human need. If an accident occurs or if she is underage, or forced, she has every moral right to evict a bundle of dividing cells to save herself.
            Women who find themselves pregnant with non-viable or seriously abnormal fetuses also have a right to terminate their pregnancies.

          • dianiline

            “My argument does NOT depend on whether one considers a zygote to be a child. Not at all.”

            I am astonished. You appear to be admitting that you want the right to kill the child even if you agree that it is a child you are killing.

            I have understood that pro-abortion people support abortion because they do not understand that it is killing a child.

            You are the first I have met who admits that her argument is that killing a child is okay.

            By the way, no, you really don’t have a right to kill your disabled baby either.

          • techqueen333

            The forced gestation crowd has created a situation where women carrying hopelessly abnormal fetuses are forced to carry them to term, at increased risk to themselves, only to watch them suffer and die.

          • APro-lifeteen

            Since when is sex a “need” ever? It’s definitely not a need. It’s a want. People live their entire lives as virgins all the time. Air is a need, food is a need, clean water and shelter from the elements is a need. Sex is NOT a need and never has been.

          • dianiline

            Always nice when you can dismiss your victim’s pain as “reflex”. What you cite is not science.

            Medical professionals take the position that pain is what the patient says it is. Recoiling from noxious stimuli must be taken as reliable evidence of pain.

            You say, “Pain…requires conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus.” This is not only not science, it is not even English.

            Pain *is* conscious recognition of a noxious stimulus.

          • techqueen333

            Read empirical research on the topic. I have. Lots of it. You are incorrect.

          • dianiline

            Use brain cells. Research articles often reflect the thinking of the researcher, unassailed by the data.

          • techqueen333

            Generally not in peer reviewed journals.

          • APro-lifeteen

            Babies are affected physically by the actions of their mothers as well as complications during childbirth and pregnancy. Fathers as we can see in this article are affected mentally which can lead to physical issues, so no the physical consequences are not “all hers” and it would be selfish of her to think so.

          • techqueen333

            Fathers don’t die in childbirth.

        • Daniel P. Durham

          It wasn’t her body. It was the child’s body.

          • techqueen333

            A potential child. Regardless, on whose body does the fetus rely for its welfare? Oh yeah! It’s the host pregnant female, i.e. the “her” in “her body.”

  • Pray for the whole family – their marriage –  their relationships with their children.

    • pofalici

      I do Post-abortion work. A good friend of ours came to us once day so very upset and angrey. He had thought his wife had had a miscarriage a few months back but, he found the bill for an abortion at that time. It has been years and he is still so shatterered.

  • Hermanammindy

    If the mother doesn’t want the child she can always turn over full custody to the father and have her parental rights terminated when it is born. 

    • techqueen333

      What about all of the physical consequences she suffers? Pregnancy and birth are not without consequences. You act like it’s a walk in the park.

      • dianiline

        It’s not a walk in the park. It is, however, an entirely normal process to which the woman is suited by her anatomy and physiology. Women have been managing it for thousands of years.

        Women are strong people and can manage this. They should enjoy the love and support of those around them while they are pregnant. And before, and after.

        You act like women are weak helpless creatures.

        • techqueen333

          And dying from it.
          No, I’m not acting like women are weak, helpless creatures. There are physical, psychological, and economic consequences to pregnancy.

      • APro-lifeteen

        What about the consequences the father suffers. Why is he not taken into consideration?

  • This breaks my heart.  May God give this man the peace of knowing that his baby is with the Savior and he, God willing, will someday get his chance to hold that precious child.  I pray that his wife has repented and that their marriage was salvageable from the havoc I’m sure this choice wreaked on their relationship.  I can’t imagine this father’s pain and heartache.

    • Leann

      There is no such thing as God. Grow the F up.

      • George London

        You don’t know anything of the kind. Stick to making statements you have some kind of support for. Grow a brain. Let me guess, you are one of these shameless sluts who aborts their children? God will deal with you eventually, whether you believe he exists or not. Sucks to be you !

  • Onehappygardener

    we lost our first grandchild of 16 other grandchildren to a miscarriage & the grief i experienced was totally unexpected & profound – to never know this child was deep for me! to mourn the death of a deliberate death of an unborn child? i cannot fathom this!

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      I’m so sorry for your loss.

  • Mitch barker

    I am an attorney and went through the same experience, trying to saving my client’s unborn baby when his wife wanted to abort.  We obtained a preliminary injunction from the judge, but it was dissolved at hearing, since there is no case that gives rights to protect his son or daughter from termination, or even gives him the right to a say.  Shockingly, in most places he doesn’t have even the right to  notice, even if he is both father and husband.  
    In our case, after the trial judge dissolved the injunction, we literally dashed the few blocks to the court of appeals.  The justices were at lunch, and the moment they returned they entered a temporary injunction as well.  But in the meantime the abortionist and the mother had gone ahead and done the dead.  I mean deed.  Freudian slip, no doubt.  I doubt I can ever forget the sick feeling I had upon learning that we were too late.  

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      Oh my goodness, how horrible.  I’m so sorry.  And yes, you understand the feelings better than many since you went through something so similar–probably worse, actually.  I can’t believe our laws allow these kind of things to happen.

    • techqueen333

      Can’t imagine why you’d think you had a case. The woman assumes ALL physical consequences of pregnancy and since the Constitution banned slavery, you have to right to force her to do your or your client’s bidding.

      • dianiline

        Oh, yes, how foolish to think that what is right might have some pull in a court of law, here in the land of the free, and the home of the brave.

        You fool, techqueen, if your viewpoint ever becomes common, you will find that men not only have no say, they have no support obligations either. Why should a man have to support a child if it is only the woman’s choice whether to bear it?

        You fail to notice that the man assumes a large part of the financial consequences of pregnancy, and if you don’t recognize his rights in the matter of gestation, he will “have a case” in refusing to be responsible for more than the cost of abortion. And how many women will be able to choose to carry the baby to term, if they will have to support the baby alone?

        I hope you can grasp that you are arguing for *less* choice for women, not more. Most women don’t want to terminate their pregnancies, but you sacrifice these on the altar of those who have conceived but wish to change their minds.

        • techqueen333

          What is RIGHT is to protect a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.

          You are conflating an issue of bodily autonomy, i.e. who should have control over a woman’s body (the woman, not men or the state) and an economic issue (who will sustain a birthed infant to adulthood).
          There’s nothing to “grasp.” Men who impregnate women are held financially responsible. That doesn’t give them any decision making power over the bodies of women. There are no laws granting men the option to choose the cost of an abortion over supporting a child from birth to adulthood and there won’t be.

          • dianiline

            You are conflating an issue of bodily autonomy with the right to kill another person. In fact arguments based on right to bodily autonomy do not support abortion, because a right to bodily autonomy would preclude killing the baby unless you had previously obtained its consent.

            In fact there are many actions one can take which limit one’s bodily autonomy. You can choose, in your bodily autonomy, to move your arm to the left, but if your arm happens to be on the steering wheel of a car and a collision occurs, you will be responsible for the damages. If the collision is with another human being, you will be a fool to defend yourself with the thought that you were just moving your arm as an exercise of your bodily autonomy.

            Likewise you probably have a right to a D & C, but if getting one kills a child that happened to be in your womb, you’ve killed a child.

            You appear to believe this is okay, which makes me incredibly sad for you.

          • techqueen333

            The right to bodily autonomy is perfectly defensible as one has the right to protect oneself from an innocent aggressor (said embryo).
            I’ll tell you what, when my kidneys fail, I’ll seek you out and force you to allow me to hook myself up to your body. After all, my right to life if more important than your bodily autonomy, right?

          • Santa Claws

            So let me get this straight, you have the right to protect yourself from an innocent aggressor…. and the embryo is given certain rights as well (i.e. murder of a pregnant woman counts as 2 charges) and most states have “stand your ground” so all I have to do is defend the embryo from aggressors …. SWEEEETTTT its abortionist hunting time.

          • techqueen333

            A zygote is not a person. It is a potential person. Regardless, bodily autonomy means that a woman has an inalienable right to have a fertilized egg removed from her body at will.

  • Newincs

    Wait, a court can FORCE a mother to have a c section, can lock her in jail or rehab to keep her from drugs and alcohol while pregnant but will not save the child she planned to have, tried to have and actvely AND WILLINGLY participated in making?

    • techqueen333

      The moral imperative is always to protect the bodily autonomy and personhood of women. What you support is gestational slavery.

      • dianiline

        The moral imperative is always to protect the innocent weak against the predation of the strong. One should protect small women from being victimized by larger, more powerful men. One should protect small men from being victimized by larger, more powerful women.

        One should protect small children from being victimized by larger, more powerful adults, even if the children are so small and powerless that they are not even born yet, and even if the large powerful adults are their parents.

        In general, of course, one should not interfere in the relationship of parents with their children. It is usually safe to assume that parents are dedicated to the well-being of their children, and have the right to raise their children without interference.

        However, parental rights pretty much stop when the parent decides to kill the child.

        • techqueen333

          You are talking in very broad terms about birthed people. We aren’t talking about killing children. We are talking about removing embryos and fetuses from women’s bodies to protect the psychological, physical, and even economic well being of said woman.

          The moral imperative in pregnancy is always to protect the bodily autonomy of women. To do otherwise is to relegate women to gestational slavery.

          • dianiline

            I am talking in very specific terms about all people. Ethical people are always on the side of the weak and victimized against the strong and exploitative. Removing embryos and fetuses from women’s bodies *kills* the embryos and fetuses.

            The moral imperative in pregnancy is always to protect the lives of the pregnant woman and her baby.

            Gestating a baby that she has willingly conceived cannot be slavery. It is, at most, requiring the woman to carry out her part of the contract.

            Gestating a baby that she has conceived unwillingly is also hardly slavery. It is, at most, requiring the woman to undergo a condition for which she is admirably equipped, for a short time, to protect and give birth to her own child. During this short time, no one else on earth can do for her child what she can. Afterward, she can deposit the baby in the nearest emergency room drop box, if she chooses. She can give the child up for adoption through conventional means. She can give thanks for the child and be the best parent she can be. So many choices.

          • techqueen333

            Being forced to gestate and give birth against one’s will is always slavery.
            Your assertion that women/minors who are raped should take on the physical, psychological, and economic consequences of pregnancy so they can hand over a birthed infant to other people is disgusting.
            A woman’s body is forever changed by pregnancy. More than 70% are ravaged by striae. Many die…even in the U.S. Then there is the interruption to education, having to leave the workforce and on and on and on.
            A woman who is forced to carry the product of rape to term is forced to relive the assault daily. Better to terminate immediately.

  • I remember a similar case in Canada some years back — I was “pro-choice” back then and felt there was something sinister about “the father” in trying to exert control over the girlfriend in this way. The court of course ruled for the woman.  I am ardently pro-life, but still, it is difficult to see how legally compelling a woman to carry to term against her will  falls within the orbit of justice with compassion. This is perhaps one of several reasons why orthodox jews cannot overtly support the life movement though they agree with most of the relevant principles, such as the damage done to family and society from casual sex and the devaluation of life that birth control and abortion lead to.  What is interesting about this story, however, is the lack of any contex.  Why did the mother choose to abort?  Are we to take it at face value that the father was “loving” just because the writer said so?  Women don’t do this without reason, so assuming she’s sane, my guess is that she felt like a prisoner in her own  home. If true, does this justify abortion?  And if not, who in the life movement wants to defend this position?      

    • Uneva


         The moment a woman willingly submits herself to the act of creating a baby, she morally commits herself to the nine months of pregnancy and 18 years following, of raising the child.  It’s really simple: If you don’t want to take on those responsibilities,  DON’T have sex!!  Period!

      • “Willingly submits”?  What if she’s unwilling? 

        • kradeelav

          Rapes only occur in 3% of pregnancies; and there’s always the morning-after pills for those.

      •  Women are raped by their own husbands. No one knows what happened with that couple other than the two people in the relationship themselves. And 99% of people portray themselves completely differently than what actually goes on in the relationship.

        • Truth

          Oh shut the fuck up you stupid ass dumb black bitch! Of course the man had to have done something wrong. A woman is NEVER wrong. He did not RAPE her. He was a good father that loved his family she is the EVIL MURDERING whore that kills her own offspring. Why don’t you go get back in line to get welfare. How are you four kids without their baby daddies? See what happens when we assume things? Stupid bitch.

      • Oedipa Mossmonn

        Boy, more patriarchal nonsense about the “consequences” wenches must face when they open their slutty slut legs. Oboy, it’d be funny if it weren’t so 18th century.

        • MoonChild02

          It’s not about consequences, it’s about taking responsibility for one’s actions. The baby didn’t choose to be put there, the mother and father did. Sex causes reproduction, and everyone knows that, or at least should. They then scream and shout when they don’t want to act like an adult and realize that their actions created a life that they are now responsible for. Instead of being an adult, they decide that they don’t want the responsibility, and they kill the child. Creating a life was their choice when they climbed into bed. If they didn’t want the responsibility, they never should have had sex. Furthermore, it’s just as much the man’s fault as it is the woman’s. Taking action requires taking responsibility. That’s what it means to be an adult. If you don’t want to be an adult, don’t engage in adult activities.

          • Mountain Man

            I’d be willing to bet that 99% of women who seek abortions without thier husbands consent or approval are doing so because the child they are carrying is not the husbands.

          • techqueen333

            You certainly believe in cruel and unusual punishment, don’t you. Why not the rack? Sex is a basic human need.

            BTW, there’s no “child” killed in abortion. It’s the possibility of a child. In more than 85% of abortions, this possibility is in a very early developmental mistake. The use of the word “child” is loaded language.

          • dianiline

            I’m not sure you can consider accurate language “loaded”. The child is a child, born or unborn. It is called morula, embryo, fetus, neonate, infant, toddler, preschooler, at different stages of its development.

            The “possibility of a child” exists after intercourse, when sperm cells swim their desperate race farther up and farther in, and a mature egg cell awaits them. After the multitude surrounds the egg and one lucky sperm penetrates it, there is no longer a mere possibility, but a child.

            You might say the possibility of a child exists earlier, when merely the man and woman enter into an arrangement in which they are likely to have sex. Hence the “gleam in her father’s eye” concept. Or that the “possibility of a child” is inherent in the maturation of every single sperm or egg cell in every human everywhere in the world. But abortion is not considered in any of these cases where there is merely the possibility of a child. Abortion is only performed when there is actually a child.

          • techqueen333

            I child is a birthed human being. Period.
            Abortion is only perform where pregnancy exists. Abortion removes the products of pregnancy. In more than 85% of all cases, those are non-sentient, non-cognizant early stage embryos.

          • dianiline

            Also known as children.

          • techqueen333


          • Santa Claws


        • Truth

          Who the hell cares what century it is. See that’s the problem. People are losing morals daily and justify it by saying times have changed and everyone else is doing it. Idiot. That does not make it right. You are scum of the earth. I guarantee you have murdered several of your own kids.

    • Laura M

      “she felt like a prisoner in her own home” ??? When did we start deciding who lives and who doesn’t based on someone’s feelings?

      • Feelings?  What if its reality?    One can be a kept as a prisoner in one’s home   for real…and its not “feelings”.   How do you feel about an actual raped prisoner?
        Uncomfortable issues to be sure. But that is the complexity of human affairs. 

    • Californiacutie1993

      Feeling trapped is NO justification for killing an unborn child. If she felt trapped, she could have had the child, and then left. She didn’t have to take an innocent life!

      • techqueen333

        There’s no such thing as an “unborn child.” Since she bears all the physical consequences of pregnancy, and certainly bears psychological and economical pregnancy (and most pro-forced gestation folk are republicans who oppose any sort of social support programs/$$$), she gets to decide whether or not the embryo/fetus can rely on her body for its welfare for nine months and be born. Not you, not anyone else.

        • dianiline

          It is cute how you defend your contention that the woman bears “all” of the physical consequences of pregnancy by denying that the child she bears is a child. Well, if that were true, you might be right.

          And then you turn around and admit there is an “embryo/fetus” which needs “her body for its welfare” for nine months to be born.

          Which embryo/fetus bears some of the physical consequences of pregnancy, and which suffers the greatest loss in the loss of that pregnancy, completely demolishing your contention that it is only the woman who bears physical consequences of the pregnancy.

          I would really hate to tell you this, but lives depend on it: “Embryo” and “fetus” are terms for children which refer to children in a specific stage of prenatal development. They are *not* terms for something other than children.

          • techqueen333

            I really hate to tell you this, but embryo and fetus are terms for potential children. Potential is implied in “stage of prenatal development.” The use of children by pro-forced gestation/birth folk is inappropriate and loaded.

            The topic of the discussion was loosely “father’s rights.” Between men and women, women bear all of the physical consequences of pregnancy. This is why women get to make the final decision. Your statement is a red herring.

            Next, you take my words out of context and you set up a straw man argument in which you claim that I said it is only the woman who bears the physical consequences of pregnancy. I didn’t say that. Again, the context of my remarks was a discussion of why men who impregnate women don’t have some right of ownership; shouldn’t be able to compel those women to gestate and give birth.

            Of course an embryo/fetus has a stake in the continuation of a pregnancy. However, it’s survival depends on being able to use the body of a woman for its welfare. It’s has zero right to do that without her consent. Zero.

          • dianiline

            In your thoroughgoing intellectual dishonesty, you keep wanting children to be considered potential just because they are in the prenatal stage of their development and not the postnatal stage. In fact, “stage of prenatal development” implies potential for postnatal development, not potential for childhood. Prenatal development is a stage of childhood. The child, in the prenatal stage of its development, is still a child. It has potential, but it is a child. It is a potential adult. It is a potential toddler. It is a potential neonate. An embryo is a potential fetus. A morula is a potential embryo. In all of these states prior to adulthood, it is a child.

            You said the woman bears “all” of the physical consequences of pregnancy. Since that leaves *no* physical consequences for anybody else to bear, it follows that “it is only the woman” who bears the physical consequences of pregnancy. Since there are no other consequences to be borne, nobody else bears them, in your economy. You have neglected the baby, as I pointed out.

            Yes, you were making this statement in the context of explaining why you don’t honor a man’s right to protect his children until they are born (if then), but it is still logically equivalent to the statement that “only the woman bears the physical consequences of pregnancy”.

            In any case, certainly men don’t have any right of ownership over the women whom they impregnate, and no such fictitious right is necessary to protect the unborn child. It is sufficient to the child’s protection to recognize the child’s right to life, and that the woman doesn’t have any right of ownership over the child to circumvent that right.

          • techqueen333

            There’s nothing intellectually dishonest about my argument. Embryos and fetuses pre-viability are only potential children. In fact a large number of pregnancies end spontaneously during the first weeks.

            Since pre-viable embryos and fetuses rely on the bodies of women for their welfare, their “right to life” stops at said women’s willingness/ability to provide for their welfare.

            No woman should EVER be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will. It is child abuse to force a minor to do so.

  • nofearengineer

    So if the law grants the man no recourse in preventing the abortion, does it carry any weight in a civil proceeding, such as the inevitable divorce and custody battle over the children who survived their mother’s murderous instincts?

    •  It’s completely legal so why would it make a difference in divorce proceedings? If a man wants to get a divorce and then have to pay child support and alimony then more power to you.

      • dianiline

        The man would presumably want custody of the remaining children whom their mother has, so far, allowed to live.

        Why would he want to pay support and alimony to the woman who had killed their younger sibling?

        • techqueen333

          And, he would not get custody on those grounds. The woman, in having an abortion, is acting in her own self defense. I can’t believe you are talking “murder” when more than 85% of all abortions occur during the first 12 weeks. More than 65% occur during the first 8 weeks. Give me a break.

  • TanTastic11

    Yeah this sounds horrible, but we do not know the details of the story, there could be a strong reason why she could not go through with having the baby. I also would have to say the courts should never be involved with this kind of thing, if a woman wants to have an abortion its her right not the governments. I also would have to agree that if they had PLANNED to have this child she should have gone through with it, I mean really whats wrong with people planning to have a baby then terminating its life!

    • Uneva

      What’s wrong with it?? Absolutely everything…unless the baby’s life must be traded for the saving of the mother’s!

  • LouanneMason

    I have so many thoughts about this, but all I can say now is that the whole thing breaks my heart.

  • AJ

    I’d drop my wife like a stone if she killed my baby. It’s just grounds for both a divorce and an annulment. I’d tell her that, too, and if she did it anyway, I’d follow through with it.

    • Oedipa Mossmonn

       OOOoooooh. So manly. Go tell her to make you a sandwich, dammit.

      • Truth

        OeOh shut the fuck up you stupid bitch. I wish your whore of a mom aborted you.

      • Andrew Patton

        What greater betrayal could a woman do to me than killing my child? To cuckold me would be a lighter offense than that.

    • Andrew Patton

      Civil divorce, yes. Annulment, not necessarily. For that, you would require evidence that she never intended to bare children.

  • Reachnairobi

    I know the feeling all to well. 2003 I shall never forget, and the pain remains. I seen that the Lord blessed her with a child but she does not know the lord but I try to serve him and live holy and I am without.

    • Kristiburtonbrown

      I believe you will see your baby one day, and he or she will know you tried to save them.  But I’m so sorry

  • Jocelyncmcleod5

    What a heartbreaking story :( But honestly even if the woman was ordered to not kill her baby, how could she be stopped? How could anyone know when she checked into the abortion clinic that she isn’t allowed to have one?


    This is the exact reason why I cannot stand when people bring up child support. There are GOOD men that would take care of these babies even if their relationship with the mother didnt work. People always say relationship first but a life being there should not make or break your relationship. I would love to hear how this story turns out and whether they remained married or not. Abortion divides everything. 

  • I hope he divorced  her.

    • dianiline

      I hope he forgave her, and helped her to come to forgive herself.

      • techqueen333

        Oh brother.

        • dianiline

          I am not going to reply to all of your trivial responses this time, techqueen333.

          I’m glad you can read; I’m sorry that you read so much poor excuse for science. If you read critically and know something about the subject, you will find that researchers sometimes don’t have much idea of what their data actually mean. This happens even in hard sciences; we would expect it to be much more common in the soft “sciences” which claim to study things like whether women are harmed by the deliberate murder of their babies. And it is so. Peer review is not very helpful if the peers share the prejudices of the researcher being reviewed. Degrees don’t make people any smarter; they just indicate that a person has jumped through a set of hoops to get them. Education, like most things, gives in proportion to what you put into it.

          I am sorry that your doctor husband doesn’t love your children enough to protect them from you, should you decide that your bodily autonomy insisted on killing them. I am sorry that you have so failed in raising your three adored children, that they don’t even know that killing babies is wrong. I hope for their sake that they will find the grace to rise above the immorality of their mother and father.

          I am really sorry that you are married to a doctor who can’t correct your mistaken impression that babies aren’t children until they are born. I guess you didn’t say he is a physician; perhaps he is a doctor of something besides biology or medicine. If not perhaps you could share his name as a public service, lest someone reading this end up in his care. Then again, perhaps he can correct you, but you don’t listen to him.

          I am deeply sorry for you, that you place the convenience of the selfish above the mere right to life of the helpless. In the long run you are arguing against yourself. May you never suffer the consequences of your arguments…may no one ever suffer them.

          May God bless you and keep you, and may God protect men and women and children everywhere from your beliefs and those who share them.

          If you needed a kidney and mine matched, you would have no right to demand it of me, because I am not responsible for you in the way that a mother is responsible for her child.

          But of course I would be glad to give it to you.

          • techqueen333

            Your appeal to ridicule doesn’t mask what is an argument that is based on your opinion and that dismisses hard evidence and trivializes lived experiences of women and teens.

            I read scholarly books and articles that are written by credentialed people and are subject to rigorous peer-review according to the standards for empirical research. I have a PhD from one of the most respected research institutions in the country. I am trained to and capable of reading research critically.

            Your assertion that researchers don’t know what their data means is fallacious. I strongly suggest you write to the authors of the studies you disparage to ask about their processes and how they drew their conclusions. A great deal of experience and hundreds of hours of literature search go into the preparation for studies.
            Opposing points of view are considered. I know that for the studies on long term psychological effects of abortion, large random samples were used. If you have questions about potential bias in the sampling, I suggest you articulate them specifically and get researcher feedback. Further, the idea that peer review is conducted by a group of sympathetic scholars is ludicrous. Have you actually had an article or book reviewed for a scholarly journal? You have no idea who will review your work or what those scholars’ philosophies or belief systems are.

            Degrees don’t necessarily make people smarter, you are correct. I know people who are very intelligent who were not fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to participate in higher education. However, generally, people who have advanced degrees are smart…at least enough to have demonstrated through testing or prior performance they they are capable of higher order thinking.

            Your attack on me, my husband and children does nothing to further your argument that the needs of blastocysts should supersede the rights of women/minors to bodily autonomy. You have not convinced me that to save a fertilized egg, I should have forced my daughters to disrupt their educations, suffer permanent body changes (more than 75% are ravaged by stretch marks for one), become parents before they were emotionally ready, perhaps die (I saw two young women die in childbirth last year—both in major US hospitals). No amount of name calling is going to make me believe that they should have their lives so ruined. I find you just as immoral as you find me when you dismiss the harm that forced gestation causes.

            My children’s father is the chief of surgery at a major hospital. He is highly respected. Don’t engage in put downs because we don’t agree with you. That kind of ad hominem attack does nothing to further your argument. His grasp of embryology is firm. We are both secure in the knowledge that while, yes, a fertilized egg has human dna, there is a huge difference between a fertilized egg and a viable fetus or a birthed child. It is ludicrous to paint a fertilized egg as anything more than potential. We also believe that women carrying abnormal fetuses should be supported in their decisions to end pregnancy.

            Oh course, I have the courage of my convictions. I help young women seeking abortion to walk the gauntlet of abusive people shouting, grasping, and wailing at them. I will continue to do so. I also support education and afterschool programs that help teens stay in school and avoid risk behavior (such as that leading to pregnancy). What do you do, other than judge and trivialize (altar of convenience???) the experiences of women/teens who make decisions that constitute their own psychological, physical, and emotional health?

            My kidney analogy is sound regardless of your dissenting opinion.

        • Santa Claws

          nope, no brother… he died too

  • lrm1967

    To be fair, the country is not legally obligated to protect those that are not citizens. Citizens include those who were born in the United States and those who came to the United States and obtained citizenship. Unborn children are not legally considered citizens. 

    Also, as for the argument that a woman should not have sex is she is not willing to carry a baby to term, consider this. If a woman kisses a man and gets flesh-eating impetigo from the man, it is within her right to get it treated by a medical professional. That flesh-eating impetigo is a real consequence that came directly from her decision to kiss a man. The impetigo a living organism, don’t argue that it is not a living being. It is in fact several hundreds of thousands of living beings, much the same as a fetus developing within the womb is. They all are working toward the goal of survival and continuance that the cells of a developing fetus would be working toward. And they both are able to be detrimental to that woman’s life if she does nothing about it.

    • MoonChild02

      Yes, but the impetigo is not a human being – that’s the difference. Killing a human being is almost always wrong, the exception being in the context of self defense against an immediate threat.

    • I agree with MoonChild02, but also, the impetigo was not necessarily a known consequence of kissing the man. Yes, it is a possibility, but it is a known consequence of kissing in general. Sex, on the other hand, is quite known to lead to a child. Women may deny it or say that it is their “right” to avoid the child that has been created, but having sex leads to the creation of a human being.

      • techqueen333

        Too bad what sex leads to. A woman is under no obligation to undertake the significant risk that comes with pregnancy.

        • dianiline

          Right. She can simply not have sex, and thus entirely avoid the significant risk that comes with pregnancy.

          Actually it’s pretty wonderful, what sex leads to, but that’s another story.

          • techqueen333

            Sex is a basic human need.

          • Santa Claws

            based on what exactly?

            Will you die without sex, please provide proof? AND NOT YOUR HUSBAND, you would be confusing “not getting any” with “not wanting any with you”

    • dianiline

      You *are* kidding, I hope. I don’t know of any law that says it is okay to kill non-citizens.

      Also the child of a citizen is a citizen. I’m not sure if “birth” to a citizen is specified, but if it is, that would surely be an antiquated usage from a time when it was not necessary to consider the protection of children prior to birth, because unborn children were adequately covered by measures to protect the mother.

      • techqueen333

        There’s no such thing as an unborn child, certainly not pre-viability.

  • Sharon Gilman

    This same thing happened to my dad with his first wife. Only, I don’t think he took it to court.

  • InfiniteSovereign

    “It’s my body,” and “It’s my choice,” are not lies.  They are simple reality when it comes to the abortion issue.  Is abortion the morally correct choice?  Absolutely not.  It’s very wrong and very misguided, and only a deeply confused woman could undergo it.  But your cause gets no where if you can’t admit the truth about it.  It’s useless to deny that abortion is a very unique sort of violence that has no comparison in the human experience.  Yes, the baby is a human being with a soul, but it is also living inside another individual.  So yes, in the final reckoning it’s her body and it’s going to be her choice.  For example, you may pass as many laws against abortion as you like, shut down every abortion clinic under the sun, and a pregnant woman will still be able to choose to abort.  There are plenty of ways to do it outside the clinic.  If you believe in the non-aggression principle as I do, you’ll agree that abortion is an act of aggression against a baby (and a morally repugnant one).  However, if you would use aggression or coercion to prevent a woman from aborting her baby, that is also wrong, no matter how good your intentions may be.  We must never commit an evil act, even for a good end.  If we really want to stop abortion, we need to create a society in which so few women will desire to abort, that even having a debate about abortion with two vigorously opposed sides would seem silly.  For reasons of brevity, I’ll just go ahead and let yall know that that society happens to be a private law society with a true free market.  Pursue that, and the rest follows.  Fail to pursue that, and you are toiling fruitlessly because the conditions inspiring women to abort (including the moral and spiritual conditions they suffer from) are not being addressed.  It’s like fighting that serpent that grows two heads back for every one you cut off.

    • MoonChild02

      There is no such thing as a truly free market. Everything is overseen by others, and when something is not overseen by someone, another person with more money comes around and buys them out, or makes it impossible for the person with not as much money to do business. Case in point, Donald Trump and Aberdeenshire, Scotland. Trump was richer, and bought out the beach town of Aberdeenshire to build his monster golf course on that beautiful beach. Luckily the economy tanked, and the government of Scotland stepped in to build a wind farm right next to it, which made Trump stop his construction.

      As for creating a better conditions for women to not abort, that’s why we have pregnancy resource centers, which have been outlawed in New York and San Francisco, and are being fought against tooth and nail.

    • techqueen333

      Petitio principii. Abortion is the morally correct choice for many women/teens. Forcing a teen go gestate and give birth is child abuse.

      • dianiline

        Killing the baby–never morally correct. Not protecting a teen from the huge mistake of killing her child is child abuse.

        • techqueen333

          We aren’t talking about killing babies.
          If one of my daughters had ever gotten pregnant as a teen, abortion would absolutely have been our first choice. My husband, a doctor, and I would never have risked their health or their education to save blastocysts.

  • Marymee25

    Okay, maybe it wouldn’t even be enough for women to see an ultrasound of their babies before aborting, I think they should have to hold the torn up parts in their hands to “get it”.  I feel for the Husband and children, any rational child would understand that could easily have been “her or “him”, Mommy got “rid” of.

    • Oedipa Mossmonn

      So, there you have it. It’s really about shaming the woman. Thanks for making it so explicit, Mary.

      • Mountain Man

        Some actions are simply worthy of being shamed. Women who have abortions and are unrepentant should be shamed just as men who beat thier wives should also be shamed. I am not a women, but my wife is of course, and she is just as pro-life as me. Also, it appears most of the pro-life bloggers and commentators on this site are women. Using the anti-abortion is anti-women argument is simply ridiculous.

        • techqueen333

          Mountain Man, Women who have abortions and are unrepentant should be allowed to go about their lives with their heads held high without persecution from you or anyone else. Every woman has the right, as a person, to protect her bodily autonomy, personhood, and health. If doing so means having an innocent aggressor removed from her body, too bad. Women are not walking life support machines. The decision to allow a developing human to use her body for its welfare is hers alone.

          • dianiline

            Women who have abortions and are unrepentant deserve to be treated charitably, because “there but for the grace of God go I”. I was a teenager in the 70s and had things been different I might have had an abortion. I so thank God that I am spared this horror, but I know it is not to my credit because I was young and impressionable and could have fallen for the circular invalid arguments of people such as techqueen333. In fact I thought that a pregnancy out of wedlock would have “killed” my mother, and that it was better to kill my “product of conception” “potential child” than to kill my mother.

            Of course it would not have killed my mother, though it would have shamed her, for me to have a child out of wedlock, and of course it would have killed an actual rather than a potential child if I had had an abortion, and I would have to live with that for the rest of my life.

            And I can tell you that this would have *harmed* me.

            For one thing, it might have forced me into holding the contrary-to-fact position that I had not actually killed a child, and that way insanity–grievous harm–lies.

          • techqueen333

            What circular and invalid arguments? Are you just throwing out insults?
            I’ve read a great deal of peer-reviewed research on this topic and there is nothing to substantiate your claims. On the contrary. I have also read case studies and conducted interviews for hundreds of women who have relinquished. The latter is where the horror and regret lies.

      • MoonChild02

        It’s far from being about shaming. It’s about giving the child the right to live, to make others understand the humanity of the child. Killing is something to be ashamed about, yes. However, our object is not to shame the woman, but help her understand what she is doing, and help her get off the destructive path she’s on. That child is a human being. It’s wrong to kill a human being. Even a man who does so should be ashamed of his actions.

        • techqueen333

          MoonChild02. There is no evidence that women are psychologically or physically harmed by abortion. Check actual peer-reviewed literature instead of Jill Stanek etc.

          • dianiline

            I wouldn’t trust any source that made the highly fanciful claim that a woman could do something as heinous as to kill her own child without herself being harmed. Peer-reviewed literature in hard science is not even immune to the risk of perpetuating popular opinion over evidence.

            How could you possibly prove that any woman was not harmed by having such a crime in her past? Would you trust an article that claimed that women are not “harmed” by the loss of a child in any other way than through abortion? Or would you recognize that the writer merely ignored the evidence of harm to promote his own agenda?

          • techqueen333

            You are the one with the bias. A crime? Give it a rest. Sorry, but repeated studies (ever heard of reliability and validity) have reaped the same results. The study sample were very large in each case and randomized.

          • Rational Misogyny

            There is no evidence stating that 100% of the time a woman will suffer through her child birth, nor 100% of the time will she live out the rest of her life knowing that she did something absolutely beautiful and regret it until the end. In fact, I have several pieces of anecdotal evidence stating that mothers that bear children to full term hold no regrets in doing so.

          • Rational Misogyny

            Also, the one main thing that you fail to take into consideration and the main thing this article talks about, is that the father becomes a victim as well, and for what? The convenience of the woman? That’s bullshit of the highest degree.

      • Truth

        Oh shut up!! The woman the woman the woman. You wanna know what feminist problems is? They only think about themselves. Never the child. It’s me me me me!! Shame? YES it’s a SHAME that you purposely killed your OWN CHILD YES THEY DESERVE TO BE SHAMED!

      • Rational Misogyny

        No. It’s about the trifecta of victims involved, one of which is the woman who is guilt-ridden, and at times shamed for MURDERING HER UNBORN CHILD.

        The unborn child is the second victim, because the unborn child is murdered without warrant.

        The third victim is the father, of whom was powerless to save his baby, not from wolves or marauding bandits, but from the baby’s own mother. The father is faced with the greatest of emotional dilemmas.

  • Lumina

    Retreat for men who have lost a child to abortion

  • Dea

    It is not necessary for a human to be a slave and actually experience slavery to know that slavery is wrong. Nor is it necessary for a man to be a woman and be pregnant to know that abortion is wrong. Men, please don’t be silenced – get back into the action.

  • Daddy Warthog

    We too stopped watching Greys Anatomy, but the first time Christine was going to have an abortion. Watching something just because there “may” be a nugget of regret at some point in a story is a bad way of teaching Shonda Rhimes and co a lesson. People of conscience shouldnt feather the nests of those who are of an immoral persuasion, via merchandise, ratings or anything else. We voted with our feet and by the sounds of it, it was good that we did.

  • techqueen333

    Men don’t have wombs. They will never, ever be able to take on the very real physical and psychological consequences of childbirth, and many choose not to take on the economical ones. a woman’s decision to exercise her right to bodily autonomy and to act in a way that constitutes her own health and happiness, i.e. not to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth is a private decision that only she can and should make. I would imagine that most women in loving relationships with men consult them as they make this difficult choice, and I certainly can understand how a man could grieve for the lost possibility of a child. However, as all the risk is hers and as it is HER body and psyche at risk, she gets to make the final decision.

    • dianiline

      Actually the major risk is to the child’s body, and the psychic risks of losing a child are not demonstrably different for men and women.

      Grieving for the lost possibility of a child is something you do after the breakup with someone you thought you might marry, or, more sharply, after the loss through illness or accident of your or your partner’s ability to conceive. The emergent hysterectomy. The C-spine injury. Oh, please God, no, the premature death of one’s partner.

      In abortion you’re kidding yourself if you think you’re only grieving the lost “possibility” of a child, when it’s the real child that you’ve killed.

      • techqueen333

        What child?
        The psychological consequences of pregnancy are not the same for men and women. Men cannot experience pregnancy first hand. They do not experience the hormonal changes or the bodily changes.

    • Rational Misogyny

      “…and many choose not to take on the economical ones.”

      um… no. That is a gross misconception and generalization and I honestly take offense to that. However, I forgive you for insults payed, because generalized statements are just that, statements with no specific target.

      Is it a stereotype that neo-feminists play on the stereotype that women are fragile and need to be handled with care?

  • techqueen333

     RNewton-Are women nothing but walking life support machines for little embryonic/fetal “persons” in your view? Or, are we women on Earth to be submissive to men? NO.

    • Truth

      Shut up you fat hairy lesbian. A woman should TAKE RESPOSIBILITY for the life she created. No one is telling you to submit to men you dumb ass bitch. This is a man PROTECTING his children from their MURDERING mother. You make me sick. How dare you justify this?!

    • dianiline

      Women are walking miracles in that regard.

      • techqueen333

        Really? So, you hold that we are NOTHING more than walking life support machines who are on Earth to be submissive to men?
        Read Margaret Atwood’s work much?

        • Santa Claws

          THAT’S NOT FAIR !!! …. some of you don’t even get off the couch…

          (btw to all the ladies out there, I am of course kidding, I just enjoy trolling dumb asses that make stupid arguments)

  • techqueen333

     I’d divorce a man who thought it was his RIGHT to force me to gestate and give birth against my will. You will never be able to assume this risk, Mr. AJ. Never. I find your position very offensive.

    • Truth

      Bitch you will never get married. I pray you get sterilized. You stupid dumb cunt. It is his child too! I’d love to get a bat and beat you till you are nothing but a bloody pile on the floor. Maybe I’ll just abort your ass.

    • dianiline

      I imagine a man might consider it his right to expect you to give yourself to him in love, body and soul, for that is the essence of marriage. If you intended otherwise you contracted no marriage and he would have the right to an annulment.

      I hope you will grant his right to divorce you if you kill his child. I wouldn’t think much of a man who bought your argument that it was really only a potential child. Are you really so cold, that you would put to death the child that you and your husband conceived in love, tearing out the heart of the man whom you love?


      • techqueen333

        My husband never held that the marriage contract gave him the right to own my body and direct its use. If I had felt an abortion was the right decision for me, he would never have tried to stand in my way.
        Are you so cold that you believe that women/minors should be forced to gestate and give birth regardless of the harm it causes them.

        • Santa Claws

          So did you have an abortion?

    • Santa Claws

      Don’t lie, he divorced YOU for killing his unborn child. Now your just a bitter old misandrist who wants to take your misandrist anger out on babies.

      It must eat you up inside to see his life so much happier after he dropped you like a bad habit.

      • techqueen333

        Hahahaha. Not even close, Santa. Why don’t you go back to your dictionary and look up some more big words.

        • Santa Claws

          Sure, you keep that chin up now….

          …. or get it tucked…. whatever helps you sleep at night. You gonna make up another word for us? I truly loved the last one.

          nom nom nom goes your insides

  • techqueen333

     WHAT? So you think she should take on all the risks of pregnancy and childbirth and then the hell of relinquishment? I see you don’t value women much.

    • Truth

      Shut the hell up!! I don’t value stupid whores like you. I rethink my view on abortikn because of you. Too bad your mom didn’t abort you sorry ass.

    • dianiline

      It is not clear why relinquishing a child after birth, alive, would be more “hell” than killing the child some few months earlier. I see you don’t value children much.

      • techqueen333

        Why don’t you interview some women who’ve had to live with the experience and find out?
        I have three adored grown pro-choice children. Don’t make presumptions.

  • techqueen333

     It’s her body. She has the absolute right to protect her bodily autonomy.

    • MoonChild02

      The babies are not her body. The babies have completely separate bodies, with their own DNA. If one of the babies was male, and if the baby were part of the mother, that would mean the mother was inter-sexed, and those who are inter-sexed are almost always (99.9% of the time) sterile. Being pregnant with a male baby does not make a mother inter-sexed.

      As I posted above, she and her husband put the babies there, the babies did not choose to be there. Sex
      and IVF cause reproduction, and everyone knows that, or at least should. IVF is well known for causing multiples. People then scream and shout when they don’t want to act like an adult and
      realize that their actions created a life that they are now responsible
      for. Instead of being an adult, they decide that they don’t want the
      responsibility, and they kill the child. Creating a life was their
      choice when they climbed into bed or took part in the procedure of IVF. If they didn’t want the
      responsibility, they never should have taken the actions they did. Taking action requires
      taking responsibility. That’s what it means to be an adult. If you don’t
      want to be an adult, don’t engage in adult activities.

      In the case of the woman in the article, she planned to have those children, and then killed them. If she did not want them, she should not have taken the actions she did. She and her husband should have adopted instead of resorting to IVF. It would have cost the same amount.

      As for your next comment down, we value women a lot more than you do. We know the risks that abortion causes, which are much more than pregnancy does. Women are built to have children, just like men are built to fight and protect. It’s something that comes naturally to us. Furthermore, those countries in which abortion is illegal have a lower maternal mortality rate than those with legal abortion. Ireland has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world, and abortion is illegal there. Poland also has an extremely low maternal mortality rate. The country with the lowest maternal mortality rate in Africa is Mauritius, where abortion is illegal. Similarly, the country with the lowest maternal mortality rate in South America is Chile, and, in Asia, is Sri Lanka. The countries with the highest maternal mortality rates are those with abortion on demand, without restrictions, such as Nepal (the highest), Guyana, and Ethiopia.

      Abortion risks include, but are not limited to: cervical injuries, perforated uterus, stroke, embolism, sepsis, endometriosis, breast cancer, cervical cancer, ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, premature birth of children of subsequent pregnancies, post-abortion stress syndrome/PTSD, night terrors, anxiety, depression, substance abuse, violence and abuse toward others, self-harm, suicidal behavior, etc. See this link listing the studies and their abstracts on these risks and more: http://www.abortionrisks.org/

      Therefore, we try to help women in desperate situations. We provide food, clothing, shelter, baby items, adoption assistance, medical, counseling, legal assistance, job training and referral, education, baby-sitting, debt relief and financial assistance, etc. If the mother wants an open adoption, then that can be arranged, and she doesn’t have to go through the “hell of relinquishment”. She can even arrange a legal guardianship, which automatically allows her to visit the children whenever she wants. Adoptive couples are more than willing to help the mothers of those children they’re adopting, providing all the assistance possible.

      If so-called “pro-choicers” were really about protecting women, you wouldn’t fight against ultrasound laws, because those are necessary to the safety of the woman, so that the abortionist can actually see what he’s doing, and allow women the chance to see the ultrasound if they choose to do so – they don’t force women to see them. You also would not be against clinic inspections to make sure that the clinics are being run properly. Every other medical facility in the U.S. is inspected on a regular basis. You wouldn’t be against regulations requiring things such as doorways and hallways wide enough for emergency stretchers, working emergency equipment, abortionists to be assisted by a nurse, licensed doctors to perform the procedure, and abortionists informing women of the risks of the procedure – just as is required in every other medical clinic and with every other medical procedure. You wouldn’t lie about the fact that abortion stops a beating heart, and ends a life, or refer to the baby as a “clump of cells”, since, if you studied biology and child development, you would know all of that is completely false. Case in point, when a friend of mine took a class on child development, she realized that the baby she aborted was not a clump of cells, which completely devastated her. If you were really about protecting women, you would actually help women make a real decision, instead of emphasizing that having a baby is a large responsibility, and telling them that a baby could end their education, career, and love life – women aren’t stupid, there are baby-sitting services provided by pregnancy care centers, and if a man doesn’t want to be with a woman with a child, then he’s not a real man, and he doesn’t deserve her. You would provide women with the resources they need to keep the child and help them in the tough situations they face, instead of making abortion look like an easy way out, and childbirth look like the worst thing in the world.

      For wanting to protect women and do what’s good for us, you sure have a funny way of showing it.

      • techqueen333

         This is begging the question. The pro-choice argument assumes the genetic separateness  of the embryo/fetus from the pregnant women. The argument has many constructs, but one is that women are not walking life support systems. We have the right to protect our bodily autonomy and act in our own defense.
        There is NO evidence that therapeutic abortion is unsafe for women. Yes, you could cherry pick examples where people behaved criminally. Cherry picking allows you to infer nothing to the general population. If it did, I could say all men are serial killers because Ted Bundy was. There are a number of studies in legitimate peer-reviewed journals that debunk all your claims.
        Pro-choice people (the TRUE pro-life people) are not against ultrasounds that are ordered by physicians or other qualified medical personnel. We are against rape ultrasound that involves forced penetration for no reason other than that legislators want to prove the presence of a functional blood pump. We are against medical testing that is unnecessary and ordered only to humiliate, hassle, thwart and degrade women seeking legitimate healthcare.
        Pro-choice people are not against inspections of facilities that provide therapeutic abortion. We are against the enactment of legislation that forces “special treatment” for these facilities at the hands of biased puppets of those on the forced gestation/childbirth side.
        I am for choice. I am also for trusting women to make our own decisions and to ask for information as needed. Facilities that provide abortion make information available. Unlike crisis pregnancy centers, which LIE to women. You should really watch the documentary 12th and Delaware.

        • dianiline

          Moonchild pointed out that the child is separate from the mother. You call this begging the question, then claim it is actually a premise of your argument.

          Begging the question is what you are doing when you claim that abortion doesn’t kill a child, because the fetus isn’t a child. You could claim that I am doing that when I say that abortion kills a child, because the fetus is a child, and you would at least have the virtue of symmetry on your side. But I would say that the only reason you say the fetus isn’t a child is because your argument collapses if it is, and you really like your argument. I say the fetus is a child because I’ve been pregnant, and I know very well that my child didn’t start being a child as she passed through the birth canal. No big transition happened at that point other than a change of location and a couple of cataclysmic metabolic and circulatory changes. No normal woman says that she just felt the foetus kick.

          More importantly, the unborn human is a child because it’s a human, and it’s certainly not an adult. “Child” is the term for a non-adult human. The only reason to exclude the unborn from the term “children” is because it sounds nicer to kill them when you refuse to admit that they’re children.

    • Truth

      Shut up you dumb bitch. I guess the child is “her body” too. Every human has a right to LIVE. dumb ass wife should have kept her fucking legs closed. I pray she is sterilized along with you. You stupid people fail to realize that most abortions are done because the mom isn’t “ready” for a baby. FYI sex=babies so keep your legs closed or deal with the consequences.

      • techqueen333

        I wonder how you can type, “Truth,” with your knuckles dragging on the floor.

        • Santa Claws

          same way you get out of bed with your tits dragging the floor

    • Andrew Patton

      Unless you’re talking about a rape scenario, bodily autonomy doesn’t enter the equation in the slightest. Why? Because by consenting to sex, she freely CAUSED the child’s dependence on her. In doing so, she imposed on herself the obligation to meet that need.

      Suppose you and another person have a rare blood type. You, without provocation, stab this other person and cause massive blood loss. The doctors manage to stop the bleeding, but the victim needs a blood transfusion or he will die. Because of his rare blood type, you are the only person available whose blood will not be rejected by his body. Now, you could refuse to donate blood and let the victim die, but you be arrested for murder if you do. Why? Not because you refused to donate blood, but because you caused the fatal injury of your own free will. Your bodily autonomy is wholly irrelevant to this case. You absolutely have the obligation to provide relief for a problem you created.

      • techqueen333

        Andrew-Bodily autonomy doesn’t change based on consent. Further, a blastocyst/embryo is not a child. It is a potential child.

        Your analogy is false because the stabbed person is (a) in fact, a birthed PERSON, not an embryo and (b) is not living inside the body of another relying on that person’s body for its welfare. In abortion, the embryo (I’m using “embryo rather than fetus because more than 85% of all aborted are embryos) dies because the host female determines it would cause her psychological, physical, or economic (yeah, hear this all you republicans and libertarians who don’t believe in social welfare and who would slash “entitlements”) to allow it to rely upon her for its welfare. In this case, the embryo is an innocent aggressor that loses its life when it is disallowed from relying on the body of another in what is essentially a same species parasite/host relationship.

        Anyone who would ruin the life of a teenage girl who accidentally becomes pregnant to gestate and give birth is a monster.

        • dianiline

          The embryonic child is not an “aggressor”. It is the woman’s own child.

          Anyone who would ruin the life of a teenage girl by killing her helpless child, just because she herself is not strong enough to defend it, is a monster.

          She will have to live the rest of her life with the knowledge that her baby is dead and she did not protect it.

          Worse, she may spend the rest of her life divorced from her own basic humanity, in an effort to insulate herself from the knowledge that her baby is dead and she did not protect it.

          • techqueen333

            The embryo is still an aggressor even though half of its dna came from the woman hosting it.
            Anyone who would ruin the life of a teenage girl by forcing her to gestate and give birth is guilty of monstrous child abuse. Teenage pregnancy predisposes a female to cervical cancer. Pregnant teens are more apt to die in childbirth or to have other dire outcomes. Pregnancy results in permanent body changes. In addition to breast and abdominal changes, it often leads to permanent and disfiguring scarring on the abdomen, breasts, and legs. It can leave tremendous psychological scars, particularly if relinquishment is involved (I have interviewed hundreds of women who relinquished as teens and then had to live with it). Teenage pregnancy often disrupts the girls education. This has disastrous consequences for her ability to participate in the economy. Teenagers who become pregnant are often ostracized by their social group. There is zero excuse to put a girl through all of this to save a fertilized egg.
            Your argument suffers because you insist on pretending that a non-sentient, non-cognizant fertilized egg and an infant are the same thing. They aren’t even though one has the potential to develop into the other (if the zygote is normal). No one is talking about killing babies.
            Your assertion that females who abort spend their lives divorced form their own humanity or otherwise traumatized has been discredited through several major studies.

        • Santa Claws

          1) “most female determine” … ok what if the male determines it will harm him economically?

          Or is that rule only valid if its coming from a misandrist

          2)the fetus (i use fetus because it obviously bothers you) is not an aggressor, its a victim.

          A victim of a murderous misandrist like yourself
          A victim of a woman who makes poor choices
          A victim of a racist system that has been attempting to reduce the population of blacks for decades

          And any teenager who gets pregnant because of bad choices has already ruined her life, murder is not going to help….. it may be convenient but its not going to help.

          • techqueen333

            Males do not bear any of the physical consequences of pregnancy. Women bear them all. Men do not get to make decisions about what women do with their bodies.

            #2 makes zero sense. It’s just pro-forced gestation propaganda.
            Even though your premise is completely false, at least you know how to create a rhyme through alliteration.
            The system is not trying to reduce the number of Black people. Poor people comprise a high percentage of those having abortions. Black people are more apt to be poor because of a racist system, not to have abortions because of it. Do something to reduce poverty, you pompous, ignorant ass if you don’t like abortion.

            Any minor teenager who gets pregnant due to lack of supervision or lack of vision or just making a bad choice should opt for abortion and stay in school. She should not have her body and mind damaged by early pregnancy or the horror of relinquishment. Abortion is not murder. It is also not convenient. You are truly an idiot.

          • Santa Claws

            Uhmm I have had 2 amazing children, and yes I bear MANY of the consequences of pregnancy (one day I MIGHT enjoy 8 hours of sleep) and do so happily. its not a YOU thing its a we thing…

            #2 AGAIN pro-forced is a made up word…. by an idiot

            If an unborn child is murdered while in a woman womb its considered murder…. and the child is a victim.

            Why do blacks have to be poor, man you are a racist prick. its sad really, but makes sense because historically racist pricks have been proponents of abortion.

            Oh and BTW I DO things to reduce poverty, because I was born in poverty, the kind of poverty YOU WHITE PRIVILEGED Crackpots would not understand. When was the last time you stepped foot in a part of town where someone might just drop a little post-natal abortion on you some night.

            (as a note i only use the “white privilege” bullshit to throw their latest liberal taglines in their face. I don’t buy into that shit because it defeatist crap used to “keep the impoverished undesirable crowds in there areas” (Democrat Senator KKK Byrd’s words …. died in office 2010)

            Killing a woman and her unborn child is murder with 2 counts, so …. YUP

            Murder is the word (though I can except manslaughter as a term that does not define intent.

            And lastly ….

            you mad?

            cause you seem mad….

    • Rebekah

      If it doesn’t have her DNA it is not her property. The unborn child has its own set of human DNA and its own body. Hence, it is not the woman’s body, and she is infringing, brutally I might add, on the autonomy of another.

      • techqueen333

        There’s no such thing as an “unborn child.” That’s loaded rhetoric.

        Second, your argument is a red herring. The pregnant woman has an inalienable right to protect her own bodily autonomy, which means that she has an inalienable right to deny an embryo or fetus the use of her body for its welfare.

        • Rebekah

          Well, Webster defines the word “Child” as an “unborn or recently born human being” so the English language would tend to disagree with you on that.

          Second of all, there are two bodies involved in a pregnancy, and the unborn child, or fetus, if you prefer, also has an inalienable right to its bodily autonomy. Just because a kitten comes into your home, jumps up on your table, and starts eating your dinner does not mean that you have the right to tear it limb from limb, use a vacuum to tear it to pieces, inject it with a chemical to stop its heartbeat, or crush its skull. Now imagine that you let the kitten in your house. That gives you even less right to destroy it. Same issue with the fetus. The only differences are its location and that you can’t see what you’re doing to it, so you feel okay about it, whereas if someone performed the exact same “procedure” as an abortion on a live kitten, you would probably be horrified.

          • techqueen333

            A kitten who comes into my home waiting dinner will probably receive it. A kitten that climbs up into my womb an starts feeding will be removed. It still has its bodily autonomy and I still have mine.

          • Rebekah

            You are overlooking the fact that an abortion does not simply remove the fetus/embryo/unborn child from the womb, but brutally kills said unborn child. Nobody would be angry with someone who evicted a kitten that wandered into their house. However, many people would be outraged if you dismembered the kitten in doing so. The problem that I have with abortion is not that the child is “removed” from the womb. Childbirth or c-section “remove” a child from the womb. A miscarriage “removes” a child who died from the womb. In abortion, however, the child is brutally killed. Have you ever seen pictures of what happens to children during abortion? This is not the removal of an unwanted guest. This is gruesome murder, plain and simple.

          • techqueen333

            Yes, I have seen many abortion videos, even those heavily edited by pro forced gestation/childbirth people. Brutal is in the eyes of the beholder. Unless you are someone who doesn’t believe in science, you will recognize that prior to about 24 weeks a fetus has no ability to process pain.
            People would be outraged if people were to dismember a birthed kitten because that kitten does have the wiring in place to process pain. It also can be removed from the environment where it is unwanted without killing it.
            It is the removal of an unwanted entity that stands to do the host harm.

          • Santa Claws

            PRO FORCED?!!!!! LOL

            Clearly the dumbest shit I have ever heard…. its either pro-abortion or anti-abortion ….

            Not pro-choice because men don’t get one, and the BABY doesn’t get one
            AND BTW its not really pro-life if you only believe the “life” is valuable until it commits a crime

            Don’t word-smith your way out of a bad argument.

            “processing pain” is not a valid argument…. can I chop up your children and leave them on your front lawn???? no because that would be sick and twisted….

            …… how about I knock them out and give them drug so that they won’t process pain….

            Don’t worry, I’ll make sure its heavily edited.

      • techqueen333

        Straw man! I never said the embryo/fetus was her property. I said that the pregnant woman has an inalienable right to have the embryo/fetus removed from her body at will.

        • Rebekah

          So if the embryo doesn’t belong to her, what right does she have to kill it?

          • techqueen333

            She has a right to have it removed from her body.

          • Rebekah


          • techqueen333

            Because she doesn’t want it there. It’s her body. She’s under no obligation to allow another entity to use her body for its welfare.

        • Santa Claws

          NO … she doesn’t in fact

          inalienable rights cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another.

          IN FACT women sell the rights to their womb everyday.

          SOOOOO … lets hop off the misandrist BS okay?

    • Santa Claws

      she lost her right when she made the choice to have sex.

      And PEOPLE (why do all feminist pigs pretend that autonomy is a female exclusive right) all have the absolute right to autonomy… until they made a choice to forfeit that right though the act of procreation.

      But hey if a woman can divorce herself from her children, can’t a man as well? If a man decides that he doesn’t want children, can he force her to have an abortion or not have to pay for that child for the rest of his life? ….

      …. oh wait let me guess, autonomy only is important if you DON’T have a penis.

      What do you expect from a misandrist

  • techqueen333

     So it’s murderous for a woman to protect her physical and psychological health? To protect her bodily autonomy? Wow.

    • Truth

      Yes you dumb bitch. If the stupid whore was so worried about “protecting her health” then the slut should have used a contraceptive. You make me sick. Always playing the victim. Where is the defense for the unborn child? Women always think of THEMSELVES and only themselves. I can here her now “I killed your little brother/sister because I was protecting my health instead of using condoms and not creating a life I want ready for”. Please get sterilized.

    • dianiline

      No, it’s murderous to kill another human being; for example, an unborn child.

      • techqueen333

        Women have an inalienable right to evict embryos from their wombs in order to protect themselves from harm.

        • Santa Claws

          absolutely, that called justifiable homicide.

          Just like I have the right to kill someone who is trying to harm me or my family.

    • Calvin Freiburger

      This whole routine where people on your side pretend not to know what’s contentious about abortion and why is really getting old.

    • Santa Claws

      Yes its murderous, thems the facts.

      she had no need for autonomy when she was taking a pounding from the babies father
      she had no concern for her physical or psychological health was rendered when he was dumping a load in her.

      But suddenly she is a fragile flower.

      Tell ya what, if the concept is ok with you…. show us how its done and abort yourself. LIVE BY EXAMPLE

      • techqueen333

        Clearly, Santa, you are an ignorant misogynist.

        • Santa Claws

          LOL nothing like watching someone face-plant right out of the gate.

          Ad hominem accusations is how you reply…..

          well damn we can all do that….

          Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. So if you support abortions then you are a racist pig who hates anyone who isn’t white.

          Why are you a racist?

          • Santa Claws

            OH and to even enrage you further I wish to make some snide comment involving “ho ho ho”

            ….but honestly I can’t think of anything funny.

          • techqueen333

            How about your anencephaly?

          • Santa Claws

            ya know…. its not funnier if you say it twice.

          • techqueen333

            How about your anencephaly?

          • Santa Claws

            nah clearly not very funny…. but keep trying

          • techqueen333

            That is all crap. I’m not even going to respond to your ignorant drivel.

          • Santa Claws

            Oh she mad folks

          • techqueen333

            Not an ad hominem argument. Your misogyny is pertinent to the argument.
            Planned Parenthood situates clinics in minority communities because minority communities are more apt to be populated with poor people who can’t afford insurance. Racist would be more accurately applied to the system that led to a higher percentage of minorities living in poverty, not to meeting their reproductive care needs.

          • Santa Claws

            HMM yeah thats EXACTLY what Margert Sanger meant when she said “[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”


            “Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

            and certainly she meant “white poor Irish” when she said, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

            When do you first become a racist?

  • tkik

    having an abortion is not always selfish, it is dangerous for mother and child. I feel sorry for the dads here but childbirth is still a dangerous situation for women, even nowadays. and these romantic picture of fathers holding their child in their strong arms…come on! many dads leave the mothers soon as they find out that babies cost money and nerves and most mothers end up spending most of their life to educate their unwanted kid while daddy is having his job and his friends. and the mother must remain at home and she will continue to hate the child. I am sorry, and if there are medical reasons for an abortion then a woman should be allowed to save her life and not die as a martyr, just because many consider a fetus more important than a woman. In nature animals kill the babies or leave them if they do not want them,. why in hell are humans the only creatures who are forced to keep unwanted offspring`? it is not logical, it is not natural

    • Andrew Patton

      Because human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, and therefore are inherently infinitely valuable. Furthermore, it’s perfectly logical to prohibit infanticide in order to have a society governed by rule of law. If a mother is free to kill her own child, by what authority does anyone prohibit killing a stranger?

    • dianiline

      Usually the one who wants to sacrifice the woman’s life for the child is the mother herself. Men worry that they’ll lose their wife in childbirth. Women are more likely to worry that they’ll lose the baby.

      Humans can, sometimes, persuade animals in captivity to adopt the abandoned offspring of others, and I believe there are rare examples of adoption happening amongst animals in the wild. I have a goat who kept one of her twins and abandoned the other; another doe lost her own twins but took on the abandoned kid. The adopting doe was actually an abandoned twin herself, hand raised by humans when her mother wouldn’t feed her.

      Humans are the only creatures who systematically take over the care of offspring unwanted by their mothers. *This* is not really logical or natural, but our care for the weak and helpless is a big part of what makes us human.

      • techqueen333

        Women do make those choices. But, they are choices.

        No one should be made to feel that they have to undertake the risks of pregnancy just to relinquish. Talked to many birthmothers who’ve had to live with relinquishment over a lifetime?

  • GoobilyGook

    Fuck you.

  • AudreyPH

    Has anyone noticed that when someone is trying to make someone or something look bad, the fancier, and least likely to be used in normal conversation type of words are used? Also, no one should be forced to place their child for adoption. (or “relinquishment”) It’s simply one of the two non-abortion options available.

  • Santa Claws

    My wife once brought up the idea of abortion with our first child, I looked her lovingly in the eyes and said “I will go to the death chamber for you or my children, born or unborn, if I we ever are faced with the choice of you possibly dying or us killing our baby, I will ALWAYS choose you.” then with a much more sinister look I said “But If you think your killing my baby because you just want to…..

    ……I will violently murder every ____ ____ that had anything to do with it, anything.”

    She never mentioned it again.

    Now I understand that some of you may say that is horrible and that I am a bad person. You have to understand, I am a peaceful, non-violent person, but those are my babies I was put on this earth for them. It may seem very aggressive to threaten my wife like that ….

    …..but ask yourself…. what would you do to save your child.

  • Chantell Snyder

    I don’t care what any law says-a judge CAN side with the father. Especially if he is pro-life. God’s law, goes past man’s law!

    • techqueen333

      Not in a country with a secular constitution.

      • Chantell Snyder

        True. If the Judge REALLY wanted to side with him though, he should have, no matter what.

        • techqueen333

          Then the judge would have been allowing a male to make healthcare decisions for a woman. No.

  • Chaisson .

    First it looks not real, but i am a living testimony to the help of Dr 2020, i tried for a child for a year and few months, one day i saw a review that talked a lot about Dr 2020 how he helped them get pregnant and how he bring back there EX and how he make them get rich and get a good job, i give it a try, after a chat with Dr 2020 i was ask to have sex with my hussy which i did, and few days later Dr 2020 told me to go ahead and do a pregnancy test and i did, to my surprise i was positive… my dear friends here i want you to give it a try, email him on [email protected] you can also email me on my personal email [email protected]

  • Santa Claws

    Its the same as your personal depth …. a figment of your imagination

  • Santa Claws

    Ok fine then that makes you a misandrist shithead …

    Ya know what led to a higher percentage of minorities living in poverty?

    Misandrist asshats who tried to teach the world that fathers are not necessary to the family.

    You can’t get away from the history of racism and its founders murderous ploy

  • Santa Claws

    So you admit your a loser misandrist.. good to know

  • Santa Claws

    Poverty affects you physically, being a father affects you physically….

    … seriously WTF do you know about being a father?

    If an unborn child isn’t a victim of murder… then why are people charged with 2 counts of murder if a pregnant woman is murdered?

    The system isn’t racist, the people who built the system are…. and those are the same people who built the system that perpetuates poverty, and abortion.

    Killing an unborn child is murder…. so says the courts, you cause a woman to miscarry you can be charged with murder.

    OOPPS unless mommy does it in the womb then its not?

    Give up, your lost in your misandry

  • Santa Claws

    Sad people live in their own lies

  • Hi-it’sme-again

    Mental and physical issues can cause death smart ass. People get depression and neglect themselves and end up dying so no he may not die in the hospital, but that doesn’t change the fact that his life is also affected strongly.

  • Rational Misogyny

    My wife is the product of rape. Her birth mother was devoutly pro-life, however could not handle the emotional ramifications of caring for her rape child. She put her daughter up for adoption, to which she was adopted by an older couple who already had 3 adult-aged children, and was loved as their own.

    My wife and I have two very beautiful children, son and daughter, of which both were 100% accidental pregnancies and both were 100% desired and accepted.

    I have read your comments on the topic both up and down this page, and to conclude, you have made so many logical fallacies that I’d be dead and buried before getting around to addressing them all. It troubles me to think that someone can not only be so callous, selfish, and self-righteous to think that not only do the beginning stages of human life hold no value, but they hold even less if the unborn child is the product of rape. It’s an excuse playing on the “fragility” of women at the expense of innocence lost.

  • Rational Misogyny

    Your language is “loaded” because it’s devastating to techqueen333’s argument, and I don’t think she likes that very much… lol

  • Rational Misogyny

    It’s “loaded rhetoric” because dianiline’s argument is solid as rock, and it makes your argument look like a bowl of pink jello with a dollop of cool-whip.

  • Rational Misogyny

    The whole concept of a “viable fetus” is a fiction created by the self-appointed authorities of human life.

    Human life begins at conception.

  • Rational Misogyny

    irrelevant comment is irrelevant

  • Rational Misogyny

    Listen… I understand that it helps to consistently highlight the fallacies in the oppositions argument, but lets not make a game out of it, please? The meaning of the original discussion becomes lost when this happens.

  • Rational Misogyny

    Any neo-feminazi’s argument:

    “You’re wrong, because penis. That is all.”

    I have a penis. I am proud to have a penis. Hear my penis roar!

  • Rational Misogyny

    Of course! Statistics trump morals and ethics at every turn, every time! I’m so glad you cleared that misconception for me.

  • Hilary Cat

    Click bait title lol… It is not a baby if it’s still inside the woman’s stomach. it is a cell clump with the potential to disrupt the life of one who clearly didn’t want a child. You anti choicers are all up in arms about saving unborn babies, but once said baby leaves its mothers vagina you could not give less of a shit. Just goes to show the hypocrisy of those who seek to control other people’s choices and freedoms.

  • George London

    You are the one who should have been aborted, you shameless harpy blowhard. The expression “potential child” is the purest doublespeak, cooked up by shallow leftist Bolsheviks like yourself, too cowardly to just admit that they do in fact believe that killing is an acceptable solution to social problems; raging narcissists and pseudo-liberal fascist dogs, who would just as soon down pop a cap off a bottled latte as pop the head off an unborn human, apparently for no other reason than that he or she just happens to obtrude, in a noxious way, upon the fickle, wanton desires of a class of arrogant spoiled brats and base moral cowards.

    So just to be clear, when your bad-boy boyfriend is eagerly pummeling what I’m sure is the very well traveled vagina that countless men have by now come to know and love, the autonomous use of which you understandably treasure–being ever the avid fem-cunt slut– and he chooses to finish the deed by ejaculating his vast store of reproductive fluids onto your homely face, in place of the naturally prescribed orifice, does this act then, on your logic, count only as a “potential fuck”?

    After all, a “real” fuck would necessarily need to be a completed, actualized fuck. And everyone knows that coital penetration, succeeded by ejaculation, is part of the definition of what it means to be fucked. So the question then remains: are you careful to use protection in order to avoid the unwanted invasion of your sacred autonomous womb by the non-human dinosaurs whose bare existence menacingly imperils both your subscription to Netflix and the thrice weekly “girls night out” drunk slut extravaganzas where plucky pumpkins like yourself go to sort out your seething “daddy issues” (and where “hookups don’t really count”), that might ostensibly result from such encounters? If so, then why? You aren’t really being fucked, you know.