Embryotomy Scissors abortion

Oregon “best state to have sex in” because of easy abortions, says Rollie Williams

According to Rollie Williams, who describes himself as a comedian, writer, and biochemist on the website Upworthy, Oregon is now the best state to have sex in. Is it the picturesque scenery? The mountain air? No, it’s not because it’s a great place to honeymoon. Williams says it’s the best place to have sex because it’s the state with the fewest restrictions on abortion.

He writes:

Oregon is the only state that has completely closed its borders to abortion restrictions. Pretty cool, Oregon.

Abortion_restrictions_in_America_Oregon

Yes, Oregon. Congratulations. According to this chart, you are the state in which unborn children are in the most danger. It doesn’t matter if they are 20 weeks along or even 38. It doesn’t matter if the child is a daughter rather than the boy the parents had hoped for. It doesn’t matter if the ultrasound showed a cleft lip or twins when only one baby was wanted. It doesn’t matter why. No unborn human being is safe in Oregon.

And as for the women of Oregon, you are unsafe as well. There are no ultrasound requirements to make sure you are as far along as the abortionist thinks you are before determining which method he or she will use to kill your baby. There’s no physician or hospital requirements. That means the person killing your baby doesn’t have to be an actual doctor. Which is bad news for you if something goes wrong. There’s also no waiting period and no mandatory counseling, which means you could make an emotional and hasty decision to kill your child and end up regretting it.

But, no matter how unsafe the women and children of Oregon are, Williams is fine with it. As I’m sure many men who have no desire to commit to any of the women they get into bed are. Why else would he deem it the best state to have sex in?

So, women of Oregon, beware of men like Williams, who apparently are more than willing to get you into bed, get you pregnant, and either pay for your abortion or perhaps completely ditch you because they have no desire to actually care for you or your baby.

  • johno

    Is this state for Bro-Choice? I wonder if that San Diego male mayor will take the fast train (or car) to this state? Or, crazy Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Wiener, and Sen. Vitter? LOL! Just what Oregon (or anywhere) needs.

    • JDC

      Well Wiener’s NYC mayoral bid doesn’t seem to be working out, so maybe they can find a job for him in Oregon.

  • Lilian Stoltzfus

    Because everyone knows that sex is just no fun at all unless abortion is legal up until delivery. I mean, how did we ever manage to enjoy ourselves when it was illegal?

    Keep it classy, bro-choice movement.

  • PDK

    Both the writer of this article and Rollie Williams failed to grasp the most simple of concepts. Oregon follows the Constitutional right to free choice without regulations based on religious dogma which never belongs in our laws anyway. It’s called separation of church and state for a reason people. I love that my state is the only one in the union that follows the Constitution without restrictions.

    • JDC

      Show me were in the constitution the “right to free choice” is. You can’t because it’s not there.

      • Evan

        pretty sure it mentions liberty several times.. Liberty: “the value of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions).”

      • Evan

        pretty sure it mentions liberty several times.. Liberty: “the value of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions).”

        • Lilian Stoltzfus

          There is also a right to life, and that right is more fundamental than liberty. That’s why individuals are required to yield their right to liberty for the sake of another individual’s right to life. I may have the right to practice swordplay, but I don’t have the right to practice it on you. I have the right to bodily autonomy – I should be allowed to get whatever tattoos and eat whatever food and wear whatever clothes and have whatever “type” of sex I choose. However, that right ends when exercising it attacks the right of another to life.

          Liberty and agency mean nothing if I have no right to life and can be killed based upon the whim or plan of another.

          • Evan

            I only responded to JDC’s general comment with another general comment. not here to argue pro choice or life, just saying right to free choice is somewhere in the constitution :)

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Where in the Constitution? Please be specific as to how the Constitution’s words about choice and liberty extend to abortion.

          • Evan

            jeez, where did i say the constitution extend liberty to abortion… All I am saying is the constitution mentions liberty, which is synonymous with right to free choice, in response to JDC’s statement, that there is no free choice in the constitution. I am not here to argue abortion, I am just wanted to point out a false generalization. Honestly, I hate arguing anything based on century old documents, whether it be the constitution or the bible.. times change, it’s like arguing with an out of date dictionary when your playing scrabble.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            It seemed implied to me because otherwise there would have been no grounds to object to JCD’s comment. He was referring to someone who was clearly using “choice” as a euphemism for abortion. “Right to free choice” in constitutional terms means nothing without WHAT’S being chosen.

            And the age of a political or moral document is no judge of its validity on political or moral questions. Truth is truth. It’s not historically relative.

          • Evan

            we can agree to disagree on what JCD meant, I took it literally, his statement is pretty general to allow many interpretations. And no, of course the constitution doesn’t mention or refer to abortion, it wasn’t a problem then, which is part of my point of relying on old documents, this wasn’t a issue to be considered when the document is drafted, how could they account for it?
            so you are saying that the constitution or the bible are the ultimate truth? are they above reproach? If so, then I can’t debate with you because you are playing the religious card.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Your comments actually help illustrate what I mean when I say moral truth isn’t relativistic or contingent upon time.

            That different circumstances might compel us to act differently in no way demonstrates that there can’t be hard moral lines to guide us through those circumstances. You’re right that killing isn’t always unjust, but you’re wrong to suggest that means there’s no objective, absolute standard governing it. For instance, “it’s moral to kill to defend your life or save someone else’s, but it’s never moral to kill when nobody else’s life is in danger.” That’s objective and absolute while allowing for differing circumstances.

            And it’s not a question of the Constitution failing to account for something or being unreliable; just understanding what it is and isn’t for. The Founders didn’t mention abortion in it for the same reason virtually no crimes or offenses against another person are specifically mentioned in it: because those were the states’ business, and the Constitution was predominantly concerned with the structure of the federal government, and the basic principles defining the people’s liberty. And how the states and the common law recognized abortion may surprise you:
            http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html
            http://www.nrlc.org/news/2006/NRL01/HTML/MythsPage17.html

            A document or a theory of human rights doesn’t have to spell out abortion to establish that it’s evil any more than it has to specifically spell out drive-by shootings, hand grenades, anthrax attacks, or locking somebody in a shark tank. Like all those others, abortion is just a *method* of murder. All you need to do to know whether it qualifies is ask:

            – Does it destroy something? Yes.
            – Is the thing it destroys a living human being? Yes, therefore it’s killing.
            – Is the human being it’s killing threatening to kill you or someone else? No, therefore it’s murder.

          • Evan

            if the constitution is so concerned with the structure of the federal government, why does it include things like no nobility, the 3rd amendment, and the 3/5th compromise? don’t they sound a little specific and outdated? They did go into specifics, only it was about the issues of their time. Why? because they know the rest of the constitution is vague and doesn’t address the specifics.

            Let’s say I am in a village of poor farmers who are starving, and there is one rich guy that hoards all the food. While he acquired his riches legally, it doesn’t make since that everyone else is starving or dying, so the poor farmers go confront him, the rich man takes up arms and defends his hoard, he is killed. is the killing wrong? What if I provoke a fight but got what i bargained for and suddenly I feel my life is in danger, even though I started the fight, is it ok that I kill? I could change any number of details in a scenario to question your hardliner stand, and you will have to tack on more clauses to your “when is it ok to kill” rule. “only the Sith deals in absolutes” :D.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “I don’t know why we are debating about laws or it’s history”

            Because you brought them up? Besides, you’re the one who first commented specifically to claim something was in the Constitution.

            “fact of the matter is it doesn’t work, and that is made evident by the amount of division this country have on this issue.”

            Huh?

            “if the constitution is so concerned with the structure of the federal government, why does it include things like no nobility, the 3rd amendment, and the 3/5th compromise?”

            Uh, because I said “predominantly,” not “exclusively.”

            “They did go into specifics, only it was about the issues of their time. Why? because they know the rest of the constitution is vague and doesn’t address the specifics.”

            “Address the issues of the day” and “proclaim timeless principles” aren’t mutually exclusive. The Constitution can and does do both.

            “I could change any number of details in a scenario to question your hardliner stand, and you will have to tack on more clauses to your ‘when is it ok to kill’ rule.”

            Now you’re just being obtuse. You’re writing as if the rule is in a vacuum, and if you do that then of course you could nitpick any rule to death. That’s why such rules are part of a broader system of objective moral rules and criteria for prioritizing them when they come into conflict.

            “only the Sith deals in absolutes”

            That’s the stupidest line George Lucas ever put to paper, which is saying something.

          • Evan

            ok, you’re angry, I usually call debates when people start attacking my character directly, so I guess this is done, it was fun while it lasted. Man.. can’t even try to get a little star wars humor pass you now eh? well no hard feelings,

          • Calvin Freiburger

            I’m not sure where I attacked your character, but okay…….

          • Evan

            I said I was obtuse, I don’t know about you but, i generally make it a rule to not argue with obtuse people, they are no fun.

            Ok, one more shot,

            “Address the issues of the day” and “proclaim timeless principles” are mutually exclusive. On one side you claim its timeless, hence something timeless wouldn’t be subjected to changes of time, on the other side, keywords: “of the day”, why would something timeless need to specify time, contradiction. Constitution is not timeless, there is a reason why it can be amended.

            I am not being obtuse, some reasoning might be annoying to hear, but that doesn’t make it false. I was just providing you examples that no hardline rule encompasses all possibilities. the closest thing we have is the rules in the field of physics, and that is still only based on what we can perceive as humans. The most simple social rule we have is law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, that doesn’t even hold true 100% of the time. now we go to morality, a complex concept that only applies to humans, how do you weigh a life? how do you weigh the survival of our species against the individual lives in our society? is being selfish wrong when you know that it is the build block of our economy, and the driving force behind human ingenuity? There are so many questions, morality is not as simple as good and evil. So to think you can draw a line is underestimating the complexity of the issue. So to avoid being nitpicky, I am arguing from a high level. Even if your rule worked 99% of the time, 1% of the human race is still a lot to account for.

            The only problem I have is all the generalizations being made with words like universal, absolute, timeless.. they are just not true. Time changes everything, isn’t it better to be adaptable than to be stagnant?

            “only the Sith deals in absolutes” is actually a very interesting line to debate, whether you take it literally or not, it can be sought of as a very wise or hypocritical thing to say. George Lucas might not have done it on purpose though, judging from the rest of the movies, he probably wasn’t smart enough to come up with that.

          • Evan

            ugh grammer correction, you* -_- :D

            and please don’t take this seriously, I am just forming reasons on the fly, I really do enjoy this discussion with you.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “‘Address the issues of the day’ and ‘proclaim timeless principles’ are mutually exclusive. On one side you claim its timeless, hence something timeless wouldn’t be subjected to changes of time, on the other side, keywords: ‘of the day’, why would something timeless need to specify time, contradiction. Constitution is not timeless, there is a reason why it can be amended.”

            See, this is another example of what I meant by obtuse. You’re obsessing over a misunderstanding of what I said, which actually isn’t all that complicated, and with all due respect, applying a little common sense would have avoided it.

            My point was simply that just because some of the things in the Constitution address issues specific to the time, that doesn’t at all mean that nothing else in it can be universal or timeless. It does both.

            “I was just providing you examples that no hardline rule encompasses all possibilities.”

            Well then it’s a good thing I never argued that any single hardline rule encompasses all possibilities. And frankly, the rest of your comment seems like you’re just restating what I already responded to. The fact that there sometimes hard cases and complex circumstances doesn’t mean there’s no such thing as good and evil; it just means sometimes the right thing is harder to determine than others. I am content that anyone still following this debate will be satisfied with that.

          • Evan

            I don’t know why we are debating about laws or it’s history, fact of the matter is it doesn’t work, and that is made evident by the amount of division this country have on this issue. We should really focus on arriving at the correct conclusion based on the situation today.

          • Sean Goerling

            And BTW Evan, reading through this thread YOU are the first one to mention religion in your discussion with Lilian and Calvin on PDK’s post.

          • Evan

            I know, it just sounded the discussion was going towards the “take it on faith” argument. Sorry. I don’t have anything against religion, I think it’s commendable to have faith in things, I just don’t think it belongs in debates, but so many people brings it up these days, it’s almost reflex for me to start defending against it.

          • Evan

            Also, as an add, the truth you are referring to, moral truth, is never just truth. If you live in the real world, you know that its subjective and never black and white. Even thing as simple as you shouldn’t ever kill another is in the air when dealing with hypothetical such as self defense, defending another, etc. The possible situations are endless, and no hard moral line is going to account for everything.

          • Lilian Stoltzfus

            Oh. Okay. Thanks for contributing, whatever your opinion may be. :-)

          • Evan

            If I had it my way, no abortions, but people need licenses to have kids, the requirement would be the same for those seeking adoption. if you have a kid without a licenses, you’re kid goes to foster care, and you have to pay child support, you get a few years to get a license or else your kid goes to adoption for good. Population control.. this world is getting way too crowded, and not with the smartest of bunch either.

          • Evan

            that was silly, but basically my point is if abortion is not an option, then we do need some way prevent irresponsible parents from bringing in irresponsibly raised kids in the world, (yes I am making an assumption that people who are seeking abortions are probably irresponsible and more chance of raising a bad kid). So whether it be more state control, or somehow get people to stop having irresponsible sex, one seemed far fetched, and the other impossible.

    • Rebecca Downs

      Really? You’re one of those people who think that the abortion movement somehow has anything to do with being religious? Then you clearly have never heard of Secular Pro-Life… And Separation of Church and State is one of the most wildly misunderstood concepts I find. First of all, the Constitutional right to free choice was really only based on a “penumbrae,” so a feeling the justices thought was in the Constitution regarding privacy, not what is actually there. The Court also did not say that there had to be “free choice without regulations…” States can restrict abortion in the third trimester. And this religious dogma you believe in is not actually there. It’s called science. That’s good for you that you love your state (I’m not being sarcastic) but you are sorely confused I think about a few key issues with your argument…

      • johno

        I think there should be a “Secular Pro-Life Party” or SPLP for short. Then there would be a home for those who are uneasy about the religious part of Pro-Life. All major parties, Greens, Libertarians, Dems, various Socialist, even Republicans are not a good fit for Secular Pro-Lifers. Mary Lee would be great leader of this Secular Pro-Life Party! Need some grassroots on starting it!

        • JDC

          No, I don’t like the idea of starting a new party because it would split the pro-life vote and make it really easy for the Democrats to when elections.

          • johno

            I’m a tad uneasy with the Republicans. Tom Ridge was a Republican in Pennsylvania and let Dr. Gosnell thrive. Strangely, Democratic Gov. Casey checked his abortion clinic in (1993?). The Republicans have a bad case of finger up in the air to see which way the wind blows. Pataki in New York, Several Governors in Massachusetts, Connecticut , Rhode Island, Maine, California, Oregon , and Washington. I do agree the Democrats have pretty much purged Pro-Life politicians (with exception of Cuellar, Mollohan, Matherson, and Peterson in House..and Pryor, maybe Landrieu, and Casey? in Senate). Plus, there seems to be an internal war going on between moderates(?) and the religious in the Republican Party.

    • Mary Lee
    • Martha Jane Twenter

      Where in the Constitution does it mention “separation of church and state?”

  • Pingback: Why Oregon just became the best state to have [consequence-free] sex in?

  • Guest

    Just as an FYI: When you put phrases like “best state to have sex in” in quotes, it usually implies a direct quote from the person or article you’re citing. In fact, Williams does not allude to sex at all. He does not mention that Oregon is the best state to have sex in, or, as you implied, is “more than willing to get you into bed, get you pregnant, and either pay for your abortion or perhaps completely ditch you because they have no desire to actually care for you or your baby.” Do you see what I did there? I quoted you because that’s what you actually said.

    What Williams is doing is what everyone who looks at a statistic does – he interprets it to support the idea he is trying to make. He could easily have titled the article, “Oklahoma: The Safest City for Our Unborn” but if he didn’t say, “Oklahoma is the worst city to have unprotected sex in,” then you cannot quote him on that OR infer on his intentions about those words.

    I won’t get into the ethical fight with you, I think your beliefs are yours to keep, but I do have a problem with this article from a journalistic viewpoint. This is more than a skewing of information – it is a blatant misuse information and reduces your reliability significantly.

    • Rebecca Downs

      There is no problem with this article from a journalistic viewpoint, actually. What Rollie Williams did was change the title. I imagine so that there is confusion caused like this.

  • Mom

    I’ll just point out here, as you mention, that Rollie is a comedian, so the language is “tongue-in-cheek” by design.

  • Andy

    Uhhhhh….you wrote a whole article being upset by a COMEDIAN. This is not a Bro-Choice movement. Rollie was being an ass on purpose. Your article is the equivalent of getting mad at a kid who dropped a water balloon on someone. That was the point. I know Rollie and he’s a good guy and cares about women. Bits are bits.

    • Rebecca Downs

      Um, if he were a pro-lifer I would maybe agree with you. But there are people who are pro-choice, still comedians and very much think it’s funny to treat sex like it’s a joke while being completely serious…

  • MB

    “According to Rollie Williams, who describes himself as a comedian, writer, and biochemist on the website Upworthy, Oregon is now the best state to have sex in”

    erm…where exactly does he say anything even close to this?

    • Rebecca Downs

      Because that is the title of his piece… and then the only thing he discusses is abortion. Since he discusses nothing else, and his title outright says that “Oregon just became the best state to have sex in,” it really is safe to infer that he is saying this. I really don’t mean to be rude or condescending, but I think it’s unnecessary criticism to point out he isn’t saying that. It’s okay if you glanced over or didn’t read the title, sometimes I do it too, but in this case, it really does provide the answer to your question.

      • MB

        The title of his article is “Why Oklahoma Is At The Top Of Our Sh%t List”

        I see absolutely nothing about having sex or what the best state to do it in is.

        • Rebecca Downs

          Huh… I’m not trying to be funny, but I really do think the title has been changed then since Nancy and I both wrote our pieces about Rollie’s. The title I referenced in my above comment was the title when I accessed it from Upworthy and through Nancy’s link. Perhaps Rollie realized one didn’t have much to do with the other or he heard about his piece getting too much flack and wants to smear critics or something. The latter is maybe a bit too cynical, but it’s possible…

      • MB

        Also, when someone says “I really don’t mean to be rude or condescending, but…” they are ALWAYS about to say something rude and/or condescending.

        • Rebecca Downs

          I don’t think I was being rude or condescending at all though, I just wanted to make it clear that I was being serious about pointing out what the title was when I accessed it. I’m sorry if you took it to be such… also, to use words like always is kind of a bad idea, because it implies there is never an exception, ever. That’s not really the case.

          • MB

            “also, to use words like always is kind of a bad idea, because it implies there is never an exception, ever.”

            Oh, the irony of a pro-lifer saying that…

          • Rebecca Downs

            Jeez… I’m sorry I bothered trying to have a civil conversation and point out something to you then…

  • Pingback: Clearing up the confusion: Rollie Williams changed the title!

  • Pingback: SiftingPoint | Liberal Comedian and Author Says Oregon is the “Best State to Have Sex in” Because of Easy Abortions

  • Sarah

    Please send this message to Gov. Kitzhaber in OR – “I thought you said that no one
    was going to die under the death penalty on “MY WATCH”. What happened?