Pregnant woman

RH Reality Check: We need abortion because pregnancy makes you fat

(Photo credit: MD Clic Photography on Flickr)
Pregnant mom (Photo credit: MD Clic Photography on Flickr)

Women need abortion, we’re told, because it is just terrible and awful to force an unwanted pregnancy onto a woman. It’s pretty much the worst thing in the world, and there should be no discussion of personal responsibility (because clearly it’s cruel to expect women to abstain from sex if they aren’t ready for a baby).

There should also be no discussion of options beyond abortion (because adoption is unreasonable and keeping the baby would be impossible). A blogger at RH Reality Check, Natasha Chart, was pregnant and kept her son, who presumably was wanted. But her experience with pregnancy gave her a laundry list of reasons why women need abortion. Pregnancy makes you fat! And your feet get big! And it’s just such a hassle to do all the testing!

On the less serious, but financially inconvenient, side, I’d started expanding past even the maternity clothes I bought early in pregnancy. By the end, none of my shoes fit over my swollen feet. It’s not a medical concern, but not everyone can readily afford to just turn over a wardrobe twice in less than a year, especially when there are all these exciting new expenses for baby clothes and supplies.

Nearly a month after the birth, I still can’t fit into my pre-maternity clothes or bear to wear a real bra, and I’m really glad that I don’t have to show up anywhere looking professional for a little while yet. If I can’t be somewhere in an outfit that includes a nursing tank right now, I can’t be there.

… The results of my first glucose tolerance test were high, so they wanted to do a follow-up. Since a three-hour glucose tolerance test after fasting seemed like a bad idea for a patient with a history of passing out during blood draws on an empty stomach, my doctor had me test myself four times a day at specific times and follow a meal plan for gestational diabetics so they could settle the question.

I turned out not to have gestational diabetes, but the exercise was a huge hassle.

Swollen feet! Not immediately fitting back into your pre-pregnancy clothes! Having to take glucose tests! The horror!

Chart then goes on to talk about all of the expenses that come with a pregnancy. It’s undeniable that, without insurance, it could be expensive – the hospital bills for prenatal care and delivery could run into the tens of thousands (though they don’t always). Chart also mentions time off for recovery, which usually runs about six weeks. Chart seems to think this means that women are completely incapacitated and incapable of doing anything until those six weeks are over, but thankfully, that’s not quite the case. She talks a lot about the hardships this would inflict on women who don’t have insurance or are living paycheck to paycheck.

The huge majority of mothers who give life to their children never regret it.
The huge majority of mothers who give life to their children never regret it.

Clearly, this shows that women should be able to get abortions if they want them. Right? One thing Chart never mentions is adoption, which could alleviate many of the economic issues, as well as the long-term stress of having to raise a child you aren’t ready for.

Earlier this month, the New York Times wrote a story about a study which pro-aborts crowed over. The study showed what happens when women who tried to get abortions were unable to do so. Eighty of the women in the study reported not having enough money to meet their basic needs, and 1 in 10 were on welfare. In the short term, keeping the baby caused stress, anxiety, and other negative feelings in the women, and it also had a tremendous economic impact on them – thus the crowing from pro-aborts.

Six months later, though, those anxiety levels decreased. What was rarely mentioned was how the women felt in the long-term. Only 5% of women regretted having their baby. Almost half denied ever trying to get an abortion.

But women need abortion. Why? Because their feet might swell, and they’ll gain weight, and things might be hard for a while. These trivial things are supposed to be the reasons why women should be able to kill their unborn children?

  • Pingback: RH Reality Check: We need abortion because pregnancy makes you fat | Foundation Life

  • Pingback: RH Reality Check: We need abortion because pregnancy makes you fat | Pro-Life News

  • WHO is watching you

    When is it okay for a woman “to be such a ‘sissy’”? Please! swollen ankles! Eat more protein rich foods and your ankles do Not swell even in the last trimester( Dr. Thomas Brewer M.D.). We are made ” in the image and likeness of God”: the power to give ourselves to motherhood and fatherhood is so trivialized. Is there any wonder being shallow self-serving “animals” is the pinnacle of our public culture? If our capacity to love is dependent upon our “comfort level”: we are incapable “of love which surpasses understanding”. Our existence is worth nothing if we are incapable of joyful self- sacrifice. Our culture has regressed into banality and depravity. “Yeah ! media and public brain-washing!”

    • fiona64

      Um, sweetie? H. sapiens are animals; we’re highly functioning primates. I’m sorry you missed that day in high school biology.

      I’m also sorry that you never bothered to read the actual article by Ms. Chart and instead believed the lies about it that were posted here.

  • disquslunchbox2222

    Yes it is cruel for anyone to expect another adult person (male or female) to abstain from sex if they aren’t willing to have a baby.

    • Basset_Hound

      Or if they already have children to opt for some sort of permanent option such as tubal ligation.

      • Ella Warnock

        To be fair, you don’t have to already have children to get a tubal. Got mine 20 years ago when it was really unheard of.

        • Dirty_Nerdy

          It depends on the state, and 20 years is a long time to assume that the laws and medical practice surrounding it have stayed the same.

      • fiona64

        You presume that obtaining a tubal ligation is easy, obviously. Twenty years ago, I had to doctor-shop in order to find a physician who would perform the procedure on a 29-year-old woman. Most will not do so for a woman under 30, or a woman with fewer than two children. Why? “You’ll change your mind.”

        My husband had to sign a permission form (I am not making this up), and I had to wait 30 days from the time I signed the informed consent — again, in case I “changed my mind.”

        Surgical sterilization is not as easy to obtain as you (and many others) seem to think It’s actually gotten even more difficult in the 20 years since I had the procedure.

        • Ella Warnock

          Yes, the “permission slip” and the waiting period, highly insulting for someone who knew from the time that she was a child herself that parenthood was not on the table. Never did change my mind, either, and that was a looong time ago. And if I had, so what? A grown woman made that decision, and a grown woman could bloody well deal with whatever cropped up in the future. The consequences of that long-ago decision were not things I needed to be “protected” from, as it turns out.

    • JDC

      I can’t quite tell if you’re being serious or not.

      • johno

        umm, not to offend the religious but these folks abstaining is this the “safe sex” technique we always hear about? Not! More free condoms is more like it!

        • JDC

          Uh, how is this a response to what I said?

          • johno

            Sorry, meant for disquslunchbox2222.

          • JDC

            Ok, that explains it.

    • fiona64

      If you had actually read Chart’s article, you would have known that this was a planned pregnancy and a wanted baby. Her planned pregnancy went wrong and her infant is compromised.

      Typical, though: “just keep your legs together if you don’t want to be pregnant.” That’s some genius-level discourse from someone who clearly never read the article that is being woefully misrepresented here.

  • Kim

    This is craziest reason to have an abortion,just because it makes you fat. Give m a break, you wouldn’t be here if your mother thought the same way.

    • Dirty_Nerdy

      That would be a pretty crazy and trivial reason. Good thing that’s not what Chart was saying at all, and that you have no say in why people get medical procedures. Why, it’s almost as if it’s none of your business at all.

    • Jennifer Starr

      That is not at all what the article said.

  • Unicorn Farm

    Cassy, did you actually bother to read Chart’s article, or did you just choose to willfully misrepresent her points? I’m guessing the latter.

    Her discussion was hardly limited to swelling feet or getting fat, but described the numerous issues that she faced and other women can and do face when carrying pregnancies to term, including:

    Developing long term medical issues (Chart risked developing gestational diabetes, which can turn into a life-long condition) that require expensive medical care;

    The costs of dealing with those conditions during pregnancy (I noticed you conveniently left out the costs of the testing strips, about $140 per week);

    The enormous expense of deliveries (up to $40,000);

    The potentially debilitating (short term or long term) effects of giving birth. These effects can make it difficult for a woman to take care of her existing children, herself, or even keep her job.

    I understand that you think developing a long term health condition or losing a job is something a woman should be required to endure, because the fetus’s life deserves protection at virtually any cost. But could you at LEAST be honest about what you and your cohorts are demanding that women endure to bring children into the world? You do women a disservice when you demean the very real sacrifices that they make when they have children, and you make yourself look intellectually weak when you willfully misrepresent another’s argument.

    You demonstrated Chart’s point completely- that anti-abortion folks routinely dismiss what pregnant women endure, imploring them to “just have the baby.”

    I would have a little more respect for the anti-abortion side if you could work to address the actual reasons women abort: lack of access to affordable medical care, the possibility of losing their jobs because of pregnancy or birth, lack of financial resources to support a child, lack of protections for pregnant women and working mothers in the workplace….

    • Andrew Orlovsky

      Already born babies are often burdensome for women too and require them to make health and financial sacrifices. That doesn’t mean it should be ok to kill them.

      Crisis pregnancy centers are there to help women deal with these issues. Too bad liberals want to shut them down too.

      • Unicorn Farm

        Sigh. If the baby is born, it can be put up for adoption. At least try and respond to what I said.

        • johno

          What about what Jennifer Morbelli endured at 31st week that ultrasound showed fetal abnormalities. The doctor advised her to abort. She went to Dr Leroy Carhart he punctured her uterus and pretty much did nothing for her and she died on his table in Maryland at 33wk in Maryland. In Liberal Norway she would be alive, they do not do procedure after 24wk. A c-section would take “fetus” out of her body because its viable. I do understand your concerns and Ms. Morbelli endured the issues you stated. However, she is dead and cannot come back and Dr. Leroy Carhart can continue this practice on some other women. (By the way he also punctured Cristin Gilbert’s uterus). The law is on his side not Ms. Morbelli or Ms Gilbert.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Has Mr. Carhart been found guilty of negligence in Ms. Morbelli’s case? No? Didn’t think so.

            I deeply regret the loss of Ms. Morbelli’s life, as do all pro-choice people. But the fact is that people die as a result of medical procedures, even if a doctor is not negligent. Women die in childbirth, as well. Should we ban childbirth?

            I’m not interested in getting into generalized debates on whether abortion is right or wrong, safe or unsafe. I only posted here to show that Cassy willfully misrepresented Chart’s article, and now I’m done. It’s a nice day out.

          • Andrew Orlovsky

            The fact the Carhart is not rotting away in a prison cell now proves that Man’s law if often corrupt. That’s it.

          • Unicorn Farm

            So what do you think he should be in jail for?

          • Rebekah

            Murder.

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            Did he actually murder the woman? Or was it just a terrible accident ofsome sort. It sounds like John up there was exaggerating about what happened. Plenty of surgeons have patients die on the table. It’s terrible, but it’s not murder.

          • johno

            So, with that logic Gosnell should be set free? He did nothing wrong either.

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            No, there is a difference between an accident and severe medical malpractice. If you want to put every doctor in jail who loses a patient, then just go arrest everybody at the ER

          • johno

            What malpractice? Abortion is legal in Pennsylvania and the state wasn’t interested from 1973-2011 to check his clinic. So, why is he in jail and Carhart not? Gosnell killed ONLY Mrs. Mongar while Carhart killed Ms. Gilbert and Ms. Morbelli?

          • Rebekah

            You assume that I’m talking about the woman. She was not the only one who died as a result of that procedure, and the death of the other person was entirely intentional.

          • http://twitter.com/brazenqueer Anonymous Queer

            Dr. Carhart did not puncture Ms. Morbelli’s uterus. That is a completely false statement. http://www.worldmag.com/2013/02/cause_of_death

          • johno

            I like how the article said he “exploits” loophole in law. Ok I concede defeat. Even though he’s right on the line! So, Dr. Gosnell should be free. As a famous person said “What difference does it make”. Right?

          • http://twitter.com/brazenqueer Anonymous Queer

            You might want to put a little context to that “exploits a loophole” quote. The full quote is:

            “Under state law, abortion in Maryland is illegal once the unborn baby is viable—that is, once it can survive outside the womb with medical assistance. But the state makes an exception when the baby has an abnormality, or when the mother’s life or health (including mental health) is at risk. Abortionists like Carhart regularly exploit that flexible loophole in order to keep up their late-term abortion business in the state.”

            Ms. Morbelli’s baby DID have a fetal abnormality (in fact, it was listed on Ms. Morbelli’s death certificate as a contributing factor in her death), so there was no exploitation here. And I never said there was no difference – that was all you. The difference is that if Dr. Carhart had been negligent in Ms. Morbelli’s death, he should be punished. But so far, neither the police or the Maryland Board of Physicians has found he acted criminally or negligently. Since they have more information about the case than the general public, I am going to have to trust their judgment that Dr. Carhart was not at fault for Ms. Morbelli’s death. If this changes in the future, I will gladly revise my views, as I am medically trained and I WANT negligent doctors held responsible for their reckless actions.

            And you’re the one that brought Gosnell into this, not me.

            You know, for claiming to “care” about women so much, the “pro-life” side is pretty intent on proving them liars when it comes to reasons why they choose abortion. Health at risk? Well, it’s not at risk ENOUGH. Mental health reasons? Well they’re all just flat-out liars according to “pro-life” advocates. Really, the love is palpable.

          • johno

            I’m still sad that Ms. Morbelli is not with us Anonymous Queer. Or, for that matter Ms. Mongar or Ms Gilbert etc.

        • Andrew Orlovsky

          Ahh, the whole “you’re a man so you can’t speak against abortion” nonsense. You do know thats polls show that women are just as pro-life as men? And my wife, who did face some health conditions during our pregnancy, is just as pro-life as I am.

          • Unicorn Farm

            I didn’t say you couldn’t speak about it because you’re a man. You can talk about whatever you want. Knock yourself out.

            I’m just not going to give your opinion very much credit. It’s easy to advocate for a position when you’ll never have to face the consequences of that position. It’s like if I advocated that all Catholics had to donate kidneys when I’m Jewish and will thus never be required to donate one. Or, like the occupy wall streeters advocating for increased taxes on the wealthy. Easy for them to advocate for higher taxes on the rich when they’ll never see that money coming out of their own pockets, right?

            “You do know thats (sic) polls show that women are just as pro-life as men?”

            Yep. So? I don’t respect a pro-life woman’s opinion anymore than a pro-life man’s, but I find the hubris of a pro-life man particularly appalling for the reason laid out above.

          • johno

            Do you believe in free condoms to all? How about Dildos? Safe sex right?

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            Yes. There should be free condoms. The abysmal teen pregnancy rates in much of the U.S. is enough on its own to make me support free condoms and b/c for all. What exactly do you have against dildos? If you’re using a dildo, you can’t get pregnant.

          • johno

            I’m glad you use them because 1-your correct no unwanted pregnancy 2-no abortion 3-no man……….perfect scenario.

          • Basset_Hound

            Except that it doesn’t work. The Brits spent 138 million pounds on a teen pregnancy prevention program where free condoms and birth control pills were handed out only to find the rates rise. Not only that but they found girls having several abortions before their 20th birthday.
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1095157/Teenage-pregnancies-UP-despite-free-contraception-sex-education-year-olds.html

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1238612/Girls-using-abortion-birth-control.html

          • DianaG2

            Losing one’s job due to pregnancy is discrimination.

          • Unicorn Farm

            No kidding. But that doesn’t mean that women don’t lose their jobs due to the effects of pregnancy.

            -This article provides a fairly thorough discussion of the inadequacies in (federal) legal protections for pregnant workers:

            http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/06/18/report-pregnant-workers-continue-to-face-widespread-discrimination-on-the-job/

            -Why don’t I see articles in the “pro-life” blogosphere calling for the passage of the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act?

            “Despite the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978,
            employers routinely deny requests for temporary work adjustments by
            pregnant workers, leaving many without a salary and health insurance
            because they were fired, forced to quit, or pushed to take unpaid leave.
            The PWFA is designed to address the gap in the law that leaves these workers unprotected.”
            See
            http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/05/14/pregnant-workers-fairness-act-introduced-in-both-house-and-senate/
            and
            http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/06/23/ohios-pregnancyblind-policies/

            -There’s also the issue of maternity leave. American women do not get paid maternity leave. America is one of three countries in the world that does not offer paid maternity leave.
            American women are offered 12 weeks of unpaid leave
            under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which exempts companies with fewer than 50 paid employees. What are women who don’t get unpaid leave supposed to do?

            You may disagree that companies should be required to provide paid maternity leave, but you can’t pretend that the American workplace supports women who want to give birth.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Ah, nothing like when moral arrogance is paired with rank sexism…..

          • fiona64

            “Our pregnancy”? Dude, only one of you was pregnant.

          • Geraldine Rafferty

            Our pregnancy? Were you pregnant too?

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            Well your wife is perfctly free to face those health conditions if she feels she’s able to. Nobody is arguing that we end all pregnancies or that nobody should ever be pregnant. We’re arguing that we shouldn’t force anybody who doesn’t want to be pregnant (and face serious health conditions) have the choice to not be pregnant.

        • Basset_Hound

          So I guess I can’t speak up against pet store puppy mills because I’m not a dog, right?

          • Unicorn Farm

            You can speak up about what ever you’d like. Knock yourself out.

      • Unicorn Farm

        OOh you edited your post to make it a little less flippant. A crisis pregnancy center isn’t going to help a woman take care of her gestational diabetes, pay for her medical bills, or prevent her employer from firing her. Giving her a sonogram print out and a pack of Pampers is cute and all, but isn’t going to solve the real issues that women who aren’t prepared to have a baby face.

        And my original point still stands: an already born baby can be given to someone else to care for. A fetus can’t.

        • Andrew Orlovsky

          The women can have the baby then place him or her for adoption. There is no excuse to kill it.

          • Unicorn Farm

            http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/06/27/just-have-the-baby-a-new-mom-reveals-why-there-is-no-just-and-not-necessarily-any-justice-either/

            Did you even read what I wrote? Adoption still requires her to bear a child, which can cause her severe physical problems, to lose her job, or be very expensive. Adoption won’t solve a woman’s problem if she is required to be on bedrest for the duration of her pregnancy and she loses her job because of that.

            And if she loses her job or becomes permanently disabled, fuck her, that’s just too damned bad. Slut should have kept her legs closed. Newsflash: a woman isn’t a broodmare for an infertile couple.

            I see my entire point, as well as Chart’s, has flown entirely over your head. As I said below, I’m out, this is a waste of time.

          • Andrew Orlovsky

            I did read what you wrote and think your views are abhorrent. The fact that you use certain four letter words in your posts further shows your moral depravity.

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            Yes, because everybody knows that four-letter words are the pinnacle of moral depravity.

          • JDC

            I personally wouldn’t call it moral depravity, just immaturity.

          • Mary Lee

            Well, as Richard Burton believed, the need to use four-letter words shows a lack of vocabulary. I mean, really. If your argument resorts to that, then you don’t really have an argument, do you? Then it’s just a tantrum, which you pro-aborts have all time.

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            Did you actually read her comment? She used one swear. Seriously, it was buried in a long comment; I had to re-read it to see what “four letter word” Andrew was referring to. I feel sorry for you if you’re distracted by one stupid word, that’s only considered “low brow” or “bad” for arbitrary cultural reasons.

          • Mary Lee

            Yes. I did. I’m not “distracted” by a word, I was just answering a comment posted. Wow, you abortion lovers are hard at work the last few days! Do you have notifications on your phones or something? It’s sad, really.

          • Basset_Hound

            You ought to see NRO. Troll crap is flying EVERYWHERE.

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            lol, I get notifications in my email, but I went to Austin yesterday for the rally. I’m a little behind now.

          • JDC

            Funny, your types are the only ones that ever actually call women sluts. Sure must be fun to put words in other people’s mouths.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Ha, wow! My comment was deleted. Thanks Calvin!

            JDC, I was obviously being sarcastic and not *really* calling women sluts.

            But you know what really popular prolife person called a woman a slut and a prostitute recently simply for advocating access for birth control? I guess its not just “my type.”

            And instead of criticizing the articulate Rush Limbaugh, anti-abortion folks rushed to his defense, including live action’s very own basset hound, who wrote of pro-choicers: “These were the same people who slobbered and bawled when Mean Old Wush Wimbaugh called Poor Widdle Sandwra Fluke a “slut”.”

            How classy, Basset.

            Look JDC, I’ve been reading this little site since it came out, Jill Stanek’s blog where you usually hang out since, oh, 2004?, lifesite, and all the rest. I’ve read what y’all write when you think you’re among friends, and it isn’t pretty, including enough “close your legs” and “why’d you open your legs” and “go on your back” and “sluts” and “whores” and “take your consequences!” to last a life time.

          • Basset_Hound

            Ummm, I think you’ve got your facts a little bit wrong. Sandra Fluke wasn’t merely “advocating for access to birth control”. She was demanding that a private religious institution set aside THEIR religious teachings that artificial contraception is unethical to pay for HER birth control. BTW, she chose this institution specifically to take them to court and challenge them.

            And yes, I think it was pretty hypocritical to criticize Rush for his comments about Fluke when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin even uglier names AND took cheap shots at her Down’s Syndrome child. You make snarky remarks about me being “classy” and ignore THAT?

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            “Bill Maher said something sexist and was an asshole, so that means you can’t criticize what Rush said”

            Except I’m not a fan of Maher either (for many reasons, his sexism being only part of me). Tu quoque’s aren’t very good arguments to rely on.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Nothing that you’ve said disproves my point to JDC- that “pro-life” folks call pro-choice women sluts. Better luck next time.

          • johno

            Let’s all agree that the “word” should stay on the “porn” channels. Ok. Men and Women should NOT be using that word. Its not COOL at all!

          • Unicorn Farm

            “And yes, I think it was pretty hypocritical to criticize Rush for his
            comments about Fluke when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin even uglier names AND took cheap shots at her Down’s Syndrome child. You make snarky remarks about me being “classy” and ignore THAT?”

            I’m not a Maher fan and certainly didn’t know anything about this comment. I have no moral obligation to comment on all the comments by all presumably non-pro-life people that Basset Hound doesn’t like. You, the other hand, very obviously endorsed Rush’s comments about Fluke.

            “You also don’t have any room to criticize us for the things we say when we “think we’re among friends” when some of the tweets and blog rants directed at pro-life women are totally hateful, vicious and vile.”

            Again- I am not responsible for what other pro-choice people say. I can’t believe you’re really trying to argue that bad behavior excuses other bad behavior. The only point I made to JDC was that pro-life people call women sluts, which she claims she’s never seen. That’s false.

          • Basset_Hound

            Personally, I think Rush spent FAR too much time on Fluke, and it got tiresome. So no, that doesn’t mean I “endorsed” his comments.

          • johno

            Bill Maher doesn’t like conservatives and Rush Limbaugh doesn’t like liberals. See settled the argument. By the way they speak out and make “tons” of money with speaking forums. Who really cares about them.

          • fiona64

            Um, sweetie? A university that accepts public funds (which is what Sandra Fluke was talking about) is not a private religious institution. But don’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant, okay? Rock on!

          • Basset_Hound

            Ummm sweetie….Sandra could have bought her generic birth control pills from a Target pharmacy for $9 a month, not the $80 she claimed to have spent on birth control. She also had free access to a variety of other methods over the counter. So no one was “denying” her anything.

          • Basset_Hound

            Ummm sweetie….Sandra could have bought her generic birth control pills from a Target pharmacy for $9 a month, not the $80 she claimed to have spent on birth control. She also had free access to a variety of other methods over the counter. So no one was “denying” her anything.

          • fiona64

            That’s right, because costs and insurance are all 100 percent identical across the board.

            And, since she wasn’t talking about *herself,* but a friend who has to take BCPs for a different medical condition, I can’t help but wonder whether you actually heard or read her testimony at all. ::shrug::

          • Calvin Freiburger
          • fiona64

            Got anything from an unbiased source? Yeah, I thought not.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Shoot the messenger. That’s about as impressive a rebuttal as I expected.

            Although if you’re going to automatically deem anything from Live Action out-of-bounds, then one wonders why you’re bothering to comment here at all.

          • johno

            Sounds like someone doesn’t like this site?

          • Mary Lee

            I know! Not ONE pro-lifer I have ever met (online or in real life) uses that word. Pro-aborts use it all the time…..and “broodmare” and “incubator”…..They doth protest too much.

          • http://twitter.com/brazenqueer Anonymous Queer

            Never? I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen it. Here’s one from just a couple of days ago: https://twitter.com/4angel1980/status/350781345674428418

          • http://twitter.com/brazenqueer Anonymous Queer
          • Timmehh

            Really? I’m pro life, but I can honestly say that I have heard multiple pro lifers use that term (mostly online). To suggest otherwise is just plain dishonest.

          • fiona64

            So, the woman whose life, health and economic status are endanger should keep her life, health and economic status in danger on the off chance that a resulting infant would be adopted? Really? Dude, there are more than 100 thousand children currently available for adoption in this country, and most will age out without ever having a permanent home. I applaud women who choose the adoption option, but don’t behave as though it’s a panacea.

            It really is very easy to be an anti-choice male, isn’t it? After all, you’ll never be one of the thousands of women who die of pregnancy related complications in the US every year (we’re #50 for maternal death rate in developed countries).

          • Basset_Hound

            Did you ever think that the reason more children aren’t currently available for adoption is because the state is often reluctant to terminate parental rights? Given the number of couples waiting to adopt, it is not an “off chance” that the baby will find a home. In fact there are couples who are more than willing to pay the expectant mom’s medical expenses.

          • fiona64

            So, the current 100 thousand kids available for adoption seems like an inadequate quantity? That’s the number, according to AFCARS stats, that are currently awaiting permanent homes in this country.

            Did you ever think about *that*? There is no shortage of children available for adoption.

        • ldwendy

          “A crisis pregnancy center isn’t going to help a woman take care of her gestational diabetes, pay for her medical bills, or prevent her employer from firing her.”

          Bravo. This says it all about what CPC’s don’t do, in addition to spreading falsehoods while trying to talk women out of terminating pregnancies.

      • SweetMarmot

        The reason some people want to shut down crisis pregnancy centers is because they are a competition for the abortion industry. It’s mostly the abortion industry and their stooges who want to shut them down. They say that CPCs lie to women. But they’re a lot more truthful than the abortion clinics. The real reason they want to get rid of CPCs is the same reason they want to eliminate adoption; these things are a competition for the abortion industry and the abortion industry wants to eliminate the competition and force more women into abortion. Then they hypocritically claim that these women “chose” abortion.
        They say the same thing about women who abort because they will be killed by an angry boyfriend if they don’t. If you’re facing violence and death for the wrong choice, it’s still your choice. But these same people will scream “harrassment” if someone tries to offer a pregnant woman an alternative to abortion. Is that hypocracy, or is that a not-so-subtle way of getting as many women aborted as possible, so the abortion industry can get rich.

        • fiona64

          “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” exist as nothing but fronts for adoption mills. They do not help women one iota. They provide medically and factually inaccurate information … oh, and they hand out stupid plastic baby dolls to women to mislead them about human fetal development.

          Yeah, that’s a big help.

          • Basset_Hound

            Really? Providing counseling and support for women in abusive relationships isn’t “helpful to women”? Providing parenting classes isn’t “helpful to women”? Providing workshops on budgeting isn’t “helpful to women”? And sucking out women’s wombs (and wallets) and sending them on their way IS?

          • Mary Lee

            But not really. Since I was very close with the daughter of a woman who ran a CPC and witnessed their work first hand, I can safely say that every single one of your statements is patently false. They never lied, they never coerced, they never did anything but listen and show support to these women. Nobody forced these women to do anything. And the consensus from the women who were helped by the CPCs were “My life is more beautiful than I could imagine.”

            Hey, you know who lies? Pro-aborts. Planned Parenthood (oh my LORD do they lie). NARAL (big big liars).

        • DianaG2

          And the world can become empty.

          • johno

            Just like North Korea.

          • DianaG2

            Really? I didn’t know that.

    • Geraldine Rafferty

      Boo-hoo! All these weak and selfish reasons for murdering babies in the womb and outside the womb don’t hold water. Murder is MURDER.

  • Mary Lee

    It’s Troll Day!

    Basically, what Unicorn and Dirty Nerdy are saying is, “Women should be able to kill their own children because we say so.” Which is really the pro-abortion argument. It really comes down to this: You can have sex (which I support) or not (which I also support), and you can take measures to avoid pregnancy (which I support). But once a baby is in existence….a separate being from the mother, not a parasite, not an invader, but her own child, who came into existence because of the choices of his or her mother and father, their right to live trumps the mother’s right to be temporarily inconvenienced. As a rape survivor, a survivor of abuse, and a crisis pregnancy, all I hear is excuses, excuses, excuses. Biology tells us that these are human babies. The vast majority of abortions are committed on healthy mothers with healthy babies. Pregnancy is not a disease, and it is not a permanent condition. The baby is not the mother’s property; the baby is NEVER the mother’s property. The baby is not an organ, and is not a stranger.

    Cassy read the entire article (as did I), and, again, it was one big excuse.

    • Jennifer Starr

      If Cassy did read the artlcle that’s even worse, as it means that she’s being deliberately dishonest in completely misconstruing what Natasha Chart said.

      • Mary Lee

        Oh so Cassy can’t win no matter what she does. Got it. *eye roll*

        If that’s the issue, then what about all the pro-abortion articles that do exactly the same thing–focus on one point or one statement, taken out of context? That is ALL you guys do.

        But really, the article was a big whinefest.

        • Unicorn Farm

          Right, when my baby is in the NICU and I get gestational diabetes, I reach for the confetti.

          • Mary Lee

            Better than having your baby ripped to pieces in the name of “choice”……I am not sure what your point is, but it seems very whiny.

          • Unicorn Farm

            My point was that you criticized Chart for engaging in a “whinefest,” when what she really did was write about some very objectively bad things like her baby being in the NICU, her being at risk for developing gestational diabetes, and the enormous medical bills she faced as the result of her very much wanted pregnancy.

            She wrote about some negative aspects of pregnancy. And you accuse her of whining. What do you EXPECT her to do, freaking celebrate? Says more about you than her.

          • Mary Lee

            It IS a whinefest. You don’t know me, or anything I’ve gone through, but if I decided to write an article, it would make all your hair fall out.

            She is using her experience to justify killing babies. A big, whiny excuse for abortion “rights.”

            The fact that you’ve been on here for days, offering up arrogant and baseless “arguments” to justify abortion–which can never, ever be justified–and making fun of every pro-lifer who posts here, and liking your own posts says more about YOU than me. You’re just a bully. You have no leg to stand on, so you just wait for someone to post here so you can pounce. Get help, please.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Oh calm down, you’re getting hysterical. All I came on here to do was point out that Cassy misrepresented the article. My goal was never to get into a big fight about abortion. I also have not liked my own posts, and anyone who scrolls over it can see that.

            “The fact that you’ve been on here for days….You have no leg to stand on, so you just wait for someone to post here so you can pounce.”

            Look at your comment count versus mine, and tell me who is “waiting to pounce.” I have commented intermittently on this story for approximately 2 days. And I’m going to stop now because tomorrow I have to go to my job.

          • fiona64

            She is using her experience to justify killing babies.

            Wow. Histrionic much? She said nothing of the sort, nor did she even imply it. She pointed out that you “just have the baby” types are pretty blithe about what other people experience.

          • Mary Lee

            Well, she IS using her experience to justify killing babies. That’s a statement of fact, not histrionics. I’m sorry it sounds “dramatic” to you, but her entire ARTICLE is histrionic. As are pretty much every pro-abort I have ever encountered. Women do not NEED abortion. It is not a medical necessity. Chart did not prove that women NEED abortion; every single “argument” I have ever heard supporting abortion is a slogan, and excuse, and just flat-out whining. Pfffft.

          • fiona64

            Tell that to the woman who has just discovered she’s carrying an anencephalic fetus …

          • Mary Lee

            Oh, okay. Because that’s really what you guys are fighting for. Typical.

          • fiona64

            Yep. We’re fighting for the right of a woman to be the one who makes medical decisions based on her own situation — which is, frankly, known only to her. If it’s not my pregnancy, it’s not my decision. The pro-choice position assumes women are intelligent enough to know their circumstances, health, etc., and decide accordingly. It supports all options. The no-choice/anti-choice option presumes exactly the opposite, on all counts, so far as I am able to tell. ::shrug::

          • Mary Lee

            No, you’re fighting for the right to kill your children. That’s all. It’s not a medical decision. It does not heal, it does not protect, it KILLS. That’s what abortion does. We do not need it, and our children, certainly, suffer because of it.

          • fiona64

            If you know of anyone who has killed a child, contact the police.

            (And you don’t think you’re histrionic? Really?)

          • Mary Lee

            Yes, I wish we could. Because, you know, they’re children. They are little babies. And so killing them should be a crime.

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            So, what would your punishment be for the women who have abortions? If you think it should be a crime, what do you think the sentence should be? What should the crime be in legal terms? I’ve never actually had an anti-choice person answer this for me.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Yeah, DN, I get the impression there are a lot of things you’ve never heard. In any event, though, let me cure your ignorance:
            http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221742/one-untrue-thing/nro-symposium

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            Wow, women are victims of abortion. How very patronizing. Thanks for trying to give an answer at least.

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            Of course, it’s a tad disingenuous, seeing as how there are states right now that have put women in jail because they had a miscarriage (and the state assumed the miscarriage had to do with drugs). Hurray, let’s make baseless assumptions about the cause of a miscarriage and then throw a woman in jail for it! That’s totes treating the woman as the victim as well. I’m sure you pro-lifers are all over those cases though, protesting it. Oh wait, it’s the pro-choicers who went to those rallies. My mistake.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            It’s telling that the only reply you can muster is a lame attempt to blame us for something we had nothing to do with, and to sneer about an article you’ve made no effort to understand. But go on pretending you’re against “disingenuousness.”

          • johno

            No punishment unless your Dr. Gosnell.

          • johno

            Would that include Gosnell?

          • Mary Lee

            Yeah, and we’re just fighting for our children in utero’s natural right to not be brutally killed because his or her mommy decided he or she doesn’t deserve to live. ::shrug::

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            Your children in utero? Are you afraid that somebody going to knock down your door in the dead of night and force you to have an abortion? We don’t want forced abortion, just like we don’t want forced birth. I don’t understand what part of the word “choice” you don’t get.

          • johno

            It happens in China. North Korea.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            It’s depressing how many people think the insipid “only the mother knows” talking point is an impressive argument. None of us are claiming to know the particulars of any specific pregnancy. But nothing about “her situation” changes the fact that the baby is a living human being with unalienable rights. That’s knowable to all of us, and no amount of lying about “the no-choice/anti-choice option presum[ing] exactly the opposite” can change that.

          • fiona64

            Um, Calvin? “Inalienable rights” are only afforded to born entities. I find it unfathomable that you would afford “inalienable rights” to a fetus and not afford the same courtesy to born, sapient, sentient women.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            They’re “only afforded to born entities”….because you say so?

            And to suggest I don’t “afford the same courtesy to born, sapient, sentient women” is a premeditated lie.

          • fiona64

            The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution is pretty clear on the matter; it’s not my “say so” at all.

            What you advocate is the enslavement of women to the contents of their uterus. When you afford “inalienable rights” to an embryo above and beyond those of the woman (which is what you are advocating), how can you not see that you are doing so at her expense? It’s not a lie. It’s a simple, obvious fact.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Wow, your poli-sci grounding is even worse than your embryology. First, inalienable rights are not *created by* the Constitution, or by any human law. Law merely reflects and protects them. We innately possess them simply by virtue of being human beings. That’s kinda what “unalienable” means: no ruler or political majority may justly deny them. So even if you did show that the Constitution leaves the unborn out in the cold, that would only be a reason to amend the Constitution; it would do absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the unborn *should* be so abandoned.

            Second, let’s take a look at what the 14th Amendment really says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            You have to be born to get American citizenship and the full slate of “privileges or immunities” that entails, but for “equal protection of the laws,” namely concerning “life, liberty, or property,” you merely have to be a “person.” If that’s not enough, let’s look at authorial intent. Ohio Rep. John Bingham, chief drafter of the Amendment, said it would apply to “any human being,” because American law’s “divine spirit of equality declares that all men are created equal.”

            Lastly, it’s asinine demagoguery to describe basic legal protection for unborn children as “enslavement of women to the contents of their uterus.” The law also requires that parents provide basic care to born children; do you also consider that “enslavement of women to the spawn of their uterus”? The rights we’re advocating for the unborn are no more and no less than the rights of women: the right to live. The right not to be intentionally killed. The right to be born.

          • Mamabear

            Actually, we have considered unborn children as people with rights for many generations. In all 50 states, plus many many other countries and cultures, a child that is born 9 months after the death of the father has the same rights to inherit property or other collect survivors benefits that his or her older already born siblings do. If the wife is pregnant at the time of her husband’s death, final settlement of whatever part of the estate goes to his children has to wait until birth so the unborn child will be able to collect his or her share. And although, for example SS survivors benefits do not start until the actual birth, even the federal government recognizes the rights of the child who was not yet born at the father’s death.

          • fiona64

            Key word in your sentence: *born.*

          • Calvin Freiburger

            …….she says, a day after being refuted on this very point.

          • fiona64

            You may imagine that you or someone else refuted me, but you were incorrect. Rights are only afforded to the *born.* A fetus cannot inherit anything; only a born entity can.

            ::shrug:: It’s really not my fault that such subtleties are lost on you, Calvin.

            You’re welcome to believe anything you so desire. Call the fetus a Russian wolfhound if it floats your boat.

            The bottom line is, and always will be, that the medical decisions of women are none of your business. I don’t interfere in your reproductive matters, and I expect the same courtesy in return. It’s really not that difficult to understand.

            PS: By MamaBear’s own admission, birth is required in her example: And although, for example SS survivors benefits do not start until the actual birth

            So, yeah.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Let’s see how spectacularly you fail to back up your smug certainty.

            “Rights are only afforded to the born [...] medical decisions of women are none of your business. I don’t interfere
            in your reproductive matters, and I expect the same courtesy in return.”

            I already addressed these, and you respond by merely restating the assertions in dispute, rather than even trying to make a case for them or giving any refutations for the critiques I’ve leveled. Petulant, self-entitled foot-stamping does not a credible argument make.

            Granted, if you don’t feel like defending your offspring-execution-choice advocacy here, you’re under no obligation to. But then you can’t have it both ways and pretend you did.

            “A fetus cannot inherit anything; only a born entity can [...] SS survivors benefits do not start until the actual birth”

            Here’s another argument you clearly didn’t try to think through before clicking post. I already explained to you the problem with your confusion about laws defining human rights rather than reflecting them. What current statutes do or don’t give someone has no bearing on what that someone is, or what fundamental human rights they have. By your “logic” (and I use the term in the loosest possible sense), the fact that longstanding 18th century laws treated black people like property would have been an argument that the law should have continued to do so. To use a more contemporary example, by your logic the mere fact that for most of our history the law hasn’t recognized gay relationships is a sufficient argument for denying gay marriage recognition.

            And yet, I’m the one that “subtleties” are lost on. Okay.

          • johno

            At least said born not die or kill. Making progress.

          • johno

            Constitution? Abolish it more likely. Something like North Korea or China we are heading to.

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            It’s not a lie since you’re arguing right now for women to not have bodily autonomy. You’re arguing that women should be forced to continue being pregnant even if they do not consent to their body being used by anybody else. We don’t force anybody to give blood or organ donations. hell, we don’t even allow donations after the person is dead unless they expressly gave their consent while living.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Uh, didn’t you notice that I’ve already addressed the bodily autonomy crap in my replies to Fiona? Even if you didn’t, here’s some elaboration:
            http://liveactionnews.org/the-false-strength-of-the-bodily-autonomy-argument-for-abortion/

            http://liveactionnews.org/abortion-liberalisms-most-illiberal-position/

          • johno

            Watch out Calvin they’ll say you “swore” at them. Bad boy!

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            Yes. Actually, that’s exactly what I’m fighting for.

          • johno

            What China does?

          • Mary Lee

            Anyway, a child with anencephaly doesn’t deserve to be held by his or her mother? …Because? They should be dismembered? Because that’s better for the mother? ….Because, they don’t count?

          • fiona64

            “So, a child with anencephaly should be born to have a brief, painful life? Because, the mother’s future fertility doesn’t matter? Because appeals to emotionality are more humane? Because the pregnant woman doesn’t count?”

            There. I fixed it for you.

          • Mary Lee

            Did you? Did you fix it?

            How do you know the child will have a painful life? Future fertility? Do you know that abortion is known to destroy “future fertility”…? Your stance is not compassionate….It is murderous. That’s what it is. It is selfish, and destructive.

          • fiona64
          • Mary Lee

            I’m pretty educated. I mean, I do have three degrees (two post graduate). You need a basic biology class. Oh, and a civics class, too.

          • fiona64

            Telling me I need a biology class when you clearly don’t understand the implications of anencephaly is pretty rich. So is telling me that I need a civics class when you don’t understand the difference between a felony and a medical procedure, and advocate enslaving women to fetuses based on imagined “rights of the unborn.”

            Whatever floats your boat, Mary Lee. Please feel free to gestate as many pregnancies as you desire; your medical decisions are none of my business. Just like another woman’s medical decisions are none of yours.

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            Abortion does not destroy fertility. That’s just ridiculous. For one, a majority of women who get an abortion already have at least one child. And two, the vast majority of women who have an abortion later go on to have children.

          • Sean Minturn

            “A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain.” – http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/anencephaly/anencephaly.htm

            Now, what were you saying about appeals to emotionality?

          • fiona64

            So, reality is now an appeal to emotionality? Okey-dokey.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Gotta say, it’s more than a little creepy that you’re less bothered by the babykilling itself — which isn’t “histrionic,” but the literal description of what abortion does — than you are by the fact that someone would dare accurately describe it.

          • fiona64

            “Babykilling” is not an accurate description of abortion … but hey, that’s all right. If you think it is, rock on. If you think that an embryo is the same as a born infant, all I can do is shrug my shoulders and wonder whether you’ve ever taken a biology class. Of course, as I’ve already pointed out, it’s pretty easy to be an anti-choice male; it’s never your life or health being endangered …

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Actually, that’s not all you can do. You could make an effort at an ethically serious approach to the issue and crack open an embryology textbook……..

          • fiona64

            I have taken an ethically serious approach to the issue, Calvin. I used to be an ardent anti-choicer, just like you … and then I learned a few things. For example, I learned that life is not all black and white. And that even wanted pregnancies can go terribly wrong. And that not every woman who gets an abortion is a slut who should have just kept her legs closed.

            BTW, I find it ironic in the extreme that the guy who is trying to pretend that an embryo is an infant is telling *me* to study embryology …

            My physical anthropology courses covered human biology pretty well, thanks.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Hint: if you’re trying to defend the intelligence of your arguments, you should be trying to make your comments *less* dense, not more.

            First, I find it highly suspicious that a former “ardent anti-choicer” would have been converted on the basis of the list of inapplicable generalities you present in your first paragraph.

            Second, I didn’t say “an embryo is an infant.” I said abortion kills a baby. Which it does. I assume you’re trying to go down some meaningless semantic rabbit hole about which terms apply at which stage of development, but you’d be wasting your time. For one thing, even if you were to get a particular name for your victims thrown out, it wouldn’t get you any closer to validating abortion, since “zygote,” “embryo,” “fetus,” and “infant” all merely denote different stages for the same thing – a living human being. For another, the list of authorities that refer to preborn human beings as “babies” includes Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, WebMD, the Dept. of Health & Human Services, and numerous biological textbooks:
            http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-vs-the-medical-authorities/
            http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

          • fiona64

            Since “inapplicable generalities” are not good enough for a Nosy Parker stranger on the internet, I’ll elucidate. Actually, what made me start thinking about the ethics of the situation was talking with a woman who had an abortion due to severe fetal anomalies that were incompatible with life outside the uterus … pre Roe v. Wade. After announcing in my mother’s hearing that anyone who’d had an abortion was a murderer, I found out about why she had hers.

            The reasons are none of your business, but suffice to say that it was the most humane decision that could have been made for both the fetus and the rest of the family … and was made in conjunction with my father and her obstetrician (I was not quite a year old at the time).

            You don’t have to agree with me; it’s your right. However, you don’t get to decide for anyone other than yourself what kind of medical risk they should be forced to assume. I don’t do that to you, for example, by forcing you to donate a kidney; that’s considered enslavement. So, in turn, I request that you give me the same respect in return by not trying to force me to assume medical risk. Pretty simple, really.

            And, again, you cite your own blog and an anti-choice site as sources. Really rather sad.

            I’m almost at the point in my life where I’m past child-bearing age, but I will not stop fighting for the right of my sisters to make their own medical decisions. What you’re doing, Calvin, is nothing more than practicing medicine without a license when you presume that you know more than the woman and her doctor about her situation and thus should be allowed to decide *for* her.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            So you believe that some people have the wisdom to know when other people’s lives won’t be worth living, and the right to end those people’s lives for them. I believe that’s a line humans should avoid crossing, that killing should ONLY be done to save lives, and that the power over life and death should be exercised with as much humility, caution, and restraint as possible, but at least you’ve finally offered a reason that shows a modicum of humanity toward abortion’s victim.

            Now, suppose you explain how that insight does anything to justify killing babies who DON’T suffer “anomalies incompatible with life outside the uterus.”

            I’m not “deciding for anyone other than [myself] what kind of medical risk they should be forced to assume.” A pregnant woman already did that with the act that brought about her pregnancy; the only way I’m intervening is by taking the execution of her son or daughter off the table as a means of ending it. As for serious medical risks, you do realize that virtually every pro-life organization and authority allows life-of-the-mother exceptions, right?

            And no, donating a kidney is not a valid comparison, for two reasons. First, nobody has a natural claim to my kidney, but an unborn child DOES have a natural claim to the uterus he or she is developing in. That’s its biological function, that’s where nature put him or her. Second, do you understand the difference between being a good Samaritan and *not* being an aggressor? Abortion isn’t merely a withholding of aid; it’s directly inflicting violence.

            I chose links that are clear and well-sourced. In response, you conjured up a cheap rationale for ignoring them. That speaks for itself.

            “Practicing medicine without a license”? “Presume that you know more”? What dishonest idiocy. You know full well that I haven’t done anything of the sort (otherwise you wouldn’t hide behind such lazy, thoughtless excuses for avoiding the medical evidence I’ve backed up my words with). The only “medical claim” I’ve made is the true statement that what you want the power to kill is a living human being. Which is true. And you can’t handle it. So you lie and insult.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Huh. It’s been a day, and Fiona apparently is unable to come up with a defense. Imagine that.

          • johno

            Tired.

          • DianaG2

            That’s really mean, to accuse pro-lifers of making derogatory statements about “slut” or “legs”.

            THAT is a derogatory statement about pro-lifers. I haven’t seen a single post that suggested anything about “legs” or “slut”. Have you?

            If an (alleged) pro-lifer writes something like that, I always tell them that’s unacceptable.

          • Mamabear

            Well, I have not only taken college biology classes (got A’s thank you), but the prenatal classes for expectant parents. And I am female. And one of my children was premature.
            Abortion is not the same as removing a tumor (been there too), it is killing a living human child. Whether you consider the embryo and/or fetus as human or potentially human, it sure isn’t going to turn into a dog or a cat, nor is it going to metastasize throughout your body and kill you.
            If you consider going through the birth canal as becoming alive, you are a hypocrite, for the only difference there is location, nothing develops in the birth canal.
            If you consider viability as the criteria, please consider this: viability keeps changing as we find more ways to help preemies both after they are born and those that we are sure will come early. There is even a drug that can be given to make lungs develop faster in cases where they can predict premature birth. And oddly enough, every time viability drops by another week or another ounce, the babies still grow up being human. Since we do not know where we will reach the point where a preemie can’t be saved, where do we draw the line? The only logical conclusion (studied logic in college, too) is that since at this time we cannot truly determine where that line between human and potential human is, and we may never truly determine it, all preborn children should be considered human.

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            Of course they’re human. Nobody said otherwise. But words like “children” and “baby” are emotional terms rather than accurate scientific terms. For instance, I’m a grown woman, but I’m my mom’s youngest, so she still calls me her “baby.” This does not mean that she actually believes I am a newborn.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “Of course they’re human”

            Oh, so you *know* what your victims are; you just don’t care. You think that makes your side look *better*? Amazing

            “Nobody said otherwise.”

            Really? You’re that unfamiliar with your own side’s talking points? Let me help you with that:

            http://liveactionnews.org/are-women-considering-abortion-informed-not-if-planned-parenthood-can-help-it/
            http://cnsnews.com/news/article/debbie-wasserman-schultz-saying-life-begins-conception-extreme-and-radical
            http://liveactionnews.org/ct-senate-candidates-say-life-begins-at-birth-dont-expect-the-science-police-to-call-them-out/
            http://liveactionnews.org/responding-to-claims-that-the-unborn-are-not-human-beings/
            http://www.shakesville.com/2008/08/speaker-pelosi-on-when-life-begins.html
            http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2009/03/embryos_are_not_human_beings.html
            http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article637
            https://sites.google.com/site/medicalstemcellresearch/an-embryo-is-not-a-human-being
            http://www.international-survey.org/Oz_EmbryoHuman_2page_c.pdf
            http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/05/113_66617.html
            http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/pro-lifers-if-you-think-zygotes-are-human-beings-shouldnt-we-send-crime-scene-investigators-to-in/question-2287347/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s
            http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/17/the-fertilized-egg-is-not-a-hu/
            http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×1149175
            http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/23/narals-pro-abortion-science-fail-a-zygote-is-not-a-baby/
            http://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/a-fertilized-egg-is-not-a-human-being/
            http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/07/obama-science-advisor-newborn-baby-not-yet-a-human-being/
            http://articles.latimes.com/1985-12-06/news/mn-841_1_vehicular-homicide
            http://slartyobrian.hubpages.com/hub/When-does-a-fetus-become-human
            http://jnarvey.com/2012/05/10/a-fetus-is-not-a-human-being/
            http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/creech/051205
            http://stfuantichoicers.tumblr.com/post/9652785663/abortion-the-unborn-is-not-really-human-until-it-is
            http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-claims-unborn-children-are-less-human-than-pigs-stirs-firestorm-91911/
            http://adventlife.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/canadian-medical-association-unborn-not-human-by-peter-baklinski/
            http://engagefamilyminute.com/2010/10/unborn-children-are-not-human-beings/
            http://abortionisprolife.com/faq/

            “words like ‘children’ and ‘baby’ are emotional terms rather than accurate scientific terms.”

            Tell that to Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins, the HHS Department, WebMD, and the scores of doctors and medical textbooks that refer to unborn human beings as “babies.” Also, whatever semantic games you wanna play, whatever names you get thrown out, won’t change what the victim of your policy is: a live, innocent, defenseless human being. Therefore, even if we agreed to not call them “children” or “babies,” it wouldn’t make killing them not evil.

          • Dirty_Nerdy

            I was specifically referring to those in the comments here and my own arguments. Please don’t assume that I speak for all pro-choicers or that any other pro-choicer speaks directly for me.

            As for the “some doctors call them babies” yeah, they call them babies when talking to the expectant woman because she has given consent to be pregnant and is planning to carry to full-term. Baby is an emotional term. Go read some scientific papers on the subject human embryo and fetal development. You won’t find too many that use the word “baby” because that word can refer to anything from somebody’s pet, to their new born infant, to their 25 year old.

            I find it odd that you don’t understand bodily autonomy. I would explain it to you,however, as it seems you’re not really looking to have any real discussion (since you linked me to things other people said, and not things that I said in order to tell me what I believe), I’ll just leave the thread for now. I have some articles to write and I still need to take a nap and be at work by 3:30. Have a nice day.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            OK. If you don’t deny that a vast number of pro-aborts either lie about or are ignorant of unborn babies’ humanity, then how do you think that reflects on the character and/or intellect of your side of the argument?

            Regarding the term “baby”: first, I note that you have no response to the point that regardless of what we call him/her, it doesn’t change what he/she is or whether he/she has basic human rights. Second, you have yet to explain why, even if “baby” isn’t the most technically precise term, that would somehow make it an inaccurate or inappropriate name. Third, let’s see exactly how the medical authorities I cited use the term:

            Johns Hopkins: “Additional prenatal care may be necessary if there are any preexisting medical conditions (i.e., diabetes) present in the mother and/or if complications arise while carrying the baby to term.”

            Mayo: “Near the end of the first trimester, you may be able to hear your baby’s heartbeat with a small device that bounces sound waves off your baby’s heart.”

            WebMD: “Frequent visits with your healthcare provider allow you to follow the progress of your baby’s development.”

            HHS: “Prenatal care can help keep you and your baby healthy.”

            “Beginning Life” biology textbook: “Every baby begins life within the tiny globe of the mother’s egg.”

            It’s not that I “don’t understand bodily autonomy”; it’s that I consider it an intellectually shabby and ethically sick excuse to kill your son or daughter. And I’ve explained why: http://liveactionnews.org/the-false-strength-of-the-bodily-autonomy-argument-for-abortion/

          • Roo

            Hi Calvin,

            I don’t care about semantics because the words don’t really matter. I don’t care about your opinion either because it doesn’t really matter. I don’t care about your beliefs, your religion, your morals or the stories you’ve heard from other people that cement your position on this issue.

            I am a Pro Choice woman living in a country that should protect my right to make the best choice for my body, my unborn child and my family.

            I promise not to get in the way of you doing the same for your body, your children and your family.

            Your opinion really doesn’t matter except in relation to your own body and your own family. And that Calvin, is a really really good thing because it allows us to live in a society where we are free to make our own choices.

            So Calvin, go get married, have some children and love them. Teach them what you believe is right. That is the only power you have and the only power you deserve.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            If you’re gonna go for condescending, try backing it up with something more than childish greed. Nothing you’ve said here does anything to morally, ethically, or intellectually justify abortion. You didn’t explain how it isn’t murder, how its victim isn’t alive, isn’t a human being, and doesn’t have rights.

          • DianaG2

            Calvin also has the right to try to change the hearts and minds of abortion-minded moms, so that they might choose to allow their babies to live.

            Because making the “best choice” requires accurate information. Accurate information has been withheld from moms.

          • DianaG2

            . . . . unless you’re an unborn male.

          • Laura

            So of course this is about validating your choices — which is at the heart of every anti-abortion true believer I’ve ever known. Guess what? Your struggle doesn’t mean every other woman in the world has to handle things exactly the way you did. You overcame tremendous odds? Good for you! I guess that makes everyone else weak and selfish. It must be very satisfying for you to think so.

    • Basset_Hound

      Mary, they’ve been counting coup ever since the Wendy Davis debacle.

      • Dirty_Nerdy

        Debacle? It was amazing. I watched the whole thing. I was there at the rally Monday. I only started coming to this blog because the author was spreading spurious rumors the other day about the protesters not actually being Texas women.

        • Basset_Hound

          REALLY? And how do you know there weren’t some people who came from out of state? Did you check drivers’ licenses or something?

          • johno

            Some even said “hail Satan” ha ha. The allegiance to Satan? I have more “faith” in secular Pro-Life atheists!

    • Dirty_Nerdy

      All I’m saying is that women should have complete control (or as much as possible) over their bodies. No, the fetus is not an organ. Nobody ever said that. But the fetus is inside the woman’s organ. The fetus is using the woman’s bodily resources. The woman has every right to stop the fetus from using her body.

      If you think pregnancy is just a “temporary condition” then you really need to look into the long term effects of pregnancy on the body.

      The fact that you have gone through all these things and you can’t possibly understand why somebody else might feel different and might not want you, or other strangers, making important medical decisions for them shows your utter lack of empathy.

  • ldwendy

    From Cassy’s article: “Clearly, this shows that women should be able to get abortions if they want them. Right? One thing Chart never mentions is adoption, which could alleviate many of the economic issues, as well as the long-term stress of having to raise a child you aren’t ready for.”

    Chart doesn’t mention adoption because her pregnancy and child was wanted. (She talks about missing her little boy.)

    Even if adoption is in the picture a woman should never be economically coerced to carrying a baby to term, or be in the position of becoming solely dependent on an adoption agency/ adoptive parents to alleviate economic and physical problems. More support should be provided for single mothers willing to become raise their babies in form of paid maternity leave, or who lose insurance/Medicaid when they become pregnant. The Unitted States does NOT require maternity leave. The FMLA requires 12 weeks of medical leave for *companies with 50+ employees* if the given employee has worked there *longer than one year*—with NO pay.

    Chart doesn’t mention abortion at all. She is only saying pregnancy is a very big deal, and it’s not all rainbows and roses for many women who become pregnant. She tells her story how being pregnant has revealed to her “how wrong and inhumane to make light of how difficult it is to ‘just have the baby,’ as anti-choice extremists say everyone should have to do.”

  • Diva

    I recommend tubal ligation for all the woman out there who really supports abortion. From a woman’s point of view if you believe in killing your own babies then is clearly enough to me you are not one with maternal instincts. Even animals love they’re newborns. But you see we are supposed to have a brain and a heart. And if you believe in abortion then you already fail one of the most important role in life called motherhood. Plea se run to get your tubes burn cut too do us a favor stop your hate against people who really values life specially little babies!

    • Ella Warnock

      Way ahead of you there. Got mine 20 years ago.

    • Dirty_Nerdy

      Most women who have an abortion already have kids. Way to shame women who just wanted to make the best decision so she could go on caring for the children she already has.

      Also, it’s very difficult to get tubal ligation before a certain age, and especially if you don’t already have a kid.

  • fiona64

    Somehow, I don’t think you read the article …

    • Mary Lee

      ….Because….?

      • fiona64

        Because if the author had actually read the article instead of just the headline, she would have seen that it was about a much wanted pregnancy going wrong and a much wanted infant being severely medically compromised. It is not about “pregnancy makes you fat.” It’s about the reality that “just have the baby” is not as simple as some people ::Ahem:: seem to think.

        • Mary Lee

          Boy, you are a piece of work. Your arrogance is just stinking up my office, it’s incredible.

          Cassy took one notable section that Chart actually wrote. Which is something that all pro-aborts do all the time. And, as stated before, the article is really one big complainy excuse.

          By the by, you need to drop the attitude. Your “sweeties” and “ahems” don’t make you sound clever or cute, they just make you sound like an a-hole. It doesn’t make anyone want to listen to you, even if you did have a valid argument to present.

          • fiona64

            So, you want to talk about my tone whilst telling women that they should be forced to carry even doomed pregnancies to term?

            And you think *I’m* a piece of work and arrogant? Your hubris is mind-boggling. If it’s not your pregnancy, it’s not your decision. Period.

            PS: It’s “by the bye.” You’re welcome.

          • Mary Lee

            Yes, I think you’re a piece of work and very arrogant. I am saying “Nobody has the right to have their own child dismembered and incinerated.” These are BABIES. They are not tumors, parasites, strangers…They are PEOPLE. They have the right to exist. They have the right to not die a horrific death.

            How in the world is that hubris? It’s not convenient for me to recognize the humanity of our unborn children. It’s none of my business? Children are slaughtered every day, in the name of choice, and thrown away in a biohazard bag, thrown way like garbage, with less thought than a cardboard box and plastic bottle…..and it’s not our business? That’s rich. Sorry, if it involves the painful, gruesome death of another person, it involves all of us. Every single one of us.

          • fiona64

            Children are slaughtered every day, in the name of choice, and thrown
            away in a biohazard bag, thrown way like garbage, with less thought than
            a cardboard box and plastic bottle

            Histrionic assertions that an embryo is a child aside, do you really think that a woman who has just discovered her wanted pregnancy has gone wrong (as was the case with the author of the article Ms Fiano is defaming) don’t give any thought to the situation? That they don’t look at all of their options, seek second opinions, etc, all the while dealing with the fact that the dreams they have projected onto the fetus are most likely not going to come true?

            Leaving out that Ms. Chart has a much wanted, but medically compromised little boy, let’s just look at your assertion. You really think that women are this stupid, but you want to force them to have children?

            Wow. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen so much misogyny come out of a *woman* in my entire life …

          • Mary Lee
  • Glenda Horner

    IF THEY CANT STAY AWAY FROM SEX THEN THEY NEED TO LEARN THEIR CYCLE DAYS OR JUST GET A DILDO

  • BigFacts1

    OK everbody, it’s time to stop helping the pro-abortion people. DO NOT use their terminology, it’s a BIG LIE. Pregnancy is not a disease and it’s not an injury. Abortion has nothing to do with healthcare when the mother is not at risk. DO NOT allow them to use fraudulent terminology. Challenge THEIR LIES every time they tell one. Don’t let it just pass by without calling them on it.

    • johno

      In China and North Korea the “state” forces women to abort all the way to the birthdate(even infanticide). Here, so far, the state hasn’t “forced” yet. However, the state will soon force taxpayers to pay for this procedure. We’ll be paying Gosnell’s salary once he’s free from jail. He did nothing wrong.sarc.

  • Mamabear

    She had to go through tests that were hassles! Really? Grow up! Hope she never gets anything seriously wrong with her. Cancer has more and worse tests and it really is a disease. Pregnancy is such a breeze compared to that, and I was on bed-rest for two pregnancies, so no, I did not exactly have “easy” pregnancies.

    Maternity clothes! Yep! I had one Sunday dress through three pregnancies. (Never want to see that particular shade of green again.) Plus a handful of everyday clothes that got washed a lot.

    Swollen feet! We were pretty broke. I borrowed shoes from my mother who wore a size bigger.

    Post-pregnancy weight! If you think post-pregnancy is bad, just wait until you hit the menopause weight gain!

    Baby expenses! Our nursery was furnished with used, hand-me-downs and gifts. I traded children’s clothes with friends. Used cloth diapers – the kind you folded and used pins, not the new fitted ones with snaps. Nursed all three kids. Made homemade baby food. We were blessed with really good health insurance, but were otherwise pretty broke back then, but never went on welfare or wick.

    So, how did our three, that according to the ideas today we were obviously not financially prepared for, turn out? Last one finished college this year, with honors, just like her big brother and sister already did.

    • Dirty_Nerdy

      I’m glad you were able to take care of your kids on limited resources. Congratulations on their success. But it’s not your place to force that situation on others.

      • Basset_Hound

        Imagine if the Internet had been around in 1858. This post would have gone something like “You’re an abolitionist! Yippee! Congratulations on running your farm without forced labor, but it’s not your place to take away my slaves.”

  • BigFacts1

    Effective Argument When Debating PRO-ABORTION Propagandists

    1.
    Their master strategy is always the BIG LIE, don’t
    let them get away with even a small lie.
    2.
    The BIG LIE strategy always includes fraudulent statistics
    and opinion polls pulled out of thin air. Always insist on verifiable sources
    for the numbers quoted, where you can obtain the raw data.
    3.
    When an online source is provided go immediately
    to the “About Us” link at the bottom of the website’s opening page. This should
    provide the name of the website’s owners or their actual organization name.
    Google it to find out if the website is controlled by other propagandists.
    4.
    In the absence of unbiased independent third
    party polling the only acceptable source is the raw data from the poll. Without
    one of these two sources you can be pretty sure that the numbers quoted are a
    BIG LIE.
    5.
    Always have reliable sources for the numbers
    that you quote to them. This draws attention to their BIG LIES and makes them
    appear foolish.
    6.
    Study the words that the propagandists are using
    and make sure that you’re not letting them get away with a small lie. All of
    the small lies add up to the BIG LIE.

    Example: Pro-abortion propagandists always refer to themselves as
    Pro-Choice

    Argument: If Barack Obama’s mother had decided to have an abortion would
    she have prevented him from becoming the first African-American President of
    the United States? The answer of course is yes. She would have stopped him from
    becoming the first African-American President of the United States by stopping
    his life while he was still in the womb.

    Choice has nothing to do with this argument. The PRO-ABORTION propagandists are arguing that they have the right to stop the life of another human being.
    7.
    Always choose your words carefully. You need to
    be able to back-up your own words with this same type of logical argument.
    8.
    Never resort to name calling or foul language.
    Let the propagandists take the low road, it makes them appear as petty,
    brutish, foul mouthed thugs.
    9.
    Question everything they say; remember the Live
    Action News video about mammograms and Planned Parenthood. The BIGGEST LIES
    from the propagandists are always the ones that they don’t even try to hide.
    10.
    DO NOT intentionally lie or mislead, this puts you on the low road with the
    propagandists. When you take the BIG LIE master strategy away from the
    pro-abortion propagandists you leave them exposed and naked for all the world to see.

    • Basset_Hound

      Excellent post. Also don’t forget to point out that Steve Jobs was also born to a woman in a crisis pregnancy, and who placed him for adoption. He mentions in his autobiography that he could have been an abortion. If his mom would have aborted him, we probably wouldn’t have I-Phones, IPADS, IPODS or any of a number of technological innovations.

    • fiona64

      Yes, it is an excellent post. Interestingly enough, though, the anti-choicers tend not to follow your advice. Why? Because when you do those things, the pro-choice position proves true.

      • Calvin Freiburger

        As evidenced by what? Your abject inability to defend any of your arguments? Your leaning on lies and smears?

        The jig’s up.

      • Calvin Freiburger

        So apparently Fiona has run away to the comfort of RH Unreality Check, where her fellow offspring execution apologists will blindly and shamelessly reinforce whatever she says…..like this spectacular display of either illiteracy or dishonesty: “A fetus is not a human being.”

        • Basset_Hound

          Or the parallel argument “a fetus is human, but because it doesn’t look or think like an adult, it’s ok to kill it”.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            And hey, is she coming back to downvote all our comments, but not respond?

          • Basset_Hound

            She and her besties seem to be clogging up this and several other discussion threads with their long, meandering diatribes.

          • JDC

            They’ll tire themselves out eventually.

          • JDC

            Hmm, got a down-vote in less then an hour. I wonder who’s responsible for that?

          • Basset_Hound

            Yeah, me too. Here’s an up-vote from me to balance it out.

          • JDC

            Thanks. :)

          • JDC

            ok, the instant down-voting appears to have stopped. I guess she got bored.

          • JDC

            Although, someone eventually did downvote this comment.

          • JDC

            Okay, apparently in the time sense I last checked, more people got into this incessant downvoting.

          • JDC

            Hmm, got a down-vote in less then an hour. I wonder who’s responsible for that?

  • Kitty

    Well if PREGANANCY MAKES YOU FAT , then maybe just maybe the woman shouldn’t spread their legs… PREGNANCY IS A GIFT , if a person doesn’t want the child it’s as easy to put the baby up for adoption as it was for you to spread your leg to get pregnant..

    • Basset_Hound

      Oooooh but you can’t say THAT. You’ll hurt their widdwle feelings.

    • ldwendy

      Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy.

      • Basset_Hound

        Excuse me, but unless you are infertile, either because you’ve been through menopause or you’ve had your tubes tied, indeed it DOES. No birth control method is 100% foolproof and pregnancy is always a contingency.

      • johno

        Unless your not heterosexual having sexual intercourse the chance is there for pregnancy.

    • Ella Warnock

      “Spread their legs.” Sigh. The unfortunate go-to phrase.

      • Unicorn Farm

        It’s so creepy, too. What’s with the anti-choice obsession with describing women in sexual positions? It’s just as easy to say “have sex.”

        And of course, the sheer ridiculousness of the assertion that it’s as easy to have sex as it is to be pregnant for nine months and give birth, and then give your child away….

  • bill

    ok I’m a male and i get tired of seeing people complain about this and that and what everyone thinks like if someone wanted to get an abortion then let her its nobody’s decision or opinion seriously people y complain about others just worry about yourself and only you not of what someone next door that wants to do something you don’t agree ok its like smoking cigarettes who cares that’s there decision like if someone wants to do drugs let them its not affecting me so quit complaining about others

  • Pingback: Reproductive Choice Is About More Than Getting 'Fat'—It's About Bodily and Economic Autonomy

  • Pingback: Reproductive Choice Is About More Than Getting ‘Fat’—It’s About Bodily and Economic Autonomy | Michael Florin

  • Brandi Witman

    Cassy needs reading comprehension.

    • Anon rust

      The entire tone of Cassy’s article is dismissive, arrogant and condescending.

  • Pingback: A few thoughts on women & choice | Neliza Drew