Facebook Dialogue On Abortion

The following is a Facebook dialog between myself, a friend, and a few of “Angela’s” friends.  I have changed everyone’s name but my own.  It is rather lengthy but well worth the read to see how pro-abortion advocates elevate feelings and sexual liberties of the mother over and above the life of her child growing within her.  They go to great lengths to disqualify a yet-to-be-born child from having the right to live, the reasons given to justify abortion, and what the fetus is reduced to is deplorable.  But then again one would need to reduce a growing fetus to globs of cells and parasites in order to assure a clear conscience.  The original context was a post from Angela objecting to what she perceived as the Congressional Republicans attempting to re-define rape with the proposed bill which would strip federal funds for abortions. 

Angela: You were drugged and then rapped? You are mentally disabled and someone took advantage of you? You are 13 and had sex with a 50 year old?  GOP says this isn’t rape!?  “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” oh so if people thing something is morrally wrong taxes shouldn’t go towars it.  While I think war is morrally wrong and so do MANY others, so why do our tax dollars have to go towards war?  Tell you what GOP, you can put my tax dollars towards helping rape victims instead of killing people in Iraq and you can put yours towards whatever you damn please.

Jim: I can’t believe they’re trying to push a bill with this! It’s outrageous! if only we could choose where our tax dollars go.

John Barron: If you look past the mother jones rhetoric filled language you would see that the GOP is not re-defining rape,  but setting guide lines for government funded abortion. Just because one form of rape does not qualify for subsidized abortion does not make it any less rape.

Kelly: Wow this is ridiculous, I hope someone tries to fight this.

Jim: it doesn’t make it any less rape…it just sets a standard that some forms of rape are worse than others.  Whether or not that is the case, the government should not be able to decide that one woman/girl is more traumatized than another, especially when faced with a child resulting from it. if she says “no” (and means it) I don’t understand how there can be a debate about whether she is eligable for a federally funded abortion: she did not want a child and she didn’t have control in preventing its creation.

Phyllis: Don’t worry Angela, this is gonna be my Monday column :P

Shelly: John – The GOP is attacking something that is already consistently under fire due to rape culture, in which victim-blaming is de rigeur and “she was asking for it” is often seen as a viable defense.  The bill is poorly and vaguely worded, first off; moreover, what right does any rich white man sitting in Congress have over my body or the bodies of other women?  They have no idea why a woman seeks an abortion and should have no place in judging or restricting her. Period.

Jim – I wholeheartedly agree, save that it “if she says ‘no’ and means it” is divisive: some women are raped because they’ve been rendered incapable of consenting or refusing (women who are drugged, mentally handicapped, etc); also, if a woman says “no,” no means no. What determines whether or not she “means it”?  No means no.

John Barron: Shelly, its not just your body…its not just a clump of cells. Biologically it is a unique human being. taking the life of a human without proper justification is morally wrong. Women seek abortions for matters of convenience, and yes it is morally abhorent.  And so we’re clear, there is no “rape culture”, it is a feminist idea that was invented to view men as monsters.

Angela: John, why do you get to decide what proper justification is? I read your blog about life support, you say your not a hypocrite if you believe it’s okay to take people off life support but don’t believe in abortion.  So if a coma is costing tax payers money, they have the right to pull the cord, but a women, who has to sacrifice her body to keep that fetus a live is not.  People are taken off life support for financial reasons, and babies are aborted for, many times, financial reasons.  If the fetus can’t support itself without a mother, it dies. If a person can’t live with out life support, they die.  If a body can’t maintain itself the natural course is death in both cases, it’s the mother WILLINGLY supporting it with her body that will eventually  allow a child to live on it’s own, if it develops properly, which in 1 in 4 pregnancies it doesn’t anyway and the pregnancy ends in a miscarriage.  No human has the right to use anyone else’s body against their will.

That goes for people who want to rape and that gives the women the choice to terminate a pregnancy. That IS enough justification.  And it’s not up to you to decide other people’s morals! Just like we have laws that say it is justified to put people to deaths for crimes in many states, we also have laws that say Women have rights to their bodies first and everyone else only with her permission. HER CONSENT!!!

It’s not about my morals or your morals, it’s in the law. And seeing that conservatives don’t like the government in their business on other occasions, it is hypocritical for them to try and control what women do to their bodies.  And so we’re clear, you don’t know a fucking damn thing about Rape Culture!

Shelly: FOUR FOR YOU, ANGELA COCO. YOU GO, ANGELA COCO. Oh John–There is no “rape culture,” huh? So why is it that women are blamed for their own assaults by dressing a certain way, acting a certain way, going certain places?  Why is it that I was taught by my father at eleven years old how to break a nose two ways, how to break someone’s grip on me from a ton of angles,  how to debilitate an attacker by elbowing in the kidney or kneeing in the groin, how to gouge eyes without breaking my thumbs,  how to hit the jugular with enough force to cause disorientation? He taught me those things because as of right now, one in FOUR American women will be raped  or sexually assaulted over the course of their lifetime. One. In. Four. Do you know how many men that makes rapists? Take a minute. Do the math.

Rape culture means I walk with friends if I’m out after a certain time of night.  Rape culture means my male resident tutor in England gave all of us girls his number and told us to call him if we ever got stuck somewhere alone, because there had been rapes in that town the year before that were never prosecuted properly because they weren’t taken seriously. Rape culture means that women who are “sluts” (which, by the way, don’t actually exist) are treated as though they deserved to be raped – as if saying “yes” to one person means that saying “no” to another, or to that SAME person, means she wasn’t raped.

As Matthew B. Ezzell recently wrote in an article called “Pornography, Lad Mags, Video Games and Boys: Reviving the Canary in the Cultural Coalmine,”  “Most of us, in our daily lives, do not think about rape at all. Women, however, do. When I ask women what they do in their daily lives because of the threat of sexual violence, they offer a long list of actions and thought processes – everything from paying attention to where they park their cars to having a man’s voice on their answering machine to holding their keys as a weapon when walking across a parking lot. Every action of women within a rape culture is tainted by that culture.  Going to get their mail, driving to work, going out with friends – none of these actions is “free.”

One way of thinking about this is to realize that regardless of the statistics about how many women experience a rape or attempted rape within their lifetime, 100% of women experience the threat of rape within a rape culture. This means that all women’s lives are impacted.”  And you’re trying to tell me rape culture is a fallacy invented by feminists. You silly, silly boy.

A human’s worth is created through our unique and complex consciousnesses – our amazing brains that only we have (well, us and and apparently dolphins). A bundle of eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four cells that has attached itself to my uterine lining is just that: a bundle of cells.  A fetus doesn’t even have a neural tube until week 4 of pregnancy. A neural tube is basically akin to what a jellyfish has. That’s not a person. Personhood doesn’t begin at conception.

And women don’t use abortions “as a convenience.” Do you have any idea how traumatizing that decision can be, ESPECIALLY if the events leading up to it were traumatic? It’s not as if any woman has ever thought “Oh, huh, well the condom failed a couple of weeks ago and I haven’t got my period, so I guess I’ll just eat this bagel and then maybe I’ll go to the gym for an hour and I guess I’ll pencil in my abortion after that.” That does. Not. Happen. I have yet to meet a woman – and I have met several and know several who have had abortions – who treated the decision flippantly. How crass of you to think otherwise. How privileged.

Regardless of all of that, you have no right to make another person’s decisions for them. Period. End of story. If you believe a woman will be judged by God for aborting (something I’m skeptical about, to be quite honest) then let her be judged by God. You have no right. Do you hear me? You have no right, not only because you are a HUMAN yourself but because you are not a woman and will never, ever understand what we face. It is a daily fucking struggle, and you sir are repugnant for being so fucking cavalier about it

John Barron: highly disturbing responses.

John Barron:

Having a baby would dramatically change my life: 74
Would interfere with education: 38
Would interfere with job/employment/career: 38
Have other children or dependents: 32
Can’t afford a baby now: 73
Unmarried: 42
Student or planning to study: 34
Can’t afford a baby and child care: 28
Can’t afford the basic needs of life: 23
Unemployed: 22
Can’t leave job to take care of a baby: 21
Would have to find a new place to live: 19
Not enough support from husband or partner: 14
Husband or partner is unemployed: 12
Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance: 8
Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems: 48
Not sure about relationship: 19
Partner and I can’t or don’t want to get married: 12
Not in a relationship right now: 11
Relationship or marriage may break up soon: 11
Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children: 2
Have completed my childbearing: 38
Not ready for a(nother) child: 32
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant: 25
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child: 22
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion: 14
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus: 13
Physical problem with my health: 12
Parents want me to have an abortion: 6
Was a victim of rape: 1
Became pregnant as a result of incest: <0.5
In percentages of the reasons women provide for getting an abortion. It’s not about convenience? 


Shelly: Good Lord. It’s exhausting even trying to respond to someone this thick. Though I have to admit “having a baby would dramatically change my life” made me laugh – no shit, it’s a child. Are you saying women who don’t feel prepared to be mothers don’t feel they would be adequate mother should be forced to have a child?  “Can’t afford to have a baby” – seems a good reason to me. In the immortal words of Michael Jackson, “If you can’t feed your baby, then don’t have a baby.”

John Barron: but the thing is, at conception you already have the baby. Killing it is not the remedy. why dont we kill 1 year olds when they get expensive?

Kevin: 1) I always cringe when someone says that it is ethically fine to abort an unborn baby because the “fetus” cannot support itself without the mother. This means that it is totally acceptable to kill a 4-month old baby because it survives totally on breast milk or formula. It can’t get up and fix itself something to eat. Also, the physically/mentally handicapped that rely on others for their survival can be offed because of convenience.

2) I think it’s a little hypocritical that the left here keep blasting GOP, when the article indicated that there are other parties offering their support of this bill. Neither have clean hands, but it’s a little unsettling that “bipartisanship” usually excludes placing blame on both parties when it is due.

3) I always think it’s interesting when one side starts to revert to cursing, yelling, personal attacks, etc. It never gives them the upper hand in a debate, but generally serves merely to reveal an intrinsic flaw in their reasoning. So far, we’ve only seen one side actually give some hard data in this issue. Everything else has mainly been emotionally charged opinion.

Angela: Sure, my view on abortion is I’m pro-person. You don’t like that 22% of pregnancy in the United States end in legal abortions, well neither do I. You believe that people should respect that life begins before; I won’t challenge you on that…. My personal biggest issue pro-life stance is the attempt to strip women of legal their rights. Many people in the prolife movement are more concerned with being moral crusaders, forcing their opinions of what is right and wrong on other people, then actually what they claim to be doing, saving lives. Making abortions illegal will not stop abortions. It will force them underground. Affluent people will seek them in other countries, and lower class people will attempt home remedies and go to unqualified people to seek abortions, like they did before abortions were legal. Not only will abortions continue, but the lives of women will be endangered. And people will claim all they like that making abortions illegal is savings lives, but not only will the ability to measure the number of abortions become extremely more difficult, the fact that women are losing their lives because of botched abortions seems to not concern conservatives. 

Secondly, saving lives shouldn’t just be about quantity but also quality. You think women who seek abortions are selfish because many of them are afraid of the ways in which having a child will affect their lives. In many, many of the cases in which unplanned pregnancy occurs the fetus’s sperm donor doesn’t want anything to do with the child, leaving the women who plans to keep the child a single mother. Firstly, being a single mother in America is difficult. Secondly, it is stigmizing (and I don’t see pro-lifers trying very hard to stop reinforcing that stigma.) If pro-lifers really wanted to end abortion there would be better welfare programs. In America, I wouldn’t even call what women have a choice; they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Children take resources to raise, and raise well. With Pro-life the goal is to get a living child out of the women in 9 months. Then what? Yay! You can have a party, your roll is done, the baby will grow up happily ever after!!! Far from it, birth is just the beginning. But this is where quality versus quantity comes in. Conservatives want the government out of their lives, but who suffers when a women has a child without the resources to support it? Both mother and child, and for that matter tax payers. Personally, I would rather see my money going towards helping to raise children then to abortions, it’s going to cost tax payers a hell of a lot more, but what others do with their bodies is not up to me and helping people is what matters.

I’m completely fine with trying to reduce the number of abortions in this country, heck I’ll even say I’m for it but it’s not going to be achieved through stripping women of their rights. But I do have plenty of ideas that have a better chance of working.

1) Better access to contraception. The majority of abortions that occur are because they are unplanned pregnancies. Very few people are pro-abortion. Most people would agree it’s better if people didn’t get pregnant to begin with. But too many people are freaked out by sex. They want to see it as dirty or sinful, and they view contraception as a way of promoting unsacred sex. People are going to continue having sex until humans become extinct; inside marriage, outside marriage, with people of varying sexs, it’s all going to continue. But theoretically, abortions don’t need to. If we can change culture, so that fewer unplanned pregnancies occur it will reduce the number of abortions. Having a child should never be treated as a women’s punishment for choosing to have sex. This thinking not only is bad for women, but it is also dehumanizing to the child.

2) Change culture so that we support mothers instead of stigmatizing them. Many women like to hear they can have it all. Equality, success, respect, and for many that includes motherhood as well. I’m not trying to encourage women to get pregnant before they are ready or if they don’t want to be. But I have a feeling more women would be willing to accept unplanned pregnancies as a “surprise pregnancy”, if they were confident in their ability to still achieve their other goals while raising a child.

3) Men need to step up too! Men who refuse to wear condoms when their pattern wants them too, is disrespectful to women (and an aspect of rape culture). Change culture so ALL men refuse to have sex without a condom, if they aren’t trying for a child, and you’ll decrease the number of unplanned pregnancies. Change culture so that ALL men are willing to step up, help, and be good fathers and “surprise pregnancies” will have a much better chance of not only working out, but will also raise a child successfully.

4) Support for all types of families. Too many of our laws and behaviors is around treating the nuclear family as they only real family. We need to break away from the goal of making all American families nuclear, and recognize that all families are beautiful no matter what they look like. We also need to recognize that families need help sometimes, and that the government, when used correctly, can be used as a tool to help promote families and get them on their own two feet. We have yet to see a perfect welfare system, that I will admit, but we can’t just keep putting people on the back burner while we figure out the politics. I honestly believe that abortion, in too many cases, is being treated as a cheaper way of fixing the welfare system and that is also disrespectful to women.

Laws alone rarely change anything. It is through cultural change that we achieve our goals. It is possible to decrease the numbers of abortions in this country without jeopardizing how far women have already come in terms of equality.

Angela: I think dening rape culture is insensitive. Cursing is just words. Isolating people by trying to clean your hands of the cultural impact that help lead to the injustices commited against them I find extremely ofensive

Angela: If a pregnant women dies, the fetus dies with her. If a mother dies, the 4 month old can still survive. When we discover away to transplant fetuses into artifical wombs so they can survive with outside of a women’s body I will consider abor…tion the same as not feeding a four year old. Hypothetically, a women has the right to starve herslef. If she wants to do that, it’s her own buisness, it’s her right to do this. But if a women is pregnant and starves herself, she indangerous the fetus. How would you feel if the right to do what you please with your own body, was no longer yours, your rights and life become second to the one you are supporting. You are lessoned as an individule because biologically your ability to have a child requires 9 months of sacrifice. A persone’s body is more then an oven, the person is still a person even when they’re cooking (that is gestating a fetus). It is also morrally wrong for women to be treated like ovens.

Shelly: Angela, you rock my socks.

Kevin – Not sure why you’re putting fetus in quotes, because …that is the scientific term for an unborn child, not some sort of political term. And uh… what hard data? Statistics copy-pasted without a source? Here’s some hard data from the 2011 Statistical Abstract from the USA Census Bureau, which can be found at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/births_deaths_marriages_divorces/family_planning_abortions.htm (all statistics from the latest given in 2006)l: 49.4% of abortions were gotten by women under 24, or women of university age and younger who very likely could not adequately care for a child, and very likely would have had to interrupt their university or high school education in order to give birth. 73.6% of women were under 29, still likely unable to adequately care for a child or would have had to give up important career opportunities. 83% were unmarried. 40.9% had never had a child before; 27.1% had one child before. 54.1% had never had an abortion before.  The overwhelming majority – 78.7% – aborted before 10 weeks. At this point the fetus is about 1.22″ long and the brain has barely begun to develop. 60.8% of abortions were done at less than nine weeks, at which point the fetus is no more developed mentally than a jellyfish.

There. Hard data.

Here’s the thing, guys: regardless of whether or not you consider it ethical or moral to have an abortion, you’ll never have to have one. You’ll never have to make that decision. And moreover, United States law is not created based on morals. You do not have a legitimate argument if all you are arguing is that you believe that it’s immoral to abort because a fetus is a person (I don’t believe that personhood begins at conception, but it seems that you do) or that abortion is murder based on the idea that a fetus is an individual. Laws aren’t made that way. Laws shouldn’t be made that way.

Anti-choice laws kill women. They are not pro-life. If you think that abortions will just STOP happening because they’re made illegal, you are sadly mistaken. Abortions will simply become more dangerous, possibly lethal, just as they were pre-Roe vs. Wade. Women have been aborting fetuses for centuries, long before abortion was made a surgical practice. Do you honestly think it is more ethically responsible to remove jurisdiction that allows for a desperate woman, a victim of rape, to terminate the pregnancy that can serve only as a reminder of her trauma?

Abortion should not be – and nine times out of ten, isn’t – used as birth control. Birth control should be used as birth control. Sex education should be far more comprehensive and prominent to allow people to make their own decisions, and give both women and men the ability to protect themselves from a situation that might result in abortion. “But people just shouldn’t have sex until they want a child!” That’s not how it works, and abstinence-only education doesn’t work (read about that here: http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf, a very good and very thorough study that carefully examines both sides of the debate). It’s not about choosing between two absolutes; it’s about arming individuals with enough knowledge to make the choices that are right for them, and those choices may not be the same that are right for you.

Angela: Also, i would like to clarify WOMEN make babies. If you want to call fetus a human, i will go with that, but they aren’t babies until they are capable of surving on their own. Fetuses become babies, become children, become teenagers, become adults. But no matter what side of the debate you are on we need to respect that fetuses can only reach babies with loving sacrifice of the mother.

Kevin: I’m not denying rape culture, although I might be defining it a little differently than others in thread. I personally believe that rape is one of the more reprehensible issues our society faces today. We produce video games that reward the… player for being a sexual predator, we have a porn industry that portrays women as objects that crave sex nonstop, we’ve trivialized the role of intimacy in a healthy relationship. I believe that those who choose to rape should be dealt with quickly and severely.

However, rape is no less reprehensible than taking the life of an unborn. The solution is not abortion after the fact. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we were more harsh in our punishment of rapists, then we would have fewer rapists. I guarantee that after a few years of consistently and quickly executing or castrating rapists, this whole issue would get extremely rare.

Shelly: “However, rape is no less reprehensible than taking the life of an unborn.”  I actually am having trouble believing you just said that. Are you serious? You cannot possibly be serious.  A traumatizing event, one that results in LIFELONG hurt, …emotional scarring, and untold agony — versus abortion of a bundle of cells.

You know what? I’m done. Fuck you, you misogynistic self-righteous piece of shit.

Angela: While I’m for getting justice for rape victims, I’m not completely sold on your method. Especially when the few cases that even get to court, less then 2% of rape even make it to court, about half of them are found not guilty and many of th…em for reasons like “she was wearing a short skirt, of course she wanted it” and the cultural belief that No can still mean Yes because “she’s just playing hard to get”. Rape cases often come down to one person word against another (since they rarely have witnesses who come forward) and legally “reasonable doubt” is left so the perpetrator is cleared. Causing other women to not want to even bother seeking justice becuase they feel they can’t win and reliving the experince inorder to tell your story can be extremely painfull in itself. Then the perpetrator walks away either believing what he did was still not wrong (because rape culture has taught him forcing sex on someone else and ignoring NOs is okay) or even if it is wrong it won’t get in trouble. And the lessons he learns can rub off on other perpetrators and continues the rape culture.

Though I’m all for working towards the goal of ending all rape, what do we do until we get there? What do we do to help victims? If you don’t want rape victims, who can’t prevent rape, to not get abortions how should they go about prevent pregnancy? Should all women, who don’t want to carry a rapist’s baby, be put on birth control from a young age? Or should they just wear chasty belts when ever they go out?

Kevin: …and then here we have Kaye, who implies that I hate women. It’s an interesting claim seeing as how I’m happily married and have a cute little daughter whom we did not abort.

Why is it that all men are portrayed as irresponsible, women-raping thugs? There are many of us good men out there who have never and will never rape – regardless of how you want to define it. Not only that, but there are many of us who would even come to your defense if we saw you being assulted… even if you a Marx-loving feminist. I put my wife and daughter’s life above my own because I am not a misogynist.

Angela: What’s so wrong with calling a fetus a fetus? That’s what it is!  And people can’t survive with out food, or water, or etc. etc. etc.  But we have no problem letting thousands of people go malnurioused in this country, children included.  Are you now for universal health care too? What happens if the diabetic can’t afford insulin? Who killed him or her? Who are they depending on? What if we run into an insulin shortage, what if, what if what if…If that baby is having it’s rights denied by it’s mother, someone else can come and take that baby and care for it. That mother can even give the child away.

If you see a child drowning in a swimming pool and walk away from it did you kill it? If yes, then ignoring the plight of thousands of people by not issuring that we have food securtity for everyone is also murder. If no, then why does the fetus have the right to claim a women’s body and labor for it’s own survival

Angela: If my sister needs a kidney, and I’m the only match in the hole world, (Stacey I would give you a Kidney, this is hypothetical), should I be required by law to give her my kidney? Is not giving her my kidney the same as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger? I already have a sister, a living, breathing, brain functioning sister, fully defined as a human so does the government have the right to tell me I need to provide a kidney for her because she will die with out it?

Angela: What if I was driving, and got into an acident because the roads are slipery (IDK if you heard Kevin but we got record breaking snow here this year so roads are pretty darn icy) because Emma and I went to the store to buy ice cream. And Stacey needs a new kidney because of this accident. Should I leaggly have to give her the kidney because I shouldn’t have wanted ice cream while the roads are slippery or at least not have taken her with me?

Angela: Morally, I would give her the kidney. It seems like the right thing to do. With or with out an acident. But seeing how I don’t think you like it when the government says you HAVE to give money to other people, even if it’s for other people, I don’t think you would apreciate being told you HAVE to give your kidney to someone else.

John Barron: Angela, why does it seem as though you believe the child is an invader, a hostile entity to the mother? That is the childs natural environment.

Angela: The uterus is also naturally empty the majority of the time. And an unplanned pregnacy means the women actually wanted to keep it empty.

Angela: I’ll rephrase that. The majority of the time the uterus only contains her tissues, seeing as it’s rarely completely empty.

Angela: Also, a fetus isn’t completely unhostile. If a women can’t get enough of certain vitamins the fetus will try to take them from other sources. Ex. pregnant women need to drink extra milk, not because the baby won’t get calcium, but because the pregnancy will start to steal calcium from the mother’s bones. Also, the body itself has been known to treat fetuses as invaders. Fetuses with a different blood type from the mother’s, + vs -, have a high chance of miscariage because the women’s body builds up antubodies to kill it. Even the biology shows that a women’s role is not just to be a womb, an organism in her own right. I haven’t heard to much about miscariage studies, but it’s still surprising that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarage. The women’s body is deciding what it wants to carry and what it doesn’t (ovens can’t chose what they want to cook). Showing that even though pregnancy is natural, there’s alot more to it then simply shake and bake, that the growing of a fetus is a process.

Angela: But my biggest issue with the article was trying to break up rape into catagories. If we support it here, we will start to lose sight of the issue, Rape is Rape and Rape is wrong, and it doesn’t matter by what method one rapes it’s still RAPE. And saying that some victims are deserving more of our sympothy and support then others is just messy. And when put into the guidlines of our leagal practices can create a presidence. A presidence that can transfer to both other legal practices and cultural behaviors. Date rape should not go from “wow that’s horrible and awfull” to “oh, so you’re having a bad day”.

 And can we just think about where this idea is even coming from. Why should not forcible rape be handeled differently from forcible? Obviously, for conservatives it’s not REALLY an abortion because simply for constiency on the issue, abortion would be wrong whether or not it was forcible rape. It would still be murder. So the issue becomes are there acceptions, where the murder is justified enough to have federal funds support allowed to pay for it. Traditionally these acceptions have been in the cases of rape, incest, or when threating the life of the mother. It’s not when is abortion not wrong, but when is it justified. So why would a new line have to be drawn?

Personally I have only two hypothesis. The bill supporters are afraid women are LYING about rape inorder to get an abortion or it’s a trick to keep the catagory as ambigous as possible to try and deny even more people federal funding in the case of rape. This comes from the cultural, rape culture, acceptance that women are making it up and shouldn’t be believed when they are raped. Or that it’s somehow the women’s fault for getting herself raped if there’s no “force” and that she is less deserving of our sympathy and support. And to go with the other theory, bill supporting parties realize they will never really get the bill to pass without absolutely no mention of acceptions for rape victims so they are doing their best to munipulate the wording to get it off the bill without tecniquelly taking it off the bill. Still going back to rape victims don’t need our support.

Kevin: So then why does a woman have a uterus at all if a baby is merely a parasite? The uterus may be “empty” most of the time, but it was designed solely for the purpose of growing a human being. The baby cannot take anything. It is defenseless…. The mother’s body is designed with infrastructure that will automatically put the baby well being at a higher priority than its own. Look in any anatomy and physiology textbook, and you’ll read about systems in a woman’s body outside of the uterus that are designed to “cut off supplies” to various systems in order to better support a growing baby. If the baby were a parasite, then these systems would not be in place in expectation of pregnancy.

Now don’t misinterpret me. I’m not trying to imply in any way that women are merely baby making machines. I’m just trying to establish that an unborn baby is not a parasite that the female body desparately tries to attack and kill as if it were cancer.

On another note though… and getting back to the rape issue. As women who feel strongly (and justifyably so) about rape and rape culture, what are your recommendations for dealing with those who stalk and rape an innocent woman?



  1. Abortion is a tragic reality…it’s sad that over 41% of pregnancies in NYC are terminated by means of abortion. With the accessibility of free contraceptives as well as public schools offering sex education, one has to wonder. My only explanation is that of a diseased humanity.

    We should all pray that God awakens within the hearts of those in our society and the societies of the world a renewed sense of the sancity of life.

    ~ blessings

  2. I must admit I didn’t read the whole thing, but it seems like the typical pro-choice routine: 1) Present faulty arguments. 2) When those fail, call those arguing against you names. 3) Claim to have won.

    • You’re right, that’s exactly what happened. I realize it is rather long, and I know long posts don’t often get fully read, but I thought I’d be thorough and post the entire conversation.

  3. Kelsey Barringham says:

    Abortion is a tragic reality that pro-lifers don’t really give a **** about ending. They want to wash their hands clean of it, as long as it’s not recognized as moral in our society abortion will some how disappear and have no consequences. Or maybe they don’t even really care if it ends as long as their society is “Moral” to their standards; as long as the rules of society say that women are designed to be lived off of and that a women’s biological traits veto her humanly desires, then the battle is won. Abortion has been around for arguably as long as humanity. Abortion was used as a tool to keep the human species from going extinct, it’s not pretty but it’s a reality, and it’s not simply going to go away because we say we don’t like it anymore.
    You want abortion to end you change peoples minds, not through scare tactics or restraints on their bodies, through love and dedication to actually supporting women and children. But we as a society don’t want that role. We want the role of telling people to suck it up, and get over their petty “fears of inconveniences”, and don’t really give a **** about what their or their child’s life become afterwards, after all it’s all about maintaining a heartbeat and you’re 46 chromosome that’s what the zenith of being alive is. Though don’t expect financial aid if you can’t manage to do that on your own once we arbitrarily declare you “independent”. Many non-pro-lifers would agree that treating people like this is what is REALLY immoral.
    Keep in mind you won’t win every battle no matter how many restrictions get put on abortion and people are always going to end pregnancies whether YOU think it’s moral or not. Why? Because it’s still their lives and their bodies, the only difference, they won’t tell you what they are doing. And you’re going to end up with a lot more later term abortions as well because women will struggle to get the resources they need to do it till they are farther along, but I guess that doesn’t really matter since preventing a zygote from attaching to a placenta with chemical contraception is as Morally heinous as aborting an 8 month gestated fetus or for that matter killing a new born. And if the women dies during an abortion, or if HER parents kill her because of parental consent laws, well that murderous bitch got what she deserved. And her death, justified and moral. AND she saves tax payers the money it would have taken to prosecute her and most likely imprison her, if not put her to death with capital punishment.

    • By scare tactics you mean informing the mother that abortion takes an innocent human life? Telling someone what abortion is, accurately describing the process is scare tactics? And by restraints you mean enforcing laws which prohibit taking innocent lives? And you’re right, legislating against abortion will not end illegal abortions…just like legislating against sex trafficing of minors does not end sex trafficing…and laws against rape does not end rape. We all know that there are people who will break laws, but the laws are in place as a protection of the victim. Someone will be punished for breaking the particular law.

      I’ll be honest here, how can you be such a hypocrite? You have said “I think abortion is murder.” But you argue for abortion so aggressivly to be available to every woman for any reason, and don’t anyone dare get in her way! How can you on the one hand go so far as to say it is murder, knowing what murder is, and then argue that this particular type of murder should be protected at all costs?

      • Kelsey Barringham says:

        Do you selectively read what I write? Seriously! You call me a hypocrite, but I am straight forward in my beliefs. I would love to see abortion end, actually end, not just wash my hands clean of it. But as horrible as abortion is in itself we can’t just turn our backs on the fact that one human doesn’t have the right to live off of another. You never addressed Angela’s argument about why the government should have the right to require her to give Stacy her Kidney. Have you been purposely avoiding this? Stacy death is the result of Angela’s right to her body, and arguably murder. She posses the ability to preserve Stacy’s life, at the inconvenience of her body, and choices not to. Society want’s to tell women their wombs aren’t theirs, aren’t part of their bodies, that they are designed to be depended upon regardless of how they personally want to use their body. And that’s not right! I can both see why abortion is murder, but also see why denying women access to abortion is a denial of her rights as a human being. And for someone who supports that people can be justifiably killed, you’re very closed minded. Why do you define what the justification is? People in jail arguably stop impeding on peoples rights once they are in prison. Holding them stops the destruction that are currently doing to people, they are put to death because we say people’s right to revenge trumpets a convicts right to life. One person living off someone against their will is CURRENTLY impeding upon their rights, but for you this is not an issue. Why do I have the metaphorical right to revenge, but not the physical right to my own body?

        Scare tactics like standing outside clinics screaming at already emotionally distressed women. Some of who only go to planed parenthood to get a free ultrasounds (since we don’t want to provide health care she could afford) or even information on prenatal care. You know planned parenthood offers these services too! Along with CONTRACEPTION, so that women don’t have to get pregnant in the first place and need an abortion. In an environment where actual trained medical professionals work and will be less likely to judge them.

        And what is more important to us; justice for dead fetuses or insuring that both mother and child can live healthy lives. And arguably we do wash our hands of other crimes as well. Why will 1 in 4 women be sexually assaulted before graduating college? Rape is illegal, yet it still hasn’t gone away. Rape is illegal because as a society we recognize people aren’t allowed to use people’s bodies against their will. Fetus’s still die in botched abortions and arguably in more excruciating manners. Making abortion illegal is not simply going to change peoples minds about having rights to their own bodies, it will instead wrongly recognize that the right’s of fetus are a priority over those of the women they could not live without. Why can’t we instead change the dialogue from being about whether or not a women have the right to their own bodies to be how can we come together as a society to preserve life as a precious gift? When preventing pregnancy, the dialogue should be even though I have the right to my body, I also have the responsibility to do my best to prevent pregnancy, not because pregnancy is an inconvenience but because life is involved. This conversation then puts responsibility for preventing pregnancy in the hands of BOTH partners. Accidents will still happen, but with in this cultural mind set they will be less likely to occur. One of the reasons why I don’t like the term “pro-choice” is because I don’t think a lot of women actually feel they have a choice when it comes to abortion. They choose it because they don’t have the resources to raise a child or continue a pregnancy, even if they wanted to. This is the reason why there are even pro-lifers who will get abortions. Abortion ends up being the last resort, not a real choice. People do what they can to cut their loses with every decision they make, why do we honestly expect that this one should be any different. If we want women to stop choosing abortions as their last result we have to start respecting life as a society as well! We need to respect life so much no women will ever be completely cut off from resources that she needs to raise a child, no matter what her life circumstances are. If we want to tell women to step up and take responsibility for her child, society needs to STEP UP WITH HER and take responsibility for helping her. The same reason why simply throwing contraception at places in Africa didn’t reduce the spread of aids, is the same reason why contraception in New York didn’t stop abortion. IT TAKES CULTURAL CHANGE! And sex ed, as it stands now, is not all that it’s cracked up to be either. As a culture we don’t like to talk about sex, especially with our children. Simply telling kids about what options of contraception are is not enough. Even worse many sex education classes still focus on scare tactics, in hopes kids will be to freaked out by sex to ever try it (but this doesn’t work). Even worse, this can prevent teens from ever developing a healthy sexuality. Sex education is a great place to try to start changing culture, but it needs to go further than the classroom as well. Changing the way sex is taught and talked about in this country will also have the added benefit of helping end other problems that exist around sex such as the occurrence of rape.

        And the more the pro-life vs pro-choice debate keeps struggling over accepting that women have the right to not be lived off of against their will, the more time is waisted that could go to actually improving THE ISSUE, how do we actually decrease the number of ABORTIONS, the killing of fetuses. If this was the focus of discussion both sides might find they have a lot more common ground than is obvious up front.

        • Unfortunately your post is far too long to respond to everything, (long is fine, it’s just difficult to thoroughly respond to adequately) but from your emphasis on the Stacy’s kidney issue I will refer you here.

          I find all your defenses (except in the case where the life of the mother is in jeopardy) inconsistent with your affirmation that “abortion is murder”. The truth of the matter is, if you wouldnt end the life of a todler for the reasons you’d allow abortion, then your defenses are invalid and wanting.

          • Kelsey Barringham says:

            I don’t have the time at the moment, but I do plan to argue many if not all the points made by the article you posted. But even you agree longer things take more time to digest and respond to.

            But in response to, “if you wouldn’t end the life of the toddler”, as I have said many times I don’t see the sol responsibility for a child being on the parents. The parents have first choice to take responsibility, and a right to take responsibility, but it is not forced upon them. If a person no longer wants another dependent upon them, that child can be cared for by someone else. There will always be people to willingly take and want babies, who can provide care for them with out their rights being infringed upon. Killing the baby is denying the child the access to these people. You can’t transplant a fetus. If you could then I would be fine with you saying fetus need to be transplanted not aborted. But they can’t. And telling someone they must care for a fetus until it can be transplanted against that person’s will is infringing upon the women’s rights.

            • But a fetus is not an invader, the womb is the natural environment.

              Then perhaps you should put your energy into promoting adoption rather than advocating abortion.

              I’d be happy to debate the case for abortion here with you. I know you have school and have that as your priority, but we could work something out, if you are up to it.

  4. Kelsey Barringham says:

    Oh, and while you all pray that GOD awakens society to the “American Genocide” that is abortion, maybe I’ll start praying that GOD just prevents women from conceiving until they actually want children, and instead help the plethora of people in this country desperate to have the miracle of conceiving their own child who are forced to turn to things such as in vitro fertilization, because all they want is to have their own child like everyone else, but are then stigmatized for not conceiving “the natural, holly way” because they biologically can’t. But who am I to question God’s plan?

    • Why is restraining sexual activity until one is ready to be a parent ALWAYS out of the question as an option?

      • Kelsey Barringham says:

        Because reproduction is not the only function of sexuality. And there are plenty of people who can practice healthy, happy, normal sexualities with out reproduction ever being a factor and with out any consequences come from their actions. Not because they got lucky, but because they are responsible. These are perfectly respectable lifestyles, so why should we tell people ABSTINENCE until marriage is the only way or promoted above all others, when there are other viable options.

        A second idea is we just encourage everyone to be homosexual until they are ready to reproduce. That’s what giraffes do. Abortion is rarely an issue in the LGBTQ community. Oh wait, that’s right sexual attraction has something to do with what sex partners we choice. I guess that won’t work either.

        • What I am saying is sexual intercourse is the only activity which results in pregnancy. Sexually active people (with very rare exception, since it is taught very young in schools) know contraception is never 100% and that sexual intercourse is the activity which brings pregnancy. This being the case, if you aren’t ready for children, the safest protection is abstinence, otherwise you risk a pregnancy.

  5. Frank A. G. says:

    I think we should address the kidney issue in some detail. You are correct.

    Let’s see if we can find common ground:
    Can we agree that if a felon went up to someone and hit them such that their both kidneys were injured and the felon just happened to be a match then would we consider that justice would require the felon to donate a kidney. In the old days justice would require servitude like that. Today I’m sure you know that we still require it in but it’s in the form of money. If you hit a person and maim them, you have to pay for their medical treatments, their rehabilitation and any ongoing care. That’s why we all carry insurance. If you didn’t have insurance they’d take your house, your car and everything you owned and then garnish you wages for the rest of your life to pay for your victim. Even if it was an accident. So we see that concept still exists.

    So except for the case of rape and incest and endangerment to the life of the mother, which we are willing to make an exception for, can we agree that the only reason the baby is in a woman’s womb is because of her willing actions. Which she fully knew could result in the formation of a human being before she took that action (even the puritans taught sex ed). Therefore she is responsible it would seem. Of course you can argue that in the case of the kidney felon, the person was fully alive. Yes but I’m not sure why this is relevant. Why is someone being previously alive and someone who was given life as a result of someone’s actions so morally different.

    A better example would be this perhaps (it’s a bit convoluted but its the only way to get an closer analogy). A mother of a 3 year old get’s drunk and physically abuses her 3 year old such that they 3 year old’s kidneys are destroyed. Can we now morally insist that the mother donate a kidney to the 3 year old (for the sake of the example we assume there are no size issues). Now the very existence of the 3 year old is because of the mother. The 3 year old is related to the mother, probably would be a good kidney match and the life of the 3 year old is dependent on the mother’s sacrifice. I would say this is a fitting consequence of her actions.

    Now having said that let me remind you again that I don’t think carrying a baby for 9 months is in anyway equivalent to giving up a kidney. It’s only 9 months. It’s not like it’s the rest of your life. After the baby is born the mother can give the baby to me. I’ll raise her as my own. In fact there are about 30 Million homes like mine who will love and raise any baby you give us.

    Secondly giving birth to a baby or carrying a baby to term is not really giving a kidney is it? The woman loses nothing and in fact by giving birth to the baby whom she caused to be conceived, she actually may reduce the chance of contracting breast cancer (according to many studies).

    Hope this helps. I could be wrong, but I’m trying to understand why you see such a difference.

Any Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: