What kind of monsters do that?

Based on the thread below, I’d say Susan, and those like her.

I just listened to your RealityCast, and have but one comment: Fuck Jill Stanek.

You’re being too kind: Stanek isn’t suggesting that the comfort room exists for the sake of dead infants. She’s suggesting that it is a form of coddling directed at parents who oh-so-selfishly terminate a pregnancy that involves an already-dead baby.

She’s hyperventilating about the comfort room because she doesn’t believe women who go through the ordeal of an extraction after fetal death deserve any comfort – the bitches. Why, if they were natural mothers, and not so selfish as to drink coffee/use the microwave/engage in physically strenuous activities, then their kids would have lived. LIVED!

Those parents shouldn’t be able to take foot prints or pictures or anything, because it’s their fault the baby died to begin with. No comfort for them.

I wish more people KNEW this.  Of course, if people gave women the benefit of the doubt re: our bodies and the fact that our brains work just fine, thankyouverymuch, they would already fucking know.

You’re right in that there has to be laser-like focus on the bottom line: The anti-choicers want to make every woman who becomes pregnant carry the baby to term (unless God decides otherwise, of course). Once people become fully aware of that fact—-and will it ever happen, short of an overturn of Roe v. Wade?—-the anti-choice movement will collapse like a sand castle in a tidal wave.

I would probably have had a late term abortion, if the ultrasound people had read my baby’s 5 month scan accurately.  It would have been better than watching her struggle for 2 months. The lower half of her face was not there, no upper palate, screaming in pain when we fed her through a naso gastric tube.  She had no frontal lobe and they told me she probably knew nothing, but who knows what a newborn knows anyway.  It would have been better than watching her stop breathing for up to a minute at a time and then start again, looking terrified, and blue.  I’ve been in therapy on and off for 4 years and have had another child, am being treated for PTSD.  Alot of people who have trisomy 13 babies get 2nd trimester abortions, they don’t talk about them though.  This is a messed up country.  The proof of that is, that to prolife people who only know part of my story, I’m some kind of a hero.  To myself, I never stop being guilty, or wanting to slap those people’s faces.

One of the direct consequences of anti-choice people lying about late-term abortions is, of course, more dead women and thus more widowers and motherless young children. Lots of the conditions that require a late-term abortion (fetal death, certain anomalies of fetus/placenta/uterus) are pretty good at killing women by hemorrhage or septic shock. But because there are domestic terrorists out there killing doctors who perform abortions, and taliban-wannabees threatening the existence of abortion clinics, there are entire states where a woman can’t get a late-term abortion. And states where even if she’s at imminent medical risk she has to undergo an effing 24-hour waiting period.

So not only are the wingnut in favor of horrible suffering for nonviable fetuses, they’re in favor of killing women. No surprise there.

K. Lynn,

I’m so sorry, that must have been very hard on you.  For what it’s worth, innernet hugs!

Ismone

I think if the fetus is stillborn a woman should be allowed to have an abortion even if in the nine month as long as the doctor says the risk to the mother is low and aware of said risks as with any medical procedure. As is now a lot of woman whose fetuses die in the fourth month cannot get an abortion and have to carry the dead fetus through term and birth.

Btw a fetal death can occur for any reason not the mother’s fault. A lot of these pro life people would blame the mother for her fundie husband hitting her and causing the death of the fetus.

K. Lynn,

I ‘m sorry too…what a nightmare.  And if—God forbid—you ever meet Jill Stanek, the rubber hose is on me.

Of course we all know here that the anti-choice fanatics want to deepsix Griswold along with Roe, but how the hell do you get the MSM to notice?  Americans would recoil in near-universal horror at having their contraception yanked, but how many know it’s on the Christopaths’ wish list?

Maybe the answer is some good old-fashioned red-baiting.  Two words: Nicolae Ceausescu.  The man who created a Communist Gilead by the Black Sea when he outlawed abortion & contraception in order to produce more babies for the Glory of the Party.  The results were deadly illegal abortions, increased infant & maternal mortality rates, crushing poverty, epidemics and warehouses of abandoned, abused & malnourished children.  Stanek & the rest of her Motley Cruel Choir couldn’t care less about those results, but they would care about being compared to the dirty commies every time they open their mouths.

It might just be the right balm for this particular rash of media stupidity.

Do you REALLY think those rabid “pro-lifers” care about the suffering of children?

Antichoice fanatics Ranall Terry and Gary Heavin were both deadbeat dads.

Bob Enyart did time behind bars for beating his children.

Jill Stanek posted on her very own blog that she was a crappy motherwho ditched her toddler to go par-tay!  (Stanek is the “Casey Anthony” of the antichoice world…):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laura, 12:290p: You are projecting. I am by no means bitter. My son
suffered due to an immature mother who would sometimes rather party than
spend time with him, back in the day.
I sinned. But God saw an opportunity for the blessing of giving a unique,
special child to the world, despite that.
I met Rich when Michael was 3-1/2. We married when he was 5, and Rich
adopted him, which was another blessing.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 16, 2008 4:51 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jess, I did not. I got pregnant at age 19 and married to my
18-year-old boyfriend (who was still in high school) at 4-1/2 months
along. I had my oldest at age 20. I was divorced and a single mom by age
23.
I cannot regret my lapse because that would mean I regret my wonderful
son, who has now given me 3 beautiful grandsons.
But our life was hard for a time. And he suffered most for it.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 15, 2008 10:34 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Every time these child abusers give us all lectures in personal responsibility, kindness and compassion, I just wanna hurl.

K. Lynn, it’s stories like yours that give us concrete reminders to put our trust in people to make their own hard decisions by their own moral criteria.  It’s so important to be reminded that that is the basic ethical principle behind being pro-choice.  Thanks for sharing and I hope you find whatever healing there is to be found.

K.Lynn, I’m so sorry you went through that. Internet hugs from me too (((Hugs)))

I hate Jill Stanek with the power of a thousand suns. I posted a comment about my own pregnancy crisis on a blog once- I was five months pregnant when we discovered that my son could not survive outside of the womb. He had no kidneys, underdeveloped lungs, a hole in his heart, fluid on his brain and half of his internal organs were outside of his body because his abdominal wall didn’t close properly. We were told that no matter what, we had a half hour with him tops. So we chose to induce labor when I was 27 weeks pregnant because I was such a mess, because carrying a fetus that was going to die was the single worst thing I’ve ever done. I was continually leaving work early because I would feel sick, I wasn’t eating, I was barely able to take care of myself and that translated to being barely able to take care of my 14 month old daughter. We induced labor and it was horrible, but I got to hold my son for a half hour before he passed away and then I got to start putting the pieces back together. I grieved, and I still grieve, but I was able to start the process of moving forward. 4 months later, I got pregnant again and delivered a happy, healthy baby boy about a year after my first son passed away. I shared this on a blog and fucking Jill Stanek took my comment and wrote a post about how I aborted my handicapped child and what a horrible person I was. Sigh. It was the worst time of my life, my husband and I chose the best possible option for us out of several shitty options (because lets face it, when your fetus is not able to live outside of you for more than 30 minutes, all of your options pretty much suck) and then moved on with our lives, while still grieving for the child we lost. Clearly we are evil, evil child murderers. It would’ve been so much better for him to spend another 3 months being beaten by my uterus due to my lack of amniotic fluid then to die peacefully in my arms. She makes me ill.

Amanda,

Obama was cuaght in a lie as you know. He voted not to require medical personel to treat live, breathing infants if they survived an abortion. The hospital that Jill worked, they were leaving them to die. This same bill that Obama voted against in the Illinois senate passed 98-0 in the US senate. Even Barbara Boxer and Clinton voted for it. Your man Obama is a radical monster.

watch Hannity’s America this Sunday for the complete story.

Trisomy 13 is a vile condition, K Lynn; I’m genuinely sorry you had to suffer that.

Most average folks would be able to recognize the no-win nature of the position you were in. Late-term abortions of live fetuses are usually reserved for those with abnormalities incompatible with life - and though a few kids with Trisomy 13 manage to survive into adulthood, almost all of them die shortly after birth.

And providing health-care to a baby with a life-limiting condition, especially for someone with limited finances, is nothing short of a tight-rope act without the benefit of a net.

I hope you realize there’s absolutely nothing you could have done to either cause or prevent that condition. What’s more, no one has the right to gainsay how you dealt with things.

“Late-term abortions of live fetuses are usually reserved for those with abnormalities incompatible with life”

Devil,

You don’t have a clue:

“Of the 1,900, “420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks.” These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said “a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy,” compared to 71% who responded “did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation,” 48% who said “found it hard to make arrangements,” and 33% who said “was afraid to tell her partner or parents.”

I guess anti-choice trolls have a mental killfile that keeps them from processing personal, real, actual stories dealing with these things firsthand.

Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator,

Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, it negates God as Redeemer,

Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy,

Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it’s earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it’s earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive,

Abortion’s desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness.

Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it’s solution; annihilation, it’s goal; death, it’s dream; breaking God’s heart, it’s vision, Satan’s ultimate power.

Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of Satan are everywhere to be found in its performance;

Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom,

Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God, Yes, abortion is Satan’s feeble attempt at killing God Himself, for abortion is a metaphor for Satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him…...for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.

Copyright 2007, 2008 by HisMan

You don’t have a clue

Jasper: Abortions that take place at 16 weeks gestation are not usually considered “late term.” The upper limit for abortion on request is usually 20 weeks here in Canada.

Even anti-abortion sites recognize this fact: “Of those 39,874 abortions with gestational age recorded, 35 were performed when the unborn child was 25 weeks gestation or older. Five were performed at more than 33 weeks. Twelve were done at 29-32 weeks, 18 at 25-28 weeks, and 366 were performed between 21-24 weeks gestation. A total of 401 abortions took place when the unborn baby was more than 20 weeks gestation, able to feel pain and survive outside the womb.”

http://www.abortionincanada.ca/stats/abortion_gestational_age.html

401 our of over 39 000. Assuming these stats are accurate, and further assuming that dead fetuses weren’t included in the “late term abortion stat”, that is about one percent of all abortions.

People don’t get those unless they’re medically necessary.

No Jasper, Obama voted not to force parents such as myself and my husband watch our children be forced to undergo painful, invasive and completely fucking unnecessary life saving treatment when they are GOING TO DIE ANYWAY. The only abortion procedure that ever runs the risk of having the fetus survive is early induction where fetal death is not induced before birth. In all the cases you mentioned- afraid to tell their parents/partner, didn’t realize they were pregnant, were unable to make arrangements earlier, A)You are being deliberately obtuse in including women at 16 weeks, which is a far cry from the 22/24 weeks where there is even a chance the fetus will be born alive and B)They most likely didn’t choose early labor induction as it is the choice that is hardest on the body and is most usually reserved for cased where a very wanted pregnancy has gone horribly wrong and the parents want a chance to hold the body. Unwanted pregnancies are usually ended by a D&C;, a D&E;or a D&X;and there is virtually no chance that a fetus will be born alive and left to die after any of those procedures. Maybe you should actually know what you’re talking about before you come in here spouting off your bullshit.

I agree annejumps… I talk about my experience quite a bit across the blogs I read when these things come up and there’s always some asshole to either tell me that I made a good decision, unlike those other women or that I’m an evil child murderer who apparently should have continued to walk around in a perpetual state of depression that made me completely unable to function for another three months to carry a fetus to term who would’ve died anyway. Exactly like he did when he was born at 27 weeks. It literally makes me ill that I ever considered myself “pro-life”. These assholes are not pro-life, they are anti-woman, anti-child and anti-common fucking decency.

Jasper—your 1 hour weekly internet time is up, son.  Back to your room; then it’s time for your thorazine.

Jasper: That crappy fact-free screed against abortion isn’t at all moving, particularly when far greater acts of evil can be found among parents who give birth to and keep kids they absolutely do not want.

Observe, for this is truly the face of evil: http://www.therighttobewrong.net/Grand_Jury_DHS_new.pdf

Read every word of it, Jasper. Drink it in. Look at the autopsy photo.

“No Jasper, Obama voted not to force parents such as myself and my husband watch our children be forced to undergo painful, invasive and completely fucking unnecessary life saving treatment when they are GOING TO DIE ANYWAY”

When a baby is aborted alive, reasonable medical treament should be given to babies who are still breathing, some were being left to die in utility rooms. They should have rights like any other person. The parents who decided to terminate their child, does not have the childs best interest at hand if it is born alive.

this bill passed 98-0 in th U.S senate.

Devil,

the study was for 16 weeks and greater: which the majority are for elective reasons…

“That crappy fact-free screed against abortion isn’t at all moving, particularly when far greater acts of evil can be found among parents who give birth to and keep kids they absolutely do not want. “

But it is not legal to kill born children in the US (Obama thinks otherwise). But, its is legal to kill unborn children. Which is evil to it’s core.

98% are elective:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Jasper: the study was for 16 weeks and greater: which the majority are for elective reasons…

You never specified the name of the study. In the quotes you provided, researchers specified 16 weeks. If they lumped everyone who had an abortion at that point or beyond into a set called “16 weeks or later” for the purposes of parsing out why women had abortions, then those researchers produced a study as useless and fact free as your posts.

Abortions at 16 weeks are conducted for different reasons than are abortions at 25 weeks. This is an established fact even among your anti-abortion peers.

It makes me queasy to consider what type of person Jasper or Stanek must be in order to say such cruel and judgmental things about people who face impossible, lose-lose situations.  If we just bracket the patriarchal godbag bullshit of the lifers for a moment, it is remarkable how little basic human compassion they have.  And then they want to force of law to make the rest of us complicit in their juvenile and treacly anti-humanist cruelties.

I don’t suppose we’ll ever know which comes first: teh Stupid or teh Mean.

“From January of 1999 to December 1999, Tiller performed 574 abortions after 22 weeks. 302 of these abortions were performed on viable babies. All of the abortions were done for “health” reasons; not one was done to preserve the life of the mother.”

Keep in mind that women travel from all over to visit Tiller the Killer:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Methods/GeorgeTiller.htm

Jasper: But it is not legal to kill born children in the US (Obama thinks otherwise). But, its is legal to kill unborn children. Which is evil to it’s core.

Hospitals have long made a distinction between killing and letting die. (Babies with Spina Bifida and hydrocephaly have often been the victims of that distinction, in part because some parents and doctors were operating with out-dated information.) Likewise, those very rare babies who survive outside the womb following the termination of a pregnancy may also be permitted to die.

The thing is, those abortions that take place late enough that a live baby could be produced are the very same abortions usually conducted because the baby has a condition incompatible with survival.

They’re allowed to die not because medical professionals are heartless, nor because parents are evil, but because death was the inevitable result of the condition those babies suffered.

I’m a big proponent of disability rights, and think some - a lot of? - people undergo therapeutic abortions because they have faulty information about the disabilities with which their kids would be born - but with Trisomy 13 or the failure of organ development, the only alternative to abortion is to carry to term, have the baby, and let it die.

The story of Danieal Kelly illustrates another point, however: sometimes parents abort viable fetuses because they’re utterly incapable of raising children properly. Thanks to the anti-lifers who oppose birth control, there are going to be a whole lot more would-be parents who fall into that category.

98% are elective

I looked through your link. It talks about all abortions, and not specifically about late-term abortions - unless I missed something.

LoneOak,

how about your compassion for the unborn (50,000,000) have been killed since Roe. 98% of abortions are elective. If I posted some pictures of abortions, it would shock the life out of you, the brutality of it.

Jasper: “From January of 1999 to December 1999, Tiller performed 574 abortions after 22 weeks. 302 of these abortions were performed on viable babies. All of the abortions were done for “health” reasons; not one was done to preserve the life of the mother.”

You are talking about a single abortion provider, and you’re drawing the data about his abortions from a site that has no access to the medical records of the women who sought Tiller out.

I question the accuracy of your data.

“They’re allowed to die not because medical professionals are heartless, nor because parents are evil, but because death was the inevitable result of the condition those babies suffered.”

allowed to die? not all of these babies are doomed to die, what right does anybody have to not give basic, reasonable care to these children?  You not discussing down syndrome babies either, ever wonder why you don’t see down syndrome kids around anymore? Like the one Jill Stanek held.

People should not be killing children based on how “wanted” they are. Think about it.

“You are talking about a single abortion provider”

a single provider who performs late-term abortions for women from many states around the country.

You’ve all seen where ‘Jasper’s’ url links to, right? (Jill Stanek’s website.) Jasper, if you are not actually affiliated with Stanek or the site in question it is bad form to present yourself as though you are.
(Pandagon bloggers: what’s your position on x random supporters using your url when they go into battle on other websites, potentially misrepresenting you at the same time?)
If you are in fact affiliated… well. Welcome aboard. Best of luck with the evangelising, but you’re not going to win many converts to the forced birth side.

allowed to die? not all of these babies are doomed to die, what right does anybody have to not give basic, reasonable care to these children?  You not discussing down syndrome babies either, ever wonder why you don’t see down syndrome kids around anymore? Like the one Jill Stanek held.

People should not be killing children based on how “wanted” they are. Think about it.

Because reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I will repeat myself:

Hospitals have long made a distinction between killing and letting die. (Babies with Spina Bifida and hydrocephaly have often been the victims of that distinction, in part because some parents and doctors were operating with out-dated information.)

...

I’m a big proponent of disability rights, and think some - a lot of? - people undergo therapeutic abortions because they have faulty information about the disabilities with which their kids would be born - but with Trisomy 13 or the failure of organ development, the only alternative to abortion is to carry to term, have the baby, and let it die.

85% of fetuses diagnosed in utero with Down’s Syndrome are aborted.  This isn’t the fault of “the abortion industry”; it’s largely a result of inaccurate information about disability and quality of life.

The way to prevent the abortion of babies with Down’s Syndrome is to provide accurate information and the assurance of the necessary habilitation resources. In the absence of good information and good early intervention, parents who aren’t permitted to abort may simply end up turning their kids over to the state or even killing them.

That’s what happens when people are pushed into a corner, and when their personal situations are all boiled down to a political slogan by panty-sniffers such as yourself.

a single provider who performs late-term abortions for women from many states around the country.

An out-lier, assuming your data are accurate. His activities in no way affect the truth that almost all late-term abortions are performed because the fetuses have conditions incompatible with life.

If he’s performing those hard late-term abortions just ‘cause, then the medical association of which he is a part should deal with him. Tiller needn’t answer to some anti-abortion activist who can’t be trusted to tell the truth.

Tide,

I’m a moderator at Jill’s site.

“Hospitals have long made a distinction between killing and letting die. (Babies with Spina Bifida and hydrocephaly have often been the victims of that distinction, in part because some parents and doctors were operating with out-dated information.”

Ok, ...when in doubt choose life… you have an excuse for everything.

“I’m a big proponent of disability rights, and think some - a lot of? - people undergo therapeutic abortions because they have faulty information about the disabilities with which their kids would be born - but with Trisomy 13 or the failure of organ development, the only alternative to abortion is to carry to term, have the baby, and let it die.”

Then let Nature take it’s couse, we should not be in the killing business.

“85% of fetuses diagnosed in utero with Down’s Syndrome are aborted.  This isn’t the fault of “the abortion industry”; it’s largely a result of inaccurate information about disability and quality of life.”

Your a frigin nut. Thats like saying the hitman is not responsible for a mob slaying….

Then let Nature take it’s couse, we should not be in the killing business.

THAT is your argument? That woman with dying fetuses inside them should just let nature take its course instead of taking measures that limit suffering?

You and Jill Stanek deserve each other.

Your a frigin nut. Thats like saying the hitman is not responsible for a mob slaying….

Your analogy is crap, just like your statistics.

You’re the one who thinks it’s fine and dandy to push desperate people into a corner as opposed to arming them with accurate information and trusting them to make their own choices.

You care more about potential life than actual life. You care about forcing people to follow your will as opposed to making their own informed decisions. You’re the one who has joined forces with people who think limiting access to contraception will prevent abortion; that treating women like incubators is the best way possible to show your respect for human dignity.

I’m nuts? No, hon; you’re fucking nuts - and a mendacious, disingenuous liar as well.

Fuck Maddow!  Is there anyway to get Amanda a few hours a day on MSNBC? 

I’m giving Jimmy Matthews a call and look see if I can’t leverage my knowledge of Chris’ party days to get you the gig, Bebe.

I am very uncomfortable with some of the comments in this thread—and not just the ones by Jasper.  It seems that there is a big difference in the definition of late term—in Jasper’s eyes it is 16 weeks…I hate to break it to him, but 16 weeks is second trimester and is certainly not considered late term.  Even so, the problem I am having with this discussion is that it seems that it is assumed that all late term abortions are due to medical necessity—and whereas that is most likely the case with the vast majority—abortion should be and is legal throughout the period of time the fetus is inside a woman’s body.  It should be up to the woman whether or not the pregnancy should continue—for whatever reason.  Whereas nobody may like the term “abortion on demand”—that is what we are fighting for and that is what is critical to preserve.  We must not lose sight of that fact or we are letting the forced birth lobby win.  I had an abortion at 23 or 24 weeks—-and it is really nobody’s business but my own why I had it (in theory it was healthy and so was I).  I did not want to give birth and raise a child at that point in my life—end of story.  Luckily, I had the $8,000 that it required, it is unfortunate that many people do not.  It is also unfortunate that women are put in a place where they are made to feel guilty if they do not do the “right” thing within someone else’s definition of the “right” timeframe.  Abortion is a right of every woman and that women should be able to decide when and/or if to have it without demonization.

Okay, here’s my and my wife’s story. Pregnancy. Seems to be going well. Too well. Wife feels strange because she *doesn’t* feel strange—no morning sickness, no nothing. So at fourteen weeks doc suggests amniocentesis. Wait two weeks for the results. Worried call from doc. Come in please. Things don’t look good. They will do the tests a second time. Another two weeks. Get called in. Look at genetic profile. See how portions of three genes have been swapped and truncated. Get list of minimum number of deformities/syndromes, most fatal.

Back to specialist for series of special ultrasounds which can show accurately present state of fetus’ heart/lung and other development. We look at the pics. Visible deformities in limbs. Doctor explains the following:

Fetus is severely deformed/developmentally screwed up. Wife’s body knows this, is preparing for child to miscarry/die. That’s the reason for lack of pregnancy symptoms. Body KNOWS. Prognosis: If we do nothing, child has 5% chance of living to birth, death inevitable within hours/couple of days. OR, 95% likely fetus dies inside wife.

Now, if we let the child die inside, we won’t know until wife begins to feel REALLY sick. Yes. some danger to wife. Wife then will go to hospital, confirm dead thing inside her, have labour induced, and give birth to a long-dead corpse.

Or we can choose an abortion; but only if we choose now. We’re at 19 weeks, and any non-emergency termination past 20 weeks requires induced labour. Wife is horrified. No fucking way, she says, will she wait several months for the thing inside her to die, then be conscious while her body forces out dead meat. So we say yes to an abortion.

But the horror is not finished. We are given a date and told to come to the hospital and walk through the expectant mothers area. I lose it. I snarl to doc, “What kind of insensitive fuck are you to force my wife to walk past happy pregnant people!” Doc replies, “I am so sorry, but if there were a special hospital entrance, or even a special door in the hospital which people went through to have abortions, your wife would have to walk through chanting anti-abortionists, which would probably be worse.”

So wife and I swallow our rage and pain. I walk her through the happy expectant mothers and fathers. After the procedure I walk her, now empty-uterused, back through the same happy people. Some unnamed anti-abortion protesters are lucky they are not there that day; if they had been, I would have lost and assaulted someone.

And now a point of information: I am Canadian, and here in Canada we have NO law, NOT ONE, regarding abortion. I asked the doc what would happen if we waited past 20 weeks and he told me that the decision would still be ours, and ours alone, in consultation with him.

Fuck all the forced-birthers.

I think we should just be grateful that Stanek’s nursing career was as short and disasterous as her political career.  (Not only did she get her ass handed to her by a pro-choice Republican in a state legislative primary, that Republican was Renee Kosel - who just happened to sit on the board of the hospital that fired Stanek…)

I think it’s kind of Stanek to take time out from her busy life as an unwed pregnant teen, failed wife, failed mother, failed nurse and failed politician long enough to admonish the rest of us for not conducting our lives to conform to her Conservative Christian standards.

“And if—God forbid—you ever meet Jill Stanek, the rubber hose is on me.”

I’ll swear I saw you over by the Quick-e-Mart at the time.

So sorry about what happened to you K. Lynn.

“I think it’s kind of Stanek to take time out from her busy life as an unwed pregnant teen, failed wife, failed mother, failed nurse and failed politician long enough to admonish the rest of us for not conducting our lives to conform to her Conservative Christian standards.”

Am I seeing an analogy to the Georgia Republican who was suggesting on the radio that society needed religion to keep him from raping donkeys?

I realize Jasper’s already been banned, but it’s worth pointing out that 16 weeks = fourth month = beginning of the 2nd trimester, not the 3rd, and it’s also when the majority of genetic and developmental defects are discovered. So yes, there will be a number of people opting for abortions at 16 weeks even if the mom’s life isn’t in danger…yet, or because they realize that they do not have the ability to care for a child with special needs.

It is also unfortunate that women are put in a place where they are made to feel guilty if they do not do the “right” thing within someone else’s definition of the “right” timeframe.

The 20-week cut-off for abortions on demand wasn’t set by an anti-abortion lobby here, but by doctors themselves. To my knowledge, 20 weeks marks the period when providers have to change their approach and carry out a different procedure.

And for as uncomfortable as some of our comments make you, some of your comments have made me:

No one knows for certain when life begins. Some think, stupidly, that it begins at conception. Some think it begins at quickening. A few – Peter Singer, for example – believe that personhood (and thus the legal right to protection from infanticide) doesn’t begin until some point well after birth.

It’s this huge gray area, like end-of life care, where people are guided by either brute necessity or conscience. But whatever the rules should be, don’t expect consensus.

You have the right to privacy, unless you choose to waive it; but not the right to demand that people agree with your choices - even if they’ll fight for your right to make such decisions.

Jaspar of course was also using false or cherry picked data.

The thing about Roe is that even if all abortions were illegal it would have just increased the number of abortions.

Making it illegal would not change a damn thing it would have just changed it back to the old days of the coat hanger or rich women going to certain doctors in this country or out of country.
More women would die from pregnancy complications along with the fetus if the fetus wasn’t already dead, more abortions would be done, more abandoned babies, more stillbirths, more women would be rendered infertile or be put into comas or suffer lifelong injuries that would bleed their familes finances, more raped women would bear rapist’s children who would likely also grow up to be criminals. People who are pro-choice have logically locked at all the reasons and the data and have decided that out of a bad situation legal abortion is the way to lesson the amount of pain and suffering in the world.

“It’s a long list of women who are dying, carrying dead fetuses, and, um, pediatric patients, i.e. children who are raped and so ashamed that they don’t get abortions until their pregnancies become obvious.  That’s how much Jasper and his friends hate women.  They want them to die.  They want little girls to suffer from trauma so severe they commit suicide.  They want women to give birth to corpses that infect their bodies. “

Amanda,

98% of abortions are elective, do not leave that out.

You continue to slander Jasper and call him awful names….It’s a good sign that you are the one who is wrong.

Precaution can be in place to protect the Mother AND child without delibratly killing the child. That’s all pro-lifers are asking for.  Also, abortion does not fix anything, it’s just makes things worse for the mother.

Obama is another story, this guy supports infantide and is to the left of Barbara Boxer and Hillary (who both voted for Jill Stanek’s bill, which passed 98-0 in the US senate.)

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Wait. I thought you guys were for abortion till birth. How is it that, once the baby is born—even from a botched abortion—that it doesn’t have the human rights that even y’all ostensibly acknowledge accrue at birth?

And Amanda, why does every argument from you come down to “that person doesn’t like Teh Sex”? Believe it or not, lots of people who think abortion (at some point or another) is wrong like sex. They don’t see pregnancy as punishment. They see it as a foreseeable event following a particular behavior, namely, Teh Sex. I realize you think it’s a real zinger to accuse every person who opposes you of either being too ugly or too uptight to have sex on a regular basis, but it sounds a lot more like projection.

Obama was cuaght in a lie as you know. He voted not to require medical personel to treat live, breathing infants if they survived an abortion. The hospital that Jill worked, they were leaving them to die. This same bill that Obama voted against in the Illinois senate passed 98-0 in the US senate. Even Barbara Boxer and Clinton voted for it. Your man Obama is a radical monster.

You are a LIAR.  What does God say about lying, Jasper?  Looks like YOU are going to hell.  Have fun.

Stacey L:

98% of abortions are elective, do not leave that out.

The vast majority of abortions happen during the first trimester.  Do not leave that out.

Sharon:

98I realize you think it’s a real zinger to accuse every person who opposes you of either being too ugly or too uptight to have sex on a regular basis, but it sounds a lot more like projection.

Once again, you’ve gotten it completely wrong.  Amanda’s never accused her opponents of being too ugly or uptight to have sex on a regular basis.  Frequency of sexual activity has never little to do with anything that Amanda has ever written about on this blog because she primarily deals with sexual agency.  Now, I realize that sexual agency is a subtle, nuanced concept, which is very difficult for those with a fundamentalist viewpoint (if you’re not with us, you’re against us) to understand, but try just this one time for me. 

When we talk about sexual agency, we’re primarily concerned with people taking responsibility for their own choices and their own pleasure by owning their sexual conduct.  Taking responsibility includes things like using birth control and contraception, rather than just throwing up hands and “letting God’s will decide.” 

That’s the trouble with the anti-choice point of view.  They hate women who don’t throw their hands up and let the patriarchy decide what happens to their uteruses.  According to the anti-choicers, it’s not the abortions that make pro-choicers Jezebels.  It’s their agency, which is why anti-choice folk oppose not only abortion but contraception as well.  If it were up to them, every woman should be a slave to her biology and entirely subject to patriarchal oppression because they deem it “unseemly” for a woman to have agency.  That’s what Amanda is saying.  Please try to absorb and retain it this time, instead of blithering on about frequency of sexual activity as if it were relevant to anything.

I have an abortion question for Amanda. Being that she is the most radical feminist on the Web…in my view. If a couple (lets say unmarried) gets pregnant and the GUY does not want the baby, but the woman DOES. Would you support a law stating that the man could write off all parental responsibilities because he didnt want her to have it? Im sure you would side with the woman if she did not want the baby but the man did. In that case you would think because its her body she can get the abortion regardless of what HE wants. Am I correct?

Also..regarding Roe. I am personally against it. Why? Because its a sham decision..based in absolutely nothing. I , as a conservative, want the PEOPLE to decide what they want in regard to things not covered by the constitution. If roe was overturned and the people voted to make it legal then I would have no issue with it (other then a personal level) Why is that so hard to understand by lefties. having a judge on the bench who legislates based on his opinion is dangerous no matter who’s side he or she is on. I would rather take 9 justices who stuck to the constitution as written and left the rest to what the PEOPLE want. Abortion is not a CONSTITUTIONAL right…never was, And there are plenty of Lib law people who agree that the decision has no basis in law. I just read all this crap on here about how making abortion illegal is just man wanting to control women…blah blah blah….its such a crock. there is a real automatic human emotion with becoming pregnant (as a couple) where you immediately feel that there is something..a responsibility..that is “more” than yourself. I find it difficult to believe how people can choose abortion as being no big deal. And if you tell me that women struggle to make the decision then doesnt that say something aboout MAKING that decision….because it is a big deal….and it is not a normal human thing to do..thats why the decision is not easy. Just for the record I would be ok with abortion only in the case of rape and incest. I do not think that a woman should have to take a baby to term as a result of a horrific crime.

Oh and Obama did admit lying abouy the baby born alive legislation.

have a nice day

Casp,

The woman has the choice because pregnancy occurs in her body.  Not his.  If babies happened in incubators, then yeah, he’d have rights during pregnancy too.

He doesn’t have to support the pregnancy until the baby is born.  At that point, both he and the mother have the financial obligation to support the child.  (Unless their parental rights are terminated or they give it up for adoption, or the like.)  This is a right that belongs to the born child, not to the mother.

So yes, even though she goes through nine months gestation, and has to pay for all pregnancy-related expenses, her obligations do not end at birth.  So his shouldn’t either.

If it is important to him that he never get a woman pregnant, he should decide whether that is important enough for him to (slightly) risk his own body by getting a vasectomy. 

Interesting analysis re: Roe.  Do you want “people” to decide whether women and blacks can vote, too?  The constitution exists as a check on pure democracy.  We all know this.  While you can certainly argue that the right to sexual privacy isn’t a good place to located the abortion right, I really don’t know what you can say about liberty.  We should be at liberty to decide whether or not to have medical procedures that affect our health, wellbeing, etc., and hell, we don’t illegalize plastic surgery either. 

Also, at the time the constitution was written (I am assuming you are an originalist) abortion was not illegal and was not considered murder.  The times in our nation’s history when abortion has been outlawed have more to do with women, who had few legal rights, being coerced into abortions and harmed.  This was well after the founding.  And fetuses were never historically considered persons for any legal purpose.  They cannot inherit, people cannot file lawsuits on their behalf (at least, not until they are born), for example.

Denying a woman a medical procedure, including an abortion, was never CONSTITUTIONAL power delegated to the government, state or national.  What is that little amendment about all rights not expressly given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people?  And again, that liberty thing, which should cover medical procedures?  Unless you’re going to tell me that the government can outlaw rhinoplasty, I have a really hard time believing you have any kind of argument in favor of outlawing a surgery that positively impacts women’s health and wellbeing, even if their pregnancy is technically “normal.”

I have an abortion question for Amanda. Being that she is the most radical feminist on the Web…in my view.

Boy, do you need to get out more.

If a couple (lets say unmarried) gets pregnant and the GUY does not want the baby, but the woman DOES. Would you support a law stating that the man could write off all parental responsibilities because he didnt want her to have it?

Wow, we’ve never heard this one before.  It’s a real stumper.  Time for us to throw up our hands in defeat.

God, MRA’s are so boring.

To make it simple: a pregnancy is a process within a woman’s body that no one has a right to control but her.  Once the pregnancy is completed, a baby is born - a child who needs and deserves the support of its parents.  Before you start whining about the man being “on the hook”, remember that the woman in your example is also on the hook, for what is probably a larger part of the child’s financial support, and all of the work.

Im sure you would side with the woman if she did not want the baby but the man did. In that case you would think because its her body she can get the abortion regardless of what HE wants. Am I correct?

Yes.  Women have the right to control their own bodies.  Men do not have the right to control women’s bodies.  Is that really so hard to get your head around?

Also..regarding Roe. I am personally against it. Why? Because its a sham decision..based in absolutely nothing. I , as a conservative, want the PEOPLE to decide what they want in regard to things not covered by the constitution. If roe was overturned and the people voted to make it legal then I would have no issue with it (other then a personal level) Why is that so hard to understand by lefties. having a judge on the bench who legislates based on his opinion is dangerous no matter who’s side he or she is on. I would rather take 9 justices who stuck to the constitution as written and left the rest to what the PEOPLE want. Abortion is not a CONSTITUTIONAL right…never was, And there are plenty of Lib law people who agree that the decision has no basis in law.

You realize that:

1) Every character of this applies just as much to Loving V. Virginia as it does to Roe v. Wade.  What is your opinion of the former?

2) The Constitution as written says that slaves should be counted as 3/5 of a person for the sake of the census.  Some changes have been made necessary since then.  These are called amendments.  The Supreme Court at the time of Roe V. Wade believed that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment invalidated state laws against abortion.  This is not “legislating from the bench”, this is the Supreme Court’s job.

there is a real automatic human emotion with becoming pregnant (as a couple) where you immediately feel that there is something..a responsibility..that is “more” than yourself.

There are people here who have been pregnant who say otherwise.

I find it difficult to believe how people can choose abortion as being no big deal. And if you tell me that women struggle to make the decision then doesnt that say something aboout MAKING that decision….because it is a big deal….and it is not a normal human thing to do..thats why the decision is not easy.

It’s easy for some, not others.  The fact you find that difficult to believe doesn’t change the fact. 

Just for the record I would be ok with abortion only in the case of rape and incest. I do not think that a woman should have to take a baby to term as a result of a horrific crime.

Then you don’t actually believe that a fetus is the same as a baby.  It’s not okay to kill a toddler because they’re the result of rape - if a fetus is the same as a baby, then abortion is murder regardless of the circumstances of that fetus’s conception.

So one of two things is the case:

1) You believe that women should be punished with pregnancy for having sex.  But since a woman who was raped didn’t choose to have sex, she shouldn’t be punished.

2) You actually are not okay with abortion in the case of rape or incest, but you know that to say so would reveal you as an utterly compassionless asshole.

Which is it?

Jasper wrote:

Then let Nature take it’s couse, we should not be in the killing business.

Jasper, the odds are that someday you or one of your family will have cancer.  I hope you’re man enough to remember this advice you so freely give out and follow it yourself, by foregoing chemo or radiation and just let nature take its course.

Ah, the rape exemption. How would that work then (other than the flaw that Seraph has pointed out)?
1) A woman is allowed an abortion if she claims to have been raped, no questions asked (unworkable- anyone can have an abortion).
2) Abortion allowed after the rapist is found guilty, thus proving that the pregnancy was rape (most women who become pregnant after rape are forced to give birth, since even if they can identify the rapist the odds of a conviction are really really low).
3) Abortion allowed if the rape is initially reported to the police (still unworkable- you know us lying bitches!- and does not take into account the majority of rape victims who do not or cannot report the attack. Now being afraid of reprisals from the rapist, of telling your mother that her husband is abusing you, or even just wanting to put a vicious assault behind you are grounds for being forced to give birth after being attacked).
4) Good Christian Woman is married to Solid Christian Husband. She gets raped by a stranger coming home one night. She finds out she is pregnant. Is she allowed an abortion if she cannot be sure that the pregnancy is a result of rape?

Just another example of how ‘save the babies’ rhetoric makes bad laws.

You know what? I know the anti choice answer to this. Most rape victims are sluts who are lying about being attacked. Only the good girls violently attacked by strangers deserve abortions. Those girls… well, we’ll know, right? To hell with the rest of the rape victims. Disgusting.

Amanda’s never accused her opponents of being too ugly or uptight to have sex on a regular basis.

You must not read Amanda very often. She frequently castigates pro-lifers as not enjoying “Teh Sex,” as well as just being controlled by men. It’s actually one of my very favorite quotes from her. I’m sure to her fans, she’s not really saying people who disagree with abortion don’t like sex. But those are her words. You got a problem with it, better take it up with her.

They hate women who don’t throw their hands up and let the patriarchy decide what happens to their uteruses.

I’ve never known a woman who threw up her hands and “let the patriarchy decide what happens to (her) uterus.” That’s got to be the dumbest mischaracterization of the pro-life position ever presented here. Believe it or not, while you are exercising your agency over your body, you have the right to make the decision not to have sex when you are either unwilling or unable to deal with a pregnancy that can occur. Are there really women out there who just don’t think about that possibility before they decide to have sex? Agency includes the idea of owning your actions. Trivializing the views of others this way doesn’t really help your argument.

(My apologies to the above posters who have suffered the loss of infants, or chose to abort children).

You know, if we pro-choicers were to take a page from the anti-choicers methods book, we would get some photos or videos of what K. Lynn’s child underwent, and we’d blow them up 200%.  Then we’d all march over to Stanek’s house (and Jasper’s since he’s associated with her,) and we’d march up and down her street with them, chanting

“Jill Stanek tortures babies.”
“Jill Stanek likes it when babies suffer.”
“Jill Stanek is a baby torturer!” 

Not that we would, because pro-choicers have some class, take the high road, aren’t irrationally obsessed, but sometimes, don’t you just want to?

Believe it or not, while you are exercising your agency over your body, you have the right to make the decision not to have sex when you are either unwilling or unable to deal with a pregnancy that can occur. Are there really women out there who just don’t think about that possibility before they decide to have sex?

Are there really women out there who are married and have children and simply don’t want to have any more for whom refusing to ever have sex with their husband and the father of their children is a reliable, healthy form of birth control?  Are you claiming that continuous, ongoing abstinence within marriage is a healthy way to avoid unintended pregnancy?  You do realize that a good many abortions are just such as those that Barbara Ehrenrich describes in her writings, in just these sorts of scenarios, don’t you?

You do realize that “owning your actions” includes taking action when birth control fails, and that obtaining an abortion is an option if one is unable or unwilling to carry an unintended pregnancy to term, right?

Or is there the possibility that I can even explain to you that “don’t have sex” is not a reproductive health strategy? 

Nah, I doubt it.