Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.

Pro-Choice and Pro-Voice

Posts tagged morality police

May 14 '12

Lester “Bubba” Carpenter Is a Ghoul


TW: Discussion of Unsafe Abortion

From The Maddow Blog:

“We have literally stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi. Three blocks from the Capitol sits the only abortion clinic in the state of Mississippi. A bill was drafted. It said, if you would perform an abortion in the state of Mississippi, you must be a certified OB/GYN and you must have admitting privileges to a hospital. Anybody here in the medical field knows how hard it is to get admitting privileges to a hospital…

“It’s going to be challenged, of course, in the Supreme Court and all — but literally, we stopped abortion in the state of Mississippi, legally, without having to—  Roe vs. Wade. So we’ve done that. I was proud of it. The governor signed it into law. And of course, there you have the other side. They’re like, ‘Well, the poor pitiful women that can’t afford to go out of state are just going to start doing them at home with a coat hanger. That’s what we’ve learned over and over and over.’

“But hey, you have to have moral values. You have to start somewhere, and that’s what we’ve decided to do. This became law and the governor signed it, and I think for one time, we were first in the nation in the state of Mississippi.”

Haha! Moral values! Important things, moral values. The glue that binds society and all that. I too think moral values are important, and that is why I’ve elected to point you to someone who has none.

Oh Bubba Carpenter, that inscrutable Mona Lisa smile! I can’t tell if you’re thinking about your duty to ALL the citizens of the state of Mississippi to defend their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or someone dying in pain and fear because you decided to obstruct reproductive rights to get reelected. Yes, you are quite the moral man. You care about fetuses so much you want to make sure abortions are unsafe, unsanitary, and inaccessible, because you’ve decided that if a person exercises choice in Mississippi, they should fucking die for it.

People like this are a walking, mouth-breathing example of the stark moral victory of reproductive rights. Abortion on demand without apology offers people control over their own lives and their own bodies, the ability to avoid parenthood if they know it isn’t the right choice for them or if they know they shouldn’t be parents, the ability to shape and possibly even save their own lives. Bubba is offering tickets to coercive childbirth or the graveyard. He really doesn’t give a shit which you choose, as long as you don’t really have a choice in the matter. That way he can go back to his district and tell them he fought for life. That he has made a mighty sacrifice to the Gods of blood and death and that now he is a righteous “defender of life.”

Every single on of these people are ghouls, from the politest “I just don’t think it is in God’s plan” folks to the people who can’t contain their sadistic pleasure at the suffering of fellow human beings. The fetus is, and always will be, a ploy for them. They want control. They want to be in control of your body and tell you what you can do with it. They want to indulge a perverse need for control with a hollow moral righteousness, carrying on their deep and abiding love affair for zygotes that ends the minute they are no longer inside something they want to hold dominion over.

Abortion isn’t shameful. Abortion is a natural and healthy part of life. This is shameful. This callous bloodlust.

May 14 '12
Nov 13 '11



So I’ve been thinking.


I was kind of on the fence about abortion before, but now I think I’m leaning towards pro-life.


look at this douchebag, she’s denying the mother’s rights!

1. I’m a chick too and yeah women’s rights are cool. But this is different.

2. Roughly around 20 weeks, the baby can feel pain, because it’s pain receptors are have mostly developed. If abortion is legal, than at least do it in a nicer fashion. Have respect for potential life, whether it’s a brainless clump of cells or an unborn baby. It could’ve done either great (or bad) things with it’s life.  And I don’t see a problem in making fetal anethesia mandatory after 20 weeks, because it can feel pain and some are even able to cry at that point. Something that can feel pain like that is human enough for me, so if killing people is so bad, then I would think killing a fetus at some point is too. Hell, if the men could get pregnant and complained about their rights, would people care about that? At some point, I believe a fetus has rights too.

3. Honestly, if you aren’t a rape victim, poor/poorly educated or in danger of dying, fuck you. You have the money to care for something, and it’s your fault you didn’t open yourself up to possiblities, then at least give birth to the thing, because it deserves a chance to live. You don’t have  enough responsibility or courage or you’re just too lazy to take care of it, then give it up for adoption, where it will at least be provided for.

4. Do you realize how many options you have? Especially living in a more economically inclined country? There are condoms, (not that expensive) birth control ($15-$50) while abortions cost $350 and higher. (Birth control also works very well because it prevents ovulation) You have so many choices and you just shove them away. Some women in poorer countries, ones that are ruled so harshly, have been raped many times a day. And the can’t get an abortion. So, why don’t you by some BC pills and put a little towards putting abortion clinics in countries like those, huh?

5. The world isn’t overpopulated, just certain areas are. Many studies show that some countries will have declining birthrate because of financial problems or changes in the law, so that affects the general population. Also, at least 161 one people die a second.



You’ve been thinking! Thinking is good, and you’re on the right track! But let’s try to get some facts in there so you can really start forming logical conclusions with your thinking!

1) Pregnancy is not limited to individuals who identify as women. Reproductive rights are human rights.

2) In 2010, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published a (peer reviewed!) report detailing their findings that a fetus cannot feel pain until at least 24 weeks gestation because the connections in the fetal brain are not complete until that point. In addition, the fetus is in a sedated, unconscious state while in the amniotic fluid, and would therefore not feel pain even if its neural connections were fully developed. Prior to 24 weeks gestation, fetal anesthesia would be superfluous. 

3) In the United States, elective abortions are not available in the third trimester. In fact, most states only allow for late-term abortions in order to save the life or preserve the health of the pregnant person. Many people with very very wanted pregnancies wherein the fetus has been diagnosed with a severe abnormality incompatible with life find themselves forced to travel across the country, just to find a state that allows late-term abortions for fetal health reasons. Only .077% of abortions take place after 24 weeks, and they are all performed for deeply personal, health-related reasons.

4) Above, you wrote “Something that can feel pain like that is human enough for me, so if killing people is so bad, then I would think killing a fetus at some point is too.” Of course, we have already established that the 20-week fetus in your example could not, in fact, feel pain. This means that virtually every vertebrate feels more pain than electively aborted fetuses. Many animals, such as the higher mammals, feel pain just as intensely as a developed human. Are they, then, people with all of the rights of people? Are you a vegan, maddly? Because if this is truly how you feel about pain and sentience, you should be.

5) In this country, we do not force individuals to surrender their organs for donation. Even if your adult child required a kidney to live, you are not legally obligated to give it. It then follows that individuals should not be forced to donate their bodies to parasitic offspring. Pregnancy carries risks, and many people are injured or killed in the process (more than are killed by legal first-trimester abortions). No one can be forced to undergo it. And before you bring up another sex-policing argument, let me add: engaging in heterosexual intercourse is not a contract for pregnancy any more than driving a car is a contract for being mauled in an accident. Even those who text while driving are provided with adequate medical care when things go wrong; abortion is no different.

6) More than 100,000 children are currently in foster care in the United States with adoption as their case goal. Only 1% of them are in preadoptive homes. Giving an infant up for adoption does not mean that child will receive a home, a family, or adequate care. Actually, most adoptive parents are looking for white, healthy newborns and are willing to wait for one. Meanwhile, nearly two-thirds of abortions are for non-white individuals. If every pregnant person who seeks an abortion this year instead chooses adoption, the majority of the resulting infants will not find homes.

7) More than half of individuals seeking abortions were using some form of contraception when they got pregnant. Contraception fails, especially when proper education is not provided. You wrote above, Honestly, if you aren’t… poor/poorly educated…fuck you.” Fortunately, maddly, you won’t need to fuck many people, because with our current state of ignorance abstinence-only education, virtually every person who exits the public school system and does not have an OB/GYN as a parent has found themselves poorly educated about sex. Oh, and 69% of people seeking abortions are below 200% of the federal poverty level (~$21,000 per year for a single adult household), so yeah, they’re “poor.”

8) Reproductive rights advocates are concerned both with these rights here in the United States and abroad. It is, quite ironically, because of anti-choicers like you who are tying up our legal system in the attempt to take away our rights here that we cannot focus more of our efforts on pregnant people abroad.

9) When we think about overpopulation, we must consider not only the minimal space needed to house humans, but also the resources that go into their upkeep. At our current world population and with our current resource consumption, we are approaching the carrying capacity of the earth.

But that’s actually irrelevant, as we are discussing the reproductive rights of the individual, not the ecological impact of the species.

I hope that helped! Keep thinking! (And use facts this time!)

(Source: 0000947463)

Oct 19 '11

My Respects to Yesterday


So apparently yesterday was a day of silence for the pro-life movement. Which a lot of pro choice people showed out that day for whatever reason saying that all girls have the choice, and so on and so forth.

Well I’m going to state my side of the argument here just because it’s kind of a unique one. Most pro-life people will argue that the baby is a human being upon conception, which I agree with but the pro-choice side of this argument says that well if we are going to say that killing microscopic DNA carrying bodies is wrong that then we shouldn’t kill living things on the microscopic level such as bacteria or plankton, etc, etc. Their arguments also go a lot deeper into when is the child actually a child, is the fetus separate from body  and a bunch of other stuff. There is so much that you could argue on this case.

But I’m going to actually look at what choice do we actually have here? In the preamble there is a line towards the end of it, which says we are “to secure the blessings of liberty for our posterity.” An oddly worded statement. I mean, the kid in the womb no matter what semester he or she is in is our posterity. The children that are coming are the posterity of our nation. So if we’re going to eliminate the protection of their shot at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, who is to say that we should protect yours? At this point it doesn’t even matter if the kid is yet in the fetus or is still two separate objects still in two different people. The kids are still going to come.

My second argument is, at what point in time is a girl allowed to “make the choice”? Does a girl get to go off on a sex spree and just have sex with whoever and never accept the responsibilities of what she has done? If you say yes then you are now advocating irresponsible behavior. If you really want to talk about choice, the girl made the choice to have sex in the first place. Upon that decision she is accepting the responsibility of all the consequences that could come from having sex. Now a lot of people would argue “What about getting raped? They didn’t chose to have sex then.” This is true, they didn’t and I wouldn’t want that upon them either. But we can’t just go off destroying our posterity just because somebody else broke the law. Think about what happens when a drunk driver kills another person. Yeah it’s not fair and it’s not right that the burden of responsibility was whisked away and somebody else paid the ultimate price. But that’s life, things happen, and sometimes we aren’t in control.

But in reality, on top of all of this there are still more options than abortion. Think twice, consider all the options, consider what this kid could become. There are more options than have the baby and raise it or kill it.

Now do understand that if it comes down to the life of the mother or the life of the baby I am open to the options of abortions. Only because the mother already has responsibilities in life and is a functioning person in society. But only after in depth discussions with doctors and considering all possibilities.

"That’s life." Oh my god dude, this is really embarrassing for you. Your ignorance, I mean - how you think that the unfairness of forcing a rape victim to carry their rapists spawn for nine months, then give birth to it, is the problem. Oh my god. You have got to stop. Really. Stop. Trust me when I say that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Furthermore, it’s not your place to judge other people’s sex lives. It’s not inherently irresponsible to have sex with multiple people, and it’s none of your business if someone does. They know their life better than you, a complete stranger, do, and they deserve options to care for themselves. Your own moral standards and perspective on sex are not universal, and honestly, mean nothing to anyone but you and your partner(s).

"That’s life." Imagine if that’s how we responded to any crisis. STD? "That’s life. No treatment." Heart attack? "That’s life. No hospital for you." Kidneys failing? "Oh, well, that’s just how life is. No dialysis." Lung cancer? "Well, it’s high time you accepted responsibility for smoking." Do you listen to yourself?

Options? There are two options when it comes to pregnancy: continue it, or don’t. Adoption is a parenting option, and still leaves the entire pregnancy and birth issue unsolved. If someone cannot or does not want to be pregnant and give birth, that’s their right as an autonomous human being. Since you seem to be fond of the slippery slope fallacy, I could ask the same question: If we’re going to force unconsenting people to donate the use of their body for nine months for “posterity,” what’s to stop us from legally forcing parents to donate their organs to their children? “Accept responsibility,” right?

As for your slippery slope fallacy, let me know when grown adults start attaching themselves to unconsenting people, or clambering inside them, and relying entirely on that person’s body to sustain themselves. Then we can talk about “what’s next.”

Sep 11 '11

For all of my haters:


Sweden’s abortion rates went up 17% from 2000-2007 even though their use of contraceptives like the morning after pill also increased. [1]

Scottland’s abortion rates ALSO increased to an all time high even though contraceptive use increased. [2]

Maternal Mortality rates have declined in the Philipines even without legalized abortions. [3]

Abortion rates DOUBLED in Spain even when contraceptive use increased by 30%. [4, 4.1]

A study done at the University of Edinburgh showed that increased use of emergency contraception did not lower abortion rates. [5]

Abortion rates ROSE at Planned Parenthood of Washington despite having FEWER pregnancies. [6]

38 states recognize the killing of a pregnant woman to be double homicide yet still have legal abortions. Sorry, I didn’t realize that being wanted was a qualification for being human… [7]

The purpose of the article I posted was simply to point out to my mainly pro-life and pro-chastity followers that a mindset that is open to contraceptives (closed to life) can very easily slip to being open to abortion. If you don’t want to read this message, I have a really helpful tip for you: block me, stop reading my page, do what ever you want to do to avoid my message. I don’t care. But responding to my posts with “what the f***”  and telling me that I’m illogical does not fly with me.

Your summaries are a just a bit off. In Sweden, instead of saying “the use of contraceptives like the morning-after pill,” you should have just said, “the use of the morning after pill,” because that’s what the article was about. Contraceptive use was declining in Sweden, meaning emergency contraception was on the rise.

Abortion increase blamed on declining use of the pill

The declining popularity of the contraceptive pill is considered by Lena Marions to be the main explanatory factor. The responsibility for protecting against unwanted pregnancies it seems remains with the woman and the use of alternative forms of contraception have not increased sufficiently to compensate.

Figures from the national pharmacy monopoly Apoteket indicate that use of the pill has been in decline since 2005.

Fear of the side effects of the contraceptive pill are to blame for the trend; these fears are exaggerated according to Marions, who is head of the sex and cohabitation clinic (SESAM) at Karolinska University Hospital.

“There is broad concern over the side effects of the contraceptive pill. As soon as the media make a fuss about a blood clot then use of the pill declines dramatically.”

Agneta Zellbi, senior physician at Stockholm South General Hospital (SÖS), concurs in that the main reason for the increase in abortions and the use of morning-after pills is the declining use of the pill but also notes other factors behind the trend.

Zellbi argues that that changes to sexual habits, delayed parenthood, shorter relationships and primarily the woman’s relationship situation at the time of the pregnancy are decisive factors.

Turns out not using contraception regularly, like birth control pills and condoms, leads to increased usage of emergency contraception and abortion! Who knew?

According to another pro-life website (you like those, right?), Scotland’s abortion rates are now decreasing because - drumroll, please - sex ed and contraception services are improving and increasing! Nice use of the all-encompassing term “contraception” for merely one form of it, yet again.

There are some other explanations for the decline in maternal mortality, as well. Obviously, as technology and medicine improves, we’ll see a drop. You also have to take historical context into account, as well as possibly bad methodology:

However, the 1980s was a decade of severe crisis in the Philippines. 1980 was the eighth year of martial law imposed by Ferdinand Marcos. A rival for the presidency was assassinated in 1983, which led to years of protests until a mass uprising in 1986 forced out the dictator. The new government then faced a series of attempts to topple it, the bloodiest of which ended in December, 1989. Economic growth suffered, as seen in the 9% fall in per-capita gross domestic product2 in 1989 compared with 1980. It is implausible that the Philippines achieved a record-setting decline in MMR amid all the turmoil.

You can read the rest of the criticism here, and the original study here (seriously, what’s up with not linking to studies? Lifenews and its ilk are not reliable sources, people).

The Spain study is here, and LifeNews conveniently ignored the entire discussion, which gave many possible reasons for the increase, such as an increase in abortion reporting, poor contraceptive use, gender disparity in contraceptive use, people having sex at younger ages (therefore being less knowledgeable about and able to negotiate contraceptive use), and an increase in immigrant population:

It has been argued that the most probable cause is that immigrant status is associated more often with low education, weak social network, poverty, unemployment and being outside common pathways to health care. In a case-control study that compared 1095 Danish-born women and 233 immigrant women requesting abortion with a control group of 1295 pregnant women intending to give birth, lack of contraceptive knowledge and experience with contraceptive problems were associated with the choice of abortion.

Ignoring the discussion section of a study seems pretty routine for pro-life websites. They did the same for the University of Edinburgh study:

Perhaps the most likely explanation for the failure to influence abortion rates lies in the observation that even when women did have EC at home, it was not always used when it might have prevented a pregnancy. Seventy-four percent of the 36 women who had advanced supplies and reported an unintended pregnancy did not use EC. Many women have a “low sense of vulnerability towards pregnancy” [25], even when they know that they have taken risk. In a number of studies in different countries among women having abortions [2,26,27], the failure to recognize a risk of pregnancy is the most common reason for nonuse of contraception including EC. Having a supply of EC to keep at home will not help women who do not recognize the risk of pregnancy, and therefore do not recognize the need to use EC.

It’s the same reason people don’t wear helmets or seatbelts. With absolutely no reason other than a particularly strong invincibility complex, they simply believe it couldn’t happen to them. Talk to people who don’t use contraception, even when they don’t want to get pregnant. I guarantee this will be an extremely common answer.

Read the comments in this article for some hypotheses on the increase in Washington.

You are seeing the issue with a very black-and-white mindset, and mistakenly conflating the use of contraception with being, I don’t know, anti-life? “Closed to life” doesn’t really mean much other than the knee-jerk emotional response I assume it’s meant to elicit. It takes a whole lot of assumption on your part to presume to know the inner workings of the mind of every person who uses contraception.

At any rate, declaring that pregnancy is always welcome, no matter the circumstance, or that certain groups of people should just never have sex, is ignorant and cruel. You can be pro-life and pro-chastity for yourself to your heart’s content, but the moment you start being patronizing and creepy about complete strangers’ sex lives, well, that won’t fly with me, either.

Sep 11 '11
Sep 10 '11
"The bottom line about abortion is this. Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments? If you are anti-abortion, then no. You do not. You have an absolute moral position that you don’t trust anyone to question, and therefore you think that abortion should be illegal. But the second you start making exceptions for rape or incest, you are indicating that your moral position is not absolute. That moral judgment is involved. And that right there is where I start to get angry and frustrated, because unless you have an absolute position that all human life (arguably, all life period, but that isn’t the argument I’m engaging with right now) are equally valuable (in which case, no exceptions for the death penalty, and I expect you to agonize over women who die trying to abort, and I also expect you to work your ass off making this a more just world in which women don’t have to choose abortions, but this is also not the argument I’m engaging right now), then there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there should be laws or limitations on abortion other than that you do not trust women. I am completely serious about this."
Aug 12 '11

Feral Children: Fruit of the Sexual Revolution and the Welfare State


The irony is that the whole mess began because of legalized, readily available contraception and abortion, which was supposed to be “freeing,” but which in truth caused a collapse in sexual morality, and then a collapse of families.  Proponents of such keep hurling more and more of it at the masses, along with more and more welfare to deal with the results – but the problems just get worse.  They don’t recognize the linkage.

read more:

Oh my lord, there is so much wrong with that post I don’t even know where to begin. Melissa McEwan responded to the vile dehumanizing language in the Daily Fail article on Shakesville:

Not only is he holding individuals responsible for systemic problems, the hallmark of garbage conservative thinking, but he is, without a trace of irony, taking to the pages of a national newspaper to debase in the most Othering, dehumanizing, cruel language the very people he says liberal ideology has failed.

Because demeaning people as less than human in national publications has nothing to do with creating a cavernous void of anything resembling a sense of belonging among marginalized populations.

That same dehumanizing language - “feral,” “not yet truly human,” is used in the linked post. It’s pretty disgusting. Oh, and there’s a lot of blaming poor people and assistance for them in there, too. What, is the Catholic church going to take over all the government assistance? Of course not - poor people are just petulant children who need to learn the value of hard work, responsibility, and love.

Gotta love that patriarchy.

I have to admit I laughed out loud when I got to the part about unwed motherhood rates being low in the 1970s. Do you know why? Because people got married when after they realized they were pregnant. They were still having premarital sex; the only difference is the couples were now forced into a lifelong commitment, regardless of how they felt about each other. Oh, and you should probably read about all the coerced adoption that was going on then, too (read The Girls Who Went Away by Ann Fessler).

That whole post is a joke.

Aug 12 '11

i hate how people base their morality on legality


just because something is legal doesn’t make it right, and just because something is illegal, doesn’t make it wrong. for example: smoking weed is nowhere near as harmful or addictive as drinking alcohol, but which one has the worse reputation? abortion is legal, but that doesn’t mean aborting a 3rd trimester fetus (in some states) just because you don’t want it is okay.

Well, then, thank goodness that doesn’t happen. Do people really think someone will go through 6+ months of pregnancy, then just decide they don’t want a baby anymore? Damn.

I’ve got news for ya. See this here?

Why are late-term abortions performed? There are a number of reasons. Testing for serious and life-threatening abnormalities is generally performed mid- to late-second trimester, so it may be quite a while into the pregnancy before a problem is discovered. Secondly, the pregnant person may develop life-threatening problems during the pregnancy, or have health problems that were undiscovered until or exacerbated by the pregnancy, or would threaten the pregnancy.

These are often very much wanted pregnancies, and the situation is truly tragic. Some will get an abortion to spare the fetus further suffering in the womb or after birth, especially if the fetus has severe and fatal deformities. Danielle Deaver’s water broke late into her second trimester, which meant the fetus’ lungs would not be able to develop further, wouldn’t be able to move its limbs, and it would be crushed by her uterus. She was denied an abortion, gave birth 10 days later, and watched her daughter try to breathe before dying in her arms.

Thirdly, there are situations in which a person can become pregnant, but not know it, or be in denial until a while into the pregnancy. This is more likely in rape or incest victims, especially those who are repeatedly victimized.

It’s really easy to be sucked into pro-life talking points. They’re emotionally charged and rely on knee-jerk reactions. People who get abortions aren’t monsters. You probably know someone who’s had one; after all, roughly 1 in 3 American uterus owners will have an abortion by age 45. They are people like you and your friends, so when you wonder how they could do something like that, ask yourself why you or your loved ones might.

Jul 27 '11

Legislating Morality…


Morality can be legislated and must be. What neither the government nor the church can do, though, is legislate the hearts of people, only the Holy Spirit’s conviction can do so and God is ultimately our hearts’ judge, anyway. I would guess that people’s views of morality could differ, but without Christ, without God, without the conscience of the Holy Spirit’s being, then what defines right and wrong for a non-believer? As a Christian, my definition of morality comes from the truths that Jesus teach. We legislate murder, theft, perjury, etc. and so why should today’s widely accepted “social norms” be treated differently? When it comes to gay marriage, I do not believe Christian legislators, acting as the Church, should vote in favor of passing a law that would allow it. When it comes to abortion, I’m convicted in the same way. People often say, “The country cannot legislate morality” but I would rather the government legislate morality than sin.

Society decides morality. There are some cultural universals, like prohibitions on lying and murder, an obligation to care for young, and the incest taboo. The prohibitions differ in detail, but are based on the same code of morality. Laws were made by civilizations well before Christianity existed, laws based on codes of morality that are quite similar to those we have today. These laws are written in other holy texts, as well as ancient legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi and the Code of Ur-Nammu.

I don’t do bad things because I’m afraid someone will punish me by sending me to hell, or whatever your religion’s punishment is. I don’t do bad things because someone told me God said so. I don’t do bad things because they feel wrong to me, because of what I have been taught by my parents and society as a whole, because of the law, and because I have given thought to my actions. God/religion does not enter into it.

The little details of your morality are not the final word.

May 28 '11