So your unfertilized egg had become a human life. This happened during your period. Let's call Ripley's and get you in there. I am amazed at the miracle. Last time I checked that had only happened once before.

I am so sad for your loss.:(

Any attempt to call a fetus a "person" with full Constitutional rights at any point prior to the point of viability is relying on a definition of "person" that inherently requires a conceptual 'spirit' or other God-imbued or endowed essence to define a human being.

Now, from a point of law, that's just not appropriate. Staunch Conservatives should be lining up to support an open interpretation of law, one that supports individual freedoms and separates Church and State, just as the Framers intended - but some aren't. Hm. Weird. It's almost like cries for "individual responsibility" or "state's rights" or "American values" are performed by both sides out of convenience.

Just like people have a right to proselytize no matter how annoying it may be to me, there's just no way to use a religious definition of a "person" in any sense.

Is it viable outside of the womb? If yes, abortion should not be allowed. For this reason, the Philly doctor appears to be a legitimate murderer. If the fetus is not, you can choose your own adventure here - and good luck to you, but let's ensure we're not casting stones.

Seriously, troll harder. You're not even reading the posts your replying to or your first sentence would actually make sense. LOL at the "keeping you from posting" comment. You're right, we can't keep madmax from posting either. That doesn't make you worthwhile.

Also, lolz at quoting Umbridge in your siggy and then expecting us to take you seriously. So you're totally frodo, right?

A follow up to the original story:
AP on Google
Read the rest, and if you think that the only reason people complain here is because he was "illegal" you're an idiot. It is precisely the things that made him illegal that we are revolted by.

And another story, this time about the House GOP.
Mother Jones
WTF Republicans? It's not rape if she didn't fight back? It's not rape if it's "just" statutory. Go to hell.

That is downright fucked up.

I think Whoopi Goldberg wrote that piece of legislation.

ETA-

What I mean is, the belief that statutory rape isn't "really" rape isn't necessarily a Republican belief. There are democrats who think the same as well.

So true, and it's completely fucked up either way.

Yes, I'm aware that people are really stupid about rape. But who is proposing the bill? House Republicans.

So, that's who I'm blaming.

Victims of domestic violence are not irresponsible, I agree. Drug addicts ARE irresponsible. Also, being young is not an excuse.

Drug addicts are responsible for the decision to try drugs. They are not responsible for sex they do not consent to, and I'm betting that's the case with many of those women. Not to mention the ones that buy drugs with their bodies. I have compassion for that. That can't be something they started out thinking they'd do and certainly it can't be what they want. And personally, I refuse to be so hard on "being young". Teenagers are stupid, no one can deny that, but I doubt these were teens with supportive families or access to healthcare either for themselves or their unborn babies. I know had I gotten knocked up as a teen I'd be terrified enough, and I would have had angry but supportive parents, healthcare, and eventually a college education. I don't know how those without deal rationally.

Basically the type of women that went to this clinic for late abortions on the cheap were likely (at least in general) not black and white cases of irresponsible unprotected sex.

Once again, getting involved in drugs is an irresponsible decision. Buying drugs with your body is a very irresponsible decision and I don't feel bad for people who do that. I don't feel sorry for people who abort a child because they got caught up in drugs, sold their bodies for drug money and then chose to abort because their risky behaviors resulted in an unwanted pregnancy.

I feel sorry for anyone who was so desperate they chose this doctor rather than seeking a reputable clinic. Babies are not punishment for being an addict. Botched abortions are not punishment either.

Most women who have an abortion at all aren't looking for your sympathy in the first place. It's not the abortion that society feels 'sorry' for here, it's the terrible conditions, the poverty, the desperation, the lack of supports and so on. Stop acting like the abortion is only the act of the irresponsible who are to be pitied if we deign to.

There should be a minimum standard of care. There is in fact a minimum standard of care. Why do you think that women went to this clinic rather than the planned parenthood in the same area? One woman cites the protesters, others their legal status, hiding it from family or trying to scrape up money and so on. If there was easy, universal access to healthcare NO ONE would voluntarily go to this sort of doctor. I'd argue that the women who saw him were overall not "voluntarily" going in the first place.

ETA: Ok, I've reread your comments again, and really I do no understand how you work in social services. I don't. I work with addicts, with convicted felons, I work with people who make really stupid decisions and deserve the consequences from those decisions, yet I still feel compassion. I have a client who will probably lose her son due to her crack addiction. When she gets money, she smokes it all. But when she doesn't have money all of her potential comes out. I'm probably going to have to send her back to prison or for lockdown treatment in lieu of our services, yet I still feel compassion. She is responsible for her actions, yet she still deserves adequate health care. Another client, equally addicted has a history of prostitution for drugs, yet again, it's not like the prostitution means she deserves STDs, rape, or no access to healthcare. She can't afford birth control, nor can she afford to require the 'johns' to use a condom if they decided not to. How can you NOT feel sympathy for that?

I understand sometimes when people with no contact with poor people, addicts, people with SMI, and so on just don't get it *coughKevincough* but when someone is, in theory, in the FIELD of social services and social work? Get out of the field, you're doing it wrong.

I guess we just disagree, but then I'm a compassionate person. No one who is addicted to heroin, for instance, is living a good life. Drugs like that that can be addictive after one or two uses cause a life time of pain as a result of one stupid decision. It's a high price to pay for a momentary lapse of judgment. I have no idea why anyone would try it in the first place, but personally I'm willing to realize that I've done many stupid things in my life and I'm lucky none of those things carried long term consequences like addiction.

A woman using her body to get drugs absolutely deserves compassion. There is no way I'll believe anyone in that position wants to be and it just shows how strong addiction really is. Obviously it isn't "right" nor ideal, but it isn't black and white either, IMO.

I love how because I disagree with you (or anyone who disagrees with you) I am automatically a horrible monster who should not be in the field. I'm glad that you feel the need to try and put me down because I disagree with you. I know you work with convicts-you've said it in EVERY post that deals with the poor, sick, irresponsible, etc. I get it. Good for you.

I stand behind my belief that addicts make poor choices. Does that mean they should be raped? No. You seem to feel bad for every single person that makes a poor decision and then you turn it into an entire thread about how YOU are a compassionate person and I (as well as others who don't agree with you-to include Kevin) am a horrible person in the wrong field. You don't go to work with me. You don't see how I interact with people. You have no idea of my abilities or for whom I have compassion. I find it ironic that you tell others not to judge yet, you have no problem judging me or anyone else who doesn't agree with you.

I agree with pretty much everything AlphaFrog has said and I don't really care if you like it or not. I know-I know, I'm going to get the "Shut the fuck up," speech from you and you will call me a monster because I don't share your views instead of recognizing that not everyone will agree with you.

To others who are pro-choice, that is fine. I have no ill-feelings towards you. I agree that we can disagree. I'm glad we have people who don't all think alike or the world would be very boring. As far as telling someone they shouldn't be working in the field they are in because they disagree with you-that is a little too far.

Honestly I don't see how you can be in social work and have no sympathy for people who made a poor choice and had the rest of their life effected by it.

You're not a horrible monster, that I know of. You're just someone who insists that they have no compassion for people who are 'irresponsible.' I do not understand that.

Look, we agree.
No, Kevin's not in this field, he just tends to have a bootstrappy view. When people say that X person was irresponsible and then suggests that they somehow deserve Y consequence when Y is not something that should ever BE a punishment, yeah I assume they're pretty narrow-minded.
I only know what you say here and based on that, you suggest that a drug addict who has an unwanted pregnancy somehow deserves a negative outcome, whether that is to be forced to carry that to term, or apparently an illegal clinic. So, yeah, judging you for that. Because see, I judge you for what you say. I don't think you're a horrible person, but I do not see how you can work in the field. It's not about politics, or religion. It's about stereotyping, class-ism, and privilege.

The doctor was the monster here. I think you doth protest too much. Maybe you keep your personal views out of your work, I don't know. You seem to overestimate your importance. Rape-apologists get the STFU speech. You just tend to try and over explain yourself while at the same time be really sure that you're apart from those drug addicts, those people who make poor choices who therefore are irresponsible even if they turn around and try to take the responsible action of NOT bringing a pre-addicted baby into the world without parents who could take care of it.

If you think this was "You shouldn't be a social worker because you're anti-choice." You're wrong. If you think this was a "How do you work in social services if you think being required to carry a pregnancy to term or seek out an illegal clinic for an abortion is in any way an expected and reasonable consequence of being drug addict and they should just be so responsible" then you're right.

Thank you, that's what I'm saying. It's not about one's politics or beliefs on abortion itself, it's being able to understand and empathize with your clients.

Drug addicts have a disease.

Oh, then by all means let's bring all of these unwanted children to term. I am sure they will have a great life with their drug addicted parents. Heck, they will probably be an addict themselves:rolleyes: yeah!

They can be put up for adoption.

But I guess death is better than any hardships that may or may not occur. :confused:

A college or high school girl with health care and a stable roof over her head can afford prenatal care and eventually give her baby up for adoption. Not everyone has it that easy.

The self righteous attitude is tired and only turns people off to anything you say. If you truly believe abortion is wrong, why not do something productive about it instead of using sarcasm and holier than thou posts?

Your conscience bothering you?

As I have told others and will tell you, I will post what I want when I want. Just because you disagree with me and think infanticide, in the name of choice, is acceptable will not deter me from disagreeing.

You have no idea what I do, what I give and to whom I give my time, talents and money to, so get off your high horse.

Are you implying that she has had an abortion and now feels guilty about it?

Need I remind you that the contents of a woman's reproductive organs are none of your business?

Predictable troll is predictable.

SAVE THE BABIES, THEY NEED OUR HELP!

FUCK THE POOR! THEY DON'T DESERVE OUR HELP!

Nope. Fortunately I've never had an unplanned pregnancy and had to make the choice. I don't envy anyone who does and can't say what I would do since Ive never been in that situation. I do believe in a woman's right to choose in regards to her body.You're right, I don't know what you do but what I do know is that you aren't doing your "side" any favors by being rude, downright hostile and aggressive instead of making clear and informed arguments that explain why you feel the way you do. And again, if you wish others to respect your viewpoint you must be respectful of theirs. You do not have to agree to respect others, by the way. Otherwise you are foolish to expect anyone to refrain from giving you what you give them.

In other words, your attitude is bad. Either adjust it and be civil or have the balls to take your same bad attitude thrown in your face.

I just read a dystopian story that took this to the extreme. Abortion was illegal, sex was only permitted if the woman was ovulating and the man's sperm count was high and if you didn't match with your spouse you went to a communal center - the church i believe - and made babies with the other people there. Infants who were born infertile would be given a terminal baptism, they were blessed and then drowned by a priest. Because the infants, thus baptized, would go to heaven, but the unborn that they would never be able to bear wouldn't, so they 'made room' so to speak.

There were no social services or anything, just families in tiny spaces with 9 children or so. The priest ends up killing himself via his own sort of terminal baptism.

You know, when someone disagrees with your liberal positions you go into megaattack mode. You get a pissed when someone stands up to you and others with your beliefs. It is quite common for you to disparage those who don't agree with you. I simply chose to dish it out and not allow you, or those with similar beliefs as you, to run roughshod over me or others I agree with. So in that I am no more a troll then you.

I am pro-life and proud of it. You and your ilk are pro-choice so wear it well. I have said it before and will reiterate it as much as possible, it is a child, not a fetus. You can parse it anyway you want but it is taking a truly innocent life. The unborn child has not even had a chance to lose its innocence. If you don't see that then I pity your humanity. I weep for the innocent unborn who you deem unworthy to live.

I am appalled that on one hand you state that this was a heinous act by the "doctor" but that you also believe that the unborn child is a fetus (and, I assume, therefore has no rights in the pro-choice world) until it exits the birth canal. If that is truly what you believe then what did the "doctor" do wrong other than accidentally kill the 1 adult? If the adults had attended a "legal" abotion clinic and the children had been killed by scissors being shoved into their skulls and their spinal cord severed would you find that troubling? Inquiring minds would like to know.

If you presented anything other than emotional appeals and personal attacks I'd care more. That's trolling. Should you bother to read any of the rest of the thread, as agzg pointed out you haven't, you'd find the answers to your questions. But keep it up, someone might believe you're real yet.

/seriously you're frodo aren't you.

It is unfortunate you are such a very unpleasant person. You obviously feel strongly about the issue. I know many people that feel the same as you, but they are people with grace and civility that are able to explain clearly why they believe the way they do without attacking others. It's very possible to believe strongly one way or another and still be respectful. I pity you, personally, because it must be hard to go through life with such an abrasive personality.

You see, had you commented without "your ilk" or "I pity your humanity" and the like, you wouldn't have encountered unpleasant responses. Once again, if you are rude and hostile, you have no right to expect civil responses. The responses you are getting are your own attitude thrown right back at you. Have the decency to recognize that and accept it instead of playing the victim. You aren't one, in any way shape or form. And once again, you have no right to expect anyone here to respect your opinions if you will not return the favor. Since you have made it clear you respect no opinions but your own, stop expecting you'll get a pass on your hostility.

Lastly, the questions you asked have actually been answered, and you have chosen not to read them. Instead of reading and discussing intelligently you have once again stooped to incorrect assumptions. If you are incapable of reading, don't bother asking questions.

And how many children have you adopted? Would you adopt a child of a different race? Would you adopt a child with special needs?

For me pro-choice is just that - pro-CHOICE.

If a woman chooses to have an abortion, fine. That is her choice that she will have to live with.

If a woman decides to keep the child and raise it or put it up for aboption, that is her choice as well.

I personally don't "prosecute" her either way.

It would be great if all babies are born to wonderful married parents, but they are not.

More often that not, unwed expectant mothers receive little to no support, especially from the guy who got her pregnant.


So, instead of attacking women, why don't you take it upon yourself to help educate men so that they will be aware of their responsibility also.

No. No other id's.

I am/was an adopted child. Guess once adopted always adopted.

*whoosh*

I believe there are pro-choice men out there as well. Many of the pro-choice posters are men (I think, no way to prove it either way). Stating my opinion and pointing out alternatives to abortion is not attacking women or men. I do attack the act as incomprehensible, cruel and gruesome.

My understanding is that the women is the final decision maker when it comes to an abortion. I believe they can choose to have an abortion over the objections of the man. Do they always, of course not, but can they? I believe so. This is one of the central parts of the debate over pro-choice vs. pro-life. The law as written now allows the woman to choose what she will do with her body. I am one of those who chooses to speak up for the unborn child. If no one spoke up for the child there would necessarily be no debate and we all could congratulate ourselves on how wise we are. As long as abortion is legal all I can do is try to change others minds and point out alternatives (church, counseling, support groups, adoption, etc.).

And yes, the man is just as responsible for the child and should be responsible for its comfort and well being along with that of the mother. Unfortunately there are too many "men" who shirk their duties and obligations. These are not real men. I don't know what one can do about that other than state ones opinion and try to change the hearts/conscience of the father/s. Responsibility cannot be forced on people no matter what we say, do or legislate. We can only keep on trying.

In this thread you absolutely attack women and men who have differing opinions from yourself. Consider focusing on the act itself when voicing your opinions. Rudeness and hostility will change nothing, especially minds.

Also consider researching the plights of those less fortunate. Women without any sort of financial aid, family support, partner support, education, etc. simply do not have the options available to many of us. Instead of judging, it might be more productive to find ways to help them should they choose to carry the baby to term, which would make it more likely they would choose to do so instead of have an abortion. For instance, I have a relative that volunteered for an organization called Save-a-Life (sp?)...and though I disagree with some of the things many of the volunteers think and say, I did notice that they specifically reached out to women without healthcare or emotional and financial support. Yes, some of those women still had abortions, but some did not because they simply needed help getting on their feet. She has several stories of clients that have come back with their children and said that they had really wanted to keep their babies all along but were afraid they wouldn't be able to provide for them, and because of the resources the volunteers offered them they were able to become good parents. I firmly believe that is not the correct choice for every woman, but there are many out there that do not really want the abortion and just think it is their best option at the time due to their circumstances. For women in that particular position a service like that (as well as caring volunteers that are capable of leaving their judgments at the door) is really all they need.

Could you please break down the gender identities of the various posters in this thread?

You seem to be able to dish it out in this and other threads but when it gets thrown back at you, you accuse others of attacking. Get the plank out of your own eye.

Canned response much?