So R.E.K. can keep her baby after all.
While pro-lifers are praising the decision and the young woman for their commitment to the lives of the unborn, groups like NARAL are praising them for their commitment to...
...wait for it...
CHOICE.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
14 comments:
This is not a debate forum -- there are hundreds of other sites for that. This is a safe space for abortion care providers and one that respects the full spectrum of reproductive choices; comments that are not in that spirit will either wind up in the spam filter or languish in the moderation queue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tell me. If you are facing a person who is pondering the choice of whether to end your life, or let it continue, and his/her choice depended on which demographic he appealed to, and you had absolutely no say in the matter, which demographic would you want to have the final say over your existence? life? or choice......
ReplyDeletefixed this for you:
Delete"Tell me. If you are facing a person who is pondering the choice of whether to end your [pregnancy], or [make] it continue, and his/her choice depended on which demographic he appealed to, and you had absolutely no say in the matter, which demographic would you want to have the final say over your [pregnancy]? [no choice]? or choice......"
You know what? If I were a teenage girl and the state were going to ask pro-life or pro-choice folks whether to end MY life as I know it, I'd want the pro-choice perspective to win the day. Because then i WOULD have a say in the matter, and I could rightfully make the decision for myself. You know, since that's what pro-choice means.
If you are a born person living independently of someone else's organ systems and someone wants to kill you, they're s**t out of luck as far as laws or morals go.
DeleteIf you are attached to them by IVs and you would die if they unhooked you, they still have the right to unhook you.
That is the correct parallel here.
Kudos, this blog post so simple yet so hard hitting. It sums up the abortion debate perfectly. Its all about Choice.
ReplyDeleteState of Texas loses appeal on abortion provider case in 5th Circuit Court: http://louisianarecord.com/news/249763-state-of-texas-loses-appeal-on-abortion-provider-case-in-5th-circuit-court
ReplyDeletehypocrisy part trois:
ReplyDeleteDon't talk about Kermit, right? Unless you mean the green frog on Sesame Street. :)
Um, thanks for the suggestion, Anonymous, but we don't agree. If anyone mistakenly thought that "we" don't talk about what went down in Philly, allow me to suggest some reading:
Deletehttp://abortioneers.blogspot.com/2010/03/sad-times.html
http://abortioneers.blogspot.com/2011/01/even-sadder-times-bad-doctors-system_21.html
http://abortioneers.blogspot.com/2011/02/safe-abortion-project-holy-crap-is-this.html
These are just from our own blog, but there's more discussion elsewhere, including some that we linked to in the posts above. Read on.
Hello Abortioneers,
ReplyDeleteI found this post very straightforward and realistic. It relates perfectly with the debate of abortion. I also feel that Abortion is one of the most controversial issues facing America today in which needs resolution.
Would you mind reading my blog at I would like to have your perspective.
Kaitlyn Givens
kgivensengl250@iastate.edu
The Green Room at Iowa State University
Hi Kaitlyn, at your request I have checked out your blog. What is its aim? Is it for a class assignment at Iowa State? Here's my perspective as a well-read researcher of abortion-related issues in the clinical and social sciences (my silly pseudonym is deceptive).
DeleteIt's always good to gather information to support a perspective on an issue. But your information so far has serious limitations -- I saw major factual inaccuracies, and it seems like you tried to tie them together using unfounded speculation. You may need more sources, or better sources. Of the sources you do cite, some have a clear non-factual agenda, some have information which has already been discredited or proven incorrect, and some of them are not even available at the links you provided.
My suggestion would be to find more sources, ensure they are reliable before relying on them, and use them to build a more truthful and nuanced description of this topic. After all, you started a whole blog about it. Presumably you want that blog to have useful, reliable information for the readers who find it.
I'll post this suggestion at your blog as well, in hopes that you'll have a chance to use it. Good luck.
Who is covering the trial, placenta-sandwich? Where's the media coverage? Why didn't the murder of a woman and (since they dropped three counts)four babies by a physician getting front page headlines? Permit me to co-opt a phrase here:
ReplyDeleteMaybe if he would have used a gun??
Sanctimonious bigotry (along with the hypocrisy).
"Maybe if he would have used a gun??"
DeleteIf abortions were done with guns, face it, the NRA and Republican party would start supporting them.
PS: Couldn't answer my first comment as it was written? Of course not. I was speaking about the other body involved. The separate and distinct body of an individual in the womb. Very shitty, 'pro-choice', the terms of geographical significance when you are in the womb. Pretty soon no one will care, even when you're outta there! Oh, wait! I guess you already don't care.....(Kermit Gosnell and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/29/planned-parenthood-lobbyist-suggests-killing-newbo/)
ReplyDeleteI can't respond to people who speak out of both sides of their mouth. Your question as written was unanswerable, is all. As is your "clarification": if a body started in your womb but is separate from your body, either it's dead in utero or it's already been born. Both of which preclude abortion by definition.
DeleteHow your physiological ignorance is relevant to a months-old blog post on a Texas minor's choice to continue her pregnancy, however, is unclear.
I guess you haven't been looking for it. It's been on my various news feeds plenty. But if you've only been reading rags like the NY Post and the Washington Times, makes sense you wouldn't know it -- instead of writing about the allegations and trial, they've spent their column inches writing about how there's been nothing written about the allegations and trial.
ReplyDeleteHowever, other people have done those publications the favor of pointing out some of the coverage they've missed. For example: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/ or http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/210135/media-coverage-swells-over-the-lack-of-media-coverage-for-abortion-provider-kermit-gosnell/
You could start there. Which is good, because my monthly shift as human search engine is ending now.