Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Antichoicers wont let HIV+ women have families.

We learned that the people pushing for anti-abortion laws are actually pushing for forced abortion and c-section laws; they are one and the same.

"Why We Marched"

This quote is very important because it tells us the truth about antichoicers. Their goal is not to prevent abortions, but to control women. One way to control women is to deny them the right and ability to abort. Another way to control women is to tell certain groups of women that they cannot have sex and or cannot get pregnant and have a child.

I recently learned that a couple of the antichoicers on twitter believe that it is wrong for a woman who is HIV+ to choose to get pregnant and have a baby. This surprised me, because antis are so often talking about babies as miracles and the best thing about life.

It seems not everyone is allowed to enjoy the best part of life.

One of the antis said that a couple who is HIV+ should just refrain from having sex (or at least that's how they came across). I believe it's perfectly acceptable for people to refrain from having sex; if that is what they want to do. But what about the couple who wants to have sex? Why shouldn't they be "allowed," like all other consenting adults on the planet, to have sex? The other anti said that the risk of HIV transmission to a fetus/baby was too great to risk getting pregnant, but then said that a couple could still have sex. If the risk is too big to risk pregnancy, and sex has a risk of pregnancy, I'm not sure how you can hold those two views together.

But what I really don't understand, is where antichoicers got the idea that they could tell other people they couldn't have kids and expand their families. Women and men with HIV shouldn't be punished just for having HIV. If they want to start families, they should have every right to do so- in as safe a situation as possible! Teaching people with HIV that there's a stigma against them isn't going to encourage them to seek out treatment or reveal their HIV+ status to their doctors.

I'm sure other people are worried about risk of HIV transfer. I hadn't done much research myself, but @ashleyrebeccah was nice enough to share a link with me.

Antiretroviral therapy administered to the mother during pregnancy, labor and delivery, and then to the newborn, as well as elective cesarean section for women with high viral loads (more than 1,000 copies/ml), can reduce the rate of perinatal HIV transmission to 2% or less [12]

"Mother-to-Child (Perinatal) HIV Transmission and Prevention"

This means that as long as the mother knows she is HIV+, the risk of HIV transmission is 2% or less.

I'm sure some people will think that's too big of a risk to take. But for other people, perhaps people with HIV, that's not too big of a risk to take.

At 45 years old, women have a 3% risk of delivering a child with downs syndrome. Women who have already had a child with a neural tube defect have a 3% risk of having another child with a neural tube defect, like Anencephaly. Do antichoicers believe these women too should not be "allowed" to have a family?


It is a slippery slope which antichoicers are willing to go down towards eugenics, I'm sure. First women with HIV cannot have children- then women at risk for other diseases. Will they require everyone to have genetic testing to see if they will be allowed to have sex? Or will they just force sterilization upon the people they do not want to have kids?

Women are individual human beings, who deserve to have individual control over their reproductive organs and choices. Whether they be HIV+ or not; whether they have a genetic disease or not.

67 comments:

  1. Like you said, if you take away the rights of HIV+ people due to the small risk, you have to start taking away the rights of other groups, too. How about we just tell women who are at high risk for miscarrying any future pregnancies that they just shouldn't get pregnant, because then the fetus/embryo would have to live a short life? They claim to love children with Down's syndrome, but they're advocating for eugenics, targeting children like children with Down's syndrome (not to mention the fact that they'll often say something like "You want to kill down's babies you libtard!")

    It's all about privilege and/or selfishness. These people are never told that they can't/shouldn't have kids. No one ever says "People who are able bodied/white/cis/middle class should never be able to have kids!" So they don't care. As long as it doesn't affect them directly, as long as THEY can have kids, they don't care. In other words, it's all about "me me me me me me me!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. i love how, even with their faulty 30% statistic, the antis want HIV+ couples to abstain completely to avoid a pregnancy, but when i was still married they said i was selfish for refusing to have a child with my ex husband - despite the fact that he was extremely mentally disturbed AND had Huntingtons. this meant that any child i bore would have a 50% chance of dying a very long painful death.

    so the lesson here is: some long, drawn out, agonizing deaths are acceptable and worth the risk... so long as you don't get to determine for yourself which ones are and which aren't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And they actually wonder out loud why we call them anti-choice. Some of them even say they are the "real" pro-choice because they don't advocate for abortion. What the hell choice are they giving HIV+ (or whatever other group they decide is not "worthy") people?

    "...antis are so often talking about babies as miracles and the best thing about life.

    It seems not everyone is allowed to enjoy the best part of life."

    You hit the nail on the head right there. A couple of the individuals I saw discussing the issue claim to be Christians...are they not committing two sins against their god? Acting in place of god and passing judgment on others?

    I'm ranting a little, and I'm sorry. This whole thing just makes me so angry though! That they think they're better than others and that they have a right to dictate how other people should live is just so infuriating.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't be ridiculous. Two people twitting on twitter does not a representation make. I heard two 'pro choicers' talking about how all the 'anti's' should be lined up and gunned down. So that confirms that all pro choicers advocate murder, right? The nuance you probably missed was the twitter-ers inarticulately expressing concern for HIV transmission to the fetus, which would be a sad thing. And eugenics? Many pioneers of the pro choice movement were rabid racists in favor of ethnic cleansing.

    PS - don't hang a label on me. Every movement has its dirty little secrets, doesn't mean you 'throw the baby out with the bath water' - so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous, I believe that all antichoicers want to control women. I also know that two people does not represent the whole of the antichoice movement. However, these two people represent how they, as antichoicers, want to control women.

    As for eugenics, the only prochoice eugenic supporters are ones who lived at a time where *everyone* supported eugenics- from presidents to law schools to major research institutes. I'd much rather have eugenics in my past than eugenics in my present or future.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's incredibly disingenuous to spin your blog post against people you don't happen to agree with based on the conversation of the twitter-ers. This is a big problem within the pro choice movement. Every rule of logic - broken. Illogical arguments disrupt and discredit your cause. Arguments should always be based on merit.

    You said:

    "It is a slippery slope which antichoicers are willing to go down towards eugenics, I'm sure."

    You're sure?? Really? How can you be sure? Did you even read my comment? Apparently these twitter-ers are not educated about the anti-viral medications that significantly reduce the risk of maternal to fetal HIV transmission - and I know a lot of stupid pro choice people, too - and they would probably tell an HIV+ woman who was pregnant that she should have an abortion.... and what if they did? Would it be ok since they are pro choice and not 'antis'? What's the difference between suggesting abortion as an option and suggesting that someone with HIV not get pregnant, either suggestion being based upon an uneducated opinion? Iknow! Iknow! it's ok to suggest the abortion because we're pro choice!!

    And where do pro choicers get the idea that they can gun people down? I'd rather my cause not have an association with racism or eugenics or murder past, present or future. The REAL past, present, or future --- not one I imagine to be true based upon two people twittering. Do you want me to start regurging statistics about where and to whom Planned Parenthood targets it's advertising? Statistics about the disproportionate numbers of abortions drawn along racial lines? Like I said, dirty secrets - real unbiased statistics that every cause has, even when we don't want to believe our cause is anything but just.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like to think that a prochoicer would allow a woman who is HIV+ to make her own decisions about pregnancy. I would like to think that the prochoicer would not encourage ("suggest") one choice over another.

    Like I said- I know these two do not singularly represent the whole of the antichoice community. However, their actions and words are examples of antichoice activism.

    Even when the antis in question learned about the 2% risk after anti-virals, they continued to say the risk was too high.

    Planned Parenthood offers it's services to all people. If the people who take up their offer are disproportionately a specific race, economic class or other group that means that our society and culture needs to work to improve the lives of those people. Perhaps antis could stop calling Planned Parenthood racist and join us in trying to improve people's lives?

    ReplyDelete
  8. You would "like to think"......right. Leads me to believe that you know, like I know, like 'antis' know, like pro choicers know, that anti choicers are not the only ones involved in activism. You know, like I know, that under the blanket of pro choice are many who WOULD encourage and suggest one choice over another, and then become enraged if someone suggested the opposite. You know the proof is there..... ;)

    And.....even when the two pro choicers were confronted with their murderous rhetoric about gunning down antis, they continued to unleash verbal threats and hate toward antis. I know these two do not singularly represent the whole of the pro choice community. However, their actions and words are examples of pro choice activism (not to mention threats, lies, and propensity toward violence).

    The truth is (in addition to being something you DON'T want to blog about), that these twitts just as easily could have been expressing their personal feelings about someone infected with HIV getting pregnant, and many people might agree that any risk to the child they so desperately want to have, would be too much risk. They are not following the talking points of the pro life movement.....merely expressing an opinion, which they have the right to do. There just might be some pro choicers who in their own opinion, agree with them. You see, every one has a right to their own opinion, and to share their opinion. Subsequently, you have inflated and overblown the rhetoric by assigning motives to their discussion to make an inflammitory accusation. Good for stirring up more heated rhetoric, but bad form in general.

    Yes, I know, Planned Parenthood offers it's services to all people. And all the administrators of PP only have people's best interests at heart, and the founder of PP was not a racist, and did not want to wipe the African American population off the face of the earth, and no one in planned parenthood wants to make money off of abortions and so on....and so on.....and so on. So why does anyone still pay for an abortion?

    And here's another secret......no one can improve someone's life until they first decide they want it to improve. Then their eyes are open to the limitless opportunities that exist for them to do exactly that. Then they can work toward a goal and eventually pull themselves off the teat of government 'assistance'. Every day I go to work I'm contributing to the cause of helping people in lesser circumstances pull themselves up and out, both by my specific actions, and by the tax dollars the fed takes from my paycheck to provide the programs that can help improve lives. Alongside me are pros, and antis. All helping. Now here's the kicker.....calling planned parenthood out on valid statistical research showing that they purposely target minorities has nothing to do with what antis, pro choicers, or the New York Yankees do to improve anyone's life. Point is, I think most folks are still smart enough or willing enough to help, while recognizing the truth of the PP matter......perhaps even help in more meaningful ways because they know the truth. Lots of good things about knowing and telling the truth, which as a Christian, you are well aware of, yes?

    So be a good woman. Concede that you took two people to task based on some faulty circular reasoning, for merely expressing their opinion. They weren't out picketing against HIV+ moms at an OB clinic. They weren't even specifically telling anyone not to get pregnant. Just blathering their own uneducated opinion. There's enough of that going around on both sides (anti, pro choice) to sink a fleet, so it's best not to start pointing fingers for THAT. The dialog and discourse would be much clearer and much more civil (gunning people down is certainly not civil) if their were less of it, not to mention people wouldn't be hating on one another so much.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I say "I would like to think" because I cannot control the actions or words of other people. I can wish they would act a certain way, but I cannot force them to act a certain way. I am sure there are people who only support abortion who have used the prochoice definition for themselves, even though they are not truly prochoice.

    And of course, some prochoicers *might* encourage a certain choice based upon a woman's individual situation. But that person, if truly prochoice, would also support the women if she made a decision in a different direction.

    This is vastly different than an antichoicer saying that no woman should ever get pregnant if she has HIV. That is a judgment of a whole group of people, not a recommendation made to an individual woman.

    Prochoice activism is about ensuring that women and men have access to all reproductive choices. I'm not sure how talking about gunning down antis (which I do not support) counts as prochoice activism, since that ensures the protection of no choices.


    "many people might agree that any risk to the child they so desperately want to have, would be too much risk."

    Yes, which is what helps make it a part of antichoice (controlling women) activism- many people support the idea. It just so happened that two people spoke up about it.

    "You see, every one has a right to their own opinion, and to share their opinion."

    For someone who is attacking my opinion, I'm surprised to see you say this.

    "So be a good woman."

    You are neither my mother nor my God, and have no right to tell me what to do.

    I will no apologize for showing the truth about (some) antichoicers and their opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "That is a judgment of a whole group of people, not a recommendation made to an individual woman."

    You said it was two people who identified themselves as anti choice.......not a whole group of people. You have broad brushed the whole anti choice movement based on two people.....for shame.

    "Prochoice activism is about ensuring that women and men have access to all reproductive choices. I'm not sure how talking about gunning down antis (which I do not support) counts as prochoice activism, since that ensures the protection of no choices."

    You would have to ask the hateful prochoice people why they include hate in their activism....They're the ones who said all antis should be lined up and shot, not me. I have no idea.

    "Yes, which is what helps make it a part of antichoice (controlling women) activism- many people support the idea. It just so happened that two people spoke up about it."

    Got any facts to back that up? Today, just for fun, I polled ten co-workers on the subject of HIV+ women getting pregnant. Five ID themselves as pro-choice, five as anti choice. Seven out of ten said a woman shouldn't risk a pregnancy transmitting HIV to her baby, including ALL FIVE pro choice women. Even when pressed about it being an individual choice, they remained adamant. After discussing antivirals, two women slightly altered their opinion....they were the anti choice women. Two women (yeah, pro choicers) said that they would counsel the HIV+ women to terminate their pregnancies. So, will I see a follow up blog post about the pro choice women who want to tell HIV+ women not to get pregnant? Where do they get off? (the answer to the question is No, I won't see a blog post decrying the pro choice movement because of the aforementioned women who don't think HIV+ women should get pregnant,because they don't support your biased theory and your narrow mindedness prevents you from insightful critique of your own activism).

    "For someone who is attacking my opinion, I'm surprised to see you say this."

    Your spinning your bias. I never attacked your opinion. You are entitled to your opinion. I am merely pointing out, that based on the opinion of two women who don't share your same point of view, you have stated that all anti choicers don't want women who are HIV+ to ever get pregnant, to the point of advocating eugenics. This is an absolute conclusion you have drawn from listening to opinions, and it is simply not a logical conlusion, nor the truth. It's disingenuous at best, and a complete lie at its worst.

    And please quit spinning the debate as if everyone involved -pro and anti - is not trying to control women, and choices, etc... Both sides - guilty. At some point, something has to control behavior - otherwise anarchy. You bandy the term pro choice around as if everyone should be free to choose to do whatever the hell they want to do (including lining up people and shooting them when they don't agree with you). So who is the ultimate authority in your opinion?

    "You are neither my mother nor my God, and have no right to tell me what to do."

    I'm guessing your 'God' would like you to tell the truth, and not intentionally deceive people (which is the same as lying). I don't know what your mom would tell you. But IN MY OPINION (lol) you should try to be more objective and honest.

    "I will no apologize for showing the truth about (some) antichoicers and their opinions."

    This is a pity. It only demonstrates that pro choicers are every bit as hateful as anti choicers - whether you like to hear it or not. Isn't it enough to argue a position on its merits, and not spin an anectdotal conversation into something it isn't?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It seems we have a misunderstanding. I intended to say that it was two people judging a whole group, not that the two people led me to judge a whole group.

    When ever I see prochoicers speak of violence, I try to reply to them that I do not agree with their violence. I do what I can to stop "bad" ideas on my side; I hope antichoices do what they can to stop "bad" ideas on their side.

    I did not speak with your co-workers. If you wish to write a blog post about their opinions, be my guest.

    "you have stated that all anti choicers don't want women who are HIV+ to ever get pregnant"

    Absolutely not. I have not stated that all antichoicers want HIV+ women to avoid pregnancy. I said TWO PEOPLE. Just TWO spoke to me about HIV+ women. Please, don't pull out information that doesn't exist.

    As a prochoicer, I do not try to control women. I try to educate women and allow women to make their own choices. You say something has to control behavior- and I say yes, let that woman control her behavior.


    "You bandy the term pro choice around as if everyone should be free to choose to do whatever the hell they want to do"

    I hope that this is simply another misunderstanding, and not a strawman or worse, straight out lie.

    I said in my previous post that I do not support violence against antichoicers. I have never said that my prochoice activism means I support people doing anything and everything they want to do.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Checked the title of your post just to make sure. Yep. Title as follows---
    "antichoicers won't let HIV+ women have families "
    Sounds like an absolute statement to me. Sounds as if you are quite certain of this, without substantive proof to back your claim. Uh-huh. Yep.

    You avoid relevant questions. Also not a good strategy. So try this one. How would an anti choicer stop an HIV+ woman from having a family?

    Really? Be your guest? You will let me write a post on your blog about the pro choicers who agree in the majority with the antis you villified in your post? Cool.

    ReplyDelete
  13. PS. I'll help you out with a better title for your post.

    "Some people don't think HIV+ women should get pregnant"

    yep. That's all you have here. I realize it doesn't have the "aren't anti choicers scumbags" bite that you want, but really, it's all you have.

    No, really. No thanks necessary. :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes, it says "Antichoicers." Not all antichoicers. Don't make things up, please.

    Antichoicers try to control women through violence, invoking fear, and by trying to take away constitutional rights.

    When I said "be my guest" I was referring to you writing a post on your own blog, if you have one. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Yes, it says "Antichoicers." Not all antichoicers. Don't make things up, please."

    Why doesn't it say, "a couple of antichoicers"? Don't treat me like a two year old, ok? lol. "All" was implicit throughout the entire post. Nice try. Come on PC - just own it, ok?

    "Antichoicers try to control women through violence, invoking fear, and by trying to take away constitutional rights."

    Merely pointing out that the exact same thing can be said of pro choicers, so who is the better of the two groups, and who has the final say? (you can really answer that if you want)

    So if shooting people isn't controlling by violence, well....I don't know what is.

    The aforementioned pro choicers who want to do violence are certainly invoking fear, 'cause when someone says they would like to line people up and shoot them, that's scary.

    The pro choicers are trying to take away the constitutional protection of freedom of religion, and freedom of speech from antis - cause it certainly enrages you (and other pro choicers) when they share their opinions. Even when it's an opinion that a lot of pro choicers share. This leads me to believe that what enrages you is that they were antis, not necessarily what they were saying. What if they were pro choicers? Would you have blogged about it then?

    And the argument goes on.......

    So instead of backing a cause that does all that, (pro or anti) why don't you join those of us who are trying to improve the lives of all people (men, women, and children)? Not by villifying everyone who has an opinion. What a waste of time. Go teach parenting classes. Provide childcare for a single mom who wants to go to school. Drive a woman to her OB appointment so she gets good prenatal care. Educate HIV+ women about current treatment options during pregnancy that will minimize risk. Talk to kids about birth control, and waiting to have sex. Getting caught up in the rhetoric of pro or anti is fruitless, and perpetuates divisivness and keeps people interested only in arguing while the world moves on. Come on.....you call yourself a Christian.....teach the BETTER way.....as in "...these three remain - faith, hope, and love. And the greatest of these is LOVE."

    If you feel it necessary to identify with pro choice, at least don't be a pro choice hatemonger.

    ReplyDelete
  16. yep. just read it again. "[all] antichoicers" is certainly implicit. Quit equivocating, and just admit it. You never referred to the subject of your blog as "Some" antichoicers. You gave the example of the "couple of antichoicers", but then went back to the blanket generalization. I'm not making anything up. Shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. pss. and since I just read it again for the [whatever] time, you need to correct (or at least complete) your statistic about women who have babies with neural tube defects. When those women take 4mg of folic acid daily their risk returns to that of the general childbearing population, which I believe is 0.1 percent.

    ReplyDelete
  18. * folic acid PRE-pregnancy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. trivia:

    Who suggested Congress set up a special department to study population problems and appoint a "Parliament of Population", "to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population", by applying a "stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation [ in addition to tightening immigration laws] to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."?

    a. the two antis in above post
    b. George W. Bush
    c. Founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger

    Who said: "[As long as they are] 'the best of their race,’ then they can be [counted] as valuable citizens." By the same token, "individual whites" who show "dysgenic traits" must also have their fertility "curbed right along with the other ‘inferiors and undesirables.’"

    a. Jill Stanek
    b. the two antis in the above post
    c. Founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger

    Who said: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

    a. getting the point yet?
    b. Ronald Reagan
    c. the two antis in the above post
    d. founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger

    :)

    ...let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

    ReplyDelete
  20. It doesn't say "a couple" because I felt the title was too long already. I try to keep it short.

    All was not implicit. If you read something which is not in my post, perhaps you should ask me if I meant to say it instead of making assumptions. No where in my post did I say, mean to say, suggest or claim that all antichoicers want women positive with HIV to avoid pregnancy.

    I do not see prochoicers taking anyway anyone's rights. Our claim to fame is love, trust, and support. Not sure how that's fear or violence.

    I've never seen a prochoicer take away freedom of religion or speech. Or argue that those things should be taken away by the government. Perhaps you interact with a different set of prochoicers than I do.

    I probably would not have blogged about this post if I had been talking to prochoicers. I would have disagreed with their opinion just the same.

    I already do some of the things you say I should do, and other similar things which you did not mention. I am capable of publically sharing the opinion of (some) antichoicers and helping individual women.

    Please share your link about women neural tube defects. I would love to read it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Our claim to fame is love, trust, and support."

    I'm feelin' the love all over when someone says they want to shoot someone else.

    Here's some more love: "i hate those fucking right wing christian groups, be they fundamngelicals, or crotch sniffing catholics (which is Natural Family Planning)."
    http://abortioneers.blogspot.com/2010/04/tax-time.html#comments

    Here's a comment by you, on your own blog - you were responding to a commenter, whose questions are in quotations, the one word answers are yours:

    "Christian Prochoicer said...
    "Tell me. Is this the kind of love that causes a mother to kill her fetus? "

    Yes.

    "Is injecting chemicals into a fetus' heart to stop its beating before instruments are introduced to dismember it kindness? "

    Yes.

    "Seeking the good of that fetus? Killing it is a selfless act?"

    Yes. Yes."

    I'm getting all warm and fuzzy with the love.

    Whatever. Merely pointing out that something isn't necessarily so just because you say it is.

    I noticed you totally ignored the trivia post about the revered institution planned parenthood (who, BTW, is being ivestigated again because they overbill for contraceptives to make a profit off the taxpayers. Some of them may be getting their government funding cut). Margaret would have told HIV+ women they should submit to voluntary sterilization so they didn't breed sick children.

    I'm too tired tonight to point out all the inconsistencies with your last comment. Just try to remember that there is nothing personal about the business of abortion, regardless of which side of the debate you find yourself on.

    I do want to thank you for the PSA on antivirals. That's why I helped you out with the PSA on folic acid.....maybe got the dosage wrong.....it could be 0.4mg daily. Not sure. I don't have a specific website. The statistic concerning risk of recurrence is valid, through internet research, research and discussion with well known perinatologists, and personal research d/t personal experience. Just google anencephaly recurrance with folic acid supplementation. There is a plethora of information on the subject. I believe it was in answer to a direct question that a perinatologist said, with folic acid supplementation the risk returns to that of the normal population.

    Anyway, quit being so naive. Everybody who pushes an agenda spins it to look better for their cause. Even warm, loving, trusting, supportive pro choicers. Try to be more objective. It helps you be more credible.

    ReplyDelete
  22. wow. did you delete my last comment? :( So it has come to that, eh? Another pro choice comrade does not like to face the grisly reality that they may not be as warm, loving, and supportive as they think they are. Rest assured! I will not be silenced! I will press on in my quest to expose the lies, inconsistencies, and hypocrisy - pro or anti - wherever it may be found.

    ReplyDelete
  23. (music swells - fade to black)

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I probably would not have blogged about this post if I had been talking to prochoicers. I would have disagreed with their opinion just the same."

    Startling admission here. So you blogged because the people who were sharing their opinion were antis, with the intent to spread some of that warmth, love, and support toward them, right? You would have disagreed with them if they were pro choicers, but would not have villified them in a blog post? Is there something wrong with this picture? We only expose people who have ridiculous or dangerous opinions when they are antis, but pro choicers with ridiculous or dangerous opinions get a pass?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous, this blog post is about HIV+ women. I would prefer if you didn't take the comments off subject. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Prochoicers do not get a pass. I just happen to respond to different people with different methods.

    I did not delete any of your comments. It's showing up in my email but not here- I do not know why. I will see if there is a problem with blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "I just happen to respond to different people with different methods."


    bi·as   /ˈbaɪəs/ Show Spelled [bahy-uhs] Show IPA noun, adjective, adverb, verb, bi·ased, bi·as·ing or ( especially British ) bi·assed, bi·as·sing.
    –noun

    a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

    prej·u·dice   /ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ Show Spelled [prej-uh-dis] Show IPA noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
    –noun
    1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

    —Synonyms
    preconception, partiality, predilection, predisposition. See bias

    ReplyDelete
  28. The off subject posts I was talking about were ones posting "trivia," and posts about other comments on other posts.

    I don't know why some of your posts are not showing up here. They're going to my email, so they should be here. I'm hoping blogger will fix this by the end of the day.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Anonymous, this blog post is about HIV+ women. I would prefer if you didn't take the comments off subject. Thanks."


    Well, since another comment has come up missing (for whatever reason - I see them posted, and then they disappear ? ), just let me say briefly, I have re-read your post again. It actually has very little to do with HIV+ women. It is actually approx. 9 paragraphs railing about antis wanting to control something, with one thrown in with some reasonable information about HIV+ women and pregnancy. So the comments weren't off subject.

    mwisho.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The post about 'trivia' was using a satirical voice to illustrate and expose the bias of your argument. The comments about 'other comments' were to demonstrate, once again using satire, that pro choicers 'claim to fame' is not being loving, supportive, or warm. I've not gone off of any topic you've written about, and I will reiterate - your original post was NOT about HIV+ women, it was a fallacious commentary about anti choicers.

    ReplyDelete
  31. ps. did you even read the "trivia" post? It was a satirical way of letting you know that Margaret Sanger was a rabid racist who wanted to make sure people she considered sub-standard didn't 'breed', and wanted to restrict women's choices about family size, and who would have told HIV+ women to get sterilized. The whole of Planned Parenthood was founded on the concept of eugenics - filtering out those considered feeble, weak, or substandard. This is no secret, and if you think Planned Parenthood is in existence because they care about women and families, you should do some research. Follow the money, honey.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thanks, but I don't need a history lesson. I already know my history.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Arrogance seems to be a hallmark of pro choicers. Apparently there is no one smarter, more loving, and supportive than a pro choicer. I'm skeptical about just how much history you really know, and the wisdom of being so vociferous about a cause and an organization you possibly know very little about. Your answers to me do more for the anti cause than you realize.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ps. Nice logical retort.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi Pro Choice 'christian'. This is Glynnis, responding to your comments on Not Guilty's blog.

    Let me make this quick. Going to number and dispense with your links in the order you put them in your comment on ‘findingmyfeminism’.

    1. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-12/05/content_7273710.htm

    Ok. So China only has the worst human rights violation record in the civilized world. They abort babies because they are girls. And you defend that. But the study was out of the ‘Contraception Journal’ subsidized by AHRP. Hardly unbiased. As a matter of fact, extremely biased. Come on.

    2.http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2008/08/single-abortion.aspx

    read this. http://www.afterabortion.org/news/inpatientCMAJ.html

    As for 3,4,and 5 they are all the same study, and I will respond with this.

    http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/shu/shu_13mentalhealthabr.html

    Nice try. You might share this with the law student. Incidentally, she has totally reaffirmed my belief that you anti-life people will resort to anything to hang on to your right to kill human beings. She selectively moderated my comments, and then said she did not. She purposely did not allow a comment that described what one pro lifer does to really help women in dire circumstances with an unplanned pregnancy. She is pro choice, and she's a liar. But since she's also an atheist, it must be ok to lie, ‘cause there’s not a God to tell you it’s wrong. Before you go into your ‘pro choice playbook mode’ and start calling me a troll, or saying I’m insulting or spamming you, just remember you wanted me to respond to your comment so I did. You all defy reason.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Really? Really? You're going to use two antichoice websites when talking to me about BIAS?

    Come on.

    Also, don't accuse me of doing something until you see me do it. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I didn't accuse you of anything. Just reminded you that you wanted a response to your comment, so you wouldn't go nasty on me like the law student.

    I love it when anti lifers prove my point for me. I asked the law student for unbiased stats. She gave me research paid for by various arms of the anti life movement. I pointed out that I would not expect her to validate research paid for by pro life organizations. I provided her with unbiased research from the British Journal of Medicine (which neither you nor she has addressed) that was unbiased (and if you don't believe me go look - none of the authors have affiliations with pro life organizations). So, when I responded to your biased citations with research reprinted at a pro life site, you are crying BIAS!!! Of course you are!! :D Yet you would have me open up and swallow statistics from the ARPH, Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood, and Joyce Arthur. The one article you provided that I didn't feel like researching affiliations was from the APA....that article was totally disassembled for it's faulty methodology (they only eliminated just about every category of women that had ever had an abortion). And the China newspaper publishing an article supporting abortion? For pete's sake >:/ But even so, I looked at the actual research, not whose page it was reprinted on....did you do that? I told the law student if she could come up with valid research that was unbiased AND predicated on good science, I would consider it regardless of my pro life position. She could not meet that criteria. If research could definitively tell me that the majority of women do not regret abortion, I would still be pro life, but I would have to readjust my thinking about how women really feel. You rabid, fundamentalist anti lifers can't even entertain the very distinct and real possibility that most women DO regret aborting their offspring. And if they don't, Pro Choice Christian, why do you want to "reduce the need for elective abortions"? I'll wait for your answer.

    so you "come on"

    I didn't accuse you of anything, so you be courteous and don't accuse me. I merely reminded you that you wanted a response to your comment so you wouldn't go all nasty on me like the law student (who by the way, very selectively deleted my comments, even though she claims she didn't, therefore making herself an anti lifer, and a liar in my book - but anti life promotes a culture of lies, so no suprise).

    ReplyDelete
  38. ps. I have noticed, and appreciate, that for the most part you are a bit more civilized than most anti lifers. Just as wrong, but nicer about it. So thank you for that. Didn't mean to intentionally reiterate what I began the post with. Oops. :)

    ReplyDelete
  39. You did accuse me of something.

    "Before you go into your ‘pro choice playbook mode’ and start calling me a troll, or saying I’m insulting or spamming you..."

    If I do those things, go ahead and call me out. But don't assume I'll do them before I do.

    Your continuous hounding about biased works means nothing when that's what you reply with. It is not my fault that you believe recognized health organizations are biased. It's not my fault you refuse to believe "all English-language, peer-reviewed publications between 1989 and 2008 that studied relationships between abortion and long-term mental health." These are published health professionals who you refuse to acknowledge.

    Based upon all the data available, there is no reliable research which shows anything close to the idea that most of the women who abort regret doing so. I absolutely do believe, however,that some women- a minority- regret their choice. Just as some women regret choosing adoption, and some regret parenting.


    Why do I want to reduce the need for elective abortions? Because I don't like unwanted pregnancies. Because abortion is not a problem, but unplanned pregnancy is. We need to spread education and healthcare across this country so that we no longer have a rate of 50% of pregnancies being unplanned.

    ReplyDelete
  40. All of my pregnancies were unplanned. I do not consider that any of them was a problem. Real stats - 100% of my pregnancies were unplanned, 0% were a problem. Be careful not to assume what my life circumstances were when I became pregnant with each one of my children.

    You made my point, but you are certainly missing the point. Anyone can buy research.

    I did not reply with biased research in the original series of comments. The law student did. That's my point. And true to form, when the research I gave you was merely POSTED on a pro life site, you reacted, and probably didn't even read the research. At least I took the time to discover who the AUTHORS of the research were affiliated with, and to examine critique of the research. And, as of yet NO COMMENT ON THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL RESEARCH....(yelling so that you might hear).

    Based upon the data available, women commit suicide at a higher rate after abortion than women who carry their pregnancies to term.

    So again, if abortion is not a problem, and it reduces the number of unplanned pregnancies, why reduce the need for it? Based upon your premise, it is a valuable and viable solution to the unplanned pregnancy rate. Why do you want to reduce it's use???? If we employ it's use on unplanned pregnancy, then the number of unplanned pregnancies will be reduced. If unplanned pregnancy is the problem, and abortion takes care of that problem, why reduce it's use?

    Unplanned pregnancy = problem.
    Abortion = termination of unplanned pregnancy, therefore abortion = elimination of problem.

    Sorry for being redundant, but I want to be perfectly clear. I'll wait for an answer.

    Also, you can't interchange, 'unwanted' and 'unplanned'. As my statistics indicate, there is a vast difference. The statistic that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, does not mean that 50% are unwanted (and what study did you get that stat from, please cite). So anti life assumptions should be kept off of women's unplanned pregnancies, ok?

    Again, I did not accuse you. That was a pre-emptive disclaimer based on recent experience.

    Look forward to the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  41. How about this. I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of something. Really I didn't mean to.

    Now can you answer my question?

    If you don't like unplanned pregnancies, and elective abortions (not being a problem as you have stated) reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, why do you want to reduce the need of elective abortions?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I didn't assume anything about your life circumstances. I wasn't talking about you. Don't assume I was.

    I never saw you link to the British Medical Journal.

    If a study says ""all English-language, peer-reviewed publications between 1989 and 2008 that studied relationships between abortion and long-term mental health" show that there is no association between abortion and depression, then why should I believe that your antichoice website was able to find a study that does prove a connection?

    "So again, if abortion is not a problem, and it reduces the number of unplanned pregnancies, why reduce the need for it?"

    This question makes no sense. Abortion doesn't reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. Reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies (Which is the real problem) reduces the need for abortion. When I say I want to reduce the need for abortion, it means I want to reduce unplanned pregnancies.


    Abortion is solution once a woman finds herself with an unplanned pregnancy. But it does not *prevent* the unplanned pregnancy from happening in the first place, which is what I am saying we need to do. Abortion does not reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies that occur... just the number of pregnancies which are carried to term.

    I understand that not all unplanned pregnancies are unwanted.

    Quick google search returns the CDC website:
    "In 2001, approximately one-half of pregnancies in the United States were unintended (Finer 2006, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health)"
    http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/index.htm

    Also:
    http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/national-data/default.aspx

    I assume your second post asking "now can you answer my question" is in reference to one of the questions I have just answers. Please tell me if you meant something else.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Yes, I meant something else. Here it is.

    You say you don't like unplanned pregnancies. I'm going to assume you really mean you don't like 'unwanted' pregnancies. This is why you need to differentiate between unintended and unwanted. If you are sticking to your assertion that you "don't like unintended pregnancies" then it begs the question, why? My pregnancies were unintended, and I loved, wanted, and took care of all of my children. What's not to like about that? And who has the right to tell someone they shouldn't have an unintended/unplanned pregnancy? I liked my unplanned pregnancies, and it was my choice to have three. So are you saying that you want to take away that choice?

    On the other hand, I can understand why you wouldn't like unwanted pregnancies. No one likes to be faced with dealing with something they don't want, even if their behavior put them at risk for getting something they didn't want.

    So I am going to ask you the question based on what I believe is your premise, that is, you don't like unwanted pregnancies, and you want to reduce their number.

    Anything else would make you anti choice.

    So, continuing in that vein:

    If abortion is not a problem, and it terminates, an unwanted pregnancy, then the unwanted pregnancy ceases to be a problem, yes? So why do you want to eliminate or reduce something that is a solution to the problem? The question makes perfect sense.

    (trying again)

    Scenario: A woman receives education on birth control methods. She utilizes these methods when she does not want to become pregnant, and the methods are successful. Conclusion: Education resulted in no unwanted pregnancy, therefore the method was successful in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

    Scenario: A woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnacy. She has an elective abortion. As stated, abortion is not a problem, therefore it can be concluded that abortion is an acceptable solution. Conclusion: The woman no longer has an unwanted pregnancy, therefore the method was successful in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. 1(unwanted pregnancy) - 1 (unwanted pregnancy) = 0 (unwanted pregnancies)

    Why do you want to reduce the number of abortions performed? Abortion takes care of something you don't like, which I believe is 'unwanted' pregnancies.

    Uninhibited sex is ok, a woman shouldn't be told she can't enjoy sex, or shouldn't have sex. A woman shouldn't be made to feel guilty for having sex.Teenagers should be educated about sex,and be advised to wait, but we shouldn't expect them to wait, or hold them accountable for not waiting. No one should be able to use a woman's body against her will, not even a fetus (pro choice doctrine). So obviously there are times when women having sex are going to get pregnant. Women need abortions. Why do you want to reduce their number?

    Abortion does not cause regret, does not cause depression, does not kill a child, is safer than childbirth, is not irresponsible, is a minor procedure, empowers, liberates, frees,saves lives and provides relief for women who have unwanted pregnancies (all of these are doctrines of being pro choice, and you have given assent to those doctrines), then why do you want to reduce the number????

    Not getting pregnant results in less unwanted pregnancies, having an abortion results in less unwanted pregnancies. So why do we care how the result is acheived?

    Why do you want to reduce the number of elective abortions?

    Waiting for your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "I didn't assume anything about your life circumstances. I wasn't talking about you. Don't assume I was."

    I know you weren't assuming yet, I was just asking you not to. But from here on, I will just count on you not to make assumptions (so I won't sound accusatory).

    "I never saw you link to the British Medical Journal."

    It's on the law students blog, in the comments. There are two to the BMJ.

    ReplyDelete
  45. No, I meant that I don't like unplanned pregnancies (the fact that they're unplanned, not the whole pregnancy). Obviously, women can have unplanned pregnancies and choose to carry to term and be incredibly greatful they became pregnant. But that doesn't in any way justify half of all US pregnancies being unplanned.

    Women (and men) need to take control of their reproduction and fertility. The lack of control people have right now is what is bothersome. If we have better education, better access to contraceptives, better support systems and more people caring about whether they get pregnant or not, we'd see that rate drop.

    You don't choose to have an unplanned pregnancy, because then that pregnancy would be a planned pregnancy. It's physically and logistically impossible to choose to have an unplanned pregnancy (though you can choose to CONTINUE an unplanned pregnancy).

    "So why do you want to eliminate or reduce something that is a solution to the problem?"

    I want to reduce the NEED for abortions. The NEED is that high unplanned pregnancy rate, which leads to a high unwanted pregnancy rate.


    "The woman no longer has an unwanted pregnancy, therefore the method was successful in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. 1(unwanted pregnancy) - 1 (unwanted pregnancy) = 0 (unwanted pregnancies)"

    What? No, she didn't reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. She reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies that were carried to term. Aborting a pregnancy does not mean the pregnancy never happened in the first place. That pregnancy still happened, and is still counted, regardless of the outcome.


    "Uninhibited sex is ok, a woman shouldn't be told she can't enjoy sex, or shouldn't have sex."

    Is this supposed to be your version of my opinions? Because this (and the continued paragraph) doesn't sound like something you believe. But it's also not a summary of what *I* believe.

    "but we shouldn't expect them to wait, or hold them accountable for not waiting."

    Why not?


    Anyway. You continuously ask me why I want to reduce the number of abortions. I have never claimed to want to reduce the number of abortions. I want to reduce the NEED for abortions.

    ReplyDelete
  46. It was MY CHOICE to not use birth control, and to continue to have sex. Therefore, my pregnancies were not planned, i.e. UNPLANNED. When I found I was pregnant, it was not problematic, but the pregnancy was still UNPLANNED. Carrying to term, or not carrying to term does not change the fact that my pregnancies were UNPLANNED. Whether you like it or not, it was my choice, and anyone trying to prevent me from making that choice would be ANTI CHOICE.

    Not all UNPLANNED pregnancies are unwanted, but I think it would be safe to say all unwanted pregnancies are UNPLANNED.

    Abortion doesn't eliminate the defining characteristic of a pregnancy being unwanted, and it doesn't mean there wasn't a pregnancy, but it does reduce the number of pregnancies. If When a woman has a child, it reduces the number of pregnancies. One less woman is pregnant.

    So, if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, what are her choices? She either has an abortion or she carries the pregnancy to term.

    The discussion about women having sex is a redundant pro choice theme. If you don't agree with it, so be it, but that would seem to make you anti choice. I'll conced the 'holding teenagers accountable' is my cynical commentary, so we can strike that. But the entire discussion started with all of the research embraced by those who call themselves prochoice that says
    abortion does not cause regret, does not cause depression, does not kill a child, is safer than childbirth, is not irresponsible, is a minor procedure, empowers, liberates, frees,saves lives and provides relief for women who have unwanted pregnancies. If abortion is not a problem, and does not cause any adverse consequences who cares if we need it? If a pregnancy is unplanned but wanted, no problem. If a pregnancy is unplanned and unwanted, have an abortion, no problem.

    So, I'll rephrase and ask you three questions. What is wrong with abortion that you want to reduce the need for it? What's wrong with unplanned pregnancies so that you want to reduce their numbers? What's wrong with unwanted pregnancies if you can have an abortion?

    Waiting for three answers.

    ReplyDelete
  47. as a matter of fact, wouldn't you be promoting the need for more abortions for women with unwanted pregnancies? Seems that would eliminate potential for feelings of bitterness, resentment, etc., toward the unwanted fetus.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You chose to have unprotected sex. That is not choosing to have an unplanned pregnancy. Again, you cannot *choose* to have an *unplanned* pregnancy because if you make that choice, you are *planning* to have a pregnancy. I'm not taking away any choice here, I'm telling you it's physically and logistically impossible to do what you are claiming you did.

    I already established that I do not believe all unplanned pregnancies are unwanted. I do not agree that all unwanted pregnancies were unplanned. But that's a different debate.

    Giving birth or having an abortion reduces the number of women who are currently pregnant at that time, yes. It does not reduce the number of pregnancies in terms of statistics. Perhaps we are using different standards here?


    "What is wrong with abortion that you want to reduce the need for it? "

    Nothing. What's wrong is the high number of unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies.


    "What's wrong with unplanned pregnancies so that you want to reduce their numbers?"

    The fact that they show how much lack of control people currently have over their reproduction, even though there are methods we can use to take more control. The fact that it shows how much people seem to not care if they get pregnant or not. The fact that it shows we have people in situations where they cannot control their reproduction, either because of abuse or lack of access to control methods (education, contraceptives, healthcare).

    "What's wrong with unwanted pregnancies if you can have an abortion?"

    The fact that you have to go through the whole situation? What's wrong with car accidents if you have insurance? That's how I see this question. Yeah, sure, you have insurance... but it'd be better to not get in the accident (unplanned pregnancy) in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  49. :D

    Regardless of how you spin it, It was my choice not to use birth control. It was my choice to have sex. I did not have sex to become pregnant, I had sex because I wanted to have sex. I did not plan to become pregnant, as evidenced by a host of circumstances that are no one's business but my own. My pregnancies were not planned, and some of them were not timely, but they were all wanted. I, with all of my pregnancies, would land squarely in the "unplanned" statistical column.

    CDC numbers say that of all women of childbearing age, 70% are sexually active. 64% (which is actually a pretty good number) use contraception, leaving 6%. They do not list reasons for the other 6%, but one would have to reasonably consider that some don't want to, some use natural family planning, and some remain uneducated.

    So unless you are saying a woman should not have sex unless she wants to get pregnant, or unless you want to force a woman to use birth control (both very anti-choice), you are left with education, and apparently there's enough of that being done so that nearly 100% of sexually active women know about it. So we conclude that there are a variety of reasons that women have unplanned pregnancies, and lack of education represents only a fraction of the cause.

    The next statistic you would have to look at would be the reason women have abortions. If the majority of the 1.3 million abortions were due to lack of education about birth control, than your cause would be notable. My guess is that the majority are not (based on CDC stats), but I will look into that and get back to you.

    Even in light of these arguments, there still should be no need, according to pro choice doctrine, to reduce the need for elective abortions.

    You and law student, at the beginning of this discussion, were arguing that abortion does not cause regret or depression. You both provided links to studies that prove this. You and many other pro choicers have repeatedly stated that abortion:

    does not cause depression
    does not cause regret
    is not harmful
    is safer than childbirth
    is a minor procedure
    is "no big deal"
    does not kill a child
    is a woman's right
    liberates, 'frees', provides relief
    carries minimal risk
    should be constitutionally protected
    is nobody's business but a woman and her doctor's
    etc.

    Your desire to reduce the need for abortion, even down to the car accident analogy, would indicate that there is a reason a woman should not want to employ an elective procedure.

    I was born with a large nose. I did not plan to have a large nose. I did not want to have a large nose.Even though it was not medically necessary, I had the safe, relatively harmless procedure called rhinoplasty. Removing living cells from my nose did not kill a human. I did not suffer regret or depression. It was my choice. It was legal, it was between me and my doctor, it corrected my problem, it liberated me, it freed me, it was my right. Do you see a need to reduce the need for elective rhinoplasties? Reducing the need for rhinoplasty would have an adverse economic impact on those who make their living in the cosmetic surgery industry. Why would you want to take away their choice of a profession? All things being equal, elective abortion being a safe, minor, procedure, the same applies. So is there a reason to reduce the need for elective procedures?

    Answer: Only if they are bad, harmful, or illegal.....yes? Whether or not a woman wants to go through an elective procedure is her business, not yours. You are being exceptionally anti-choice when you presume to want to reduce the need for elective abortions.

    There apparently is a great need for elective abortions. Women need them, abortion industry workers need them. Why do you want to reduce that need? Is abortion bad? Or are you making the assumption that all unplanned pregnancies are bad (they are not)? Or are unplanned pregnancies bad only if they result in abortion... and if that's the case, why?

    Waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  50. *1.3 million abortions should say "1.3 million abortions performed in the US annually"

    ReplyDelete
  51. ps. my nose also caused me physical and emotional discomfort - deviated septum, and teasing.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Yes, like I'm saying... you had unplanned pregnancies. You did not choose to have unplanned pregnancies, however.

    Is the 64% of all women, or of sexually active women? Because if it's only 64% of sexually active women, then there's 36% of women not using contraceptives.

    Does the CDC say those 64% are using contraceptives perfectly? That they have been educated on how to use those contraceptives? Do they know that antibiotics can affect birth control pills? Do they know to check for their IUD strings? Are they using contraceptives consistently, or only when they can afford it? Do they know that birth control is less effective if you don't take your pill at the same time every day? Do they know to use back up methods if they forget to take their pills/


    "You and many other pro choicers have repeatedly stated that abortion:..."

    I would like to state that most of those are true- for the MAJORITY of women. Some women do regret their abortion. Some women do not feel liberated by abortion.

    On top of that, I do not think "is "no big deal"" for every women. I actually wrote a post about that- how each person is an individual, and has their own opinion on whether abortion is an easy or difficult decision.

    "would indicate that there is a reason a woman should not want to employ an elective procedure."

    The hassle? The stigma attached by antichoicers? The violence they face by antichoicers? The damage antichoicers can do to relationships when they learn about abortions?

    There's nothing wrong with abortion itself. It's the things surrounding abortion- dealing with antis, trying to gather the funding, people's lack of respect for women, taking time off from work- which make it undesirable for some people.

    Your large nose analogy is totally off topic. You cannot control whether you have a large nose or not. You can control whether you get pregnant or not (at least to a certain extent). You cannot "reduce the need for rhinoplasties."


    "Answer: Only if they are bad, harmful, or illegal.....yes? "

    Um, what? Where in the world are you reaching this conclusion from? Please don't make things up.


    "Whether or not a woman wants to go through an elective procedure is her business, not yours. You are being exceptionally anti-choice when you presume to want to reduce the need for elective abortions."

    Yes, it's her choice and her business. But you're skipping from "let's prevent unplanned pregnancies" to "now you're pregnant, what to do?" I'm not taking anyway anyone's choice when I say that people should be educated, or have access to contraceptives. Having access to contraceptives doesn't take away your choice whether to use them or not.

    Honestly, your arguments just don't make any sense. I'm not sure if you're confused or just intentionally skipping over logical points.


    "Is abortion bad?"

    No.

    "Or are you making the assumption that all unplanned pregnancies are bad (they are not)?"

    I am not making that assumption.

    "Or are unplanned pregnancies bad only if they result in abortion... and if that's the case, why?"

    No, they are not bad only if they result in abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Firstly - The CDC stats as I have reported them are accurate. Of all childbearing age women, 70% are sexually active. Of that 70%, 64% use contraception, leaving 6% who do not. I'm sorry, if a woman has not been educated about birth control in this country, in this day and age, she is living under a rock. I know seven year olds that can tell you about birth control, ok?

    As for the proper use, contraception failure falls into the unplanned, unwanted category, so we are covering that argument. (BTW, If I'm about to take medication, or use equipment, or what have you, I read the instructions, get instructions, or avail myself of the knowledge available pertaining to its use. There has to be some personal responsibility in this world. Are you going to start going into people's bedroom to educate them?)

    You keep changing the premise of the argument.
    First, you can not interchange unplanned and unwanted. They are two different things. You said,

    "Why do I want to reduce the need for elective abortions? Because I don't like unwanted pregnancies"

    Then you said:

    "No, I meant that I don't like unplanned pregnancies "

    Then I said:

    "you can't interchange, 'unwanted' and 'unplanned'. As my statistics indicate, there is a vast difference. The statistic that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, does not mean that 50% are unwanted"

    Then you said:

    "I understand that not all unplanned pregnancies are unwanted."

    Then I said:

    "You say you don't like unplanned pregnancies. I'm going to assume you really mean you don't like 'unwanted' pregnancies. This is why you need to differentiate between unintended and unwanted. If you are sticking to your assertion that you "don't like unintended pregnancies" then it begs the question, why? My pregnancies were unintended, and I loved, wanted, and took care of all of my children. What's not to like about that? And who has the right to tell someone they shouldn't have an unintended/unplanned pregnancy?...

    On the other hand, I can understand why you wouldn't like unwanted pregnancies. No one likes to be faced with dealing with something they don't want, even if their behavior put them at risk for getting something they didn't want.

    So I am going to ask you the question based on what I believe is your premise, that is, you don't like unwanted pregnancies, and you want to reduce their number.

    Anything else would make you anti choice."

    Then you said:

    "No, I meant that I don't like unplanned pregnancies"

    Then you say my unplanned pregnancies were actually planned, and after I say they were the result of my choice about how to conduct my reproductive business, and reiterate several times that they were not you say:

    "Yes, like I'm saying... you had unplanned pregnancies. You did not choose to have unplanned pregnancies, however."

    ??????????????????????????????????????????????

    ReplyDelete
  54. ---- continued:

    So here it is again..... I chose to engage in behavior that would potentially result in unplanned pregnancy. Therefore, my choice in how to conduct my reproductive life resulted in unplanned pregnancies, therefore making the unplanned pregnancies my choice. When I had unplanned pregnancies, then I further chose not to terminate them, because it didn't matter to me that they were unplanned (and when they occured they weren't necessarily immediately wanted - they became wanted - not planned, just wanted). Using no birth control also did not guarantee I would get pregnant. So pregnacy was unplanned. No plan.

    Saying you don't like unplanned pregnancies, whether you like it or not makes you sound antichoice (meaning you do not want to allow a woman the choice to use or not use birth control, and trying to interchange the meaning of unplanned and unwanted). Since you want to reduce the need for elective abortions, and you claim to be PRO choice, then it is safe to conclude the following:

    You don't like unplanned pregnancies that end in abortion. There would be no need to "reduce the need for elective abortion" if all unplanned pregnancies were carried to term. The same applies to unwanted pregnancies. You dislike unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion. If unwanted pregnancies were carried to term, there would be no reason to "reduce the need for elective abortions". If you merely want to reduce the number of unplanned or unwanted pregnancies then good - but when you say you want to reduce the need for elective abortions by reducing those numbers, you have made elective abortion one of the problems. Therefore, the problem is unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, along with elective abortions (according to your premise as stated).

    And this is contrary to your statement "Abortion is not the problem".

    WHY WOULD WE WANT TO REDUCE THE NEED FOR GOOD THINGS!!? How much simpler can this be made?? Love is good.....do you want to reduce the need for love? Kindness is good! Do you want to reduce the need for kindness? Chocolate is good!
    Do you want to reduce the need for chocolate?

    I said:

    "Is abortion bad?"

    You said:

    "No."

    ReplyDelete
  55. Moving on ---


    You said:

    "Some women do regret their abortion. Some women do not feel liberated by abortion."

    Did you check out the BMJ article yet? The astonishingly high rate of suicide committed by women post abortion? Statistics taken from the office of vital records in Finland, not from any pro life organization? More than some, eh?

    "The hassle? The stigma attached by antichoicers? The violence they face by antichoicers? The damage antichoicers can do to relationships when they learn about abortions?"

    You were doing exceptionally well at not setting up straw-men. So abortion is a hassle purely because there are pro life people in this world? Just because it's a hassle? Is that the reason you want to reduce the need for the number of elective abortions?

    I get yelled at, called names, risk violence and have to push my way through crowds when I'm Christmas shopping. I still do it. Single parenthood is a hassle, and is stigmatized, and is ranted against by psuedo-Christian groups, political conservatives, parents, teachers, peers, and pro choice feminists. It's also not as safe as abortion, and in the long run costs someone more money -- yet everyday countless strong women take it on. Are you saying women are too weak to endure the hassle of an elective abortion?

    The analogy of the large nose was spot on. Obviously a woman who did not want to become pregnant but did, had no control over the situation (or she wouldn't be pregnant). This a common theme among pro choicers (I can get you quotes, but it would be nice if you just acknowledged it). Elective rhinoplasty and elective abortion are not medically indicated procedures (that's why they are called elective). They both require enduring 'hassles', neither one is necessary for health or safety, neither one kills anything but a clump of cells, neither one is illegal. They both address the inconvenience of something unplanned and unwanted. Many people thing that both procedures are selfish and uneccesary, therefore they are both stigmatized. So describe to me what is the difference....not in terms of the 'hassle' one has to go through, but in terms of the 'difficulty' of the decision, and the regret that you have acknowledged some women feel?

    I'll conclude with this, because I've read enough to conclude this -

    It makes no sense to reduce the number of things that are good. Therefore, if you want to reduce unwanted pregnancies, or unplanned pregnancies that are not wanted, wonderful – those aren’t good things. But you can't say you want to reduce the number of elective abortions if they are not a bad (i.e.'good') thing. Say you want to remove the hassle, say you want to remove the pro lifers, whatever, but your goal as stated is inconsistent with your pro choice position.

    or maybe......

    you shouldn't be so entrenched in your dogma that you are afraid to just say that abortion is a difficult, painful choice with long term implications for the most women who obtain one. We all know at the basal level why that is. If you can still believe abortion should be legally protected at that point, then so be it - but at the very minimum, quit lying to yourself. At least in private (actually, I don't think you do).

    Thanks for the discussion. It reaffirmed my opinion of the 'pro choice' (not) movement. There is nothing to do with choice involved, unless it's what you determine our choices should be. I prefer to stick with the more logical term, 'anti-life'.

    You are certainly entitled to your point of view. But you and I both know that ultimately someone will be right, and someone will be wrong.

    Deut. 30:19 "I call Heaven and earth to record today against you. I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Therefore, choose life, so that both you and your seed may live"

    ReplyDelete
  56. ps. another thing it reaffirmed is that you all are inconsistent, illogical, and will cling to your dogma, even when it is exposed as inconsistent and illogical and flat out false. You are so tangled in your own argument there's not retrieving you. And you say pro lifers are scarey!

    (yeah, yeah......I know, it's not illogical or inconsistent - right? How did I know you would say that?) ;D

    Take care, PCC.

    ReplyDelete
  57. *no retrieving you.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "I'm sorry, if a woman has not been educated about birth control in this country, in this day and age, she is living under a rock"

    Or, you know, had abstinence only education. Bush pushed abstinence only and we had an increase in teen pregnancies.

    I'd be interested to see the CDC data you sited, if you don't mind sharing.

    "There has to be some personal responsibility in this world."

    Um, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. Educating people and getting them involved so they can take personal responsibility...

    I'm sorry if I've been confusing you.

    I do not like unwanted pregnancies. I do not like that so many pregnancies in the US are unplanned.

    Your pregnancies were unplanned. If you had chosen to have them, they would have been planned. But since you did not, they were unplanned. This was in response to your claim that you chose to have unplanned pregnancies (which is impossible).

    "therefore making the unplanned pregnancies my choice"

    Absolutely not. If you choose to go to a bar, and you end up being raped at that bar, you did NOT choose to be raped just because you chose to go to the bar.

    In the same way, just because you choose to have unprotected sex does not mean you chose to have a pregnancy. If your pregnancy is unplanned, the whole premises is that you did *not* plan to have it.

    "Saying you don't like unplanned pregnancies, whether you like it or not makes you sound antichoice"

    How so? I am not taking away anyones choice to have sex, nor preventing people from having unplanned pregnancies. I just want people to be more responsible and educated. I thought that was something antis liked? Education and responsibility?


    Stop making false conclusions which I've already said I don't agree with.

    "You don't like unplanned pregnancies that end in abortion."

    The fact that they end in abortion does not affect my liking or disliking of the pregnancy.

    "There would be no need to "reduce the need for elective abortion" if all unplanned pregnancies were carried to term."

    There would be no need for anything if we lived in your fantasy world.

    "You dislike unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion."

    The fact that they end in abortion does not affect whether I like the pregnancy or not.

    "Therefore, the problem is unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, along with elective abortions (according to your premise as stated)."

    Incorrect. That is what YOU have stated. Stop putting words in my mouth.

    Yes, I want to reduce the need for chocolate.

    "So abortion is a hassle purely because there are pro life people in this world?"

    Yes, and people who agree to antichoice principles.

    "Are you saying women are too weak to endure the hassle of an elective abortion?"

    No. I'm saying they shouldn't have to endure the hassle by antichoicers.

    Your nose analogy was not "spot on." Women can control their fertility. You cannot control the nose you are born with.

    Also, if you think the hassle of a nose job is anywhere near the hassle of an abortion, you're blind to the issue.

    "neither one kills anything but a clump of cells"

    Why do you continuously bring in comments which I have never made? I am not part of a borg hive- I am an individual. Stop making assumptions about my beliefs, claims I've made and what I support.

    "just say that abortion is a difficult, painful choice with long term implications for the most women who obtain one"

    I've never denied that some women feel this way about abortion.

    Again, abortion is not one size fits all. Each women responds differently to it. Some women think choosing abortion is a breeze, while other women think it's the hardest choice of their life. Some women regret, some women are eternally thankful. Each woman is an INDIVIDUAL.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I made a choice not to use birth control. I made a choice NOT control my reproduction and fertility.

    You said:

    "Women (and men) need to take control of their reproduction and fertility. The lack of control people have right now is what is bothersome"

    When you want someone to behave in a certain way, in effect you are saying you want to impose your viewpoint/manner of living/opinion on them, thereby taking away their choice in any particular matter. That makes you "anti choice"

    If I made the statement (for the purpose of reducing the number of abortions): "I think women need to reject the idea that abortion is a viable solution to an unplanned pregnancy", you would say I was antichoice, yes?

    Of course, all of the above discussion with its twists, turns, and nuances, is academic, due to the fact that your mission statement ("...who wants to reduce the need for elective abortions...") is based on a false construct.

    You see, there is no need for elective procedures. That's why they are called elective. Therefore you can't reduce something that does not exist, as in "reducing the need for elective abortions".

    "The need for elective..." is incongruous - it's a contradiction of terms - an oxymoron. Elective means - "open to choice, optional, NOT REQUIRED". And therein lies the truth of the matter. Women don't NEED abortions. They choose to have them. When you or any other pro choicer can actually demonstrate a NEED - a real clinical, rock solid, OBJECTIVE NEED for a woman to have an abortion, then I will jump on the bandwagon. Don't give me an example of treatable sequelae that occur due to pregnancy (and that includes mental health issues). You give me a real, rock solid, objective number of women who would have actually and certainly - not may have or could possibly have - died in the last year had they not terminated their pregnancy. How many out of the 1.3 million women who had abortions? Otherwise I say abortion is the most selfish act that men and women can perpetrate on antoher human being. Denying another separate and distinct human the right to acheive full expression as a human, is self centered and deplorable, especially since no one prohibited those men and women that right. Hell has a special place for the abortionists, clinic workers, and pro choice activists who tell the lies that convinces a woman to take away that right of that separate and distinct human.

    "Why do you continuously bring in comments which I have never made? I am not part of a borg hive- I am an individual. Stop making assumptions about my beliefs, claims I've made and what I support."

    Ok, pro-choice individual. So that I may quit making assumptions about what you believe and claim and support -

    What do you think is taking place during an abortion, and what do you think is being terminated?



    ....borg hive....lol.....I like that....

    ReplyDelete
  60. An educated choice to not use birth control is very different than going "Eh, whatever..."

    What "certain way" am I making people behave? what "viewpoint" am I shoving onto them? Education?

    "you would say I was antichoice, yes?"

    Depends upon if you want to actually take that choice away, or you just believe women individually should ignore abortion as an option. If you wanted to remove their ability to choose, I'd call you antichoice. If you personally felt abortion shouldn't be an option but didn't remove the choice from women, I wouldn't call you antichoice.

    "You see, there is no need for elective procedures. That's why they are called elective. Therefore you can't reduce something that does not exist"

    If you believe this to be true, why have you wasted so much of your own time debating what I meant?

    ReplyDelete
  61. What in the world makes you think that comprehensive sex education in school takes away someone's choice? Parents have the option of pulling their students out of that course- no choice is being removed.

    Antis make up their own truths all the time. I've learnt to ignore those "truths" most of the time.

    "I actually suspect you don't think abortion is a good choice."

    And I would suspect you are wrong. I wonder which of us knows me better?

    Yes, abortionfacts.com is a wellknown antichoice site- aka, well known to be full of lies. But again, antichoicers and truth sometimes have a difficult time together.

    I'm not getting into a whole other discussion with you. Perhaps you can search through my blog some more and figure out the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Aren't you the same anonymous that I was earlier having posting problems with? I have no idea why blogger isn't posting them.

    I do not have an moderation on my comments- they are automatically posted.

    You have said we had a whole discussion on something which is impossible. This has made me wary of starting another discussion with you. Perhaps at the end of that you'll just scoff at everything that was said and make claims without proof?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Well, I was trying to pinpoint exactly what you meant by your misson statement. I gave you several chances to clarify, and since you were adamant that it was not elective abortions that you wanted to reduce (which is what I thought you meant), but the 'need' for elective abortions, I felt compelled to point out that you can't reduce the 'need' for an elective procedure because there is no medical need for an elective procedure. I sincerely thought the intent behind your 'mission' statment was that you wanted to reduce the number of elective abortions, which is rather inconsistent with most pro choicers (albeit a good inconsistency), and therefore made me curious.

    So be fair, I wasn't scoffing. If you don't want to answer the question, whatever. I'll be left to assume whatever I want. I'm sure that's not rocking your world, or anything, so again - whatever. Thanks for the chat. Take a look at the BMJ article, and let me know what you think, eh? After all of this, neither of you pro choicers ever had anything to say about it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Actually, I absolutely want to reduce the need for abortion, and elective abortion, at that. Since, whether or not a medical procedure is elective, has NOThing to do with whether or not there is a need for it, OF course. I need breast reduction surgery to reduce the size of my breasts, even though it would be elective, OBviously. If I don't want to be pregnant, anymore (something a woman has every right to decide and continue upon that decision, because everyone else has that SAME RIGHT that informs abortion), what do I need to do in order to not BE pregnant, anymore. I would need to have an abortion, again OBviously. So, your constant requests for clarification, when it has alREADY been provided, NUmerous times, are rather disingenuous. UNsurprisingly.

    Same with your comments about the BMJ article. She already told you she didn't SEE it, just like you didn't see her attempts to address it, ANYways...? Oy....

    ReplyDelete
  65. so, no answer PCC?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Lets go back to first principles. What does the Fifth Commandment state? It states that thou shall NOT kill. This applies to the child in the womb just as much as it applies to everybody else.
    Where does it state that a woman has a right to kill her own unborn child?
    You cannot be a pro-abort and be a Christian. You may call yourself a Christian but you have jettisoned the teachings of God. Therefore you are no longer a Christian.
    The weakness in your argument is that you ignore the Law of God in the name of women's rights. You forget that the woman has an OBLIGATION to protect the unborn child. Do you seriously believe that killing an unborn child is in accord with the Law of God?
    If you do you are seriously deluded.
    Pro choice is sanitised language designed to hide the reality that abortion is the murder of the unborn child.
    Have you ever thought about the day when you will face the judgement of God as we must all do?
    Take a look at an ultrasound on youtube. Are you in favour of blowing that child to smithereens?
    Take a look at images of aborted children. All this is in the name of what you call women's rights. What about the right to life of the unborn child? What about Gods rights? Has he got no say? What about the Fifth Commandment of God?
    Which side are you on? Is it the side of God or the side of Satan?
    Are you prepared to risk the loss of your immortal soul?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Actually the 5th commandment is thou shalt not murder. God orders people to kill all throughout the Old Testament.

    I am not any more pro-abortion than I am pro-adoption and pro-parenting. I am prochoice. I am a prochoice Christian. Do not say I do not exist.

    I have never ignored the law of God. You on the other hand seem to make up things about what you think God's law says.

    I have thought about judgment day. I think every day about making sure I do my best job to please God.

    Now please, I have let this go on too long. Comments are only supposed to be about the blog post they are on. Please keep things on topic.

    ReplyDelete