«

»

Feb 19 2007

Jerkbag legislation of the day

cbs_abortion.jpg
Creepy penis-woman graphic swiped from CBS News website

One of the kookiest things I’ve read all day is this blurb from the AP/CBS News.

But first, check out the creepy-ass graphic: the oddly penisesque silhouetted woman, the “girl” symbol aligned over her torso with red sniper’s cross-hairs aimed right at her state-owned uterus, that weird, flapping dick-shaped dingus looming like the Big Stick of Patriarchy in the background. Seriously, what the fuck?

Anyway, the news blurb is about some proposed legislation in Tennessee that would — get this — issue death certificates to aborted blastocysts. Which logic, I must say with some admiration, is almost Texan in its legislative perspicacity; consider that the bill proposes death certificates for cell clumps prior to issuing them birth certificates.

As will surprise no inhabitant of Tennessee, the bill is sponsored by lunatic/state representative Stacey Campfield, whose nutjob antics are well-known to our friend egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women. This link is well worth a click, and not just to see the photo of Campfield assuming the position as he is subdued and handcuffed by cops.

Campfield argues that issuing death certificates to clots of cells will allow the state to count the number of abortions performed. He is undeterred by the fact that the Office of Vital Records is already in possession of this number [cite].

Could it be that Campfield’s heart’s desire is to use the death certificate ruse to collect information on the women who are having the parasitic cells removed? So that he can initiate and maintain a Tennessee Registry of Murderous Whores? So that when Jesus comes to get him he can smile and point to the list and say, “see how many filthy sluts’ lives I’ve ruined for you?”

I bet he wishes more women would douche with Lysol.

[Thanks, Kimberly and Lisa]

57 comments

  1. Anji

    So will the proposed legislation require death certificates for naturally miscarried foetuses? Surely a death is a death is a death, in the eyes of pro-lifers?

  2. edith

    Can’t see the douche with Lysol thing. And I really, really wanted to.

  3. Heraclitus

    I think it’s just an attempt to scare women into thinking they can’t have abortions without having it on record that they did. This jackass knows he has no chance of getting this passed, but a lot of women in TN, especially poor women, probably do not. They’re hearing that this bill may require their SSNs on file if they get an abortion, and this douche and his cronies no doubt hope that will terrorize at least a few white women into not aborting future Republicans.

  4. Heraclitus

    I didn’t really make this clear in my last post, and although most people here already know this, a lot of women, especially in socially conservative areas like much of TN, will only contemplate having an abortion if they’re sure it will remain completely unknown. I think this is an attempt to get misinformation out there so that more of these women think they can’t remain anonymous if they abort, and are forced to carry their pregnancies to term.

  5. Twisty

    Lysol link works in Safari but not Firefox. I do not know why.

    Here it is http://www.eatkidney.com/img/868.jpg

  6. Varnish Eater

    Hmmm, I am using Safari and it doesn’t work for me.

  7. Come the Revolution

    Speaking of legislation, I’m kinda puffed up in a good way to see some folks in the homestate are trying to ratify the ERA.

    Never fear, there’s a cadre of Arkie folks like Shawn (see below) who are working for the man, er the woman, er the pre-born babies.

    Here’s Shawn’s lovely letter to the editor in my hometown paper (which I read mostly for the obituaries): http://www.jonesborosun.com/letters.php

    Please note, the link is time sensitive, and the letter will fade when the next batch of letters is posted.

    Ah hell, let’s just paste the whole letter here:

  8. Twisty

    You mean this?
    :

    Monday, February 19, 2007
    Letters To The Editor
    It’s no bogeyman

    With interest I read the Feb. 8 editorial entitled “Battle for the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) resumes in state.” The Sun editor states that “we’re getting some even more ridiculous arguments that the ERA would be used to guarantee the right to an abortion and that it could legalize gay marriage.” Mr. Ockert goes on to say that this argument is a “bogeyman that the far right seems to bring out on almost every controversial issue these days.”

    As a concerned citizen who has worked hard the last two weeks against the ERA, I believe the editor has missed the point. Yes, the ERA in and of itself would not guarantee the right to an abortion or bring the legalized gay marriage. However, what the ERA would do would be to severely weaken previously passed Arkansas laws concerning those two hot topics. The goal of the ERA is to make all laws “gender neutral.” Which means that laws passed concerning abortion that would be solely aimed at women would most likely be found unconstitutional under the ERA. Even simple laws such as the “Women’s Right to Know law,” which states a woman has to be told what an abortion would do to her and the baby, would fall if the ERA were passed.

    Arkansans have spoken through constitutional amendment in regard to both abortion and the definition of marriage. By a majority vote Arkansans have said that it is in the best interest of the state to protect pre-born life and to define marriage to be between one man and one woman. Passing the ERA would undermine the stated will of the people. For the editor to say that these arguments are “bogeyman” is just simply misleading and not according to the facts.

    Shawn Gott

  9. Orange

    The Lysol link works in Safari, but only if I reload the page after getting the error message first.

    Those poor embryos never had a chance to know the joys of marriage. I vote that pairs of aborted embryos should be joined in wedlock via issuance of marriage certificates alongside the death certificates. (I know, I know–it’ll never fly. Too hard to protect against same-sex marriages among the embryonic contingent.)

  10. Suzie

    Orange:

    Surely they can just do genetic testing to see if the embryo in question is XY or XX? I mean, biology is destiny, after all…

  11. Come the Revolution

    Thanks, Twisty. That’s exactly what I’d pasted.

  12. justtesting

    Yeah, but, what about the “every sperm is sacred” sperm. Do they get death certificates as well ?

  13. Becker

    But the “feminine hygiene” in the Lysol ad refers not to spring daintiness but to birth control. Surely Campfield wouldn’t want that!

  14. norbizness

    As long as, for miscarriages, they list “cause of death” as “a malevolent and chaotic Sky Fairy,” then I’m good with it.

  15. Come the Revolution

    justtesting:

    all the evidence of aborted sacred sperm is washed away in the shower, or in the washing machine, which i assume makes moms complicit since it IS their jobs to do the laundry.

  16. Twiss

    I don’t know just where to place the two extended comments I want to post about two highly related subjects dealt with here, i.e. mock battles over abortion instead of calling Roe v.Wade’s bluff and ERA advocates’ self-defeating tactic of denying everything for which they should be standing tall. Testing your patience, I’ll start with the one-pager if the Spamulator will let me speak truth to its power:

    STOP ABORTION? FIX MEN!
    Writer Toni Morrison once remarked on: “what men frequently do when they want to manage and govern women. They focus on their babies – whether they’re having them or not having them. Reproductive organs become the focus.” [Wash. Post 1/6/98, B2]

    Pregnancy discrimination is the perfect form of sex discrimination, letting some men harass and dominate women without penalty to themselves or other men. Pregnancy – actual or prospective – has long served as the all-purpose pretext for everything from job discrimination and insurance exclusion to forced marriage, forced sterilization, social ostracism, physical assault and genital mutilation. And all without violating a revered constitution that has repeatedly denied women’s right to bodily integrity and equal protection of the law. Continued denial of the Equal Rights Amendment preserves the framers’ original intent to privilege men by excluding women from constitutional rights and protections.

    Restricting abortion is just another way to control women through a condition that men create but do not experience. While some men have described a pregnant woman as “in a fix,” and noted with a chuckle that “there’s no such thing as a little bit pregnant,” abortion spoils this age-old gotcha because it lets a woman who is a little bit pregnant be not pregnant after all. A painful medical procedure is apparently too little punishment for such insubordination.

    Pregnancy is virtually impossible without, as it were, male input. To have any credibility, therefore, abortion opponents must deal with the primary cause of unwanted pregnancy – uncontrolled male fertility.

    One and a half million abortions per year in the United States testify to a million and a half occasions when men chose intercourse without contraception. Had they prevented conception, there would have been no need for abortion. It should be obvious, therefore, that men who say they have a problem with abortion should address it realistically by working for regulatory legislation to curb men’s fertility. A variety of effective methods are already available and putting some real money into research should make it possible to manipulate men’s hormones just as readily as women’s.

    In the United States, child abuse and neglect is rampant while funding for child care, health care, and the education of children is chronically inadequate and given low priority in state and federal spending. Children are all too often impoverished along with their mothers in the wake of divorce or abandonment by fathers. Or in other instances, taken from their mothers in custody battles weighted in the father’s favor by his ability to hire more costly legal firepower. Does this sorry situation for real children square with the overblown rhetoric of tender devotion to fetuses professed by men who oppose abortion, or does it call their bluff?

    But what about the women who oppose abortion? They are equivalent to the women who in times past obediently beseeched legislators to protect them from the awful burden of the ballot. Women who, making the best deal they can under the circumstances, pledge allegiance to men’s authority over their minds and actions, as well as their – and other women’s – bodies.

    As for pro-choice activists, it is time to stop defending abortion and start attacking the outright misogyny that made it a debatable issue in the first place. If activists prefer to continue treating this human need as a shaky “right” always on the brink of extinction, they reveal themselves as part of the problem, not the solution. Any law treating abortion differently from other medical procedures is sex discrimination.

    Women know that abortion is an essential aspect of pregnancy and they also know that denial of access to abortion is misogyny that privileges all men (whether anti-abortion or not) at expense to women’s dignity, autonomy, and right to bodily integrity. Our first responsibility is to women.
    — Twiss Butler

  17. Lindsey

    Stacy Campfield has a blog: http://lastcar.blogspot.com/

    His first post about the bill is here: http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2007/02/is-it-life.html

    The comments on that entry are interesting. A woman asks him about whether she should have dug through the goo of her last miscarriage so as to bring the appropriate portion needed for the medical examiner to issue a death certificate.

  18. Lindsey

    Whoops. StacEy. The E’s silent. Or maybe the Y.

  19. yankee transplant

    Cry for me as I live in that very state. The man is frightening.

  20. MzNicky

    Lindsey: I’m surprised that comment got through. He always deletes mine, if they ever show up. Yeah, this joker’s a tool’s tool. We call him “Stacey X” down here in the glorious border state because he once tried to join the Tennessee Black Caucus and then whined to the national media that the caucus was “more racist than the KKK” for not letting him join. He just loves to stir up shit. He is a shit.

    He’s an odious form of political slime peculiar to this area: For some reason, his type seems to delight in idiotic behavior that reinforces every yahoo regional stereotype in existence. His only point is to draw attention to himself, no matter how risible he appears. Meanwhile, everyone wishes he’d just shut the fuck up already and go away. He’s had nary a proposal pass during his tenure in the Senate. Fortunately.

    Oh, and the illiteracy level of his blog scrawlings will make your head explode.

    His opponent in last fall’s election was a little-known female progressive attorney. Yes, I blame it, daily. Hourly.

  21. Mamasquab

    The good people of Knoxville must be so embarrassed! I lived there for 5 years and swear to Jesus that the town is feminist friendly, gay friendly, kindly, and enlightened. What’s this nutjob DOING there?

  22. sylvie

    on another note – there is an AP news article in my health section about how people are concerned that there are more egg donors now than there used to be, and evidently – shock and horror – monetary reimbursement is playing a role in donor decisions. the whole article raises the notion that these women are superficial and callous for letting money play a role, and that they are somehow being exploited because they are “selling tissue”, tantamount to being poor and selling a kidney. not word one about how it even compares to sperm banks, reimbursement for sperm donations, whether those men are dumb or callous or anything. I’ve found this attitude in my students, too: underneath seems to be the idea that for men to have kids they don’t know out there is no big deal, but for a woman to have a kid that is genetically hers but that she is not raising is equivalent to having abandoned a baby.

  23. kathryn

    Let me start by saying that I’m a nurse, completely support women’s right to choose, and am proud to have provided nursing care to women seeking abortions, including helping them to locate services if their pregnancies were beyond the 12 week window that our institution could handle. You state though that this proposed legislation would provide death certificates to fetuses before they receive a birth certificate. That actually happens routinely. Any termination of pregnancy after 20 weeks that does not end in a live birth results in a death certificate for the infant or fetus. Additionally, a number of states require a specific certificate be filed in the case of a medical termination prior to 20 weeks (that is, an abortion). The only pregnancies that are never, to my knowledge, brought to the attention of those who maintain vital statistics are spontaneous abortions (that is, miscarriages prior to 20 weeks).

  24. roamaround

    Twiss, I read your comment with interest and agree completely that misogyny needs to be attacked without apology or euphemism. But I would take Morrison’s idea that controlling women’s reproductive power is what men “frequently” do a whole lot further and say that it is what they ALWAYS do.

    I think in our rightful rush to define ourselves outside of essentialist boundaries we sometimes forget the biological imperative. We have never been anything but incubators according to the patriarchy. Pater=father, and how, pray, do you know who your father is? You control the wombs. Frighten them with hellfire and kill them if they stray.

    There’s no woman in that graphic, just a womb.

  25. octogalore

    From the CBS site:
    The identities of the women who have abortions are not included in those records, but death certificates include identifying information such as Social Security numbers.”

    Hmm, I wonder if there were any way to trace back to the father, or sperm donor more accurately, whether there would be any support for this proposed legislation. Methinks not…

    There’s no way of documenting how many of these politicos have themselves been sperm donors for aborted babies without repercussions for the women involved — but if there were a way to harmlessly figure this out, there would be many Campfield types revealed as hypocrites, I would bet.

  26. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker

    And GW Bush would be at the top of the list. Reportedly he paid for three of ‘em, back in the day.

  27. CE Petro

    Unfortunately that odious little twit is my state rep. ugh! I spent Saturday checking into some of his other filed legislation. Not only does he want aborted fetuses to have death certs, he goes after women of domestic abuse, pushes (again) for mandatory joint custody, wants to end child support if DNA shows dad is not father, ad nauseum. And I only scratched what was filed.

  28. Edith

    Thanks for the Lysol ad. I think I’m going to fill out the tear-out bit and send it to Campfield.

  29. Violet

    I would support a law that penalized men for unwanted pregnancies. To eliminate the risk of women carrying an unwanted fetus to term in order to protect a partner, the law would only be applied at the involuntarily pregnant woman’s request. Under such a law, a man who refused to wear a condom during non-reproductive sex could be charged with reckless endangerment, and have to undergo a vasectomy. There would be no leniency, either, for men who claimed that their partners were using birth control, or those who insisted that unprotected sex was “her idea”. A man could be exempt from this law if an originally planned pregnancy was terminated, or if the condom was proven to be defective.

  30. ChapstickAddict

    Here’s another link to the Lysol douche campaign (which I also posted in my blog):

    http://www.mum.org/Lysol48.htm

  31. Jess2

    Recasting abortion as problem of male over-fertility?

    I *love* it! Every woman in America should read this blog as a morning eye opener, in case a good night’s sleep makes us forget that we should stop apologizing and start storming the fucking barricades.

    On an unrelated note, I think I’ve mentioned a few times that I’m in a breeding state right now. My parents and in-laws were in town for the obligatory baby shower over the weekend and we were talking about childbirth education, hospital protocols, birthing centers, and so on. After a weekend of hearing my rants about male-dominated-industrial-obstetrics, my mother-in-law was wondering aloud why hospitals don’t do more to provide women with info about choices in childbirth and/or do more to retrain doctors to adopt a midwifery approach to childbirth. I said, “Well, because society hates women!” said in a “duh, hello!?” tone of voice. My bewildered Turkish in-laws sort of blinked at me. It was a pretty hilarious moment. It made me realize how much I love this blog– thank you, Twisty, for creating a place where people can sharpen and practice their blaming skills among friends!

  32. Rita

    All men are evil. Period.

  33. Scurry

    Gee, I hope he doesn’t forget to reduce welfare benefits to make up for the administrative cost of issuing all those death certificates.

  34. Millionaire bachelor

    Everyone knows that women have all of the biological and legal control of pregnancy and children.

    The funniest comment was the one saying men should get a vasectomy for not using a condom. Men are voluntarily getting vasectomies at record rates and much younger than ever before. I got mine last year at the age of 27. It was not much of a punishment…actually the best thing I ever did for myself. I got a massive boost of reassurance with a 15 minute sacrifice.

    The first step to gaining respect is to approach a subject with dignity.

  35. smmo

    “The first step to gaining respect is to approach a subject with dignity.”

    Says the person who refers to their income in their comment handle. Class-ay.

    “Everyone knows that women have all of the biological and legal control of pregnancy and children.”

    Everyone that is a man that is, or should I say everyone that matters. Same difference to you I’m sure.

  36. MzNicky

    If all the words in the post above weren’t spelled correctly, I’d swear “millionaire bachelor” is actually Stacey X his own self.

  37. lightly

    I thought it WAS a pix of a guy’s thing until I read your post. Even then I had to look at it closely to see it’s the outline of a woman. It still looks like a dingaling unless I really concentrate to see it as a woman.

    Apologies for the grade school word choices. I’m at work.

  38. Ugly in Pink

    Why do people always need everything spelled out?

    We’re not saying “get a vasectomy as a punishment.” It’s “if you’re not willing to use condoms, you don’t have a right to demand the woman use birth control, so either don’t have sex with her or get your own birth control.” which for men, is either condoms or vasectomy. Why don’t they have more choices? IBTP.

  39. hedonistic

    Have we a troll infestation today? Jeebus! My apologies if my recent link to this site is responsible.

  40. hedonistic

    Hey, Lightly said “dingaling.” Heh.

  41. Millionaire bachelor

    Ugly in Pink,

    I haven’t researched it but I doubt the pill form of birth control for men will have as many negative side affects as the women version. I think most men would have no problem taking it when it hits the market. But, until the vasectomy I did use a condom. It was a necessary evil since I didn’t trust a girl that I didn’t know that well when she said she was on the pill.

    Since we aren’t going to seperate the genders for a generation to finally end the war of the sexes I guess I will just make the best of it.

    smmo,

    You sound cool. ASL?

  42. Anji

    “…wants to end child support if DNA shows dad is not father…”

    I might be about to sound really stupid here, but hear me out… what is wrong with this? Surely if a man is not the child’s biological father he shouldn’t have to pay child support? If my ex had a DNA test tomorrow and it was shown that he was not my son’s father (an impossibility but this is just an example!) then of course I wouldn’t expect him to pay child support. I mean… it’s someone else’s kid. Surely that ‘someone else’ should be paying?

    Or am I missing an angle of this entirely?

  43. Lipstick-and-Birk-Wearing Momma

    The law presumes that a child born during a marriage is the husband’s biological child. Another male can come into the picture and try to establish paternity. If this doesn’t happen, then the husband is presumed the biological father and must support the child following a divorce. That’s the way it works. In your example, the ex-husband must pay the child support–no DNA test at all. You see the potential for some skanky whore to dupe some innocent man, don’t you? ’cause we all know that women are evil creatures with their wanton manipulations.

    BTW, this jurisprudence was created by a entirely male bar (long before DNA tests, of course).

  44. Varnish Eater

    “Everyone knows that women have all of the biological and legal control of pregnancy and children.”

    At first I thought Millionaire Bachelor was being sarcastic with this comment, given that he mentions vasectomies, but now I’m not so sure!

  45. Twiss

    roamaround says re the Toni Morrison quote I used to head my 2/19 “Stop Abortion? Fix Men!” comment: “I would take Morrison’s idea that controlling women’s reproductive power is what men “frequently” do a whole lot further and say that it is what they ALWAYS do.”

    Agreed. But Morrison got it really right when she said “Reproductive organs become the focus” because that not only applies to pregnancy harassment but to the other primary methods men use to control and subordinate women – prostitution and pornography. Women’s reproductive organs are the feature men use to define women as “different” and they are thus the prime target for hatred and abuse.

  46. Twisty

    Twiss: “Women’s reproductive organs are the feature men use to define women as “different” and they are thus the prime target for hatred and abuse.”

    Nice blaming.

  47. kate

    “Women’s reproductive organs are the feature men use to define women as “different” and they are thus the prime target for hatred and abuse.”

    Exactomundo.

  48. kate

    Oh, twisty highlighted that one too, thought she nailed a different one. All good.

  49. Jodie

    If the child were adopted (or switched at birth) both parents would still be expected to support the child after divorce. Even though DNA proves neither is the actual bio parent. So there.

  50. RobW

    I’m a long time lurker, first time blamer. Hi, everybody! I just had to respond to this:

    It was a necessary evil since I didn’t trust a girl that I didn’t know that well when she said she was on the pill. -Self-styled “millionaire” on condom use

    That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve read all day, and I just read another dumb flame war over at Sadly,No!

    Dude- if you don’t trust a woman to tell the truth about whether she’s on the pill or not, how do you trust her when she says she doesn’t have an STD?

    I can just imagine the thought process that takes place:
    Girl #1, whom you’re trying to fuck: “I’m on the pill.”

    Your thoughts: “She’s lying. I’d better get a vasectomy so I won’t fall prey to all the lying bitches I seem to attract with my bragging about my wealth.”

    Girl #2: “I’m totally clean and healthy.”
    Your thoughts: “Cool! I’m gonna get laid! Without a condom!”

    Here’s a whacky idea: fuck nobody you don’t trust. This may mean you don’t get laid as often, but it’s so much better when there’s trust involved. Trust me on this.

    You have a huge problem with trusting a woman you “don’t know that well.” Naturally, you have no problem fucking her.

    Oh, and by the way: if you think that you are attracting the sort of gold-digger who’d try to entrap you with a pregnancy (and yes, it does happen), then maybe you should try NOT introducing yourself to strangers as a millionaire.

    That sort of thing tends to repel people who don’t give a shit about your money, and it attracts people who will try to take your money.

    Do you often describe yourself, apropos of nothing and to complete strangers, as a millionaire all the time? If it’s intended to impress anyone positively, you should examine your people-skills.

    I’ve met a lot of rich people over the years, especially back when I was a Porsche mechanic. A few of them were not complete assholes. Very few. None of the few ever made a point of reminding strangers of their wealth. To do so is assholery of the highest order.

    Also, do you have any idea which social paradigm is to blame for the belief held by some women that the best way for a woman to become a millionaire is to be impregnated by one? Or for your apparent belief that anyone, especially here, is impressed by your claim to money/status/power/fuckability? Take a wild guess.

  51. The Infidel Sage

    [Comment deleted; in violation of the "I will now enllghten you as to how life begins at conception" rule]

  52. ChapstickAddict

    Bwahaha, I love the moderation that goes on here. You’re on our turf now, punks! (Now if only I could figure out how to use the word “disemvoweled” on a daily basis.)

  53. octopod

    The idea of having a death certificate without a birth certificate just seems fundamentally misguided. Do stillborn infants get a birth and a death certificate? I assume they probably do, but come to think of it I don’t actually know.
    Either way, this is some creepy shit.

  54. maribelle

    RE: this example:

    “if you’re not willing to use condoms, you don’t have a right to demand the woman use birth control, so either don’t have sex with her or get your own birth control.”

    Excuse me, but what woman in her right mind would sleep with a man who refused to use condoms but demanded she use birth control.

    Not only would she only encourage his wretched behavior, they might actually breed.

    Women, for the good of all of us, DO NOT BREED WITH ASSHOLES. We’ll selectively breed the asshats out of existence.

  55. Delishka

    As Kathryn previously stated,
    “Any termination of pregnancy after 20 weeks that does not end in a live birth results in a death certificate for the infant or fetus. Additionally, a number of states require a specific certificate be filed in the case of a medical termination prior to 20 weeks (that is, an abortion).”

    I myself gave birth to a stillborn son at 32 weeks gestation. My son was issued a ‘Certificate of Fetal Death’ He didn’t get a birth certificate, as he was not delivered live, a requirement for a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. At the time, the hospital staff mentioned a mythical ‘Certificate of Creation’ that was to be issued by the state. Apparently, I was supposed to make a political contribution in order to recieve the document, as it never materialized.

    Reading this blog I was curious, so I did some research and found this…. the federal Vital Statistic forms reporting fetal death do not include those deaths caused by abortion, except in the case of induced abortion of an already dead fetus. The statistics on death by abortion are gathered separately in a slew of different forms that vary by and are governed by the individual state. Partially because of this lack of standard, the abortion ‘statistics’ that are quoted are often wildly inaccurate. I won’t say it’s a conspiracy, but it’s always possible to manipulate statistics, even more so when they’re dodgy to begin with.

    It is a bit out of date, but I found this article to be quite well written and informative.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3024498.html

  56. Stormy

    This has been one damn fine blamorama! Excellent. :)

  57. SunlessNick

    On the Camp4Us’s article comment thread, I posted this, but I want to post it here as well.

    So [those who blather on about protecting life], would you support abortion in cases where the mother’s life is endangered by continuing the pregancy? Hint: that’s ALL cases; in most, the danger is very small, but it’s never gone. If a foetus is a person, then it’s a person that engages in a relentless, life-threatening assault on the mother for nine months – in any other context, the phrase “self-defense” would be at the top of the discussion. Sure it has no other option to survive, but should the mother, in the name of protecting life, be required to endanger her own?

    In the clash between the rights of a potential person, not yet a viable organism, and a real living person, my sympathies lie with the latter.

    Likewise, what about massively multiple pregancy? A few years ago in the UK, there was a case of octuplets in which all the doctors agreed that attempting to continue the pregancy would result in all eight dying – while aborting some of them would give some of the others a chance of survival. Britain’s so-called pro-life groups were up in arms about it (including threats to the mother’s life) – even those who agreed with the medical diagnosis advocated pursuing a course that they acknowledged would result in more foetal deaths than the abortions would. She continued the pregnancy. All eight died. Which course of action was really pro-life?

    See there’s no such thing as “pro-abortion” – pro-choice is the correct term, because the only position consistent to its members is that women should have sovreignty over their bodies, and who gets to use them.
    The only position consistent to the “anti abortion” side is that women should be denied such sovreignty (heck, even anti-abortionism isn’t consistent in the wake of Pat Robertson’s statements about forced abortion in China) – so the correct term for them is “pro-coercion.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>