NationStates Jolt Archive

I just got this article through Stumble Upon: "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" - When the Anti-Choice Choose (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html). It's from 2000 but I've honestly never come across this specific aspect of the US abortion debate before.

Turns out that there are more staunchly anti-choice women than you'd think who get pregnant, have an abortion - and go on being staunchly anti-choice. WTF?


My favourite examples:

"My first encounter with this phenomenon came when I was doing a 2-week follow-up at a family planning clinic. The woman's anti-choice values spoke indirectly through her expression and body language. She told me that she had been offended by the other women in the abortion clinic waiting room because they were using abortion as a form of birth control, but her condom had broken so she had no choice! I had real difficulty not pointing out that she did have a choice, and she had made it! Just like the other women in the waiting room." (Physician, Ontario)

"A 21 year old woman and her mother drove three hours to come to their appointment for an abortion. They were surprised to find the clinic a 'nice' place with friendly, personable staff. While going over contraceptive options, they shared that they were Pro-Life and disagreed with abortion, but that the patient could not afford to raise a child right now. Also, she wouldn't need contraception since she wasn't going to have sex until she got married, because of her religious beliefs. Rather than argue with them, I saw this as an opportunity for dialogue, and in the end, my hope was that I had planted a 'healing seed' to help resolve the conflict between their beliefs and their realities." (Physician, Washington State)

"We have anti-choice women in for abortions all the time. Many of them are just naive and ignorant until they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Many of them are not malicious. They just haven't given it the proper amount of thought until it completely affects them. They can be judgmental about their friends, family, and other women. Then suddenly they become pregnant. Suddenly they see the truth. That it should only be their own choice. Unfortunately, many also think that somehow they are different than everyone else and they deserve to have an abortion, while no one else does." (Physician, Washington State)
WTF??


Call me naive, because apparently I am, but I thought that there were really mainly two groups of anti-choice women:

1) the ones who are against abortion but, once they themselves are faced with an unwanted pregnancy and decide to terminate it, while obviously still not liking abortion (who the hell does?) see that it's not all easy and black & white and maybe won't be quite as quick to judge others in the future

2) the ones who are actual "pro-life" activists and who, once they themselves are faced with an unwanted pregnancy, grit their teeth and bear it (literally).

Not so.


This is killing me: Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique -- not like those "other" women -- even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons.
[...]
Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call "sluts" and "trash." Or if they do, they get angry when other patients in the waiting room talk or laugh, because it proves to them that women get abortions casually, for "convenience".
WTF???


Also: A few doctors actually refuse to provide abortions to anti-choice women for liability reasons. In the words of a Kansas physician:

"Early in my career, I thought I was obligated to provide an abortion for every woman who arrived at my doorstep requesting an abortion. My experience in general medicine, surgery, and abortion has led me to believe differently. Not inadvertently, women give either me or my staff an uneasy feeling about their ambivalence or their anxiety about the abortion process. Since I have never been sued for an abortion I did not perform, my policy is to acknowledge my gut feeling, which is more often right than wrong."

A clinic counselor from Georgia stated:

"I have long felt that anti-abortionism is a psychological contraindication to the abortion procedure. And that we don't have to give everyone who asks an abortion. An anti-abortion woman is likely to be uncooperative and will probably not follow post-op instructions or instructions on how to deal with complications. There is actually a case where an anti-abortion patient failed to go as directed to Emergency for an unrelated complication. She ended up dying, and her family sued the physician and badgered him publicly. Additionally, if you have a complication that day, it will be the anti-abortionist. I'm not talking about the patient who says, 'I was against abortion until it happened to me', or 'I'm really against abortion, but I have to do this'. I'm talking about the picketer, the activist, the totally anti-creature who will come back to haunt us."


I... don't actually have much in the way of "discussion points". I was just blown away by the staggering amount of reality disconnect, hypocrisy and contempt for others going on there and wanted to post it because I don't think this usually comes up in the many abortion threads here (then again, I hardly ever read those anymore so I might have just missed it, in which case pretend I never said anything).

Wow... I'm shocked.

I... don't actually have much in the way of "discussion points". I was just blown away by the staggering amount of reality disconnect, hypocrisy and contempt for others going on there and wanted to post it because I don't think this usually comes up in the many abortion threads here (then again, I hardly ever read those anymore so I might have just missed it, in which case pretend I never said anything).
It doesn't.

"A 21 year old woman and her mother drove three hours to come to their appointment for an abortion. They were surprised to find the clinic a 'nice' place with friendly, personable staff. While going over contraceptive options, they shared that they were Pro-Life and disagreed with abortion, but that the patient could not afford to raise a child right now. Also, she wouldn't need contraception since she wasn't going to have sex until she got married, because of her religious beliefs. Rather than argue with them, I saw this as an opportunity for dialogue, and in the end, my hope was that I had planted a 'healing seed' to help resolve the conflict between their beliefs and their realities." (Physician, Washington State)


Awesome.

I read this (And posted this here) a few years ago. It still rings oh-so-true.

But, if I may still a quote, whoever said that the human race is logical?

I dunno...Maybe they do it for the doughnuts.

I read this (And posted this here) a few years ago. It still rings oh-so-true.
Hehe, when I saw the date it was written I figured it MUST have come up here before but I couldn't remember ever seeing it and decided that was good enough. ;P

But, if I may still a quote, whoever said that the human race is logical?
I don't expect them to be logical, I just expect them to be somewhat sane.

I don't expect them to be logical, I just expect them to be somewhat sane.

:o

Have you MET the human race?

You are surprised at the ignorance and superior airs of the holier-than-thou?

Im willing to bet that this is how 95% of the anti-choice movement is.


Hell, if the recent gay undertakings by evangelical and conservative figures are an indication, Im will to bet this is how 95% of the right wing is.

"The only moral gay sex is the gay sex I have in an airport bathroom/while on meth in a hotel room."

Seriously, when people say there is no limit to some people's hypocrisy, we're not kidding. We're not even exagerrating (how the hell do you spell that?). There literally is no limit.

To me, this sort of thing just goes to show that the true driving motive behind the anti-choice movement is not really morality and it sure as hell isn't saving babies. It's about some people seeing themselves as better than others. And this is how far some will go -- how much they will twist their brains -- to keep that superior attitude.

Im willing to bet that this is how 95% of the anti-choice movement is.

I'd put money on 110%.

"The only moral gay sex is the gay sex I have in an airport bathroom/while on meth in a hotel room."

That may be the best thing I've seen all week. Sigged.:D

:o

Have you MET the human race?
Unpleasant bunch all in all but still, most of them at least somewhat sane.

It's easy being hypocritical, everybody does it - to a certain point. But I would have thought that it'd be pretty hard to not cause your brain to explode when you're having an abortion while screaming "Abortion is evil and only sluts do it, except for me!".

thank you so much for posting this information. I have never read or heard anything like this - I am stunned and stupified that so called "pro-life" women would take such a hypocritical stance.

but, it's good to know. I sincerely hope that I never need to use it, but if I do, I will be thankful for the effort you made to post this.

Im willing to bet that this is how 95% of the anti-choice movement is.


Hell, if the recent gay undertakings by evangelical and conservative figures are an indication, Im will to bet this is how 95% of the right wing is.

"The only moral gay sex is the gay sex I have in an airport bathroom/while on meth in a hotel room."

Yeah, but I think this is different. This isn't just someone speaking out against sin in public whilst secretly sinning. This is people speaking out against sin in public whilst secretly sinning and telling themselves that they're actually not.

Of course it's possible that many closeted evangelical conservative gays also tell themselves that gay sex is only bad when others do it but I don't know, I kinda doubt it. Dunno.


(read all "sin" etc. in quotation marks, plz)

Yeah, but I think this is different. This isn't just someone speaking out against sin in public whilst secretly sinning. This is people speaking out against sin in public whilst secretly sinning and telling themselves that they're actually not.

Of course it's possible that many closeted evangelical conservative gays also tell themselves that gay sex is only bad when others do it but I don't know, I kinda doubt it. Dunno.

I was trying to figure out a pro-lifer the other day who is currently engaging in IVF.....I didn't even know where to start with that.....seriously. This makes things much more clear and much more confusing at the same time.

thank you so much for posting this information. I have never read or heard anything like this - I am stunned and stupified that so called "pro-life" women would take such a hypocritical stance.

but, it's good to know. I sincerely hope that I never need to use it, but if I do, I will be thankful for the effort you made to post this.
That must be the first time ever anybody actually thanked me for posting something. :tongue:

But yeah, that's exactly how I felt.

Of course it's possible that many closeted evangelical conservative gays also tell themselves that gay sex is only bad when others do it but I don't know, I kinda doubt it. Dunno.
Everyone else does it though, about different things, yes. I mean, how many times have you been caught, oh, say, for illegal parking. I'm willing to bet that at the time you provided your own justification for why you should be allowed to park wherever and at the same time yell at anyone else who does the same actions.

We always edit our own memories to make ourselves look good. It's just that some people are much better editors than others. :D

Everyone else does it though, about different things, yes. I mean, how many times have you been caught, oh, say, for illegal parking. I'm willing to bet that at the time you provided your own justification for why you should be allowed to park wherever and at the same time yell at anyone else who does the same actions.

You bet wrong.


We always edit our own memories to make ourselves look good. It's just that some people are much better editors than others. :D

Yeah but we dont try and turn our double standards and moralizing into law.

Im willing to bet that this is how 95% of the anti-choice movement is.


Hell, if the recent gay undertakings by evangelical and conservative figures are an indication, Im will to bet this is how 95% of the right wing is.
I wouldn't consider it exclusive to the "right wing" (though I'm inclined to question such ideology labels and the supposed distinction between the right and the left anyway) but as I pointed out in the witch-hunt mentality thread, those who accuse others of something tend to have it within themselves. It's called projection, and it's a fact of psychology.

I'm not surprised in the slightest. Generally speaking pro-life people can be divided into two groups: Those that consciously believe that they are more qualified to make decisions about your life than you are, and those that unconsciously believe that they are more qualified to make decisions about your life than you are. Either way, they rarely believe anybody is more qualified to make decisions about their own life than they are and damn those other people for trying!

WTF??


Hypocrisy and hypocrisy apologists are hardly anything new. People like to hold all sorts of "moral" stances and then throw it down the stairs when it suits them, arguing "I'm unique!". Their supporters then rally around them saying the same thing.

Anti-choicers, torture advocates, people killing animals under the guise of "animal rights", gay bashers, they're all the same. Hypocrites who want to preserve their "I'm so good" ego when reality smacks them in the face.

Yeah, but I think this is different. This isn't just someone speaking out against sin in public whilst secretly sinning. This is people speaking out against sin in public whilst secretly sinning and telling themselves that they're actually not.

Of course it's possible that many closeted evangelical conservative gays also tell themselves that gay sex is only bad when others do it but I don't know, I kinda doubt it. Dunno.


(read all "sin" etc. in quotation marks, plz)
The effects may be different, but I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that the underlying causes are similar.

I'm not surprised in the slightest. Generally speaking pro-life people can be divided into two groups: Those that consciously believe that they are more qualified to make decisions about your life than you are, and those that unconsciously believe that they are more qualified to make decisions about your life than you are. Either way, they rarely believe anybody is more qualified to make decisions about their own life than they are and damn those other people for trying!
That's rather simplistic; one's right to swing one's fist ends where another's face begins. I wouldn't regard a fetus as a person, (well, at least not before the third trimester) but for those who would regard it as such, it wouldn't necessarily be so much about "protecting" a woman from herself (which I would agree sounds like a remarkably unpermissive attitude) so much as "protecting" a fetus from its mother. That's the more relevant issue.

It seems almost cliche within the websites I visit and the student newspaper of my local university to describe the anti-abortion as "anti-choice"; why don't we see the "anti-cure" label applied as much so to those opposed to embryonic stem cell research?

Everyone else does it though, about different things, yes. I mean, how many times have you been caught, oh, say, for illegal parking. I'm willing to bet that at the time you provided your own justification for why you should be allowed to park wherever and at the same time yell at anyone else who does the same actions.
To a certain point, but not really. Meaning I know that I'm doing something wrong when I park in a handicapped space, but I'll still do it, and I'll have an excuse for it ("It's the only free space and it's only for a minute!") but if I get a ticket I won't stand there and proclaim that the police is wrong and I am right and it's only others who should get a ticket for parking in handicapped spaces.


Now I have the song stuck in my head. Awesome.

Generally speaking pro-life people can be divided into two groups: Those that consciously believe that they are more qualified to make decisions about your life than you are, and those that unconsciously believe that they are more qualified to make decisions about your life than you are.
Heh. So it's like Muravyets said above, it's all just about some people thinking they're better than others?

The effects may be different, but I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that the underlying causes are similar.
You mean the projection thing? I'm not sure I buy that as a wholesale explanation of the underlying cause of all accusatory behaviour.

Why is it surprising that self-righteous idiots are able to ignore the cognitive disconnect between their public stance and their private choices?

With pro-lifers, I've always found their stance to be tied up in their inability to see the world as it is. I also ardently believe that it's a power trip for them. The power to try and control people's lives, and a certain smugness that they would never be in that position since they aren't a dirty whore/slut/sinner. So when they get into that position, its always someone else's fault.

That's rather simplistic; one's right to swing one's fist ends where another's face begins. I wouldn't regard a fetus as a person, (well, at least not before the third trimester) but for those who would regard it as such, it wouldn't necessarily be so much about "protecting" a woman from herself (which I would agree sounds like a remarkably unpermissive attitude) so much as "protecting" a fetus from its mother. That's the more relevant issue.

Yeah, they like to say that, but it isn't true. It's about the decision and who gets to make it. It's about neither the fetus nor the mother because if it were, more anti-abortion people would be involved in providing the kind of services that would support both. But their interest in the welfare of both very rarely continues past the choice.

You mean the projection thing? I'm not sure I buy that as a wholesale explanation of the underlying cause of all accusatory behaviour.
Not necessarily of all accusatory behaviour, but I'm just saying that the excuses of the anti-abortionists who have abortions seem to indicate that psychological projection is involved.

But, if I may still a quote, whoever said that the human race is logical?

Indeed, our tragedy is always applying reason to random.

It doesn't require reasons why people do things, 95% of our actions are done without real forethought, many of our deeply-held opinions are not thoroughly thought through.

Yet, in retrospect, we always try to place reason and logical thought as to 'why someone said/did that'.

I blame the parents.

Yeah, they like to say that, but it isn't true. It's about the decision and who gets to make it. It's about neither the fetus nor the mother because if it were, more anti-abortion people would be involved in providing the kind of services that would support both. But their interest in the welfare of both very rarely continues past the choice.
Some anti-abortionists, sure, but I think we should be careful about assuming it applies to all of them. When it comes to not providing the services that would support both, I think for many it's an issue of being a laissez-faire purist, and regarding government services as being the influence of socialism. Abortion, on the other hand, can be argued to be extending murder laws to the unborn (which granted might not include punishment, wherein many are more inclined to compromise their beliefs; thought even then, some like Tom Coburn support the death penalty for abortion) so long as one can justify considering fetuses human beings with rights to protect at the expense of other human beings.

And if one can do that for blastocysts in ESCR, one could do it for fetuses. Did you notice my comment about ESCR in the post you were responding to?

Some anti-abortionists, sure, but I think we should be careful about assuming it applies to all of them. When it comes to not providing the services that would support both, I think for many it's an issue of being a laissez-faire purist, and regarding government services as being the influence of socialism. Abortion, on the other hand, can be argued to be extending murder laws to the unborn (which granted might not include punishment, wherein many are more inclined to compromise their beliefs; thought even then, some like Tom Coburn support the death penalty for abortion) so long as one can justify considering fetuses human beings with rights to protect at the expense of other human beings.

Well, I chose my words carefully to reflect my opinon that it appplies to most of them, even if they can't admit it to themselves. But I would never assume that any generalization applies to everyone. I'm living proof. :)

And if one can do that for blastocysts in ESCR, one could do it for fetuses. Did you notice my comment about ESCR in the post you were responding to?

Yes. Don't get me started on stem cell research.

Some anti-abortionists, sure, but I think we should be careful about assuming it applies to all of them. When it comes to not providing the services that would support both, I think for many it's an issue of being a laissez-faire purist, and regarding government services as being the influence of socialism. Abortion, on the other hand, can be argued to be extending murder laws to the unborn (which granted might not include punishment, wherein many are more inclined to compromise their beliefs; thought even then, some like Tom Coburn support the death penalty for abortion) so long as one can justify considering fetuses human beings with rights to protect at the expense of other human beings.

And if one can do that for blastocysts in ESCR, one could do it for fetuses. Did you notice my comment about ESCR in the post you were responding to?

I think you're being overly complicated, the justification for why someone acts against prior held beliefs does not really need to be related to the decision to act.

We always try to justify our acts, to apply some 'reason' why.

I'd be interested in a study on children because they are often asked the question 'why' when there's no real answer.

'Why'd you throw that food at your little brother?'

It requires an answer where there isn't one, the child is expected to reply, it seems to be something trained into people, to give a rational reason for acting.

Again, with these people justifying why their abortion happens to be okay, the simple fact is that, for one reason or another, they can't have the baby, they have to provide a 'why' for themselves to justify the act.

It's very easy to hold an opinion on something you have no experience of, NSG is testament to that, easy to clatter out the sentiment that abortion is against God, harder to justify when you're in the situation.

It seems almost cliche within the websites I visit and the student newspaper of my local university to describe the anti-abortion as "anti-choice"; why don't we see the "anti-cure" label applied as much so to those opposed to embryonic stem cell research?

"Anti-choice" is an alternative to the label "pro-life", which is both inaccurate and insulting, and I think we've had this argument before so I'll stop there.

"Anti-choice" is an alternative to the label "pro-life", which is both inaccurate and insulting, and I think we've had this argument before so I'll stop there.

"Pro-life" is horribly incorrect. They aren't. I prefer anti-abortion to anti-choice. They are pro-choice, as long as they are the ones making the choice.

Abortion, on the other hand, can be argued to be extending murder laws to the unborn

And it is only argued by idiots. And you seem bright. So dont go there.

I'd be interested in a study on children because they are often asked the question 'why' when there's no real answer.

'Why'd you throw that food at your little brother?'

It requires an answer where there isn't one, the child is expected to reply, it seems to be something trained into people, to give a rational reason for acting.

I conduct such research daily. I usually get a shrug or a blank stare.

ME: [Child's name]! Did you just kick him?
CHILD: ...yes.
ME: Why?
CHILD: *shrug*
ME: Is it okay to kick people?
CHILD: No.
ME: Then why did you kick him?
CHILD: *blank stare, as if these two questions have nothing to do with one another* Because?

"Anti-choice" is an alternative to the label "pro-life", which is both inaccurate and insulting, and I think we've had this argument before so I'll stop there.
Trouble is, some would find the "anti-choice" label inaccurate and insulting as well, so the point is moot. IIRC, Elizabeth May once pointed out that both sides of this debate are guilty of empty sloganeering.

I dunno...Maybe they do it for the doughnuts.

doughnuts?

Well, I chose my words carefully to reflect my opinon that it appplies to most of them, even if they can't admit it to themselves. But I would never assume that any generalization applies to everyone. I'm living proof. :)
What do you mean?

And on what do you base the claim that it even applies to "most" of them?

Yes. Don't get me started on stem cell research.
Do you consider those opposed to it "anti-cure"?

doughnuts?
I think that was a reference to some thread about how some doughnut company had a "choice" theme for Obama's inauguration day, and some anti-abortionist group jumped the gun and assumed that they must have been referring to abortion, due to the abortion connotations of the word and Obama's supposed support for abortion. Seems as though their fixation on the issue caused them to jump to conclusions. o.o

What do you mean?

And on what do you base the claim that it even applies to "most" of them?

My opinion. Complete subjective opinion. Unlike so many that come and go here on NSG, I've never pretended my opinion is anything but my opinion.


Do you consider those opposed to it "anti-cure"?

No, I consider them anti-abortion.

Trouble is, some would find the "anti-choice" label inaccurate and insulting as well, so the point is moot. IIRC, Elizabeth May once pointed out that both sides of this debate are guilty of empty sloganeering.

Like I said--we've had this argument before, and I'm not interested in renaming the dead horse living-impaired.

Like I said--we've had this argument before, and I'm not interested in renaming the dead horse living-impaired.

Pulse challenged. :D

I conduct such research daily. I usually get a shrug or a blank stare.

ME: [Child's name]! Did you just kick him?
CHILD: ...yes.
ME: Why?
CHILD: *shrug*
ME: Is it okay to kick people?
CHILD: No.
ME: Then why did you kick him?
CHILD: *blank stare, as if these two questions have nothing to do with one another* Because?

The next question is "how did you feel just before you kicked him?" that should get you an answer.

The next question is "how did you feel just before you kicked him?" that should get you an answer.

Ooh! and after the answer, follow up with 'And how do you feel now?'

I think that was a reference to some thread about how some doughnut company had a "choice" theme for Obama's inauguration day, and some anti-abortionist group jumped the gun and assumed that they must have been referring to abortion, due to the abortion connotations of the word and Obama's supposed support for abortion. Seems as though their fixation on the issue caused them to jump to conclusions. o.o

oh right, the Krispy Kreme thingy.

Ooh! and after the answer, follow up with 'And how do you feel now?'
At what point in this parenting process do you get the kid to make a Power Point presentation?

At what point in this parenting process do you get the kid to make a Power Point presentation?

Shortly after the guilt trip reaches a crescendo. *nod*

At what point in this parenting process do you get the kid to make a Power Point presentation?

Naw, make him do a video in Flash about his experiences.:p

Ooh! and after the answer, follow up with 'And how do you feel now?'

No! That's where the danger comes in.

Observe.

"how did you feel just before you kicked your sister in the face?"
"angry"
"and does being angry mean it's okay to kick people?"
"no"
"why not?"
"because kicking people isn't a good way to deal with your anger"

or

"how did you feel just before you kicked your sister in the face?"
"angry"
"and how do you feel now?"
"pretty damn good"
"um.....don't kick your sister? okay?"
"nah, it's working out well for me"

DANGER!

My opinion. Complete subjective opinion. Unlike so many that come and go here on NSG, I've never pretended my opinion is anything but my opinion.
Given that claims about what others believe are more so positive statements than normative ones, I'd say it's more of an assumption than an opinion. Meh, maybe I'm just splitting hairs...

No, I consider them anti-abortion.
ESCR isn't an abortion issue though; people argue against ESCR for the same reasons as against abortion, but one opinion doesn't require the other.

Unless you're talking about people who think embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses. Since high school biology would tell you enough to know better, those people are so misinformed that their opinions should not matter.

No! That's where the danger comes in.

Observe.

"how did you feel just before you kicked your sister in the face?"
"angry"
"and does being angry mean it's okay to kick people?"
"no"
"why not?"
"because kicking people isn't a good way to deal with your anger"

or

"how did you feel just before you kicked your sister in the face?"
"angry"
"and how do you feel now?"
"pretty damn good"
"um.....don't kick your sister? okay?"
"nah, it's working out well for me"

DANGER!

Ah, so that's what went wrong....

>.>

<.<

ESCR isn't an abortion issue though; people argue against ESCR for the same reasons as against abortion, but one opinion doesn't require the other.

Unless you're talking about people who think embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses. Since high school biology would tell you enough to know better, those people are so misinformed that their opinions should not matter.

ESCR is an abortion issue to anti-abortionists and yes, most do believe that embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses, frozen or otherwise. They don't oppose a cure, they oppose abortion and they think that ESCR encourages abortion. They are the same people that opposed that cervical cancer vaccine because they thought it might promote promiscuity.

ESCR is an abortion issue to anti-abortionists and yes, most do believe that embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses, frozen or otherwise. They don't oppose a cure, they oppose abortion and they think that ESCR encourages abortion. They are the same people that opposed that cervical cancer vaccine because they thought it might promote promiscuity.
That level of ignorance is ridiculous. Society should not give those kinds of people what they want. And as much as I hate the opposition to ESCR, I'd like to think that even those opposed to ESCR aren't THAT ignorant, at least for the most part.

Just out of curiosity, on what do you base the assumption that most of those people actually think that?

That level of ignorance is ridiculous. Society should not give those kinds of people what they want. And as much as I hate the opposition to ESCR, I'd like to think that even those opposed to ESCR aren't THAT ignorant, at least for the most part.

Just out of curiosity, on what do you base the assumption that most of those people actually think that?

It really doesn't matter if people think that or not, it's mostly a reaction to the perceived consequences to tinkering with life.

Of course, when it's your life at stake, most reactions other than 'save me' go out the window.

That level of ignorance is ridiculous. Society should not give those kinds of people what they want. And as much as I hate the opposition to ESCR, I'd like to think that even those opposed to ESCR aren't THAT ignorant, at least for the most part.

Just out of curiosity, on what do you base the assumption that most of those people actually think that?

Honestly, It never occurred to me that someone didn't realize the connection between the 'sanctity of life' argument and the embryonic stem cell research argument. No offense. I am not even sure where to begin. Here's the Wikipedia page though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy

As anecdotal as it is, I have never met a single person or read a single article from someone who was pro-choice and against embryonic stem cell research. Though I would love to. I'd like to hear a fresh perspective.

Ooh! and after the answer, follow up with 'And how do you feel now?'

I want to teach them to not kick each other!

You discovered hypocrisy in pro-life people??? Son of a bitch...

Seriously though, I can't say I'm surprised. At all.

That's what you get when you live life by strict religious beliefs. You don't really think things through until you're in the situation.

I want to teach them to not kick each other!
Tie their shoelaces together.

As anecdotal as it is, I have never met a single person or read a single article from someone who was pro-choice and against embryonic stem cell research. Though I would love to. I'd like to hear a fresh perspective.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221432
There's a discussion of it in there, starting at post 3.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13221432
There's a discussion of it in there, starting at post 3.

Wow. That is some weird and confusing shit. I suspect they object more to the profiting off of human embryonic cells than anything else. Which is kind of odd to me since we've been exploiting our fellow man for a hell of a long time.

I'd seen that article before. It's still really sad, especially the women who come BACK post-abortion to picket the clinic. I just...can't comprehend that.

Honestly, It never occurred to me that someone didn't realize the connection between the 'sanctity of life' argument and the embryonic stem cell research argument.
Wait... what? Of COURSE it's about the "sanctity of life" argument, but that doesn't mean it's about abortion; that argument happens to be used in the contexts of both ESCR and abortions, but one isn't the result of the other. People can talk about the "sanctity of life" for the embryos involved in the research without actually thinking the cells come from aborted fetuses. At the very least, it's probably progenitors that they're thinking of. As much as I'm inclined to think of the anti-ESCR people as ignorant (which might be a result of my disagreement with them) I'm giving them the benefit of a doubt with respect to whether or not most of them are ignorant enough to think embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses.

As anecdotal as it is, I have never met a single person or read a single article from someone who was pro-choice and against embryonic stem cell research.
I wasn't saying that people who supported legal abortion opposed ESCR, I was saying there seemed to be more momentum, within popular opinion, of the idea of labelling the anti-abortionists "anti-choice" than labelling the anti-ESCR "anti-cure." But for the sake of an example:

http://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2005/05/26/escr-abortion-and-consistency/

Granted, it doesn't necessarily support abortion, but it points out (or at least acknowledges) the "it's her body" issue in the context of pro-choice arguments, and uses that as a reason to consider abortion more permissible than embryonic stem cell research.

I'd seen that article before. It's still really sad, especially the women who come BACK post-abortion to picket the clinic. I just...can't comprehend that.
Whatever happened to cognitive dissonance? o.o

Fundamentalists are Hypocritical!!?!?!?!?


......Im shocked, lol....

Wait... what? Of COURSE it's about the "sanctity of life" argument, but that doesn't mean it's about abortion; that argument happens to be used in the contexts of both ESCR and abortions, but one isn't the result of the other.

But in their minds, they're tied together. Even if one believed that ESCR didn't violate the 'sanctity of life' or that the means justified the ends, many anti-abortion people still feel like they have to oppose it because they can't risk 'devaluing' human life and therefore damaging their anti-abortion crusade.

Fundamentalists are Hypocritical!!?!?!?!?


......Im shocked, lol....

somehow I doubt they see it that way lmao

I think the question 'Why is abortion necessary?' is inseparable from the questions: 'Why can't all mothers afford to support their children?', 'Why are so many parentless children going unadopted?' and 'why isn't sex education and contraception more universally taught and available?'

I think the question 'Why is abortion necessary?' is inseparable from the questions: 'Why can't all mothers afford to support their children?', 'Why are so many parentless children going unadopted?' and 'why isn't sex education and contraception more universally taught and available?'I think you've meandered into the wrong thread. Might want to wipe the mud off your face. ;)

I think you've meandered into the wrong thread. Might want to wipe the mud off your face. ;)

Going from silly to rational and back to silly knocks people off-balance. That's a technique I've perfected over the years. :)

Going from silly to rational and back to silly knocks people off-balance. That's a technique I've perfected over the years. :)

I think he means that this isnt the "Why is Abortion Necessary" thread...

As per your statement though....There are several local churches and groups around here that largely represent whats standing in the way of those innovations...

Going from silly to rational and back to silly knocks people off-balance. That's a technique I've perfected over the years. :)

*goes to attempt to study at the master's feet*

Going from silly to rational and back to silly knocks people off-balance. That's a technique I've perfected over the years. :)*takes notes, begins to think of ways to use this to his advantage, totally not going with his signature here*

I think he means that this isnt the "Why is Abortion Necessary" thread...

As per your statement though....There are several local churches and groups around here that largely represent whats standing in the way of those innovations...He knows.

But in their minds, they're tied together. Even if one believed that ESCR didn't violate the 'sanctity of life' or that the means justified the ends, many anti-abortion people still feel like they have to oppose it because they can't risk 'devaluing' human life and therefore damaging their anti-abortion crusade.
I find it disturbing that their stance on a major issue of biotechnology revolves around their stance on one specific medical procedure that they perceive as "killing human beings" that lack a consciousness or sentience...

I guess it shouldn't be surprising given the superficial nature of our society, if not of human nature in general.

I'd seen that article before. It's still really sad, especially the women who come BACK post-abortion to picket the clinic. I just...can't comprehend that.

The easiest solution I can think to solving that is taking the woman's picture when she's inside the clinic, and putting it up on a big sign saying "This woman was our customer for an abortion." when they come back to picket.

It might violate confidentiality laws though, I'm not sure, but it would certainly be amusing to watch the mob turn on the hypocrite.

The easiest solution I can think to solving that is taking the woman's picture when she's inside the clinic, and putting it up on a big sign saying "This woman was our customer for an abortion." when they come back to picket.

It might violate confidentiality laws though, I'm not sure, but it would certainly be amusing to watch the mob turn on the hypocrite.

Makes me think of that Sarah Silverman episode, lol...

The easiest solution I can think to solving that is taking the woman's picture when she's inside the clinic, and putting it up on a big sign saying "This woman was our customer for an abortion." when they come back to picket.

It might violate confidentiality laws though, I'm not sure, but it would certainly be amusing to watch the mob turn on the hypocrite.
Not so much amusing as refreshing. But yeah, to see them turn against each other... rip and tear. (Psychologically, not physically; wouldn't rule out the latter altogether though)

I find it disturbing that their stance on a major issue of biotechnology revolves around their stance on one specific medical procedure that they perceive as "killing human beings" that lack a consciousness or sentience...

I guess it shouldn't be surprising given the superficial nature of our society, if not of human nature in general.

I don't know how it is in other countries, but you'd be amazed how many people who are anti-abortion and against ESCR are in favor of capital punishment. I find that very disturbing.

I often argue in favor of a Women's right to Choose.....

But, a friend of mine posed this question to me, and I have to say, Ive never felt like more of a hypocrite than when I answered that...

He asked If a girl I had sex with ended up pregnant and wanted an abortion, would you want her to abort your son or daughter?...

I have to say, I would have to try and stop her, I just couldnt let that happen to my kid...

I often argue in favor of a Women's right to Choose.....

But, a friend of mine posed this question to me, and I have to say, Ive never felt like more of a hypocrite than when I answered that...

He asked If a girl I had sex with ended up pregnant and wanted an abortion, would you want her to abort your son or daughter?...

I have to say, I would have to try and stop her, I just couldnt let that happen to my kid...

I don't think you understood the question. He was asking you to guess the sex of the child.

I don't think you understood the question. He was asking you to guess the sex of the child.

lmao, :hail:

I don't know how it is in other countries, but you'd be amazed how many people who are anti-abortion and against ESCR are in favor of capital punishment. I find that very disturbing.
Apples and oranges; their support for capital punishment has more to do with percieving the criminals as "deserving" to die, whereas the same can't be said of fetuses, who've done nothing wrong.

The core of that issue is self-riteousness (same as the issue this thread was initially about) and being so quick to judge others. After all, it's not like the rest of us are perfect angels, and how can we be so sure what other people deserve?

George Orwell came up with the definite quote for such stark hypocrisy.

"All animals are Equal. But Some are More Equal than others."

The Anti-Abortion movement, PETA, Ted Haggard and Larry Craig, the more restrictive and sanctimonious any organizations or individuals are, the more likely they're hypocrites.

I often argue in favor of a Women's right to Choose.....

But, a friend of mine posed this question to me, and I have to say, Ive never felt like more of a hypocrite than when I answered that...

He asked If a girl I had sex with ended up pregnant and wanted an abortion, would you want her to abort your son or daughter?...

I have to say, I would have to try and stop her, I just couldnt let that happen to my kid...

How did your friend impregnate his partner with your child?

sorry

How did your friend impregnate his partner with your child?

sorry

lol....its not exactly how Id intended it to come out with...

Its my Girl and My impregnation of her, the question was more on the lines of whether I would let her Abort the Baby involved...

Pro-Life women in abortion clinics see themselves as "unique" compared to pro-choice women in said abortion clinics?
Wow.
Now that is arrogant.

"A 21 year old woman and her mother drove three hours to come to their appointment for an abortion. They were surprised to find the clinic a 'nice' place with friendly, personable staff. While going over contraceptive options, they shared that they were Pro-Life and disagreed with abortion, but that the patient could not afford to raise a child right now. Also, she wouldn't need contraception since she wasn't going to have sex until she got married, because of her religious beliefs. Rather than argue with them, I saw this as an opportunity for dialogue, and in the end, my hope was that I had planted a 'healing seed' to help resolve the conflict between their beliefs and their realities." (Physician, Washington State)

if she's in an abortion clinic, i think somebody doesn't get how it fucking works :headbang:
clearly its the immaculate conception *nods*

its pretty sad though, and stupid. would make me kinda angry if it wasn't too early in the morning for that

if she's in an abortion clinic, i think somebody doesn't get how it fucking works :headbang:
clearly its the immaculate conception *nods*

its pretty sad though, and stupid. would make me kinda angry if it wasn't too early in the morning for that

Saddlebacking is okay though.

"Saddlebacking": the term for the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities. E.g., "After attending the Purity Ball, Heather and Bill saddlebacked all night because she's saving herself for marriage."

Saddlebacking is okay though.

"Saddlebacking": the term for the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities. E.g., "After attending the Purity Ball, Heather and Bill saddlebacked all night because she's saving herself for marriage."

oh yeah, god prefers it up the ass.

oh yeah, god prefers it up the ass.

Yet he wiped out Sodom. Does Not Compute.

:D

I often argue in favor of a Women's right to Choose.....

But, a friend of mine posed this question to me, and I have to say, Ive never felt like more of a hypocrite than when I answered that...

He asked If a girl I had sex with ended up pregnant and wanted an abortion, would you want her to abort your son or daughter?...

I have to say, I would have to try and stop her, I just couldnt let that happen to my kid...

I think the real question here is, how far would you go to "stop" her?
Would you just try and talk her out of it, and try to find alternative options?
Or would you physically force her to stay away from the abortion clinic?

Yet he wiped out Sodom. Does Not Compute.

:D

god works in mysterious ways when it comes to ass ;)

These kind of people provide me with no end of sadistic amusement. Not sadistic as in physical pain, but amusement as I find the mental and spiritual torture they put themselves through just to keep the 'I'm better than you' mindset is fucking hilarious, but at the same time it makes me feel sorry for them.

I often argue in favor of a Women's right to Choose.....

But, a friend of mine posed this question to me, and I have to say, Ive never felt like more of a hypocrite than when I answered that...

He asked If a girl I had sex with ended up pregnant and wanted an abortion, would you want her to abort your son or daughter?...

I have to say, I would have to try and stop her, I just couldnt let that happen to my kid...

I think if your willing to be active in the process its your choice too. Me on the off chance I somehow managed to impregnate someone in my extremely busy non-sex life I would want to discuss the whole thing with her; if I found out that she went off and got the abortion without even informing me, I think I'd freak out and break the whole thing off, even though I support the mother's right to choose I also support the father's right to know.

That's rather simplistic; one's right to swing one's fist ends where another's face begins. I wouldn't regard a fetus as a person, (well, at least not before the third trimester) but for those who would regard it as such, it wouldn't necessarily be so much about "protecting" a woman from herself (which I would agree sounds like a remarkably unpermissive attitude) so much as "protecting" a fetus from its mother. That's the more relevant issue.

Who protects the mother from the fetus?

It seems almost cliche within the websites I visit and the student newspaper of my local university to describe the anti-abortion as "anti-choice"; why don't we see the "anti-cure" label applied as much so to those opposed to embryonic stem cell research?

Being anti-abortion does not mean that one wishes to see abortion legally banned. Thus, the term doesn't really describe the position in question. Anti-choice comes closer to that.

Being anti-abortion does not mean that one wishes to see abortion legally banned. Thus, the term doesn't really describe the position in question. Anti-choice comes closer to that.Unfortunately, it's also a term that lends itself to demagogues (And the all-too american fetish with FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOM, where virtually everything can be sold by calling it 'Freedom' or 'Liberty', regardless of what it actually involves). So why not call it what it is, anti-abortion?

Actually, abortion-critical would be a better term, given that, as hyou've mentioned yourself, not everyone (Maybe not even the majority?) who are opposed to it actually want it banned, but hey.

I read this (And posted this here) a few years ago. It still rings oh-so-true.

But, if I may still a quote, whoever said that the human race is logical?

This is the same "logic" as voting for a candidate based on his starry-eyed promises, and then when he turns around and starts violating them from the start, remaining starry-eyed and not holding him to the promises or calling him on his violations.

Because it's not "bad" when "we" do it.

This is the same "logic" as voting for a candidate based on his starry-eyed promises, and then when he turns around and starts violating them from the start, remaining starry-eyed and not holding him to the promises or calling him on his violations.

Because it's not "bad" when "we" do it.

Hotwife, 2001 was eight years ago. Get with the program.

I think if your willing to be active in the process its your choice too. Me on the off chance I somehow managed to impregnate someone in my extremely busy non-sex life I would want to discuss the whole thing with her; if I found out that she went off and got the abortion without even informing me, I think I'd freak out and break the whole thing off, even though I support the mother's right to choose I also support the father's right to know.
I hope you would at least keep in mind that there's a chance your partner didn't tell you because she didn't want to deal with exactly what Skallvia described. I.e., she didn't want to tell you because she didn't want you to get on her case about a decision that she probably was stressing over already.

I'm not saying all women feel this way. Me, I'd tell my partner, because he rocks and we've already talked about what he'd do in that situation, and it only made me feel safer with him. But a lot of guys act like Skallvia describes, and a lot of women aren't thrilled about it.

Please be clear, I am not saying you have to be okay with your partner keeping something like that from you. At the very least, it's one seriously huge secret, and I would not blame you for being totally freaked out about it. I'm just suggesting that you try to remember that you're partner is (one hopes) a person that you like and respect, and if she does something you don't like then you should at least consider the possibility that she had non-shitty reasons for doing it.

Again, with these people justifying why their abortion happens to be okay, the simple fact is that, for one reason or another, they can't have the baby, they have to provide a 'why' for themselves to justify the act.

It's very easy to hold an opinion on something you have no experience of, NSG is testament to that, easy to clatter out the sentiment that abortion is against God, harder to justify when you're in the situation.

I think the disturbing thing here isn't that, when put in the situation, they make a different decision than they might have thought.

It's more that, having been there, they still can't empathize with those who are now in the same position they were in. Instead, they try to convince themselves that their situation was somehow unique.

Who protects the mother from the fetus?
It's not like I agree with anti-abortionist reasoning, just saying we need to consider such things. As for protecting the mother, depends what one regards that as being; some consider the "health of the mother" exception a case of "allowing her to kill the fetus in self-defense"; and yet, protecting herself from her life being ruined by having to take care of an unwanted baby isn't enough. And even then, "health of the person with a disease curable through ESCR" doesn't seem to be enough to make people use some of the same labels towards the anti-ESCR as towards the anti-abortion.

Earlier on, LG claimed that anti-ESCR people mostly think embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses. As ignorant as I tend to assume they are I'm willing to give them the benefit of a doubt in terms of that bit, but as I also said, those who think embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses clearly don't know what they're talking about and their opinion shouldn't matter.

Being anti-abortion does not mean that one wishes to see abortion legally banned. Thus, the term doesn't really describe the position in question. Anti-choice comes closer to that.
But again, one could argue they believe in "choice" otherwise if the woman was only affecting herself but that the fetus doesn't have a choice in the situation. The trouble is that these beliefs differ so sharply down to the very core that it's hard to make up an agreeable label.

But my point was more so that I don't seem to see as much "anti-cure people simply hate those who ESCR can cure" as much as "anti-choice people simply hate women"

Wait... what? Of COURSE it's about the "sanctity of life" argument, but that doesn't mean it's about abortion; that argument happens to be used in the contexts of both ESCR and abortions, but one isn't the result of the other. People can talk about the "sanctity of life" for the embryos involved in the research without actually thinking the cells come from aborted fetuses. At the very least, it's probably progenitors that they're thinking of. As much as I'm inclined to think of the anti-ESCR people as ignorant (which might be a result of my disagreement with them) I'm giving them the benefit of a doubt with respect to whether or not most of them are ignorant enough to think embryonic stem cells come from aborted fetuses.

I've actually run into a startling number of people who are convinced that ESCs come from aborted fetuses.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of misinformation propagated by those on the anti- side of the debate.

I've actually run into a startling number of people who are convinced that ESCs come from aborted fetuses.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of misinformation propagated by those on the anti- side of the debate.
Ugh, non-science.

In science, truth matters. In science, facts matter. But it seems that outside of science whether one is right or wrong has nothing to do with whether or not they get their way. -.-

Please be clear, I am not saying you have to be okay with your partner keeping something like that from you. At the very least, it's one seriously huge secret, and I would not blame you for being totally freaked out about it. I'm just suggesting that you try to remember that you're partner is (one hopes) a person that you like and respect, and if she does something you don't like then you should at least consider the possibility that she had non-shitty reasons for doing it.

wouldn't your partner having an abortion without letting you know signify quite the opposite of a person who would like and respect you. Its a pretty grievous breach of trust, while its not codified, most men (and women for that matter) I think expect some sort of say (even just to have a talk about it, and be informed of) in such choices.

wouldn't your partner having an abortion without letting you know signify quite the opposite of a person who would like and respect you. Its a pretty grievous breach of trust, while its not codified, most men (and women for that matter) I think expect some sort of say (even just to have a talk about it, and be informed of) in such choices.
Like I said, I don't think that's a fair assumption.

It MIGHT be the case that she doesn't like or respect you. Or, it might be the case that she's dealing with a situation that is freaking her out, and her past experiences with guys have taught her that telling her partner about this situation will only make her life worse, so she's concluded that she shouldn't talk about it. Which might not be RIGHT, depending on her partner, but it certainly still leaves room for her to like and respect her partner even if she fears that his reaction will be unpleasant.

I often argue in favor of a Women's right to Choose.....

But, a friend of mine posed this question to me, and I have to say, Ive never felt like more of a hypocrite than when I answered that...

He asked If a girl I had sex with ended up pregnant and wanted an abortion, would you want her to abort your son or daughter?...

I have to say, I would have to try and stop her, I just couldnt let that happen to my kid...

Sounds like this is something you should discuss with a partner before you ever have sex. If she isn't as opposed to the idea as you are, don't have sex with her.


Unfortunately, it's also a term that lends itself to demagogues (And the all-too american fetish with FREEEEEEEEEEEEDOM, where virtually everything can be sold by calling it 'Freedom' or 'Liberty', regardless of what it actually involves). So why not call it what it is, anti-abortion?

Because that isn't "what it is". It is perfectly possible to be anti-abortion (as in: opposed to abortion) and still be pro-choice. As such, it does not accurately describe the actual position - as in: opposed to women being able to legally obtain an abortion.

Actually, abortion-critical would be a better term, given that, as hyou've mentioned yourself, not everyone (Maybe not even the majority?) who are opposed to it actually want it banned, but hey.

Abortion-critical? Huh? I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean.

Pro-ban, perhaps, would work.


It's not like I agree with anti-abortionist reasoning, just saying we need to consider such things. As for protecting the mother, depends what one regards that as being; some consider the "health of the mother" exception a case of "allowing her to kill the fetus in self-defense"; and yet, protecting herself from her life being ruined by having to take care of an unwanted baby isn't enough.

I'm talking about protecting her from having her body used against her will. How many of these people would be perfectly willing to have their bodies used for the benefit of others without agreeing to it?

But again, one could argue they believe in "choice" otherwise if the woman was only affecting herself but that the fetus doesn't have a choice in the situation. The trouble is that these beliefs differ so sharply down to the very core that it's hard to make up an agreeable label.

And I would ask: Since when does anyone have the choice to use another's body against that person's will?

But my point was more so that I don't seem to see as much "anti-cure people simply hate those who ESCR can cure" as much as "anti-choice people simply hate women"

This comes less from the simple position and more from the fact that, when you dig deeper, you find that they don't actually hold to their own stated rationale. As such, it leaves you with only the option that what they really want is to control women.

I'm talking about protecting her from having her body used against her will.
When someone has to work at a job to make the money required to take care of the baby they didn't want, their body is being used against their will; just in a different way. Yet they are required to do so in order to take care of the baby.

And I would ask: Since when does anyone have the choice to use another's body against that person's will?
They don't "choose" to, but society requires people's bodies to be used, whether through a job or through pregnancy, to protect the person whose existance is considered a consequence of their actions. What difference does it make in which way their body is being used?

This comes less from the simple position and more from the fact that, when you dig deeper, you find that they don't actually hold to their own stated rationale. As such, it leaves you with only the option that what they really want is to control women.
How can you be so sure? What if they simply don't hold to consistency because they simply don't know what they're doing in the first place? I'm inclined to at least give them the benefit of a doubt.

When someone has to work at a job to make the money required to take care of the baby they didn't want, their body is being used against their will; just in a different way. Yet they are required to do so in order to take care of the baby.


They don't "choose" to, but society requires people's bodies to be used, whether through a job or through pregnancy, to protect the person whose existance is considered a consequence of their actions. What difference does it make in which way their body is being used?

I agree, women should be paid a fair wage and provided with benefits for carrying a pregnancy.

I agree, women should be paid a fair wage and provided with benefits for carrying a pregnancy.

wait, what? That seems a tad bit radical...paid by whom?

wait, what? That seems a tad bit radical...paid by whom?
Wait, are we supposed to be thinking of rational, pragmatic, and internally-consistent proposals?

Cause that totally didn't seem like it was part of the rules here...

Wait, are we supposed to be thinking of rational, pragmatic, and internally-consistent proposals?

Cause that totally didn't seem like it was part of the rules here...

right right, my mistake. Carry on. Thank you for flying Church of England, cake or death?

When someone has to work at a job to make the money required to take care of the baby they didn't want, their body is being used against their will; just in a different way. Yet they are required to do so in order to take care of the baby.

No, they aren't. If they cannot take care of a child, they can give it up for adoption or turn it over to the state.

Meanwhile, no one is forced to work. They choose to take a job. Their employer cannot tie them up and keep them there.

They don't "choose" to, but society requires people's bodies to be used, whether through a job or through pregnancy, to protect the person whose existance is considered a consequence of their actions. What difference does it make in which way their body is being used?

No, society does not require people's bodies to be used to save others. If it did, things like blood and marrow donation would be compulsory.

There is a difference between having one's money used and one's body used.

How can you be so sure? What if they simply don't hold to consistency because they simply don't know what they're doing in the first place? I'm inclined to at least give them the benefit of a doubt.

Because when the inconsistency is pointed out to them, they fall back on "dirty slut" arguments.

I hope you would at least keep in mind that there's a chance your partner didn't tell you because she didn't want to deal with exactly what Skallvia described. I.e., she didn't want to tell you because she didn't want you to get on her case about a decision that she probably was stressing over already.

I'm not saying all women feel this way. Me, I'd tell my partner, because he rocks and we've already talked about what he'd do in that situation, and it only made me feel safer with him. But a lot of guys act like Skallvia describes, and a lot of women aren't thrilled about it.

Please be clear, I am not saying you have to be okay with your partner keeping something like that from you. At the very least, it's one seriously huge secret, and I would not blame you for being totally freaked out about it. I'm just suggesting that you try to remember that you're partner is (one hopes) a person that you like and respect, and if she does something you don't like then you should at least consider the possibility that she had non-shitty reasons for doing it.

I always try to be perfectly honest with my partners, I tell them whats happening and what I feel, etc. I encourage the same in them; if they don't know me well enough by the point we are having sex to know that I will not give them trouble over it than maybe things aren't what we thought they were and its a good idea to re-evaluate the situation anyway. If she can't be open and honest about things that effect both of our lives, especially things like pregnancies and etc. Then how the hell can I trust her?

I have had so many women do so many shitty things to me that I have a hard time accepting big secrets. I found relationships based on compromise, trust, and telling the truth. If she can't do that than I am not going to stay with her; its how I have become.

Addendum: This is one of the things that is discussed before I start a serious relationship anyway, giving me more reasons to say goodbye.

right right, my mistake. Carry on. Thank you for flying Church of England, cake or death?

Not to sound greedy, but could I have the cake AND the death? I will have the cake now and wrap the death up to give away as a gift. It's never too early to shop for the next holiday season. :)

Not to sound greedy, but could I have the cake AND the death? I will have the cake now and wrap the death up to give away as a gift. It's never too early to shop for the next holiday season. :)

You both. Here's your fruitcake.

No, they aren't. If they cannot take care of a child, they can give it up for adoption or turn it over to the state.
Except what about when the woman wants to keep the child and the man wouldn't? IIRC, the man still has to pay child support because he brought the child into the world, so he is obliged to use his body at a job to make money to pay the child support.

No, society does not require people's bodies to be used to save others. If it did, things like blood and marrow donation would be compulsory.
One could always argue that because it's not their fault that someone else is in injury they aren't obliged to save that person, while their offspring is their responsibility. Not that I necessarily agree with that perspective, just saying it seems common in our society. (ie. opponents of public healthcare saying they aren't obliged to take care of other people's problems even through tax dollars)

There is a difference between having one's money used and one's body used.
Despite that one's body was used to get the money? Don't get me wrong, I don't like the whole property-centric "you are your property" perspective either, but one's body is still technically being used either way, even if not directly.

Because when the inconsistency is pointed out to them, they fall back on "dirty slut" arguments.
Any examples of this? And reasons to expect these examples to reflect the majority?

Except what about when the woman wants to keep the child and the man wouldn't? IIRC, the man still has to pay child support because he brought the child into the world, so he is obliged to use his body at a job to make money to pay the child support.

There's already a thread on that. =)

But, once again, you're equating money with body. The man isn't forced to work. And, if he doesn't have the money, he isn't required to pay child support.

One could always argue that because it's not their fault that someone else is in injury they aren't obliged to save that person, while their offspring is their responsibility.

One could argue that.

Of course, then they would have to make it illegal for a parent to refuse a blood, bone marrow, or organ transplant to their child. Again, I've yet to see anyone advocating this.

Despite that one's body was used to get the money?

If someone works to obtain money, it is because they chose to, not because they were forced to.

Any examples of this? And reasons to expect these examples to reflect the majority?

Have you ever read any abortion thread on NSG?

A common one is something like this:

A: Abortion is murder.
B: What about cases of rape?
A: Oh, she can have an abortion then.
B: Would you allow a rapist's already born children to be killed for his crimes?
A: She didn't choose to have sex.
B: So it's really about whether or not the woman willingly has sex?
A: ABORTION IS MURDER!

And you see this not only on NSG, but also on various pro-ban websites, conservative talk radio, and in conversations in person.

Since I've discussed this subject quite often and pretty much always ended up running into the same arguments, I've concluded that it's a pretty common viewpoint. I've also yet to run into more than 1 or 2 people who advocated the same punishments for abortion that they do for murder -even after the discrepancy is pointed out.

There's already a thread on that. =)

But, once again, you're equating money with body. The man isn't forced to work. And, if he doesn't have the money, he isn't required to pay child support.


Uh, yes he is. There's a minimum amount he's required to pay, at least in this state. If he fails to make those payments then he's arrested. Once jailed he's put in a work release program usually, where a fraction of his wage is taken for support, a fraction for room and board.

The sensationalist nature of this blog is pretty obvious. Are there pro-life women out there who have abortions? Probably. But that's the case with almost anything. Just as there are pro-abortion women who would never have an abortion under any circumstance, environmentalists and the like minded who live in big or huge houses and fly around the world bitching about people that do said things. Basically anyone who doesn't practice what they preach.

Not news!


Turns out that there are more staunchly anti-choice women than you'd think who get pregnant, have an abortion - and go on being staunchly anti-choice. WTF?
More? How many were we supposed to think there were in the first place again?


Call me naive, because apparently I am, but I thought that there were really mainly two groups of anti-choice women:

1) the ones who are against abortion but, once they themselves are faced with an unwanted pregnancy and decide to terminate it, while obviously still not liking abortion (who the hell does?) see that it's not all easy and black & white and maybe won't be quite as quick to judge others in the future
Don't forgot about women who were for abortion until actually having one.


2) the ones who are actual "pro-life" activists and who, once they themselves are faced with an unwanted pregnancy, grit their teeth and bear it (literally).

Not so.
Wait, wait, wait... So some blog post/story from a pro-abortion activist claims anecdotally that there are women who are against abortion, yet have one anyways and still remain against it. So now all pro-life women are guilty. Really!? Is this really what you're saying?


I was just blown away by the staggering amount of reality disconnect, hypocrisy and contempt for others going on
Couldn't agree more.

Uh, yes he is. There's a minimum amount he's required to pay, at least in this state. If he fails to make those payments then he's arrested. Once jailed he's put in a work release program usually, where a fraction of his wage is taken for support, a fraction for room and board.

And if he has no wages?

From what I understand, a man who does not have enough income to support himself and pay child support can get a waiver.

If that isn't true, it damn well should be.

Im willing to bet that this is how 95% of the anti-choice movement is.


Hell, if the recent gay undertakings by evangelical and conservative figures are an indication, Im will to bet this is how 95% of the right wing is.

"The only moral gay sex is the gay sex I have in an airport bathroom/while on meth in a hotel room."

really ..

why on earth dunt people realise it !!!

americans shud have by now ...


there are three types of social conservatists !!!

1. those who are religious and thus truly believe that is what they shud do n live their lives

2. the jealous ones who come from backgrounds where their own rights are restricted, thus they dont like giving rights to others ...

3. and the last one, those who actually practice the acts that they proclaim to be heinous e.g; homosexuality, abotion, euthanasia, cheating, money laundering, murder, mass suicide ..... these people are in a serious case of denial and they oppose all of those acts because if they do they can make their own past acts go away ..or so they think ..

if there is a heaven n hell; im sure the latter 2 groups will go straight to hell ..

The sensationalist nature of this blog is pretty obvious.
It is? How so?

Are there pro-life women out there who have abortions? Probably. But that's the case with almost anything. Just as there are pro-abortion women who would never have an abortion under any circumstance, environmentalists and the like minded who live in big or huge houses and fly around the world bitching about people that do said things. Basically anyone who doesn't practice what they preach.

Not news!
This isn't about pro-life women who have abortions, it's about pro-life women who have abortions yet go on condemning women who have abortions while insisting that their own abortion was an entirely different matter.

If you can't see that difference then no, I guess this wouldn't have been news to you.

More? How many were we supposed to think there were in the first place again?
Really? That's what you get from "more than you'd think"? Impressive. You weren't "supposed to think" anything. That's not how that expression works, sorry.
The common sense assumption was that most people would put the number of such women very low and, judging from replies in this thread, this is indeed the case. Whaddaya know.

Don't forgot about women who were for abortion until actually having one.
So you think "I thought that there were really mainly two groups of anti-choice women" doesn't adequately express the notion that I thought that there were really mainly two groups of anti-choice women?

Wait, wait, wait... So some blog post/story from a pro-abortion activist claims anecdotally that there are women who are against abortion, yet have one anyways and still remain against it. So now all pro-life women are guilty. Really!? Is this really what you're saying?
Dude, the "Not so" refers to the "I thought there were mainly two groups", as should be frigging obvious from the layout alone. And I have no idea why you bolded the "actual 'pro-life' activists" nor what you mean by "guilty" (guilty of what?) nor how on earth you arrived at that conclusion. You should calm down a bit and try to read better.

Gotta love the use of "pro-abortion activist", though.

Couldn't agree more.
Why, excellent!