abortion classic or dud?

gggggggrrrrrr makes me want to stab people in the face

it's really more funny than anything

omg 3:20 i'm dying

okay I got to "vagina fruit rollups" and had to stop

OK, what?

can someone summarize that for me, I'm on iphone

PP wants to turn your kids into sex addicts to sell them condoms and abortions, much evidence therein

yeah, well, a-duh!

I still want to know about vaginal fruit snacks.

thx goole

I still want to know about vaginal fruit snacks.

fructose + vagina sounds like a microorganism meltdown to me tbh

I couldn't watch the whole thing, but 3:20 is definitely LOL funny.

hating on humans knowing that the clitoris is pleasurable is just the saddest thing

i'm surprised it had the 'subtlety' to try to slyly infer anything, when it's elsewhere so brash, but the "an intimate pose with what appears to be an adult man" thing is so deeply awful

super.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/16/oklahoma-senate-passes-personhood-act-effectively-banning-all-abortions/

that author either didn't do enough research on this bill or the bill is so obviously unconstitutional that it'll be enjoined before it takes effect. i'm actually just as inclined to believe it's the former

yeah that thing was cartoonishly awful

ugh, Virginia.

hate living here tbh

Asked once about abortions in the case of incest, Marshall replied that sometimes the incest was voluntary.

“The woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime, because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman,” he said.

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

ha that's refreshingly clear tbh

christians who claim to believe abortion is murder, but don't take up violent acts to stop it,* are they hypocrites? like it seems that if you feel murder is happening, you are ethical obligated to do whatever you can to stop it. is it that they don't really, really feel like it's murder (aka, it's like calling your opponent a Nazi - you know they aren't but you're using that language for rhetorical effect)? or is it that they do but they feel threatened by the state? maybe some feel guilty about not taking more drastic actions? i'm really curious about this, but it seems to be a huge ethical disconnect to me...

* nb I know some do, but they are in the minority, the vast majority do not

thinking about this tonight bc slate republished this tucker carlson article:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/02/rick_santorum_prenatal_testing_and_abortion_tucker_carlson_s_classic_essay_on_prenatal_testing_and_the_abortion_of_down_syndrome_babies_.4.html

which i don't find compelling at all as an argument against abortion, but obviously it resonated w/ someone (at slate) pretty significantly that they went out of their way to republish it

"Read Tucker Carlson’s classic essay"

WHAT NEW TYPE OF TROLLING IS THIS?

On the other hand: http://open.salon.com/blog/sarah_gale/2012/02/19/why_rick_santorum_would_have_killed_my_daughter_1

A woman writes about how an amniocentesis saved her daughter's life 6 months into her pregnancy. Without prenatal testing covered by insurance, they'd never have been able to afford the test and her baby would not have lived even 24 hours.

"Read Tucker Carlson's classic concerntrolling"

needs to be an animated gif of a spinning bowtie next to the byline

Meanwhile: Virginia.

This is just bucketfuls of RAGH

Refusal to see the ultrasound results goes on a woman's permanent medical record. But we won't stick an ultrasound probe in her vagina now. Awesome.

I have absolutely no idea what the ultrasound refusal record does. Biases future doctors? Marks the women as potential criminals when we finally get a religious oligarchy?

christians who claim to believe abortion is murder, but don't take up violent acts to stop it,* are they hypocrites? like it seems that if you feel murder is happening, you are ethical obligated to do whatever you can to stop it. is it that they don't really, really feel like it's murder (aka, it's like calling your opponent a Nazi - you know they aren't but you're using that language for rhetorical effect)? or is it that they do but they feel threatened by the state? maybe some feel guilty about not taking more drastic actions? i'm really curious about this, but it seems to be a huge ethical disconnect to me...

it definitely is a rhetorical disconnection. I suck at articulating the point, so i'll do what I do best and link to a better breakdown

...If someone really believed that children’s lives are at stake, they would be too busy chaining themselves across the front doors of hospitals to waste precious hours just talking, talking, talking — mostly about themselves and their alleged morals. Blog disputes, self-congratulation and the marking-off of tribal territory would be luxuries such a true believer could not afford when 3,300 children are about to be murdered and the clock is always ticking ticking ticking.

I have seen very, very few people whose behavior allowed me to believe that they really believed any such thing...

xpost mh: in lieu of a scarlet letter, basically. Who the fuck knows. So they can be tsk'd at by future doctors?

and yet I see similar behavior in other areas. i know ppl who sincerely believe that the united states is responsible for murdering children worldwide but they also live normal lives. i think some things you can believe, but bc of the relationship between the individual + the state, or the individual and society, or whatever, you just feel so powerless to act on your 'beliefs.' (obv there's some distance here from the core belief, but i don't think it means necessarily that they don't really believe it.) ppl in history have been witness to terrible crimes against their fellow man, and been unable to act. i'm not saying it is so here -- but it could be?

i think a lot of anti-abortion types see it as "wrong" and "immoral" in an abstract kind of way, the % that actually feels it is murder in a visceral way is relatively small, and those types are the ones out marching, harassing clinics etc.

Guess Virginia isn't for Lovers anymore.

christians who claim to believe abortion is murder, but don't take up violent acts to stop it,* are they hypocrites? like it seems that if you feel murder is happening, you are ethical obligated to do whatever you can to stop it. is it that they don't really, really feel like it's murder (aka, it's like calling your opponent a Nazi - you know they aren't but you're using that language for rhetorical effect)? or is it that they do but they feel threatened by the state? maybe some feel guilty about not taking more drastic actions? i'm really curious about this, but it seems to be a huge ethical disconnect to me...

* nb I know some do, but they are in the minority, the vast majority do not

― Mordy, Wednesday, February 22, 2012 10:01 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

most sects of christianity don't promote or condone violence. i haven't been to church in a while but I don't see the hypocrisy

wake me up when my ladyparts are *completely* illegal. just tell me what page in the margaret atwood anthology to turn to.

I get the impression a lot of people are against abortion until "it happens to them" in some way. Also, I recall seeing a clip where some guy went around at an anti abortion protest asking people, if they wanted abortion illegalised, does that mean they want all women in that situation sent to jail? Majority of ppl asked looked suprised, baffled, and said "oh, well... no, that seems harsh". I mean ffs.

I'm pretty sure a lot of pro-lifers will tell you "murder is murder."

i know ppl who sincerely believe that the united states is responsible for murdering children worldwide but they also live normal lives.

There's no way to stop it. That's my practical side.

I know more than one person who has worked at a clinic or as an escort for a clinic, who has seen protestors later show up at the same clinic to get an abortion for themselves or their daughters. And didn't feel they were being hypocrites at all! And were back protesting soon after!

That happens alllllllll the time.

"The only moral abortion is my abortion!"

and Trayce, here's the video you mentioned upthread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

This is kind of interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFC/AAT

http://www.guernicamag.com/features/3535/ptacin_3_1_12

oh god, three days for a D&E? I feel so bad for the writer :(

I feel the need to point out that the name of the procedure is a dilation and extraction or evacuation, not excavation. Her uterus isn't an archeological site.

http://images.45cat.com/the-cramps-whats-inside-a-girl-big-beat.jpg

Is a d&e the same as a d&c? I've only ever heard ”d&c” used in nz.

D&C happens in first trimester, D&E later.

Those 3 choices. "So, no to all of them but which one would I say no to the least." Fuck.

And the convo with the mother about giving birth to the dead baby just ripped me apart.

I feel the need to point out that the name of the procedure is a dilation and extraction or evacuation, not excavation. Her uterus isn't an archeological site.

― kate78, Wednesday, March 14, 2012 2:16 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol