Over My Dead Body, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
August 25, 2012 Martha Thomases 8 Comments
Lucky for you folks, Congressman Todd Akin made his ridiculous statements after my deadline last week, so I’ve had a chance to calm down. In case you missed it (and if so, how did you do it, and can I hide there, too?), here is what he said, quoted from The New York Times:
“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”
There are, as you might imagine, so many unbelievable aspects to this statement. I don’t know which one to react to first. Let’s start from the bottom and work our way up.
“The punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”
It’s interesting that, when considering the crime of rape, Akin considers only the rapist — the criminal — and the evidence — the child. At no time does he consider the victim, the woman who was raped. I guess that’s because the rapist is most likely male, and there is at least a 50% chance that the fetus will also be male. The victim is just a girl.
Not even a real human.
Do you think that last statement is harsh? Do you think I’m ascribing beliefs to which the Congressman that he doesn’t hold? Maybe, but let’s consider this: “the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”
He talks about a woman’s body as if it is something strange, something that is not, well, human. Something that can tell a friendly sperm from a hostile sperm. A cervix with a velvet rope, letting in only those who are on the list.
The human body is capable of all kinds of involuntary defensive responses. When one is really frightened, one’s bowels can empty, so one can run faster. One will vomit when one has eaten bad food, to get the badness out. Cold makes nipples more perky. These are things that both men and women do.
Men have reflexes that women don’t. As we learned on Seinfeld, cold water can cause shrinkage.
Does Akin know any actual women? Does he know any actual doctors?
Maybe he does. As this article observes, the modern Republican party has very little use for science. They seem to see provable facts (climate change, evolution) as opinions, something that one can accept or not. And, on a personal level, they can believe whatever they want. However, one can’t legislate science. Something is true or it isn’t. And there are plenty of so-called scientists or doctors who will say what the GOP wants to hear, as long as there is a good paycheck in it.
Of course, the phrase that’s received the most outrage is “legitimate rape.” It is the phrase that even Paul Ryan (who co-sponsored several anti-abortion bills with Akin that use similar language) denounced. It plays to men’s fears that women will cry “Rape” when the sex was consensual. I’m know that there are occasions when this happens.
You know what else happens? People claim that they were robbed when they spent their money on hookers, or gambling. And yet, we don’t talk about “legitimate robbery.” We don’t accuse men in expensive shoes of “asking for it”.
If rape is only something that happens when at gunpoint or knifepoint, a lot of men can get away with it. And a lot of women will suffer for it. The woman menaced by a much stronger man in a bar, or pressured by her boss, or the girl molested by a neighbor, an uncle, a step-father. These women must not only survive the rape itself, but the pregnancy.
(And I don’t want to hear how the fetus is a person because it contains cells that can develop into a human. So can my toe-nail. If you want an analogy, imagine a group of cells replicating in your body against your will, forming a mass that parasitically attacks your blood supply, your muscles and your nervous system. Yeah, a forced pregnancy is a lot like cancer.)
Why does the GOP want to distinguish between “legitimate” (or, sometimes they use the word “forcible”) rape and other kinds? Who are they protecting?
I know that conservatives often claim they represent so-called “Judeo-Christian” values (and you know they just put in the “Judeo” part to keep that Adelson money flowing), but their attitudes toward women are much closer to their fellow fundamentalists in Iran. As you can see here, there are those in Iran who want to preserve Biblical marriage at all costs.
Keep you Bible. I prefer humans.
—
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, actually likes some parts of the Bible. And the Talmud. And The Great Gatsby. A good read is a good read.
Mike Gold
August 25, 2012 - 7:42 am
Last night, Bill Maher knocked one right out of the park. He closed his show with a brilliant analysis of the Republican’s preference of fantasy over reality, ending with the line “the biggest difference between the Republican National Convention and (the San Diego) Comic-Con is that the people at Comic-Con have a better grip on reality.”
‘Nuff said.
Great point about toe nails.
The Liberal Frank Miller
August 25, 2012 - 9:10 am
Does that mean I’m going to have to have my toenails cryogenically preserved?
Jenny
August 25, 2012 - 9:11 am
Amen to everything you said. Everything.
Melanie Fletcher
August 25, 2012 - 9:37 am
Very much so. And may I just say that this whole “magical thinking” thing that the GOP is promoting would have all of the Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.
Pennie
August 25, 2012 - 10:06 am
This Elephant posse’s platform planks go deep into Western history–they’ve ripped parchment right out of the Dark Ages. The female form most appreciated by this crew are iron maidens. New battle cry: “Bring back the rack!” This group decants a moral center most closely associated with Attila the Hun. As MOTU noted elsewhere, how can any self-respecting woman proudly proclaim herself to be a Republican? The mind boggles.
As a woman who currently has cancer cells growing in her body, I only want them out–NOW! I had no say in their invasion. Neither does a rape victim. More patronizing patriarchy. Father knows best. NOT!
George Haberberger
August 25, 2012 - 10:13 am
First of all, I do not look to politicians for medical or religious advice. Akin was wrong. He admits that.
My opposition to legalized abortion has nothing to do with the bible or religion. I often think the Church’s vigorous stance against abortion make it seem like it is a religious issue. It is not. It is a legal, medical and scientific one.
Your toenail will never be anything but a toenail. A sperm or an ovum is like a skin cell or hair cell. That is all they will ever be. They are not human life. After fertilization they are human life and a human person.
“Virtually every human embryologist and every major textbook of human embryology states that fertilization marks the beginning of the life of the new individual human being.” Dr. C. Ward Kischer, Professor Emeritus of Human Embryology of the ?University of Arizona School of Medicine, American College of Pediatricians
Martha Thomses
August 25, 2012 - 10:46 am
Cloning means that any human cell can become a human being.
You seem to be arguing that the fertilized egg has more rights than the woman it inhabits. As a woman, I find this offensive.
Mike Gold
August 25, 2012 - 10:55 am
Pennie —
The mud elephant
Wading through the sea
Leaves no tracks
Neil C.
August 25, 2012 - 10:58 am
If it’s not a religious issue, how come most anti-abortion problems come from the ‘religious.’? And why do people care so much about other people’s lives when it comes to this issue. If my neighbor wants to have an abortion, it’s none of my damn business, I don’t know her life and if she could handle it, and if anyone ever tried to tell me what to do like that, I’d punch them in the face. Live your own life and leave people alone. I’ve never heard of anyone who is truly pro-abortion, it’s having the choice.
Jonathan (the other one)
August 25, 2012 - 11:21 am
Most anti-abortion people are religious because biology has yet to come up with a properly rigorous definition of “life”, much less when it begins. (And incidentally, “Dr.” C. Ward Kirscher is full of Arizona.)
However, if one wishes to go by the Biblical definition of life, Adam was mere lifeless clay until God “breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.” So, Biblically, you’re not alive until you take your first breath (and I suppose this also means that mouth-breathers are technically dead…).
And as for “pro-abortion”, I think feminist writer Frederica Mathews said it best, sometime in the ’70s: “A woman does not want an abortion the way she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion the way an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”
Mindy Newell
August 25, 2012 - 12:06 pm
Can’t say it any better than that, Martha.
Kudos!!!!
Mindy Newell
August 25, 2012 - 12:10 pm
Dr. Jack Wilkie….it’s absolutely mind-boggling to me that this guy was allowed to keep his license to practice medicine with this dribble.
Rachel
August 25, 2012 - 12:17 pm
I totally agree with you. How dare someone say that a woman who was raped should have to go through pregnancy when it was not her choice. Think of how she will look at that child for the rest of her life. I can’t imagine. I personally think it would be really hard not to relive the horrible experience day to day. I am not blaming the child for being the product of a rape, but I don’t know how many women would be able to have a mothering bond with a baby born from those circumstances. Also what if the rape victim is a child? Do you really think an 11 year old could go through child birth or raise the child?I’m sorry but there are some circumstances that validate an abortion. If you’re out there just having unsafe sex and aborting babies because you don’t feel like taking care of them,that’s just wrong.I am not pro life or pro abortion. It’s your body and your conscience, you have to live with it.
Pennie
August 25, 2012 - 12:47 pm
Mike, looks like some elephants might be doing some wading soon.
Pennie
August 25, 2012 - 12:51 pm
Martha, you nailed it. Who are these men who express more concern for a fertilized egg than the woman whose body it lies in?
George Haberberger
August 25, 2012 - 1:09 pm
Jonathan: You may not like Dr. Kirscher’s quote but it is not a fiction. Embryologists and textbooks do maintain that fertilization is when life begins.
Martha. you have a right to be offended but it cannot be based on the fact that you are a woman. Many women, more than men in fact, are Pro-Life. And it is not an issue of a fetus having more rights than the body she/he inhabits. It is an issue of that fetus being a human and being deprived of life and due process. If the mother’s life is at stake, then it becomes a matter of self-preservation and abortion is the lesser of two evils.
Neil: “And why do people care so much about other people’s lives when it comes to this issue.” Because it is life.
Neil C.
August 25, 2012 - 1:13 pm
George: Well that settles it!
Martha Thomases
August 25, 2012 - 2:07 pm
George, according to this (http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/24/the-romney-akin-axis/), Dr. Wilkie is one of those people who believes that rape can’t result in conception. I would say that throws anything else he might say into question. Not that he doesn’t believe it (as I said, that’s his right), but that his grasp of science is questionable at best.
Hey, all these pro-life men are welcome to take all the embryos they want and raise them to adulthood. I just don’t think they should force an unwilling woman to do it, no matter how the child was conceived.
Alice
August 25, 2012 - 4:24 pm
I’ve voted republican most of my life. Never again.
Martha Thomases
August 26, 2012 - 5:01 am
I meant to say Dr. C. Ward Kischer, not Wilkie. Kischer agrees with Wilkie.
Elizabeth
August 26, 2012 - 9:29 am
I have been completely infuriated all week. Thanks for expressing it all so well, Martha.
Tom Brucker
August 26, 2012 - 11:32 am
Rape is a criminal act. If pregnancy occurs after rape, why are the present laws structured to prohibit civil torts? Pain, suffering, medical expense, loss of income, child support, and even maternal death all are consequences of rape-caused pregnancy. Change the laws and THEN talk to us about the “rights” of the living cells.
Mike Gold
August 26, 2012 - 1:28 pm
My guess, Tom, is that most rapists don’t carry the type of insurance needed to pay off those judgments.
But Rubublicans are rich. Maybe they can set up a fund.
And maybe monkeys will fly.
George Haberberger
August 26, 2012 - 3:55 pm
“Hey, all these pro-life men are welcome to take all the embryos they want and raise them to adulthood.”
Why would you make that suggestion to Pro-Life men and not Pro-Life women? The effort to make the abortion debate a men vs women issue is flawed. That is not where the argument sits. The argument is for equal protection under the law. In the 1850’s there was pro-slavery tract making exactly the same argument to the effect of, “if you are so opposed to slavery, why won’t you pay fair-market value for them and free them yourselves?”
The point about cloning is specious also. In my first post I mentioned sperm, ovum, hair and skin cells. You had used toenail. Yes, any cell can be used to clone a new life; the sperm and ovum togther with a lot less outside help. But whether that happens naturally or with the aid of scientists, your toenail is not a human life until fertilization.
“But Rubublicans are rich. Maybe they can set up a fund.”
I personally know a lot more rich Democrats than rich Republicans.
Martha Thomses
August 26, 2012 - 4:11 pm
You are still talking about forced pregnancy — the occupation AGAINST HER WILL of a woman’s body. Sounds like second-class citizenship at best. Slavery at worst.
George Haberberger
August 26, 2012 - 5:49 pm
Rights of individuals often collide with the rights of other individuals. No one is free to do what ever they want if it adversely affects others. The question that must be settled is: Are those rights of corresponding equivalency? The abortion issue is a conflict between the baby’s right to life and the mother’s desire not to be pregnant. And while that desire may be reasonable, society shouldn’t allow her to kill someone in order to fulfill it.
I understand that this is a situation that affects women and not men. Such is the nature of biology. As the law stands now, men have no rights. It the father wants to raise the child he cannot force the mother to not abort if she wants to. And if she does want the child but the father does not want to support it, he cannot force her to abort.
Mike Gold
August 26, 2012 - 6:10 pm
While there are father’s rights issues that most certainly need to be addressed, abortion most certainly is not one of them. He ain’t a father. No baby. Just a fetus. That’s not a baby. The whole “happy birthday to you thing” (copyright Time Warner) doesn’t happen until the blob graduates from the womb. Birth produces baby, and changing the language just to keep 14 year old girls away from Planned Parenthood doesn’t change that fact.
And the sperm donor is not the one carrying the fetus. He’s not the one getting stretched out of shape. Not the one puking every morning for the first trimester and peeing every 20 minutes for the last. Not the one going through all the lovely magical moments of the process of passing a beachball through a funnel. Abortion is a woman’s right to choose.
R. Maheras
August 26, 2012 - 10:34 pm
The blanket statement that the Republican Party has no use for science is a dangerous one, as it infers that the Democratic Party embraces science.
That’s horse patootey of the highest order.
Over the years I’ve found some Democrats and Republicans equally stupid when it comes to science, history, sociology, economics, common sense, or just about everything else.
Akins is a dope. A lot of people knew that long before he made his recent comment. That’s why some Democrats worked so hard to help him win the Republican primary, and that’s why the feigned outrage and “shock” that he’s a dope rings hollow. He had no business winning the primary in the first place.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in Washington in both parties who have no business being there. I don’t think a week passes without me reading or hearing what some boob in office said that was stupid — and that’s just the stuff that gets reported. I’ll bet if I had the time to watch C-Span all day the incessant “dumb wave”s eminating from the screen would cause my head to explode.
Martha Thomases
August 27, 2012 - 5:46 am
Russ, I’d like to see examples of Democrats’ bad science. I don’t deny that some may exist, but I’d like to see if those examples are as high up in the party as Ryan (abortion) and Romney (climate change).
George, we will never agree. I think women are fully human, entitled to the same rights of control over their bodies as men. You say you agree, but expect women to sacrifice their time and, potentially, their health to act as incubators for unwanted parasites.
Rene
August 27, 2012 - 8:39 am
What gets me angry is the sheer hypocrisy of it. The picture that illustrates the article is perfect: most religious and conservative people are only pro-life when it’s other people that face the unwanted pregnancy. When it’s THEIR family, they want to have the choice, and many of them choose to have abortions.
But of course THEIR case is special. God will forgive them. The problem is all those other people.
So, here is my proposal to limit the number of abortions:
All the churches that are pro-life should enforce the inclusion of all of their believers into a database of pro-lifers. Whenever someone wants an abortion, they would have to go through a painstakingly detailed process to assert their identity, and the authorities would check to see if the person is in the database.
If they are in the database, they can’t have an abortion. Period. They have to go through with the pregnancy. So, if THEIR wives are raped, George and Russ would be forced to put their money where their mouth is.
And THAT would reduce abortion a lot, because only dirty, godless liberals would do it. And we godless liberals are doomed to go to hell anyway.
Tom Brucker
August 27, 2012 - 8:44 am
George,
Male rapists are criminals. Criminals are denied certain rights. Rapist males are not “fathers”. Would YOU offer a criminal male rapist the right to “father” a child?
George Haberberger
August 27, 2012 - 9:37 am
Martha: “George, we will never agree.” Well you’re right about that. So maybe we can agree.
Here is why I believe the Pro-Choice position is wrong.
Imagine two children who are conceived at the same moment. Three months later, one mother talks about her baby, knows its sex, has named it, and has even seen it on an ultrasound screen. The other mother believes that the life of her child hasn’t begun yet and decides to have it killed by abortion. The Pro-Choice mentality is that both mothers are right, despite the fact it is physically impossible for both of them to be right. Simple deductive reasoning proves that life begins at conception because that is the only time it can begin. And none of this either favors or discounts any religious position. It is entirely as secular as our legal system.
Rene: So your solution is that every woman who wants an abortion would have to prove their identity to prove they are not in a church’s database? I don’t think that would be very popular with anyone. Also you made this same argument about my wife being raped back in June. I answered it then. See the link below.
https://mdwp.malibulist.com/2012/05/tax-free-by-martha-thomases-brilliant-disguise-mdworld/#comments
Tom: Of course criminals do not have a right to father a child. My point in that post was the inequity that exists in situations where no rape has occurred.
R. Maheras
August 27, 2012 - 9:50 am
Martha — I don’t want to down the road of a tit for a tat because I know I’ll hurt some feelings — suffice to say that many Democrats’ views regarding, say, abortion have nothing to do with science and everything to do with political doctrine — just like many Republicans.
Martha Thomses
August 27, 2012 - 10:16 am
George, the difference is that one woman wants a baby, and the other considers it an unfriendly occupation. As someone who spent years trying to get pregnant, and then had a premature birth, I used the comparison to a cancerous tumor deliberately.
Russ, if you have no names, I have to assume the players are minor, at best.
George Haberberger
August 27, 2012 - 11:13 am
But the reality is that whatever you call it, baby or unfriendly occupation, it is the same thing. A rose by any other name…
The unfriendly occupation can legally be killed simply because its mother does not think of it as a baby.
Rene
August 27, 2012 - 11:31 am
I know people wouldn’t be happy with my solution. People always want other people to bear the burden of their religious “lifestyles”, while keeping their own scope of choice wide open.
I mean, there are a lot of abortions in the US, and there are a lot of Christians. Hmmmmm… what is wrong with this picture? OMG! I know! It’s Christians choosing all those abortions.
Shouldn’t their own church leaders curb their own flock’s unholy thrist for abortion? But no, they want the government to step in and forbid their “believers” to have abortions. Like true blood Conservatives, they’re super-ready to have big, intrusive government when it suits their own agenda.
And George, as for your little example, nice try, but the argument isn’t that life begins at birth, but that LIKE AS A HUMAN INDIVIDUAL AND LEGAL ENTITY begins at birth. A woman is free to name her baby, talk about it, and even see it in her sweet dreams, all of that without even being pregnant, but it’s not an individual.
And yeah, of course opposition to abortion isn’t religious. Just the same as opposition to homosexuality, and to the teaching of evolution. It just so happens that they’re all defended by religious people. Just a coincidence, is all.
Cowards. At least have the guts to admit what you are, and that your view of what civil society should be like is inspired by a religious text.
George Haberberger
August 27, 2012 - 12:37 pm
Rene:
I meant the people not happy with your solution would be the people forced to prove who they are in order to get an abortion, not those who would be on your suggested database.
You seem to be moving the goalposts. The argument has always been when life begins, as in our Declaration of Independence, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” not a legal entity.
And as to opposition to abortion coming from religious people only: “It just so happens that they’re all defended by religious people. Just a coincidence, is all.” Well that is simply not true. Google pro-life atheists. You will find among many, the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League, whose homepage states: A nontheistic and nonreligious opposition to the life-denying horror of abortion “… because life is all there is and all that matters, and
abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being.”
Your screed seems directed most voraciously at hypocrites. They are always an easy and justifiable target. You can call me a hypocrite if that is what you need to do. But just as calling something an “unfriendly occupation” does not makes it something other than a baby, I am not a hypocrite.
Martha Thomses
August 27, 2012 - 1:48 pm
We are not agreed that life begins at conception. Potential life, maybe. Certainly not life that could be lived independently. An unwanted fetus is a parasite on an unwilling woman.
George Haberberger
August 27, 2012 - 2:30 pm
“We are not agreed that life begins at conception. Potential life, maybe. Certainly not life that could be lived independently. An unwanted fetus is a parasite on an unwilling woman.”
A week old baby cannot live independently. My mother-in-law is in end-stage Alzheimer’s. She cannot live independently. Should her life be ended? What is happening to her is harder on my wife than it is on her. But my wife wouldn’t sanction her murder.
If an unwanted fetus is a parasite, what is a wanted fetus?
Martha Thomses
August 27, 2012 - 2:36 pm
People with severe illness are at the mercy of family, doctors and insurance companies. Believe me, I’ve been through this myself, and witness to many many others. People die from lack of care (and money) every day. Your wife has a choice about how much she is able to do for your mother. So does the care-giver for that week old baby. However, you would take away that choice from an unwilling pregnant woman.
George Haberberger
August 27, 2012 - 2:57 pm
“So does the care-giver for that week old baby. However, you would take away that choice from an unwilling pregnant woman.”
Yes I would because unless the pregnancy is life-threatening, the baby’s life should not be sacrificed for the sake of someone else’s wishes. Harsh? Yes no doubt, but life is to be cherished. In a post above you said you believe women are fully human and that I “say I agree”. Women and their ability to give life is more than fully human. It goes beyond that. I think it is sacred.
And actually the care-giver for that week-old baby does not have a choice. If the care-giver neglected the baby and let it die, there would be at least a manslaughter charge.
Martha Thomases
August 27, 2012 - 3:18 pm
George, people’s lives are sacrificed for the sake of someone else’s wishes every single day. Usually, that someone else is an insurance company. My husband was denied rehab treatment, and they tried to deny him several of his meds that cost several hundred dollars for each pill (although the rock stars in his doctor’s office beat them up about it).
The same goes for those week-old kids. My son was premature, and we spent weeks and weeks in the hospital with him. I saw kids who died because there was no care available for them.
It’s lovely to think we all put ourselves out there, but we don’t. You are demanding that women be forced to. I would consider that argument AFTER everyone in the United States has decent health care.
R. Maheras
August 27, 2012 - 3:33 pm
Martha wrote: “Russ, if you have no names, I have to assume the players are minor, at best.”
Names? The names are there for anyone who really wants to be objective about abortion or any other politically-charged topic.
For example, in the case of partial-birth abortion, science, and Congress’ own findings concluded that there was no good reason for such a procedure, and that it was inhumane (and some argued, murder), yet, when the ban act of 2003 was voted on by Congress, the majority of Democrats voted against it — 137 in the House and 30 in the Senate.
That’s 167 Democratic elected officials at the highest level who ignored science and voted their politics.
In my opinion, these elected officials are no different than Rep. Akin in their ignorance and slavish adherence to political doctrine.
Martha Thomases
August 27, 2012 - 6:11 pm
Partial birth abortion is astoundingly rare. When it’s done, there are usually issues around the health of both the mother and the fetus.
In any case, this is not the same as denying science. The comparisons I made were to those who deny climate change, or who think rape can’t make a person pregnant.
Not the same thing.
R. Maheras
August 29, 2012 - 2:50 am
Martha — It seems to me you’re rationalizing based on your political views.
Estimates were that between 2,200 to 5,000 partial-birth abortions were performed each year before the ban act was passed in 2003 — a number which does not meet my definition of “exceedingly rare.”
You call it “exceedingly rare” only because that number accounted for about .17 percent of the approximately 1,300,000 abortions performed in the year 2000 — just prior to the passage of the ban act.
But how does that “exceedingly rare” human cost compare to other death rates in the United States?
Well, even the low end of that “exceedingly rare” estimate exceeds the annual number of active-duty military deaths each year from 1980-2008, according to the table on Page 7 of this congressional report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Your “exceedingly rare” number is also nearly equal to or higher than the annual U.S. death rates for, say, tuberculosis, West Nile Virus, fires, unintentional drowning, accidental shootings, choking deaths among children, etc.
It’s also about 30 times higher than the line of duty deaths of police officers in the U.S.
Deaths in the U.S. from AIDS in 2009 numbered approximately 17,700. That’s roughly three to eight times the “exceedingly rare” number of partial-birth abortions that used to be performed annually here. Uterine cancer deaths are even closer — about 8,000 deaths per year. Motorcycle deaths are closer still — about 3,500 in 2011.
The list could go on and on…
My point is that the “exceedingly rare” number of partial-birth abortions was nowhere near as insignificant as you infer.
Lastly, your claim that these procedures usually revolved around the health of the mother and the fetus is a very weak one.
According to Congressional findings, “… partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives.”
As for the fetus, well, death is hardly what I would call a “health” choice.
No, in my view, Democrats who voted against the ban were, indeed, denying science and voting their political doctrine.
Martha Thomases
August 29, 2012 - 6:14 am
Russ, I maintain that 0.17 percent is rare. The fact that the total number is higher than the number of line-of-duty deaths of police officers is interesting, but irrelevant. One is a medical procedure (which should be a decision between a woman and her doctor, not the state) and one is a workplace tragedy .
I know of no one — not even the most ardent feminist — who thinks having a so-called “partial birth” abortion is a fun thing. It’s a major medical procedure that, at the very least, is physically painful.
George Haberberger
August 29, 2012 - 8:15 am
If you need another example of Democrats voting against medical science; in his short tenure as an Illinois senator, Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Act four times. He voted 4 times to deny medical attention to infants who survive abortions. Debate if you want about when life begins, but a baby outside of the womb is a living human and instructing medical personnel to deny care is voting against science solely for political purposes.
And as far as there being a war on women, Melissa Ohden would probably agree since she is a woman and was intended to be a fatality of that war.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/28/abortion-survivor-rips-obama-on-infanticide-support-in-new-ad/
Martha Thomases
August 29, 2012 - 12:19 pm
And this woman would disagree with Melissa Ohden: http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-08-i-wish-my-mother-had-aborted-me
George Haberberger
August 29, 2012 - 2:45 pm
Well, that has to be one of the most inconsistent, sad and illogical pieces of propaganda I’ve ever read.
From the article:
“It is true that in the past 12 years, I have been able to rise above the circumstances of my birth and build a life that I truly love. But no one should have to make such a Herculean struggle for simple normalcy. Even given the happiness and success I now enjoy, if I could go back in time and make the choice for my mother, it would be abortion.
The world would not be a darker or poorer place without me. Actually, in terms of contributions to the world, I am a net loss. Everything that I have done—including parenting, teaching, researching, and being a loving partner—could have been done as well if not better by other people.”
She sounds suicidal. She enjoys success, has a life she truly loves yet it falls short of what she has endured so it would have been better to have been aborted.
Here is a quote I’ve heard my whole life: “A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.” -Henry Adams
So Ms. Beisner is completely discounting the effect her children or the children she has taught, (if she really meant she was a teacher in the literal sense), may have on society.
And the fact that “Lynn Beisner” is a pseudonym makes me question the entire legitimacy of the article.
Finally, neither Ms, Biesner’s or Ms. Ohden’s opinion negate that Obama voted against medical science for political purposes which was the point of my post.
Martha Thomses
August 29, 2012 - 4:39 pm
You don’t agree so it must be fake? Or she must be mentally disturbed? That makes it kind of difficult to cite other sources.
I continue to maintain that so-called “partial birth” abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor, and none of your (or my) business. If that makes me anti-science, well, I question your definition of science,
Just as I question your definition of “life.”