Sigh- Why not just carry a sign that says “I R Stupid.”
She wearing a dress with BLOOD on it to protest the fact Alito might get on the court and one day STOP abortion. You know… The practice where they take a living baby, kill it, then suck it out the mother’s womb with a vacuum cleaner. — A rather bloody practice.
This woman is wearing blood on her clothes to show her support for abortion. What a great way to sell the abortion message. Talk about ironically challenged.
I suppose in her eyes the blood represents what would be shed if coathangers are used again.
But didn’t you see the hanger dangling from the top of her sheet?
When Alito does make abortions illegal, that’s what desperate women will have to resort to: Back alley doctors with unsafe procedures…..
Palmateer,
I don’t doubt for minute that what she THOUGHT she was saying.
But walking down the street in a white dress with blood over the LOWER half of the body while trying to sell the abortion message wasn’t exactly the smartest thing to do now was it?
No one forced anyone to stick a coat hanger into any orifice.
And no, abortion would NOT be illegal if the Court overturned Roe. It just would mean that the states could do what they wanted again. New York and Massachusetts would be legal “havens” for certain.
Ever looked at European abortion laws? Usually the European approach is the gold standard for our leftists, but almost all of the EU nations have lots more restrictions than we do.
> When Alito does make abortions illegal
Hah! Not that canard again!
Even if he and 4 other justices were to overturn Roe, all it would do is return the legislative process to elected officials.
I was about to mention coathangers…
I’m not only bothered by how the GOP wishes to shove their stance against abortion down the throats of the whole nation, but also by how the GOP seems to believe that, if abortion is outlawed, that the practice will somehow just stop. Like we won’t see unsafe abortions coming into practice again. Maybe when the GOP comes up with a plan to reduce the number of abortions, as opposed to their current stance of just ignoring the problem, then protesters wouldn’t have to wear blood to make their point.
Look at the expression on her face. She’s got that whole righteous-angry-activist thing going……
but also by how the GOP seems to believe that, if abortion is outlawed, that the practice will somehow just stop
Um, no one believes that. Making various crimes illegal (murder, theft, rape) hasn’t stopped them either. By your logic, we should wipe the books clean of such laws.
Warning John- Applying logic in the comments section of a popular blog won’t get you far.
Tas: that’s a great insight, and I think applicable to more situations.
We should just admit that any attempt to deny people their choice to kill others, rape others, or steal property by outlawing those activities is foolish because those activities still occur.
[/sarcasm off]
Or rather than strawmanning the argument Tas, you could argue that the benefit in terms of the number of reduced abortions (which surely would occur) wouldn’t be worth the accompanying costs. I wouldn’t buy it, but at least it would be an honest argument.
Um, no one believes that. Making various crimes illegal (murder, theft, rape) hasn’t stopped them either. By your logic, we should wipe the books clean of such laws.
You’re illogical. By my logic, we do have a a system which addresses crimes like murder and rape: it’s called prisons. You commit a crime, you get thrown in the slammer. And once you’re in there, then there’s one less person on the streets who’s willing to commit crime.
Obviously the system isn’t perfect, and there’s other factors which play in a role in creating criminals. However, at least there’s recognition of the problem and an attempt to control it.
On the otherhand, with the Republican’s view of abortion, there is no such recognition. There is no plan to deal with the outbreak of unsafe abortions that would occur if abortion is made illegal. So, as I pointed out in my previous comment, that’s why the protester chooses to outfit herself in blood.
Or rather than strawmanning the argument Tas, you could argue that the benefit in terms of the number of reduced abortions (which surely would occur) wouldn’t be worth the accompanying costs. I wouldn’t buy it, but at least it would be an honest argument.
Why yes, Jody, I could argue that the number of reduced abortions wouldn’t be worth the accompanying costs, but that argument was already used, if you recall. Remember the picture of the protester? The blood on her dress representing the number of dead women that would increase if abortion were outlawed?
Needless slaughter of innocent adult women. There’s your “acccompanying costs” that you, apparently, don’t care about.
“I told her those minipads sucked.”
I’m sorry for this, I apologize.
I feel pretty stupid. I thought she got caught ill-prepared for her period.
You can be sure that same woman has protested with a “No Blood For Oil” sign within the last the last 12 months, and probably more than once. It’s amazing how they can justify drawing blood when the mood suits them. No blood for fighting terrorists, that would be just awful, let’s say it’s for oil! But to prevent an inconvenience like using birth control? No problem!
It’s amazing how people leap to the conclusion that if Roe is overturned, abortion is automatically illegal. That would require a state legislature to pass a bill for their state banning abortion and the governor signing it into law. I seriously doubt that would happen anywhere in this country. Anyway, Ann Coulter’s latest article seems germane…
According to Dianne Feinstein, Roe vs. Wade is critically important because “women all over America have come to depend on it.” At its most majestic, this precious right that women “have come to depend on” is the right to have sex with men they don’t want to have children with.
There’s a stirring principle! Leave aside the part of this precious constitutional right that involves (1) not allowing Americans to vote on the matter, and (2) suctioning brains out of half-born babies. The right to have sex with men you don’t want to have children with is not exactly “Give me liberty, or give me death.”
“but almost all of the EU nations have lots more restrictions than we do.”
Yeah! Look how hard it is to get RU-486!!
Knowledge still appears to be optional here..
It’s amazing how people leap to the conclusion that if Roe is overturned, abortion is automatically illegal. That would require a state legislature to pass a bill for their state banning abortion and the governor signing it into law. I seriously doubt that would happen anywhere in this country.
I seriously don’t doubt it. Have a look at this map to see what states abortion is likely to be made illegal in if Roe is overturned.
The right to have sex with men you don’t want to have children with is not exactly “Give me liberty, or give me death.”
But I suppose that the right of men to slut themselves out is perfectly OK.
Or, when we’re not calling women sluts for wanting abortion rights, what happens when a woman sleeps with a man she does want to have a child with, except they’re looking to start a family in a couple of years instead of immediately?
Those prostesters are way dumb.
[quote]Or, when we’re not calling women sluts for wanting abortion rights, what happens when a woman sleeps with a man she does want to have a child with,[/quote]
But sex (protected or unprotected) generally carries with it the possibility of pregnancy. Regardless if a woman wants to have a child with a guy or not the inherent risk is always there.
As to the coathangers – I agree with whoever said that no one forced them to have coathangers stuck in themselves. Other choices were available.
Have a look at this map to see what states abortion is likely to be made illegal in if Roe is overturned.
You should be more careful with your quotes. The map shows states that would implement restrictions if Roe were to be overturned. This would include counselling, cool-off periods, and notification of family members. No where does it say “illegal”.
But I suppose that the right of men to slut themselves out is perfectly OK.
You wrote that, not me.
Or, when we’re not calling women sluts for wanting abortion rights
Ditto
Here’s idea. The supreme court should declare that the medical definition used to know if a born person is alive is the same one that will be used to know if an unborn person is alive. When there’s brain activity and a heartbeat, the person is alive and entitled to the protection of the law.
That gives women a fair chance to abort an unwanted pregnancy using morning after pills and other drugs such as RU-486.
No further legislation would be needed as any state law that makes it a crime to kill a person would apply to every person who has brain activity and a heartbeat. Late term abortions would be allowed under current self-defense laws, which allow the taking of another personâs life to save your own.
Implementation of the law could be delayed for 9 months to make sure no woman was caught off guard by the change.
Using the best medical definition for human life brings consistency to the issue and minimize the need for law changes. I believe a significant majority of voters would be happy with such an outcome and then we could move on to other issues.
In reply to dwight:
But sex (protected or unprotected) generally carries with it the possibility of pregnancy. Regardless if a woman wants to have a child with a guy or not the inherent risk is always there.
I’m not quite sure what to say to this. I mean… People have sex. People like sex. It’s been going on for a while, and not much will change. And there instances that, even when the man uses a condom and the woman is using birth control, something happens and there’s a pregnancy. So, I mean, unless you wish to outlaw sex before marriage… And good luck trying to enforce that one, BTW… I can’t tell you much else besides, hey, people have sex. It’s been going on for a while. Better get used to it.
Now the question is, for couples who have sex and want to start a family but wish to wait a few years before doing so, if a mistake happens then do you want that baby to be born when the couple isn’t ready to have a child? Or would you rather the couple had a child when they are prepared to raise one?
As to the coathangers – I agree with whoever said that no one forced them to have coathangers stuck in themselves. Other choices were available.
Those choices will decrease dramatically if Roe is overturned.
In reply to fizzix:
You should be more careful with your quotes. The map shows states that would implement restrictions if Roe were to be overturned. This would include counselling, cool-off periods, and notification of family members. No where does it say “illegal”.
Honestly, I’m not going to argue over the semantics of this because it really doesn’t make a difference. If you’ll feel better if I use “practically illegal’ instead of “illegal,” fine, but it still doesn’t change the fact that, if Roe is overturned and states take actions to restrict abortions, those actions are going to have the results of limiting a women’s choice. And arguing over whether or not abortion is technially legal when other laws would force a woman to employ a coathanger seems rather silly to me.
But I suppose that the right of men to slut themselves out is perfectly OK.
You wrote that, not me.
Just showing the other side of the equation.
Or, when we’re not calling women sluts for wanting abortion rights
Ditto
That, in effect, is Coulter’s argument.
I’m in favor of giving each woman a “right of challenge” to declare a man to be the father of her child. It would be a simple document you’d get from a city clerk or something, without a court order. He would then have two choices:
1. Be declared the parent, and have all the legal and financial responsibilities associated with that.
2. Take a blood test to prove he’s not. He would be compensated a certain nominal amount if he’s not the father ($500 or something, to be reimbursed to the government by the woman).
No other options would be allowed.
This discussion prompted me to review this topic at several sites. One possible side-effect of abortions is damage to the cervix and the resulting inability to support the weight of the fetus. So, if a couple use this as birth control, they may find themselves unable to successfully procreate later on.
I liked Dennis Miller’s take on abortion a few years back. “I’m personally anti-abortion, but then again, I have a penis. One dick, no vote. That’s my motto.”
‘Cuz ya know, when a group of men stand around talking about what happens to a woman’s body, I just lose interest because no matter what the law says, women are done having anyone tell them what to do with their bodies.
At least the women in my life. YMMV.
If the Left is so concerned now about getting Supreme Court justices appointed who share their ideological viewpoint, why did they nominate a candidate for president in 2004 with the personality, electability, and the integrity of a weathered old baseball glove with a wig on it?
Imagine if President Leiberman were sending up these nominations.
Now the question is, for couples who have sex and want to start a family but wish to wait a few years before doing so, if a mistake happens then do you want that baby to be born when the couple isn’t ready to have a child? Or would you rather the couple had a child when they are prepared to raise one?
tas, that is the single most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard in favor of abortion. Give me a break.
And for some insight into this bullsh*t coat hanger myth and that of dangerous illegal abortions that rarely happened, check this paper from Vanderbilt.
And tas, I challenge to find me where in the Constitution the right to an abortion is granted. Unbelievable that those who defend Roe have no idea how poor a decision this was based on our most sacred document.
In reply to fizzix:
This discussion prompted me to review this topic at several sites. One possible side-effect of abortions is damage to the cervix and the resulting inability to support the weight of the fetus. So, if a couple use this as birth control, they may find themselves unable to successfully procreate later on.
There are, of course, complications that could occur with any surgical procedure. (Emphasis on any and not just abortion.) It also should be remembered that, for many women, abortion is a last resort, not an option they want to use, and not a decision which they take lightly. If a woman decides to have an abortion, it’s usually because no other feasible options exist; and that’s pretty much the same with any surgical procedure. Nobody wants to undergo surgery, and the risks it entails, unless it’s the only option left.
In reply to Mike:
tas, that is the single most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard in favor of abortion. Give me a break.
Yeah, well, I just aim to please, I guess. Should I put my tip cup out in plain view and dance like a monkey?
Of course, the “ridiculous” argument I described isn’t so ridiculous to the couples of live through the situation. But hey, I guess that everyone has their personal preferences, don’t they?
And tas, I challenge to find me where in the Constitution the right to an abortion is granted. Unbelievable that those who defend Roe have no idea how poor a decision this was based on our most sacred document.
Show me in the Constitution where it says that Americans should be able to drive automobiles. I don’t see anything about the topic being in the Constitution, so does this mean that I can take away your car?
Maybe if abortion were actually illegal many women would be more apt to keep their pants on and more men held responsible for actions as well.
The right to drive automobiles is not protected by the constitution as driving is not a right, it is a privelage, which can be suspended or revoked under any number of circumstances. So, yes, you can take someone’s car away.
Show me in the Constitution where it says that Americans should be able to drive automobiles. I don’t see anything about the topic being in the Constitution, so does this mean that I can take away your car?
The use of automobiles is governed by state law, penned by elected officials, as opposed to appointed federal judges. If Roe were to be overturned, the same would apply to abortion.
If you’ll feel better if I use “practically illegal’ instead of “illegal,” fine, but it still doesn’t change the fact that, if Roe is overturned and states take actions to restrict abortions, those actions are going to have the results of limiting a women’s choice.
So, making a woman wait 3 days or requiring she be counselled prior to an abortion is “practically illegal”? Your definition of legal abortions is immediately available on-demand?
How long do you have to wait to get a gun?
On the otherhand, with the Republican’s view of abortion, there is no such recognition. There is no plan to deal with the outbreak of unsafe abortions that would occur if abortion is made illegal.
Hey, Tas. We DO have just such a plan: it’s called prisons. You commit a crime, you get thrown in the slammer. And once you’re in there, then there’s one less person on the streets who’s willing to commit crime.
(Where did I hear that before?)
That’s what we do with people who kill people, including women who kill their children.
My conservative friends tell me their complete support of Bush and now Alito is based on overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet during the last week of testimony Alito dodged the issue and refused to take a stand on it. If abortion is so bad and so many conservatives really want it to be ended why didn’t he just come out and say so to the complete support of the Republicans and President? What’s all the sneakiness about if its such a popular issue? Just an honest question.
Someone said:
>>Um, no one believes that. Making various crimes illegal (murder, theft, rape) hasn’t stopped them either. By your logic, we should wipe the books clean of such laws.
Then tas (bizarrely) replied:
You’re illogical. By my logic, we do have a a system which addresses crimes like murder and rape: it’s called prisons. You commit a crime, you get thrown in the slammer. And once you’re in there, then there’s one less person on the streets who’s willing to commit crime.
Obviously the system isn’t perfect, and there’s other factors which play in a role in creating criminals. However, at least there’s recognition of the problem and an attempt to control it.
=========
Tas you knuckle-head. You answered your own question.
People performing illegal abortions go to prison ya dimwit. đ
DUH!
I find women’s support of modern abortion somewhat hypocritical. Not that they’re hypocrits for wanting to be legal, but hypocrits for what it predominately used for.
In the 60’s & 70’s it was suppose to be about independance. Control of your sexuality. Partly because women weren’t suppose to be sex objects and baby machines.
But today we have outrageous rates of abortion. It is being used for one predominant purpose. A safety net for irresponsible sex. It’s allowed girls to become more promiscuous than ever. Now a girl can easily be what we used to call a slut and not endure any consequences [assuming abortion has no ill consequences which is another story]. As more girls become sluts, the others have to compete. So what we once used to call sluts is now closer to the norm.
I don’t think it was the intention of early abortion/women righters to help turn girls into whores.
Maybe that’s what was in the mind of Democratic recruiters, though.
Having been subject to the military draft as a young man, something no U.S. woman has ever faced, I feel men should have the right to control their bodies, as in not going to war. Thus, no women should be involved in any politics that may force young men to go to war, such as electing Presidents. Least you forget, the selective service law is still on the books and a few democrats recently tried to re-activate the draft.
I know that’s a dumb argument as war effects both men and women, but it’s usually harder on the men. Similarly, abortion effects women and men, but it’s usually harder on the women. The argument that only women should vote on abortion is as dumb has having only men vote on war.
You forgot to include “have all the legal rights of a parent” including seeking custody. If women really want equality, then men who want custody should have as good a chance at getting it as women do. Courts should make sure the statistics show they are not biased against men winning custody. Also, many qualified fathers donât know their rights, so an affirmative action policy should be instituted to help qualified fathers win custody of their children.
Eural,
This kind of sneakiness is called politics. It’s the standard modus operandi of the U.S. Senate. When there’s no sneakiness going on is when I get worried.
When I was young I held the liberal point of view on choice. It was kinda Utopian thinking that it was better for everyone to be happy and an unwanted pregnancy made everyone unhappy (the unwanted baby and the unwilling parents). What a miserable life that poor kid would have. I believed Abortion was a panacea. My opinion began to change as I got married and had my first child. Those first few weeks of pregnancy were exhilarating. 7 weeks into it we heard the heart beat and I knew our baby was alive and growing. Several weeks later and the ultra-sound was AMAZING.
Religious people read: MIRACULOUS
Secular people read: An illustration of an incredibly complex biological process resulting ultimately in a new human life of which an intense electrochemical reaction deep within the brain, resulting in an intense bond between parents and offspring, can occur.
To see those fuzzy two-dimensional pictures flit across the monitor. Mere shadows at first but eventually you get good at discovering shapes âthe head is easy, but look there a foot and toes; yes, and there- hands and fingers. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Oh what joy and relief.
Yes, my belief in Abortion as a panacea changed over these several months. But what really sealed it for me was yet to occur. 3 years later we wanted another child. My wife became pregnant but at 7 weeks she began spotting. We went to the doctor and they checked the heart beat with ultrasound. There was that familiar Whoosh-Whoosh-Whoosh sound that we became very familiar with during the previous pregnancy. It sounded good. I felt relief, but the doctors face was not right. âHow does it sound Docâ I managed to blurt out. âWell itâs a bit slow only 70 beats per minute. Its normally about 120 at this stage of pregnancy.â We learned that this was not going to have a good outcome. The spontaneous abortion, (miscarriage), happened a few days later in the restroom at a shopping center. How small this made my wife feel, she scooped the golfball-sized bloody mass out of the toilet into the ziplock bag we had carried along for this purpose. As a scientist I couldnât help but inspect the blob of tissue when we got home. The pro-choice people are right it is really just a small blob of tissue. No big dealâright? But as I inspected it, I knew that I was holding what should have been my child. Donât you dare say no big deal –my child was dead. By the way, better not tell my wife its no big deal. Whatever emotions I was feeling on this occasion was in full eclipse of my wifeâs feelings on the matter.
Anyway while I still hold the feelings that a woman has control of her body and not the government. I can no longer sympathize with the concept of Abortion for any purpose other than the standard exception of the life of the mother, rape, or incest. A womanâs control of her body begins not at the moment of the unwanted pregnancy but well before that and with that in mind I view Abortion as a very barbaric way to recapture control of ones reproductive system after that unwanted blob of tissue has invaded. Honestly are we still that Neanderthal that we can ignore the obvious fact that we are killing an innocent human being. I am more and more shocked at the throngs of women who chant of their right to choose with a clinical, emotionless detachment from the idea of the unavoidable death that occurs in an abortion. How have women whoâs nature is to nurture become so devoid of this attribute? My thoughts of Utopia have evolved to the day when nobody would conceive of Abortion as a birth control option. We have a lot of maturing as a species yet to do.
TAS: “There is no plan to deal with the outbreak of unsafe abortions that would occur if abortion is made illegal.”
John Kerry: “The President went to war without a plan to win the peace.”
Is Tas John Kerry’s screen name?
Ok after reading Scotty’s comment, I’ve decided he should get the last word.
I’m taking the unusual step of closing the comments even when they are not controversial.
I started to skip his comment because of the length… In hindsight I’m not sure I wanted to read it.. but everyone should.
Therefor, with the exception of Jim who slipped in on me (any anyone else who slips in) I’m closing the comments.
Read Scotty’s comment.