Wendy Davis defeats abortion bill with 10-hour filibuster in pink sneakers

‘#SB5 is dead,’ Texas senator tweets after a very long day


 


 
Filed under:

Wendy Davis defeats abortion bill with 10-hour filibuster in pink sneakers

  1. Well, that certainly was a show!
    What does the bill actually contain: ‘ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and hold abortion clinics to the same standards as hospital-style surgical centers’

    Wow – so dangerous. Particularly the part that makes is SAFER for women with better facilities. The abortion fanatics are apparently happy with the facilities provided by Gosnell I guess.

    • Classifying clinics as hospitals would force the closure of all but 2 in the second most populous State in the U.S. You know perfectly well women’s safety was not the reason for the bill: this was a transparent attempt to force theocratic moral judgments on the tax-paying citizens of TX. Wendy Davis is an inspiration, and her quote is fantastic.

      And Canadian opinions on the legacy of Pierre Trudeau vary wildly, but we should all agree that he nailed it to the wall waaaaaay back in 1967 as federal Justice Minister when he said

      “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.”

      • Wait, wait – the abortion lovers always tout safety for the women, this is why we must have clinics to, you know, get rid of all these back alley abortions that have plagued cities across the western world.

        So we had clinics, Gosnell has show (and his is not isolated) that a women’s safety is not really possible in a clinic (after he, his clinic has certainly killed a woman, again this is not the 1st time a woman has died in an abortion clinic).

        So, next step is to make sure that clinic’s standards are improved. After all, if it saves one woman’s life isn’t that worth it? We aren’t exactly talking about going out to get a pizza now are we – this is a serious medical procedure? Doesn’t it make sense that the clinics can handle the emergencies that are clearly possible?

        As for Trudeau’s quote – well, it appears that the state has its fingers in the pie everywhere, particularly in the bedroom. So touting this old expression doesn’t get you anywhere.

        • “Abortion lovers” and “Abortion fanatics” — I see where you sit on the issue. No, I am not an abortion lover. Nor are most of these “abortion clinics” — they provide an array of services including screening for breast cancer.

          The outrageous Gosnell case does not show “that a woman’s safety is not really possible in a clinic” at all — as well, by your reasoning we should close all hospitals!!! In 2004 over 1,161,600 people died while admitted as in-patients in U.S. hospitals. (and here in Quebec we had a number of deaths from C-dificile in hospitals across the province).

          Touting Trudeau has got me somewhere — married and with equal civil rights as other Canadians. Civil law should always trump religious dogma, no matter if you (and the Republicans) dress it up in false concern for women’s safety.

          • Excuse me, the whole abortion issue is based on the premise of women’s safety. So don’t try to throw it back in my face, unless you’re willing to admit that it no longers applies as justification for access.

            The bill was also clearly NOT TALKING about screening for breast cancer, so don’t obfuscate the issue with irrelevant points.

            Gosnell case is extremely important, just as important as every case where a woman dies BECAUSE she didn’t have access to abortion. Again, don’t throw this back in my face, this is the arguement that abortion lovers use all the time. So unless you’re willing to admit that it also isn’t relevant, IT IS!

          • No it’s not, it’s premised on a woman’s right to decide what happens to her own body.

            The safety issue is brought up as a red herring by theocrat Republicans and you: Google “concern troll”. That’s you.

          • So, we’re back to ‘her body’ now is it, I guess all this safety we’ve been hearing is irrelevant. Funny, that’s not what planned parenthood says!

            What about the choice, if it is then all about choice why do abortion crows then only focus on the abortion choice, is there something wrong with adoption? Somehow this choice is always over-looked in favour of going straight to the killing.

            What about the baby’s body? We know from science today that a baby in the womb is clearly a distinct entity from the mother, transformation does not occur by magic upon passage through the birth canal. Yes, according to abortion crowds this magical transformation does occur. One minute not a person, next a person – really! Tell me how this is not just grasping at straws.

            Face it, abortion’s days are numbered -science and morality will soon relegate this to one of our darkest periods of humanity. This won’t happen tomorrow, but the tide has turned and real people are starting to wake up to what this industry is all about. It certainly has nothing to do with choice nor safety.

          • Planned parenthood concentrates on one aspect of the issue. I know it might be difficult for you to understand this, but some issues have many aspects which need to be considered.

            There’s nothing wrong with adoption. There is, however, something wrong in forcing a person to give up the rights to the use of their body without their consent.

            Nobody argues that there’s a magical transformation from non-person to person. What transforms, however, is whose rights are being impinged upon. When the baby is no longer within the mother’s body, it is no longer impinging on her rights to control the use of her own body. Thus, its own rights now have primacy in its existence.

          • Forcing a person, ah yes – the old line that someone is forced to have a child. If I put my hand in a fire, it gets burned. If I eat healthy food and exercise, I’ll probably have a healthy life. If I have sex, there’ll probably be a baby.

            All reasonable people understand the consequenes of their actions. Particularly for sex there is no reason why people WHO DON”T want children are having sex without precautions (note the precaution, not post-caution).

            What you are saying is that abortion is just another form of birth control. Why don’t you at least be honest about it? You can make all logical leaps that you want, but this is what it is.

            I know abortion lovers always try to dodge that simple, straightforward fact cause it boils it all down to a simple conclusion: you are killing children simply as a matter of convenience.

            There are no high and mighty morals backing their actions, no concern over safety, no concern over choice. It is all about convenience and you are simply ashamed to admit it.

          • If you put your hand in a fire, you’re not forced to hold it in there until you get burned.

            If you have sex, you are forced to continue with that until you have a baby.

            Tell me, are you one of these people who thinks that abortion in the case of rape is acceptable?

          • Don’t create a strawman here by bring in rape, you know darn well rape is an different situation.

            With 2 people consensually engage in sex, the choice is made then and there. If you don’t want a baby, then are many choices you can also make in order to prevent it.

            Don’t be so irresponsible, and I MEAN IRRESPONSIBLE, to engage in recreational sex without some plan to prevent conception, produce a baby then claim the high moral ground about rights to your body, blah, blah.

            Again, this is just plain old birth control, killing children out of convenience and there is nothing moral about it.

          • A different situation? So an unborn life from the product of rape is somehow different than an unborn life from the product of consensual sex?

            Rape is at the *heart* of the situation, because it’s the case that clearly defines whether you actually argue against abortion because you are pro-life, or simply against female choice.

          • Rape, incest, generic deformations are only terms tossed about by abortion crows when they know they’ve lost the plot -as you have.

          • I mentioned one of those things. I explained how it’s relevant and germane to the discussion. You’re the one who’s refusing to provide an answer.

            It’s not a hard question. Do you support preventing abortion in cases of rape?

          • You are seeking to distract from the main question of abortion as birth control, which is the predominant factor. You jump around from one point to another and never clearly state the underlying rationale behind you views.

            You really don’t care about my views and you already know that I believe it is immoral. The rare cases where there is actually a debate (because there at least exist some justification) to be had are actually rare. They are separate to the general debate related to women’s choice, women’s safety, birth control or whatever else the abortion crowd typically throws out.

            Do you understand?

            Do you have anything else, justifying your views surrounding these arguments or have you thrown up your hands and now want to truly just be divisive on the rape cases?

          • no, they are facts of life, but then, being a man, you’d never have to worry about that would you? I’ll bet you refuse to wear a condom as well

          • So, because you’ve got a grudge against men it is OK to kill children.

          • I don’t have a grudge against men. you however show signs that you feel women are still property to be forced to do what some man wants regardless of what the woman wants.

          • My comments have nothing to do with men forcing women, so you can give up that line.

            I am trying to see if anyone that supports abortion can explain why, and when I mean explain, go beyond that typical rhetoric. So far, no-one has. Oh, the abortion crowd has lots of hate to be sure, a lot directed towards men, a lot to women, a lot to God, and so forth.

            But what they haven’t explained so far, in all their ramblings, is why they really have a right to kill another human being as a matter of convenience?

          • and what the hell is with you calling women crows? what is with all the hatred and control you are showing towards women. do you want us back in the dark ages where women were nothing more than property?

          • Nice try, abortion kills millions more women than men – so who really are the misogynists here?

            Your hatred is causing you to see things that aren’t there and you are now just distracting from the question.
            Abortion lovers are so worried about forces being applied to women, but have absolutely no compunction about ultimate force directed to (killing) unborn children. Your stance is nothing but hypocrisy.

          • yes, and that choice should fall to the man as well. condoms are cheap, female methods are not. and the old it reduces the sensation to use a condom does not fly. believe me when I say pushing a baby out has far more sensation for a woman than sex ever will for a man

          • So, because you’ve got a grudge against men it is OK to kill children.

          • if it is YOUR child, damned right!

          • Yes, that is the level of humanity that does seem to exist in your crowd.

            I really, really hope that you are just mad at not being able to come up with any arguments and so you’ve struck out with hating words.

            Otherwise, people like you walking the streets in public……shivers..

          • You don’t hate men, but you’d kill a child out of spite. Having read a little more from you, it is clear you’ve got issues. My hope above has been dashed.

            I am done with you as I’ve got my limits dealing with sick people.

            Get some help before you hurt yourself more.

          • I’d suggest the same help for you and women don’t kill children, we destroy cells before they can become children for idiots like you to warp with your ideas of hatred towards women

          • and If the woman was raped or still a child herself and cannot decide whether she should be having sex?should she still be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? and what about those women who cannot AFFORD birth control or who have doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control?

          • Rape is irrelevant to the general abortion debate, you are simply throwing in strawman to deflect from the fact that abortion is primarily used as a means of birth control..

          • and another thing, women wouldn’t NEED abortions if men stepped up and used a condom every time they had sex. why are all birth control issues solely left up to the woman?

          • until men step up and realize that it is they who are responsible for every single one of those unwanted pregnancies. it is men who are doing the high and mighty thing by insisting you have the right to tell women what to do with our bodies.

          • You really need to seek help, your hated of men is driving you.

          • That argument has merit up to a point. I can defend abortion on the basis of an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy, if that abortion happens right away. I can defend a later term abortion if (and only if) the life or well being of the mother is threatened and there is no other option (a case which pretty much almost never happens).

            But at some point, if you, as a woman, allow a fetus to proceed to the point that you need Gosnell-type methods to kill it because you’ve changed your mind? I’m sorry. I don’t believe anyone has that right. At some point, I think most reasonable people can agree that there is a “point of no return” where once a fetus is far enough along, you waive that right to complain about the “use of your body” against your will.

          • That’s a fair belief, I guess. It’s one I heartily disagree with, however, because it implies that at some point the state can dictate that we must use our body in order to keep another one alive.

            Now I think organ donation should be opt out rather than opt in, but giving the state the ability to say, “This person’s life depends on the use of your organs.. so you are under a legal requirement to provide such use,” is too much.

          • Well, once that baby is born and in your care, the state dictates that you must use your food, your shelter, your money, etc., to provide the necessities of life for that child. It is a federal crime (Section 215) to fail to provide the necessities of life to a child under your care. By choosing to have & keep a child, that’s a choice you’ve made & agreed to sign up for.

            So given that…why is delivering these necessities of life through the body/umbilical cord any more objectionable…past the hypothetical “point of no return” I alluded to above? Once you’ve made a choice to keep a fetus past a certain number of weeks (and reasonable people can disagree what that magic # of weeks is)…what is the difference?

          • Actually, the state dictates that the child must be supported. You don’t have to do it. You can pass it off to Grandma, to Child Services, whatever.

            And if there were some magical way to transport a pre-born out of the womb and keep it alive without forcing the mother to submit to surgery, I would absolutely agree that abortion should then be banned.

            And as to the “Well they make you use your work to support the child once it’s born,” line.. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with them making me use my labour to support the disadvantaged either.. it’s called taxes.

            But when they come after my body? No. That’s the line. Because I can choose not to work and so not support anybody — not an easy life, but the option is there. I can’t choose to not have a body.

          • “By choosing to have & keep a child” is what I said. Of course someone else can raise it, but the child must have a legal guardian obligated to provide necessities of life. By default it’s the mother until an alternate legal custody arrangement is in place.

            This is what really bothers me about the abortion “debate” in this country. The media does not allow “late term” abortion to become part of the discussion. By necessity, abortion is either legal up to 30 seconds before delivery or women will be using coat hangers in back alleys. This compilation of tweets declaring Wendy Davis the next Mother Theresa is a perfect example. Nowhere does it mention that only abortions after 20 weeks would have been outlawed.

            It’s a f**king disgrace. I’d be willing to bet real money that the percentage of Canadians that support legalized third trimester abortions is under 25%. If the media had covered Gosnell it would be under 10%. But we’re not allowed to have that debate because the words “late term abortion” are banned from the discussion.

          • According to some, we can’t have the discussion on abortion at all. To even bring it up is misogynistic.

            What hypocrisy this is, the abortion supporters that repeatedly chant about women’s rights are klling millions more women than men, yet I hear NOTHING from them about this.

          • as long as there are people who deny women education and birth control, abortion will always be an issue. the real issue is whether some theocratic man gets to decide whether women are people and have the right to decide what they do with their bodies, most people who scream that abortion is wrong are the ones who also scream that men should be able to tell women how to live and how we should raise our kids

          • So, will you then agree to re-directing government funds to achieve your altervatives of educatiing women and providing birth control?
            This whole debate has nothing to do with your obvious hatred for men. You should really calm down on that point.

          • the only hate here is yours

          • damned right I choose education and birth control. but since government is run by idiot men with YOUR attitude, no matter what women ask for or demand, it simply will not happen, because you all think its better for a baby to be born and live in poverty and illness than to be gotten rid of before it is a viable option. you don’t care one tiny bit about the child, you just want to control women now, learn to mind your own business, abortion is NOT your issue, since you won’t use contraceptives

          • yes, we ARE back to her body, since she is the one who has to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term simply because some stupid man chooses not to use birth control

  2. Wendy Davis….presidential possibility.

    • This comment was deleted.

      • Sorry, the days of religion and men telling women what to do are long over.

        • Yes, now it seems women are controlled only by their sex organs.

          This is to be considered a insult when said to a man, but for a woman it is now apparently considered progress.

        • Yes, for now women are controlled only by their reproductive organs.

          When said to a man, that is considered to be an insult. However, for a woman that statement is now considered as progress.

          • sorry for the nearly double posting, not sure what happened so I re-typed.

          • Ain’t gonna work Frenchie….so save the preaching.

          • If you don’t like what I have to say you don’t have to read it.
            It is clear, the only preaching you are prepared to hear is that which you are spewing.

          • Sorry, but you don’t get a free pass to spread mysogyny

          • The only misogynists here are the abortion crows. The number speak for themselves, it is women that are killed by abortions in far greater number than men.

            As is typical, your words are exactly the opposite of your actions and intent.

          • Doesn’t matter how many cute slogans you come up with….you are anti-choice, and pro- forced pregnancies.

            And that ain’t gonna happen.

          • Yah, yah – pro-choice for you means only one choice- death!
            Forced pregnancies, yeah right – please explain to me how anyone nowadays cannot possibly comprehend what having sex leads to?

          • You have no idea why women get abortions…..you simply want to control women

            Like I said….ain’t gonna happen

          • Really, tell me what is about then?

            Is it their safety?

            Is it their finances?

            is it their lifestyle?

            Is it their age?

            Is it their irresponsibility or infidelity, and resulting shame?

            Is it their culture or parents?

            Please enlighten me, cause I guarantee for each reason that you can think of to kill a child, reasonable people could come together and work out a solution that doesn’t involve death.

            There are many, many thousands upons thousands of families who dream of being able to adopt – this solution should be the first and foremost choice discussed once the woman decides that she doesn’t want to raise a child – yet this option is not advanced with 1/10th the fervor of abortion – why?

            Reasonable people that is, if you are hell bent on death then there is little to discuss.

          • No, the biggest reason is birth defects. Genetic problems. Things we can’t begin to fix. People always imagine cute little babies gurgling and cooing…..but it’s not like that. That’s a romantic image of the situation. Deformities are very common….and not minor stuff….but things like brains outside the body….or no brain like the baby of the woman in El Salvador recently…..or clumps of cells with hair and teeth but nothing else.

            There is also rape and incest. And the youngest known pregnancy in the world was a 5 year old. At one time in Ont a girl could get married at 12, with her father’s permission. She’d get it because the baby was usually his.

            Abortion isn’t a minor procedure, and isn’t often used for contraception….pills and condoms are much easier.

            If people are keen on adopting….there are 18,000 kids a day dying of starvation. Parents would have made all the difference.

            The urge to reproduce is a primal one….very strong in most people….as Mother Nature intended for the benefit of the species. Frivolous reasons for ending a pregnancy are rare.

          • You are pulling facts out of thin air.

            Over half of all abortions are performed PRIMARILY as a form of birth control, and nearly 3/4 of all abortions cite financial or other responsibility issues that would prevent them from becoming a parent.

            Birth defects are not a primary reason. Such defects also include ridiculous cases such as cleft palates, a very minor and easily corrected problem, being cited as a problem and therefore cause for abortion.

            Unfortunately, it is not ‘so easy’ to adopt children starving on other countries. It’s not like you can just waltz over to ethiopia and put a kid in your suitcase. People do try, but not everyone has the resources of madonna or jolie!

            Why don’t we instead focus on what we can easily solve inside out own borders, with laws that we control.

            We could cut abortion numbers by at least half, maybe 3/4, if better programs were in place to encourage adoption.

            Reasonable people would agree that this would be best for all!

            Yet, this idea is staunchly blocked.

          • I’m sorry, but you’re fantasizing. On all of it.

          • My numbers come from pro abortion organisations, if you know as much as you say you do then you are also fully aware of these. They are commonplace.

          • Like I said, you’re fantasizing.

            You asked why women get abortions, and I told you. You prefer to put that aside in favour of the idea that women are frivolous and should be controlled.

            And you are trying to make them baby machines….forced to remain pregnant to provide the adoption industry with product.

            Like I said, adopt elsewhere. Or hire a surrogate. Or use IVF.

            But stop trying to run other people’s lives.

          • What hypocrisy you wield!

            So much concern about me running other people’s lives but absolutely no regard to ending other people’s lives.

            If all you want is death, then abortion is the answer. It seems clear that you seek this above all else, otherwise you’d advocate alternatives.

            You talk like it is removing a mole, with no considerations on the after effects on the women or the fact that it ends a human life (regardless of where you consider that human a parasite at the time).

            You’ve nothing to bring to the debate except hypocrisy and hate.

          • There is no debate…..you aren’t even capable of one.

          • There never was one with you, to debate you have to be actually willing to listen.

            Your ears have been sealed for many years.

          • Again there is nothing to debate. You just need a hobby.

          • Whereas for you this is your day job and you really don’t want a debate, you want us peasants to sit down and be fully attentive to the edicts you issue from on high.

            You are precisely the authoritarian you claim to hate!

          • LOL You forget I’ve seen the Con handbook ….and the projection gimmick is early primitive stuff.

            Abortion is over with, you lost……now move on.

          • You shouldn’t be so scared of the onoing debate. As you are fully aware, science is swaying the pendulum back to the side of rational people who don’t want to see blood and death as part of the civilised society’s view on birth control.

            It is too bad that there really is such a dedicated cohort of abortion lovers such as yourself.

          • There is no debate.

            Years ago when harsh laws were in place regulating all this, everybody asked for a debate…..but no, your crowd said. It was the law, it was even God’s Law….and in spite of women dying, it would remain the law.

            Well eventually the tide turned, and we got the ‘law’ changed and threw religion out of govt.

            NOW suddenly it’s all about the debate. YOU want one.

            No.

          • you have no right to even be in the debate, since you are a man trying to force women to follow your rules. abortion is a women’s issue. it is not the business of men, governments or religions. women do not have abortions on a whim. women do not want abortions but the alternative is a far worse course of action to take. until you can guarantee that men will use every single contraceptive available to them, STFU and mind your own business

          • again, why was the man not using condoms? the percentage of abortions would drop drastically if men just used condoms

          • Emily, please inform yourself about the reasons women have abortions.

            http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.html

            Think of all the women you know who have had abortions. Were most of them pregnant with “wanted” babies who turned out to have a developmental anomaly? Or had most of them been using contraception and chose abortion as a backup for contraceptive failure?

          • Yeah, gawd knows as a woman I wouldn’t have a clue about abortion eh?

            Abortion occurs for many reasons…..backup for contraceptiive failure is rarer than the others.

          • So knowledge about the reasons that women have abortions comes from sex chromosomes? Not from survey research?

          • Now you’re just being silly.

            Science has long since passed you by on this….find something else to grouse about.

          • I have done no complaining in my replies to your comments. I have encouraged you to read an article and think about your experience and have asked you four questions, of which you have answered none.

          • Abortion squabbling is over….,move on

          • I know of 2 women who have had abortions. both could not take the pill and both had husbands who simply refused to use a condom

          • men don’t, you’d rather have the full sensation than use a condom, because after all, YOU don’t have to worry about any offspring you may produce by flinging your sperm around

          • women wouldn’t be needing abortions as often if men stepped up and either used condoms or supported the children. what percent of fathers of single parent raised children actually give financial support to their offspring?

          • did you read what you wrote? of course women are killed by abortion more than men, you idiot, men don’t HAVE abortions, or get pregnant. Hell, men like you won’t even wear a condom

    • Hell of a longshot possibility. Hillary is the only woman I can see a realistic possibility of being president for at least another decade or so. And she comes with a particularly unique history in terms of presidential politics.

      • Oh having any woman president in the US is next to impossible…..even tougher than having a black male ….and that took 200 years!

        But there is Elizabeth Warren and now Wendy Davis as possible choices should the US finally update itself.

        Mind you, Canada can’t talk

  3. “…. the Senate is scheduled to vote on the most anti-woman …”

    NY Times – 160 Million and Counting:

    In 1990, the economist Amartya Sen published an essay in The New York Review of Books with a bombshell title: “More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing.”

    The essay did not mention abortion.

    Twenty years later, the number of “missing” women has risen to more than 160 million, and a journalist named Mara Hvistendahl has given us a much more complete picture of what’s happened. Her book is called “Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men.” As the title suggests, Hvistendahl argues that most of the missing females weren’t victims of neglect. They were selected out of existence, by ultrasound technology and second-trimester abortion.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/opinion/27douthat.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&gwh=D92499A4D4D317255107BE3C704CF39F

    • Apparently the only way to have choice and safety for women is to not have them. I am always stunned at how anti-women the abortion crowd really is.

    • Lucky for women in Texas that they don’t live in India or China.

      Speaking of germane to the discussion….

    • and in those countries if a girl is born, often the infant is taken out and poisoned or smothered by the father, b ecause women are still viewed as property

  4. Personal responsibility is a great thing to tout and all,
    but it’s not like we can just throw our arms up in the air when someone who
    can’t afford to pay for health costs associated with pregnancy and childbirth
    ends up choosing to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term and yell
    “PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, LADY!” as she goes into labor in a bus
    shelter.

    I mean, that’s barbaric. Ignoring the health needs of low income women
    won’t make them go away — it will just make things more complicated and
    expensive.

    We need to either work with reality — “People have sex,
    and sometimes that sex results in pregnancy;” or work against it —
    “Women who can’t afford babies or who don’t want to become parents just
    shouldn’t have sex ever.”

    http://jezebel.com/5940740/its-time-to-stop-pretending-abortion-and-birth-control-arent-economic-issues

    A father’s biological necessity ends before he’s even lit a
    post-coital cigarette. A mother’s got to carry the kid for 9 months, and then
    push it out of a tiny hole (or undergo major surgery to have the kid removed).
    A father can opt in (or out); a mother can’t. No matter what social advances we
    make, none of it will matter if we’re barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen
    because we keep getting knocked up.

    • If the abortion lovers would spend as much time educating people about real choices, like adoption, then there would be no such problem as some poor woman not being able to afford a hospital or raise a child.

      Many families are looking to adopt and would GLADLY pay the hospital fees.

      Plus, the whole poor woman is really a red herring anyways. Many women who have abortions have more than enough cash, they choose the abortion out of convenience and selfishness.

      • Judgey, aren’t we?

        • Right – revert to classical personal attacks rather than focus on the actual facts.

          Why don’t you actually address the points rather than trot out the same lines. Please explain why adoption is not pushed at least as much as abortion? Please tell me how the number don’t indicate that abortion clearly targets women over men?

          Why do abortion stats also clearly show the black community under assault? At one point in time we actually woke up and realised killing people based on the colour of their skin wasn’t such a good idea, now we do it in far greater numbers and somehow we are more ‘civilised’

          • Now the ability to get an abortion is racist? Troll, please.

            In a post above you basically claimed that abortion was immoral. That at least is a position, and at least in that post you were honest about it.

          • The stats on this are clear, of course you don’t like to hear this but abortion IS NOT uniformly spread across the gender and race spectrum. Children are targeted for abortion because of their gender and black children are much, much more likely to be aborted. Instead of attacking me, why don’t you consider how this can be and how this affects the morality of your decision to support abortion.

            Of course I think it is immoral (children are being killed, how can that NOT be immoral?), but you don’t care about my ethics now do you?

            I do; however, care about yours – I’d like to get past the rhetoric of the abortion crows and force them to understand WHY they choose to support it. Yes, I mean force – because most supporters simply stop thinking about it at the rhetoric, the sound-bites are good enough for them, its convenient for them and so the brain is shuf off.

            You may choose, and most do, to not really think about it. It takes them to a dark place that they’d rather not go.

          • quote ” black children are much, much more likely to be aborted”, my question: is this maybe linked to the economical issues mentioned before? (totally not my topic, maybe a stupid question)
            generally: the terminology abortion haters and lovers, I think it’s not helping in the discussion, it’s only stirring up emotions

          • Please don’t tell me my terminology is offensive. The whole debate has been framed in terms of Pro-Choice, Pro-woman’s rights versus anti-abortion, anti-choice, misogynistic from the abortion supportive crowd.

            We could call it Pro-Death and Pro-Life, but I think that is even a little more edgier isn’t it?

            Besdies, we are talking about killing children here, I do believe emotion is going to play some role.

          • the immoral part is that you can’t seem to understand that those fetuses should have never been conceived in the first place, that MEN should start accepting some of the responsibility for contraception instead of saying’. ‘its the woman who gets pregnant, its not my responsibility to use protection’

          • Black women abort their fetuses because their fetuses are black? Fascinating.

            Maybe if black women were implanted with white fetuses the problem would be solved.

          • Only you could draw that conclusion, I’ll leave you to figure out why its not my point.

          • ” At one point in time we actually woke up and realised killing people
            based on the colour of their skin wasn’t such a good idea, now we do it
            in far greater numbers”

            Could have sworn you were referring to higher rates of abortion by black women. Maybe you can correct me.

          • Keep grinding those gears, eventually something should click!

          • you want facts. 90% of aborted pregnancies have a man who couldn’t be bothered getting involved after the child was conceived. more than half the single mothers living below the poverty line get no support from the father of her child. you call a woman who gets pregnant outside of marriage a whore, a slut and a few other bad words, while the father of that child is slapped on the back and congratulated even though he has no intention of helping raise that child. THOSE are the facts. there is also the fact that 1 in 3 women is raped 1 in 25 women is a survivor of incest and 1 in 6 women suffers spousal abuse. those are the real causes of abortion. not convenience. women who have abortions don’t take it lightly, most see it as no other choice, until stupid arrogant misogynistic men like you realize that, you have no right to tell women what to do or how to act, now stop!
            oh, and the women on here don’t hate men, we hate being told by men that we are not capable of deciding what to do with our bodies.

      • And that is their choice and they will have to live with it.
        A citizen is a citizen and has the full rights afforded any other citizen. This does not change just because they become pregnant. Their rights to determine what they do with their own body don’t just disappear on conception.
        A society that selects one sex over another as a preference for a child will soon run into problems. Nature is pretty hard nosed in this area. If a woman freely chooses to make that choice then she will have to live with that too.

        Life is about choices and consequences and living with them. The law should only step in where persons are being victimised by other persons..

        • Your last sentence explains why pro-lifers want abortion to be illegal. We agree that the law should only interfere with individuals’ choices if those choices victimize another human being. A complete, unique human being comes into existence at fertilization; this human being is victimized if its mother chooses abortion, therefore we believe the law should prohibit this choice. [We don’t believe that the state, society, or anyone else has the authority to deem that some human beings are not “persons” because of their age, development, or level of dependence on their parents for the necessities of life.]

          • And that is where you are wrong.

            The fertilising sperm and the egg it fertilised were living, were they persons too? In fact life is a continuum going back to the very first lifeform. However personhood is something completely different. Until it is born the collection of cells is not a person. That means there can be no victimisation, therefore your point is false.

            Your assertion about life is irrelevant because it is purely a statement of faith. So if that is your basis for denying a citizen their full rights it is laughable. Life does not indicate personhood. Every part of my body is alive, yet it is only the complete, sentient entity that is considered a person. My foot doesn’t have the same rights as my whole. It cannot be preserved at the cost of the rest of me. Zygotes and foetuses are not persons and do not remove any rights from a person, even the one who is feeding it.

            Nice try but no cigar

          • I’m not clear which assertion you are referring to as a statement of faith. Scientific investigation has demonstrated that a zygote is a complete human being — this is fact, not faith. I’m also not certain which of my statements came across as an endorsement of denying citizens their rights.

            I apologize if there was a lack of clarity in what I wrote — I don’t hold that a zygote has rights because it is alive (I agree with you that your foot doesn’t have rights just because it is alive). I hold that it has rights because a it is a complete, unique, distinct human being. Sperm and ova are not human beings, so no, they are not “persons.” It is once they have united that their nature changes – from single cells released from two bodies to a new organic whole (not part of a human being, like a foot, but a human being in its entirety) who is genetically unique. This is where there is a fundamental change in nature, rather than at birth.

            I am not well versed in law and history, so please correct me here if need be: it is my understanding that the legal term “person” has been used in the past to bestow rights upon particular groups of human beings (e.g. white males) and that those human beings who were not granted “personhood” by the powerful suffered as a result of their unequal status under the law. It seems odd to me that those who are concerned with human rights choose to perpetuate this idea that human beings who are not legal “persons” have no rights.

          • While a zygote may be fully human in terms of its ancestry and DNA etc, so is my toenail, my little finger etc. Science has determined that it is a fully human organism not a complete human being.

            And you are quite right that the law has determined that all sorts of humans are not persons in the past, but that is because they have also been because they are not defined as fully human or an unnatural form of humanity either. But any human organism that requires the bodily functions of another human to exist can’t be a full person. In fact it is more akin to a parasite. We do deprive lots of persons of their rights daily because of definitions in law, People who go to prison, people with dementia. people in a permanent vegetative state, people below the age of 18 etc. So this idea of a sliding scale of rights is not such a controversial one.

            Most of the arguments about rights at the beginning of one’s life and at the end are based on religious belief and that is even less of a neutral and unbiased authority than the civil law.

          • Complete human being and fully human organism are the same thing. A zygote is not part of a body like your toenail or your fingernail — it is a human being/organism in its entirety at the earliest point in its development. This is not my opinion, but fact.

            Can you define what you mean by “full person?” This is where we start using arbitrary labels, which I think is dangerous.

            I would argue that “sliding scales” of rights are indeed controversial. We see this, e.g., in discussions about the death penalty.

            No argument about rights is unbiased or neutral — rights have to do with morality, not science. Each such argument is informed by the worldview of the person making the argument. Nor is the law neutral — it is a creation of human beings, all of whom have beliefs about what is good and true, right and wrong. It is used to conform society to the world view of the legislators. Do you believe that murder should be prohibited in certain situations? Do you have beliefs about women’s rights? Where did these beliefs come from? From the law? Religion? Your family? Your sociology prof?

            [For interest’s sake, I will point out that in the first week of its life, a human being is self sufficient and not dependent on its mother’s bodily functions for its existence.]

          • A person generally doesn’t rely on another to digest their food and excrete for them. Even an infant and a person in a PVS can manage those functions. They also manage to effect oxygen/carbon dioxide exchange on their own too. Sometimes a mechanical aide helps but the transfer occurs at the lung walls.
            So it is by using these functions that full personhood cannot be conferred upon a foetus. Fully human by all means but not legal person hood.

            You last line about the zygote is not 100% accurate. The mother does provide a warm, mucous filled environment in which the zygote can continue to divide.

          • “Scientific investigation has demonstrated that a zygote is a complete human being”
            -> all it needs is a person of common prudence to know that from a zygote a living being derives. I don’t know your reference but I could imagine that the scientist you mentioned showed that a zygote contains the DNA for a complete human person and not that it “is” a complete human person. It might be a technicality for many people, but in my opinion citing scientific work and results has to be done porperly, otherwise science could easily be misused or misunderstood

          • You are arguing ad absurdum, lj22 was clearly talking about humans not bacteria.

            There is no magical transformation of the blob to a person upon passage through the birth canal, to even begin to make an argument on that point is utterly ridiculous.

            Science must really scare you on this, as science and medical imaging steadily advances -the pictures of unborn children become public and make it clear that this BLOB really is a person and from quite an early period. This has clearly had an impact on the public, as ridiculous blob arguments as yours are shown for the fantasy it is.

          • Science doesn’t scare me, I work in science. What does scare me is the way that it is twisted to infer something that it has never shown.

            Personhood is a legal concept, not a scientific one so insisting science says anything about personhood is absurd. On leaving the birth canal the foetus becomes a child in legal terms and is granted rights because of it. Oddly enough religious texts and the law agree on this.

          • Bingo, it’s a legal definition – one that is moving as science clearly defines, and shows to the public, that a unborn child is in fact an unborn child and not a blob.

            Oddly enough, most of our legal foundation is based on Judeo-Christian laws. Go figure!

          • You do realise that when I said oddly enough it was that the bible clearly differentiates between a foetus and an infant. A foetus right until it is born and even after as some scholars insist, has no rights. So secular and religious law both concur inside the womb – non-person, outside person.
            As far as science is concerned we are all masses of cells, some of us more blob like than others. The scientific term for a human prior to birth is foetus not unborn child and as such science has nothing to say with respect to blob or unborn child. That’s the kind of twisting that concerns me.

          • More hypocrisy – you want to invoke both the bible and science, yet only the parts of each that you find amenable to your viewpoint.

            Shall we now move to define what ‘is’ really is?

          • What?
            You are upset because the book says something that you don’t like. Remember I’m not one of the faithful, it is no up to me to find any of it amenable. The faithful however don’t have that option. If they are going to use their belief to justify imposing rules on others then they also have to justify those parts that seem to counter their claims. The charge of hypocrisy can only be leveled in the case at a christian selectively quoting the book and that isn’t me.

            AS for your last sentence – handwaving at best.

          • To quote the bible, as a non-believer is nonsense. It is not written in encyclopedic form, to be torn apart bit by bit searching for those soundbites which align to the arguments you want to make.

            If you want to quote the bible, then read it in its entirety and at least try to understand the message.

            If you want to follow a scientific approach, then at least apply the scientific method. That methods is based largely on fitting theories to data, and not the other way around. When the data shows a theory is no longer valid, it must be discarded – not held onto like some religious belief.

            You are completing mixing things up, which explains why you come to the conclusions that you do.

            To be clear, there is no single scientific term for an unborn human child and never was. This topic has always utilised many different terms – implying anything else is just lying.

            Science also does not equate any magical transformation to the baby upon passage through the birth canal, your presumption that we are all ‘scientifically’ just a blob of cells throughout our entire life is just flat out wrong. You are applying grade school knowledge of science to the debate by making such a statement. True science holds life in serious regard, and the understanding of how the combination of various molecular combinations can and has come together to achieve life, and in particular consciousness is a serious area of research. Science does NOT consider humans just a blob of cells.

          • That’s a significant amount of hand-waving there to try and justify your double standards with respect to the bible. I’m only quoting that which you hold dear to you. It either is the inerrant word of god or it’s not… enlighten me christian boy.

            “True Science” doesn’t exist. Science exists otherwise you have pseudoscience, or religion as scientists call it. And science accepts life as a fact, it doesn’t hold it in serious regard because life might not have happened. As it is a fact and it did happen therefore it is investigable by those being with a brain that allows this. Also biology does have a name for an unborn human it is a foetus with a variation (zygote) that applies to the early stages. Unborn child is a folk-science terms that activists use to cloud issues.

            Science considers human life as just another instance of life that originated from a cell, sorry even less than that. We are a collection of cells that has developed over the millenia from a self replicating amino acid.

            And at the root of it all we are all a collection of atoms.. nothing else.

          • I’ve not introduced anything about the bible at all in this debate. It is you who keep bringing it into the discussion, it is you who clearly have some issue with it.

            I’ve simple question for you, assuming you read the bible (I make that assumption based on your statements) then do your read it to acquire:

            1) ammunition?

            2) understanding?

            As for your weak understanding of science, I really don’t know what you are trying to bring to the debate.

            You admit there is no magical transformation upon passage through the birth canal. So, based on your logic a child can be killed inside or outside the womb. Yet, murder outside is clearly not allowed.

            So please explain, based on your awesome scientific understanding why that is so?

          • This is tough going because either you are being deliberately obtuse or you can’t follow a thread. There is no child inside the womb. A child has the status of a person.

            There is a difference once the foetus has passed through the birth canal and had it’s umbilical cord cut. It now has to take nutrients in through its mouth and digest it. It also has to excrete and it has to breathe using its lungs. A foetus does none of these things and in fact relies on the mother to do them for it. Is that simple enough for you?

            As for the bible. like any collection of faerie stories I read it for entertainment and am astounded that anyone can take it literally.

          • a fetus is NOT a person until it is capable of surviving outside the womb on its own, breathing and ingesting food without the mother’s body providing those necessities

          • nobody cares what your religion says about when a person becomes a person. the fact is a fetus cannot survive until after 26 weeks gestation. until that time it is a parasite on the body of its mother.. your religious beliefs do not belong in MY body

          • Judy, not everyone who opposes abortion is religious.

            https://sites.google.com/site/roeflip/

            Many atheists, seekers, non-religious people, etc. accept the commandment “Thou shalt not murder” as a legitimate moral imperative. (I hope you do too!) It is from the moral premise that killing innocent human beings is wrong that we oppose abortion.

            “Person” is an arbitrary, unscientific legal term. It does not define who/what is a human being, rather ascribes a particular legal status to a particular group. If the law changed to define only those humans aged 18-35 as persons, it wouldn’t change the nature of those humans who were outside the legal definition of personhood. It would change only their legal status. 12 year olds and 46 year olds would still be human beings. They just wouldn’t be “persons” under the law. So would you accept killing them as a morally neutral/good act? Or would you argue that they are entitled to protection by the law from unjust aggression because of the fact that they are human beings? Or would you take some other stance?

          • no, but it is the religious people who try to force their religious beliefs on women’s bodies. and until it is able to survive without the nutrients provided by the body of its mother, a fetus is NOT a person. nobody uses those reasonings any more in North America since women were given rights but you sure do roll them out to try to remove our rights. what I do with MY body and anything inside it is MY business, not YOUR religion. and no, atheists etc. do not accept ANY commandments from the bible. we simply use empathy and common sense. all you so called pro lifers have no empathy, you simply insist women give birth to babies they don’t want because it fits YOUR warped ideals.

            and like I’ve said before, if MEN started stepping up and using contraceptives, abortion would be a non-issue. the whole abortion argument is simply one more way MEN are trying to control every factor of the lives of women.

          • I’m not clear on the antecedent to “those” in your third sentence. Can you spell it out for me?

            “Atheists, etc. do not accept any of the commandments from the bible.” So all non-religious people believe that murder is fine? Theft? Libel? We both know that’s not true. I didn’t say that atheists, etc. accept the bible as a legitimate authority, but that many *accept the moral imperative*(i.e. we shouldn’t kill innocent human beings) expressed in the words “thou
            shalt not murder.” I’m sorry if the wording was confusing.

            “Forc[ing] beliefs” on others is exactly what people do when they make laws. (For the record, I think this is a ridiculous phrase, but you brought it up, so we’ll go with it ;-) ) It is not a practice that is unique to religion. I’m guessing pretty much everyone who is not an anarchist supports forcing beliefs on others via legislation. If you support a law that prohibits adults from having sex with four-year-olds, you are forcing your beliefs on adults that want to have sex with four-year-olds. If you support a law that prohibits my neighbour from attacking me with a pick-axe, you are forcing your beliefs on my neighbour. If I support a law that prohibits abortion, you am forcing your belief on women who want to have abortions. So why do we do this? To protect the victims. Maybe the life of the pedophile who can’t have sex with four-year-olds and the life of my neighbour having to live next door to me are just as miserable as the life of the pregnant woman. It doesn’t justify them using their bodies to violate someone else’s body. Likewise, the pregnant woman is not justified using her body to violate her unborn child’s body. I don’t generally advocate making choices for other people, but if their choices involve willfully hurting another human being (the four-year-old, me, and the unborn child in the previous examples), I’m *am*going to advocate for consequences (like going to jail) for those choices.

            If empathy and common sense were always used in moral decision making, abortion wouldn’t happen — abortion on demand shows no empathy towards young, defenceless human beings.

            You come across as so angry in your writing. It must be tough to live like that :-(

          • you are the second MAN demanding that abortions be stopped because you find them offensive who has called women angry simply because we stand up for women’t rights. I think perhaps its you religitards who think men have power over women that are angry. and you go right ahead and have sex with a 4 year old since your bible says its OK. I on the other hand will use my compassion and empathy to tell you that you are one screwed up pervert for even suggesting atheists think that, or that murder is fine, and it is the living woman’s body that is being violated when she is forced by ignorant, arrogant misogynists to have babies they don’t want. use a fucking condom, stupid, and there won’t be abortions for you to try to stop

          • I didn’t call women angry. I just said that your writing makes you sound angry. I said that because of what you’ve written — the aggressive language and the yelling with CAPS — not because you’re a woman.

            I’ll add that you make a lot of assumptions too.

            And I apologize for using “you” as the subject for the first two forcing beliefs examples instead of “I.” It sounds like the pronoun switch tricked you into believing some things that are inaccurate. What I meant to demonstrate was that I am not the only person in the world who supports restrictions on activities that can cause harm to others, and that maybe you and I have some common ideas about how the world should run.

          • I don’t know where some of the quotation marks in that last post came from . . .

          • And by extension the “unborn child” should not be justified in violating the mother’s body! honestly, have you even looked at what’s considered “minor” pregnancy complications? There are a whole host of deficiencies and syndromes The mother could develop over the course of a pregnancy even before you account for the nutrition requirements and size changes.

            If you’re so damned concerned about these “convenience” abortions request there be mandatory self-worth workshops and a full seminar on all birth control options in cases that are not a medical emergency! Have you even glanced at how educated most Texan’s are toward their options concerning birth control? How about Adoption agencies to begin with? How do parents of young women react to their precious daughter being pregnant?

            Just because the system is abused doesn’t mean it needs to be dismantled- at least without ensuring the majority of individuals who would use such a system don’t simply seek even more dangerous illegal underground operations that crop up in response. Making something illegal and punishing those kept ignorant by “moral decisions” is foolish and costly. And utterly pointless unless you make damned sure the “father” of the aborted fetus is charged with the same crime regardless of input.

      • there are millions of children the world over sitting in orphanages and foster homes waiting to be adopted, so, that issue has been flogged to death. the fact is, people DON’T want to adopt, they want their own children. and yes, most women who have abortions fall in thelower class, whether you acknowledge it or not. the percentage who choose abortion out of convenience is extremely small. you’ve been listening to your religion’s propaganda

  5. Jesus Macleans. How do you write this entire thing without pointing out that Wendy Davis was defending only late-term abortion? Whoever compiled this without including that information should be ashamed of themselves.

    • Jesus, John. How do you just shamelessly move on to your next counter-factual accusation, before you’ve even apologized for your last?

      This could all be avoided if you didn’t rely on shout radio and kook blogs to “inform” yourself.

    • The article also clearly forgot to mention what was actually contained in the bill:

      -ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and

      -hold abortion clinics to the same standards as hospital-style surgical centers

      Wow, such radical stuff.

      One would almost think that Macleans was trying to mislead people, nah, never!

      • Precisely. The point of this bill was to prevent another Gosnell, not to outlaw abortion and “shut down every abortion clinic in the state”. That’s just ludicrous hyperbole.

  6. What a silly system the Americans have when it becomes more important to report on some physical acts of endurance than it is on the merits of the bill.
    Are they all insane?

    • The media have clearly picked sides on this, thus as far are they are concerned there is no value in reporting the merit of the bill. Rather, they only want to pour fame and glory on those who defend their side.

      Normally this is called propaganda, nowadays it is called journalism.

  7. I have no problem with a mother killing her unborn baby as it’s a personal choice since it’s inside her body. I’m against government sanction of baby killing and others committing the dirty deed. If it’s the mother’s choice then let her kill her own unborn baby not ask someone else to do it. Sell or rent safe home kits, mini-vacuums to pull off the extremities and suck the brains out to collapse the skull so it will come out easily. Even allow rental of ultra-sound machines so they can see what they are doing. Conspiring with others and convincing them with money (bribes) to murder their unborn baby is the real issue. It just isn’t the business of government to put their hands into the women’s vagina. It is, however, her own business.