Coffee House

The Emily Letts abortion video shows that pro-choicers are losing the plot

7 May 2014

7 May 2014

Are the advocates of abortion going mad? Look at Emily Letts, a 25-year-old abortion counsellor, who decided to film her own ‘procedure’ to show what a wonderful life-affirming experience getting rid of your unwanted pregnancy can be. Cosmopolitan magazine has published the film online along with an article by Letts, who says ‘every time I watch the video, I love it. I love how positive it is. I think that there are just no positive abortion stories on video for everyone to see. But mine is.”

Another woman, calling herself Angie AntiTheist, had produced a much-watched video of herself having a chemical abortion; Letts decided to go for the more visceral surgical option. “I could have taken the pill,” she says, “but I wanted to do the one that women were most afraid of. I wanted to show it wasn’t scary — and that there is such a thing as a positive abortion story.”

Emily is positive, no doubt about that. “I remember breathing and humming through it like I was giving birth,’ she says, recalling the op. ‘I know that sounds weird, but to me, this was as birth-like as it could be. It will always be a special memory for me. I still have my sonogram, and if my apartment were to catch fire, it would be the first thing I’d grab.”

She’s right: it does sound weird. And creepy. An abortion is in most respects the opposite of a birth. Yes, they both involve pain and a physical separation of woman from child. But one is about ‘termination’. The other is about a new life coming into the world. No amount of spin can change that. You might cheer the idea that women are no longer slaves to their sexual organs, that their lives do not have to change course because of one sexual encounter, but you cannot reasonably pretend that the act of abortion is anything other than grim. To cast abortion and childbirth in the same ‘positive’ light is not just bizarre, it is demented.

Subscribe from £1 per week


Surely the sane response, even if you think abortion should be legal and freely available, would be to call this a step too far? Yet pro-choicers have embraced the film as something important and good. It has won The Abortion Care Network’s “Stigma Busting” award, apparently, and self-styled progressives are applauding Letts’s bravery.

It’s tempting to dismiss the whole story as click-bait. Cosmo is keen to say that the video is “non-graphic” — the implication being that, while the pro-lifers like to send around horrifying pictures of mangled foetuses, they are reasonable and sensitive about the subject. But can they honestly say that, by posting a film a woman enjoying her abortion, they did not hope to generate a fair bit of online controversy and web traffic? You could also say that Ms Letts, far from being a heroine for women’s rights, is just another publicity mad young person who’ll do anything to be looked at online.

Perhaps something bigger is happening here, though. The pro-choice side seems to be slowly losing the argument and they are freaking out about it. Spain is reversing its liberal abortion laws and British feminists are outraged because not enough people here are outraged. In fact, polls suggest that people, especially women, are increasingly uncomfortable with the number and legal status of abortions in this country. The old pro-choice chestnut that ‘no woman takes the decision to abort a child lightly’ sounds facile in a world in which millions of foetuses are snuffed out each year and more and more women have ‘repeat’ abortions.

Science has changed our perceptions, too, in a way that undermines the pro-abortion position. Imaging technology shows that foetuses, even at a very early stage of gestation, are far more than just lumps of inconvenient cells. Medical advances mean that pre-term foetuses are more ‘viable’ outside the womb than ever before.

More broadly, the liberal world seems to be moving away from the old culture-war idea of abortion as a battle between enlightened moderns and the dreaded God Squad. Social conservatives have probably exaggerated the so-called Juno-effect — the theory that, through films like Juno, Knocked Up and Twilight, Hollywood was (unconsciously) starting to promote a more pro-baby agenda — but there has been a discernible cultural shift away from the view that abortion is an untrammelled good always and everywhere. Even fiercely libertine publications, like Vice, are starting to consider what the fathers of aborted babies go through.

Rather than taking up the challenge of argument, however, the pro-abortion lobby is resorting to anger and a sort of muddle-headed sentimentality. When men question the status quo, as Jeremy Hunt did, they are shouted down and called misogynists. Laurie Penny says that men can’t have ‘relevant’ views on abortion because they can’t get pregnant. And now this from America, a young woman who is so ardent about her right to choose that she has made an evangelical film about her fulfilling abortion experience.


More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us.

Show comments
  • Alexander T Steward

    “Aborted babies” is an oxymoron. Nothing developed enough to be considered a baby is ever legally aborted.

  • Senator SmellyPants

    The women I have known who have had abortions are the craziest bunch of psycho bitches I have ever met. Many of whom have had more than one. These bitches should be sterilized. I get sick of hearing female comedians talk so casual about it because as far as I can tell from personal experience and having a ton of liberal friends, a lot of these women are more concerned about “Who’s gonna pay for this abortion?” rather than “How the fuck did I get in this situation, and how can I prevent this in the future?”

    Why do these women think they’re so smart when they have the fucking television do all the thinking for them? Can anyone explain this fucking phenomena?

  • cartimandua

    MSM
    Ireland has just had its first legal abortion to “save the life of the Mother.”
    Until this point women have never really been “nearly dead enough”. Irelands maternal outcome stats are a fiction and their neonatal and stillbirth stats the worst in the EU. They still send women here by the 100s who “might die” or will lose their eyes or kidneys (because Ireland doesn’t care about disability or chronic poor health for women).
    Letts was using the “tracking ovulation” method so she was not ignoring contraception .She could not handle the side effects and risks of hormonal contraception and didn’t have a long term partner.
    A third of women who have abortions (and its 1 in 3 over lifetimes) are older and married and no longer able to either medically cope with hormonal contraception or
    a later pregnancy. At least Letts has let all those women know (who cannot even get their husbands to use a condom or get the snip) that they need not be terrified.
    The Turnaway study shows what happens “next” if young women like Letts don’t get an abortion when they need one.

  • cartimandua

    MSM You have bought into an idea that fertility is women’s “fault”. Letts partner could have chosen to use condoms but he chose not to or refused to (since 2/3rds of men do refuse that is highly possible.)
    And unless a woman is sub fertile there but for the grace of God …… because all contraception fails even with perfect use. 49% of pregnancies in the USA are unintended.
    But the worst thing MSM? The worst thing about the anti abortion crew is they want and expect women to die or be maimed if pregnant so the antis can “feel good”.
    Every woman’s healthcare is made unsafe because she is undertreated or not treated at all for all kinds of health problems.
    They are so crazy they still use a study from the 1920s to justify “ectopics are not a risk”. In the 1920s MSM there was no ultrasound. Now we know that the 1 in 80 ectopic pregnancies are deadly and will not result in a live birth.
    They are crazy MSM absolutely crazy so it doesn’t matter if the woman who made the film is someone you don’t like she has several valid points.
    The first is that women must not be relegated to a walking uterus.
    That would kill and maim women at a population level. The USA is already
    behind 59 other countries for maternal outcomes. Legal abortion secures womens access to adequate healthcare even when not pregnant.
    Personhood nuts could claim that a woman who was prescribed medication, drove a car, went to work, lifted a box, kept a cat, ate cheese, had a hot bath etc etc
    was guilty of ending a pregnancy which ended in a totally natural miscarriage.
    All it would take is an abusive partner or busybody “reporting” her.
    The second is this is an experience 40% of all women in the US have in their lives and everyone should just “get over it”.
    The only thing which could be done better would be men “stepping up”.
    But you never hear men calling for that now do you?

  • cartimandua

    MSM and you want “guilt” why? If a woman decides the most moral thing to do is not to have a child she is not able to care for why should she feel “guilty”? She is making the most moral and ethical decision she can at the time weighing up the circumstances of her life.

  • Alex Hunter
  • MSM

    To be honest, both my mom (who have supported abortion for over thirty years) after watching this video were left sickened. My mom couldn’t even watch the whole thing. She turned me, pale and horrified by your whole bubbly attitude over the matter and said, “This video makes me feel I should be against abortion.”

    I felt the same way.

    To explain, why I should go back to where my parents’ support of abortion comes from. In the 70s, my mother vividly remembers a case where an 11 year old girl had been impregnated due to her stepfather’s rape. And a politician named Jesse Helms went on TV saying things like the abortion should not be allowed, “because it’s not the child’s fault.” And by child, he meant the baby inside the girl. Now my mom thought that was gross. Why on earth would you force a girl whose been through that to bear a child? It was wrong. A woman whose been raped should never be forced to bear the child.

    That’s my opinion. But there are other reasons.

    Over the years, my mother has encountered women who didn’t want abortions, but after learning something was medically wrong with their growing child, made the decision to abort. Those decisions were not lightly taken or made because the child was inconvenient, but because the child would either die within days of being born or live in agony. As a parent they couldn’t bear to allow that to happen to their baby so they made a choice.

    And yes, they felt guilty. Yet in Letts’ happy and bubbly video she all but giggle how she feels no guilt. Though I choose to believe it was her not intention, she still make it sound like there’s something wrong with women for feeling guilt. Like their guilt is just a result of society misinforming them about abortion and not because it truly troubles some people to end a life.

    And what she did was wrong in my opinion. Very wrong. It is a slap in the face to many to tell them they should not feel any guilt and just cut those feelings off. Well, I’m sorry burying and repressing such feelings is not healthy. Not all women can feeling nothing.

    I have never been a pro-birther, but this video offended me. It represented everything I do NOT support about abortion. She used it as a birth control method. As an easy fix for her little problem.

    Adding to matters, she posts a comment in her Cosmo article about she wasn’t willing to give it up for adoption because she was afraid of getting attached to it. Essentially, she’d rather it be dead than not be hers. Nothing in her video was selfless. Everything, the abortion, her reason not to adopt it out, were all about her. She even says the father has no say in the decision.

    If he were an abusive or dangerous man, I could see not asking. But she makes it sound more like she doesn’t didn’t want to deal with his opinion. Again, selfish.

    The women who I feel sympathy for on abortion are the women who feel guilt. Who really thought about the child’s future. Who truly did it because they were thinking of the child’s future.

    And they didn’t make up excuses. They sincerely didn’t think their child could be happy if brought into the world. She seems to acknowledge in her Cosmo article that it could have been happy, but she didn’t want it to be. Not without her as the mother. That’s feels so selfish. So utterly selfish.

    I think of the real and heart-breaking stories around abortion and then I see hers. I wish she’d never made that video because it left me questioning if I should continue to support abortion if this was how it was being used.

    In the video she all but act like it was a skin rejuvenation treatment. And that makes me very sad.

    • cartimandua

      Why? Why should women now fertile for 40 years having to use contraception which all fails “suffer”?
      Why have you taken in the idea that a woman should sacrifice herself for a zygote or embryo?
      Why don’t you question why it is that men are not stepping up to support managing fertility backing up with condoms and then the snip.
      You have been Stockholmed.
      Hormonal contraception lists heart disease, cancers, blood clots stroke and the risks go up with long term use.
      It raises breast cancer risk by a quarter while having an 8% failure rate per year in normal use.
      You seem to think women should suffer for fertility.
      And what men should do nothing? That is pretty much what they do now.. nothing and whine at women as well.
      40% of women in the USA have abortions during their lives so why not make something so many experience less scary?

      • MSM

        Hmm… I did reply to your comment, but it seems to have gotten lost in the Spectator’s comment section.

        *sigh*

        I’ll just say this then. Think what you like. You don’t want to be pregnant. Fine. Get your tubes tied. Then you can bang away like a bunny without fear of getting knocked up.

        But don’t push such morals on me. I don’t care what you do with your life. I don’t believe life should be lived that way.

        What does birth control have to do with Emily Lett’s video? By her own admission she never used birth control, except the abortion.

        And I don’t support abortion as a means of birth control when …oops you knew better and chose not to use any condoms. I almost get the impression that Lett’s wanted to get pregnant just so she could film this.

        Of course that’s only speculation, but I suspect it’s true.

        • cartimandua

          You do realize that most women these days do not breed in their teens. they have to manage fertility for decades and no they would not want “their tubes tied” before they have a family.

          For women anyway it is major surgery for men a minor outpatient procedure.

          The % of men who have the snip in the USA is just 9% so how dare you blame women???

          A lot of women cannot make a man wear a condom anyway.

          http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20040126/many-men-dont-use-condoms

          “Of those men with one main sexual partner, two-thirds were not motivated to use condoms”

          • MSM

            Hmmm… I’m going to try posting my comment twice. To see why my response is not getting through.

            • MSM

              Let me guess Carti, are you flagging every response I make so that you can appear to have the last word? I wouldn’t put that past someone like you. This is what I don’t respect about my own gender. It’s obsessive need to blame all its fault on men and excuse itself for everything.

              Emily Lett’s — an educated and empowered woman — doesn’t use protection (likely multiple times to get pregnant) is given a free pass because many men don’t wear protection.

              I don’t want kind of jerks most women go out with, but the ones I dated always were fine wearing condoms. It wasn’t that hard to convince them. And if the guy won’t, then don’t sleep with him!

              I’d expect a feminist educated in protection to know this. But once again, all irresponsible female behavior must be dumped on the guys because women like Lett’s are innocent snowflakes.

              And by her own words she doesn’t imply she couldn’t use a protection, but she just chose not to. This has nothing to do with what the man wanted just like her abortion apparently didn’t.

              This was what SHE chose not to do. But once again our innocent Mary-Sue must be protected from accountability.

              This is why modern feminism sucks. Instead of being about responsibility, it’s about excusing and giving big babies like Lett’s a free pass.

          • MSM

            Let’s just turn a blind eye to Emily Lett’s choosing not to use birth control. Because blind is the feminist word of the day.

            She is a pathetic feminist if she is so desperate to sleep with a man that she can’t have him wear protection. Emily Lett’s admits she just chose not to.

            And contrary to the Hollywood myth, it takes multiple tries generally to end up pregnant unless of course you just happen to have the timing to do so during ovulation.

            What a coincidence!

            So either Lett’s just happened to not use protection around ovulation or she had multiple rounds of unprotected intercourse. It’s seem very suspicious to me.

            She’s either an irresponsible human being or a monster.

            And she chose not to use any protection (by her own words) and then used abortion as her birth control.

            But I’m sure carti will let her off the hook for that because she lives in her fantasy.

            • cartimandua

              2 /3rds of men will not wear a condom which is why Gates sought to have one “made” that didn’t diminish male pleasure.
              Bill Gates “gets it” even though you don’t.
              2/3rds of women “cant get him to wear a condom” probably
              because so many people think they don’t have to. And then if there is a contraceptive failure they can blame the woman.
              Maybe the couple were planning a child and then split up or one or both became ill or lost their jobs?
              There are many conditions of both mental and physical health that turn out to be incompatible with pregnancy and could not have been seen ahead.
              There are many reasons why pregnancy is not a good idea “after all”.
              But it is very telling that you take the “its all her fault and she is a silly cow” explanation because actually no one knows.

              • MSM

                She is at fault. We’re not talking about some scared girl pressured by the school jock. We’re talking about an educated women who advises young women on using protection and having abortions.

                She’s a 25 year old woman who clearly considers herself a feminist. But she is so weak she couldn’t say no?

                She admits — if you read her article and her comments — that she chose not to. It’s not a mystery will never know. Not for the literate.

                She said, “she could kick herself for not taking her own advice”. She chose not to use it. And then used abortion as a birth control.

                She’s an irresponsible person.

              • MSM

                We’re not talking about some scared teenager who was pressured by the school jock, but you seem to act like we are.

                Lett’s a 25 year old woman who advised women on protection and abortions. And it’s by her own words — if you read her article and her comments — that she didn’t use abortion.

                It’s not a mystery we’ll never know. Not for the literate. She said it.

                She didn’t use it. Is she some weak coward of a feminist who can’t tell a man no?

                She has no business advising anyone. She’s an irresponsible person.

                • cartimandua

                  And you do not know nor do you have a right to know the details around her health or their relationship.

                • MSM

                  That’s nonsense. The justification for an abortion will very much swirl around the circumstances. Was it for the life of the mother?

                  A theft can be justified depending on the circumstances. Was it a starving child stealing bread?

                  And again she SAID she didn’t use protection. She made those details public. What are you talking about? I didn’t ask for the details of her health or who she banged.

                  I used what SHE admitted. It’s in her comments and her writing. Have you seriously not read anything she wrote? Where she said, “I could kick myself for not taking my own advice.”

                  *facepalm*.

                  You are a silly little bird, carti.

                • MSM

                  That’s nonsense. The justification for an abortion will very much swirl around the circumstances. Was it for the life of the mother?

                  A theft can be justified depending on the circumstances. Was it a starving child stealing bread?

                  And again she SAID she didn’t use protection. She made those details public. What are you talking about? I didn’t ask for the details of her health or who she banged.

                  I used what SHE admitted. It’s in her comments and her writing. Have you seriously not read anything she wrote? Where she said, “I could kick myself for not taking my own advice.”

                  You are a silly little bird, carti.

                • MSM

                  That’s nonsense. The justification for an abortion will very much swirl around the circumstances. Was it for the life of the mother?

                  A theft can be justified depending on the circumstances. Was it a starving child stealing bread?

                  And again she SAID she didn’t use protection. She made those details public. What are you talking about? I didn’t ask for the details of her health or who she banged.

                  I used what SHE admitted. It’s in her comments and her writing. Have you seriously not read anything she wrote? Where she said, “I could kick myself for not taking my own advice.”

                  *facepalm*.

                  You are a silly little bird, carti.

                • MSM

                  That’s nonsense. The justification for an abortion will very much swirl around the circumstances. Was it for the life of the mother? Was there something wrong with the baby?

                  A theft can be justified depending on the circumstances. Was it a starving child stealing bread?

                  And again she SAID she didn’t use protection. She made those details public. What are you talking about? I didn’t ask for the details of her health or who she banged.

                  I used what SHE admitted. It’s in her comments and her writing. Have you seriously not read anything she wrote? Where she said, “I could kick myself for not taking my own advice.”

                  *facepalm*.

                  You are a silly little bird, carti.

                • cartimandua

                  You don’t know nor should you be told the details of her medical situation or other reasons for not using contraception and then finding pregnancy not possible over all.
                  I have no idea about Letts but off the top of my head certain medical conditions “get worse” with pregnancy.

                • MSM

                  Carti, you really are a silly, silly person.

                  I shouldn’t know what LETT’s wrote? She said she didn’t use protection. She chose NOT to.

                  Learn. to. read. These are Lett’s word. I don’t know nor care to know what STDS she has. Who she was with.

                  If she had a medical condition, it still remains irresponsible for her not to use protection. Nothing changes.

                  But I read what she admitted and she said she didn’t.

                  Her video was offensive. She is an irresponsible person. But since you are petty enough that you must have the last word, I’ll let you play you’re pathetic game.

                  Go ahead. I give you the last word. I don’t care. You clearly haven’t read anything Lett’s wrote. And that makes you as irresponsible as Lett

                • Guest

                  Carti, you really are a silly, silly person.

                  I shouldn’t know what LETT’s wrote? She said she didn’t use protection. She chose NOT to.

                  Learn. to. read. These are Lett’s word. I don’t know nor care to know what STDS she has. Who she was with.

                  If she had a medical condition, it still remains irresponsible for her not to use protection. Nothing changes.

                  But I read what she admitted and she said she didn’t.

                  Her video was offensive. She is an irresponsible person. But since you are petty enough that you must have the last word.

                  Go ahead. I give you it. I don’t care. You clearly haven’t read anything Lett’s wrote. And that makes you as irresponsible as Lett. And pretty ignorant.

                • MSM

                  Carti, you really are a silly, silly person.

                  I shouldn’t know what LETT’s wrote? She said she didn’t use protection. She chose NOT to.

                  Learn. to. read. These are Lett’s word. I don’t know nor care to know what STDS she has. Who she was with.

                  If she had a medical condition, it still remains irresponsible for her not to use protection. Nothing changes.

                  But I read what she admitted and she said she didn’t.

                  She is an irresponsible person. But since you are petty enough that you must have the last word.

                  Go ahead. I give you it. I don’t care. You clearly haven’t read anything Lett’s wrote. And that makes you as irresponsible as Lett. And pretty ignorant.

                • MSM

                  Carti, you really are a very silly little bird.

                  I shouldn’t know what LETT’s wrote? She said she didn’t use protection. She chose NOT to.

                  Learn. to. read. These are Lett’s word. I don’t know nor care to know what STDS she has. Who she was with.

                  If she had a medical condition, it still remains irresponsible for her not to use protection. Nothing changes.

                  But I read what she admitted and she said she didn’t.

                  Her video was offensive. She is an irresponsible person. But since you are petty enough that you must have the last word.

                  Go ahead. I give you it. I don’t care. You clearly haven’t read anything Lett’s wrote. And that makes you as irresponsible as Lett. And pretty ignorant.

                • MSM

                  Carti, you really are a silly, silly person.

                  I shouldn’t know what LETT’s wrote? She said she didn’t use protection. She chose NOT to.

                  Learn. to. read. These are Lett’s word. I don’t know nor care to know what STDS she has. Who she was with.

                  If she had a medical condition, it still remains irresponsible for her not to use protection. Nothing changes.

                  But I read what she admitted and she said she didn’t.

                  Her video was offensive. She is an irresponsible person. But since you are petty enough that you must have the last word.

                  Go ahead. I give you it. I don’t care. You clearly haven’t read anything Lett’s wrote. And that makes you as irresponsible as Lett. And pretty ignorant.

                • MSM

                  Carti, you really are a silly, silly person.

                  I shouldn’t know what LETT’s wrote? She said she didn’t use protection. She chose NOT to.

                  Learn. to. read. These are Lett’s word. I don’t know nor care to know what STDS she has. Who she was with.

                  If she had a medical condition, it still remains irresponsible for her not to use protection. Nothing changes.

                  But I read what she admitted and she said she didn’t.

                  Her video was offensive. She is an irresponsible person. But since you are petty enough that you must have the last word.

                  Go ahead. I give you it. I don’t care. You clearly haven’t read anything Lett’s wrote. And that makes you as irresponsible as Lett. And ignorant.

                • MSM

                  Carti, you really are a silly, silly person.

                  I shouldn’t know what LETT’s wrote? She said she didn’t use protection. She chose NOT to.

                  Learn. to. read. These are Lett’s word. I don’t know nor care to know what STDS she has. Who she was with.

                  If she had a medical condition, it still remains irresponsible for her not to use protection. Nothing changes.

                  But I read what she admitted and she said she didn’t.

                  Her video was offensive. She is an irresponsible person. But since you are petty enough that you must have the last word.

                  Go ahead. I give you it. I don’t care. You clearly haven’t read anything Lett’s wrote. And that makes you as irresponsible as Lett. And pretty ignorant.

                • MSM

                  Carti, you really are a silly, silly person.

                  I shouldn’t know what LETT’s wrote? She said she didn’t use protection. She chose NOT to.

                  Learn. to. read. These are Lett’s word. I don’t know nor care to know what STDS she has. Who she was with.

                  If she had a medical condition, it still remains irresponsible for her not to use protection. Nothing changes.

                  But I read what she admitted and she said she didn’t.

                  Her video was offensive. She is an irresponsible person. But since you are petty enough that you must have the last word.

                  Go ahead. I give you it. I don’t care. You clearly haven’t read anything Lett’s wrote. And that makes you as irresponsible as Lett. And pretty ignorant.

                • MSM

                  It’s very curious how hard it is to reply to your comments, but every one of your comments slips right through. Hmmm…?

                • MSM

                  That’s nonsense. The justification for an abortion will very much swirl around the circumstances. Was it for the life of the mother?

                  A theft can be justified depending on the circumstances. Was it a starving child stealing bread?

                  And again she SAID she didn’t use protection. She made those details public. What are you talking about? I didn’t ask for the details of her health or who she banged.

                  I used what SHE admitted. It’s in her comments and her writing. Have you seriously not read anything she wrote? Where she said, “I could kick myself for not taking my own advice.”

                  *facepalm*.

                  You are a silly little bird, carti.

                • Guest

                  That’s nonsense. The justification for an abortion will very much swirl around the circumstances. Was it for the life of the mother?

                  A theft can be justified depending on the circumstances. Was it a starving child stealing bread?

                  And again she SAID she didn’t use protection. She made those details public. What are you talking about? I didn’t ask for the details of her health or who she banged.

                  I used what SHE admitted. It’s in her comments and her writing. Have you seriously not read anything she wrote? Where she said, “I could kick myself for not taking my own advice.”

                  You are a silly little bird, carti.

                • MSM

                  That’s nonsense. The justification for an abortion will very much swirl around the circumstances. Was it for the life of the mother?

                  A theft can be justified depending on the circumstances. Was it a starving child stealing bread?

                  And again she SAID she didn’t use protection. She made those details public. What are you talking about? I didn’t ask for the details of her health or who she banged.

                  I used what SHE admitted. It’s in her comments and her writing. Have you seriously not read anything she wrote? Where she said, “I could kick myself for not taking my own advice.”

                  Carti, you’re such a silly bird.

              • MSM

                We’re not talking about some scared teenager who was pressured by the school jock, but you seem to act like we are.

                Lett’s a 25 year old woman who advised women on protection and abortions. And it’s by her own words — if you read her article and her comments — that she didn’t use abortion.

                It’s not a mystery we’ll never know. Not for the literate. She said it.

                She didn’t use it. Is she some weak coward of a feminist who can’t tell a man no?

                She has no business advising anyone. She’s an irresponsible person.

                But you keep expanding it to everyone. We’re having two different conversations here. I’m talking about Lett’s actions.

                Not all women’s circumstances. Also I’ve said numerous times I’m not against abortion. But I am against Lett’s behavior. She represents the worst of pro-abortions, depicting them as silly and irresponsible.

        • MSM

          So I’m responding to Cartimandua, but I’ve tried twice and it’s not gotten through. I find it curious how she gives a free pass to Emily Lett’s. Emily was fully educated in using protection, but chose not to. What kind of strong feminists is so terrified to tell a man to wear protection? She shouldn’t be teaching anyone.

          She is a pathetic feminist if she is so desperate to sleep with a man that she can’t have him wear protection. Emily Lett’s admits she just chose not to.

          And contrary to the Hollywood myth, it takes multiple tries generally to end up pregnant unless of course you just happen to have the timing to do so during ovulation.

          What a coincidence!

          So either Lett’s just happened to not use protection around ovulation or she had multiple rounds of unprotected intercourse. It’s seem very suspicious to me.

          She’s either an irresponsible human being or a monster.

          And she chose not to use any protection (by her own words) and then used abortion as her birth control.

          But I’m sure carti will let her off the hook for that because she lives in her fantasy.

  • cartimandua

    Mr Gray
    The anti abortionists do not have a leg to stand on morally, logically, theologically,economically ,or in any way at all. Even in their own terms the “pro life ” position increases harm because it leads to more abortions.
    They seem to have some muddled idea that removing “personhood” from women will lead to them feeling emotionally comfortable.
    Something you need to think about Mr Gray is the survival of print media. If you write weapons grade misogynistic tripe like this article you will lose 50% of your potential readers and I say this as the Granddaughter of the managing editor of a news agency ,and the daughter of someone who wrote for a major paper for 40 years.
    I want print media to survive.
    I took a straw poll yesterday amongst women in a group with household incomes in the top 1 or 2 %. They were all appalled at what media is saying about women and women’s health. They will if you like “rise up”.
    After Kirsty Wark and others have raised the concern around misogyny in the media this publication will not escape the “concern”.
    Women now have economic power Mr Gray “think on” .

  • Edmund Barry

    She is actually proud that she murdered a baby. What a horrible person.

    • cartimandua

      Not a “person” so not murder and since 35 to 40% of women in the USA have an abortion during their lives perhaps demystifying it is sensible and kind.
      As I said below the answer is to get men to step up with condoms and then the snip.
      Only tiny tiny % of men do(only 9% in the USA) leaving the women they supposedly love to carry the risks of late pregnancy and late contraception.

  • Allan Humbert
  • cartimandua

    But lets have a “positive” little film about men getting a vasectomy. The 40% of women who have abortions during their lives have irresponsible cowards for husbands and lovers.

    This is just explanatory animation

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOaL93xoHRk

  • Conall Long

    I’m an atheist and a libertarian and I find this abhorrent to the upmost degree.

    • cartimandua

      Then both your logic and your libertarianism is paper thin. 40% of women have abortions during their lives because all contraception fails even with perfect use and men will not back it up or get the snip.

      • sdb19

        The vast majority of abortions in the USA and Canada are performed for reasons of economics/convenience. From the Guttmacher Institute. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf And in many cases I doubt the economics claim.

        • cartimandua

          So? It is completely moral only to have children when you can adequately support them in every way.
          Someone worked out what would happen if one “compelled” every women with an unintended pregnancy to carry on.
          The Turnaway study details health and welfare costs.
          another study “ran the numbers”.
          The capacity for adoption and group homes would run out in the USA in year one.
          You would very quickly end up with street children and Romanian level orphanages.

          • sdb19

            So compound the “incomplete” immorality of not being able to support one’s child with the far worse immorality of murdering them? Besides, who defines “poverty”? We weren’t rich by any means growing up and we enjoyed our lives just fine. With your reasoning we should go in and erase everyone in ghettos or public housing. The reason Romania ended up with orphanages which were run as horror houses was because of communism and godless humanism infesting the world-view of the prison guards. Communism poisoned everything. Back before abortion was legal America was hardly overrun with unadoptable children so your argument fails.

            • cartimandua

              A zygote embryo or foetus is not a person so there is no murder.

              Women however are people which is a concept prolifers seem to struggle with.

              http://jezebel.com/5937237/personhood-funerals-because-if-life-begins-at-conception-every-tampon-is-a-potential-tragedy

              “For a married Christian woman who is trying to conceive, the chances are high that many times when the menstrual cycle arrives it is actually a miscarriage of a very, very young child.

              If your period is late, even by a few days, it is likely that you have just lost your child. Your precious baby, just a few weeks old, and still microscopic, is dead. This is a time for you to mourn.

              It is also a time to prepare your child to enter Heaven. Personhood Funeral Services, LLC provides funeral planning, memorial service planning and caters to the needs of grieving Christian families.

              Makes sense. After all, one of the major head-scratching complications of believing in personhood is the fact that there’s absolutely no medical test to determine whether a fertilized but un-implanted egg is floating around in a woman’s Mystery Area at any given time; therefore, any period could feasibly contain a deceased human. Fully human, as per the Republican platform!

              PHF offers a variety of menstrual pad-sized coffins, some silk-lined, others more stripped down, ranging in price from $1,200 to $1,800 per single-burial package. Economical couples can spring for a year package of 12 coffins, cemetery plots, and funeral services, just to make sure they cover their bases. The site, again,

              As a pious Christian woman, it not sinful to give conduct a Personhood Funeral ceremony to an egg that did not become a child. It WOULD be sinful, however, to flush your child away into a septic tank or sewage system.

              If you don’t want to pay for funerals for eggs that have not been converted into children, you can have your menstrual blood tested by a forensic laboratory each cycle to determine whether you had a miscarriage.”

              However, because of the lab staff time and advanced equipment required to do the testing, this process often costs around $30,000 per test.

              It is far more cost-effective to simply pay for the ceremony for each cycle.

              Can’t argue with that.”

              • sdb19

                Science shows quite clearly the zygote is both human and alive. Therefore killing it is killing a person.

                • cartimandua

                  It doesn’t matter because in the end in the West “even” women own their own bodies. The State doesn’t own them and neither do you. Otherwise you bring back slavery.

                  It demeans humanity to equate a zygote embryo or foetus with a fully sentient human.

                  If women don’t own their bodies neither do you and I could have your kidney if I needed it.

                  Personhood isn’t just absurd it is dangerously absurd.

                  http://sockii.squidoo.com/personhood

                  “2011, Mississippi doctors spoke up in opposition to the state’s ballot initiative for Personhood, stating that it could seriously hamper their ability to provide routine and even life saving care to their patients, in cases such as ectopic and molar pregnancies. And what about the ability to perform diagnostic procedures such as amniocentesis, which carries a small risk of miscarriage?

                  No exceptions for rape victims – you MUST carry the baby to term.

                  Personhood legislation carries no exceptions for allowing rape victims to have an abortion in the case of pregnancy resulting from rape. They would not even be allowed access to the “morning after pill”. Of course, given that Red. Todd Akin doesn’t think “legitimate rape” can result in pregnancy, is it any surprise he is one of the sponsors of personhood legislation?

                  Personhood laws could limit couples’ access to fertility treatment, particularly IVF.

                  RESOLVE, the National Infertility Association, has compiled a lengthy list of questions about Personhood legislation and the effect it could have on women seeking fertility treatments, particularly when In Vitro Fertilization is required. As their page states, “if microscopic fertilized eggs/embryos are full humans, anything that puts an embryo at risk could be a criminal violation, even if its goal is the undeniable social good of helping someone have a baby. ”

                  Personhood could prevent pregnant women suffering from cancer from receiving lifesaving treatments.

                  If Personhood legislation passed, a doctor could become unable to provide care such as chemotherapy to a pregnant cancer victim, because the treatment could harm the fetus. The fetus’ potential chance of life would be given precedence over the adult woman’s ability to fight cancer. Such situations have already occurred in other countries, such as when a pregnant teenager died in the Dominican Republic because the country’s abortion ban delayed her chemo treatment until it was too late.

                  Women who suffer stillbirths or miscarriages could potentially be prosecuted for homicide under Personhood laws.

                  Women are already being prosecuted under expanding homicide laws if their actions are suspected in any way to have caused the loss of an unborn child. Women are increasingly being treated like “baby making machines” in this country, with their own rights & protections under law at risk if they even potentially might be pregnant. How long before all women of child-bearing age are forbidden from smoking, drinking or taking medications that could harm a fetus in case she might be pregnant?

                  Personhood would restrict access to hormonal birth control for women.

                  Concern has been raised – and only sometimes discussed with amendments necessary to allow exceptions, that Personhood laws could make illegal any form of birth control that could possibly be an abortifacient (induce an abortion). Some of these hormonal forms of birth control are used not even by women looking to prevent pregnancy, but to control severe pain and menstrual bleeding, fibroids or PCOS. And of course, say goodbye to the “Morning-After Pill”.

                  Personhood Laws are just another step toward treating women as nothing more than baby-making machines.”

  • nico77

    What A Sick God Complex. What Emily Gives Emily Can Take Away? Emilys Will Be Done? Her Joy To Kill Her Unborn Sounds Like Some Twisted Divine Prerogative. Disguising Shame An Hiding Guilt, What A Perverse View Of Life.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      She’s quite a mixed up kid, obviously. She’s one of those who will suffer later, I suspect, after this all hits home for her. I feel sad for her and this situation.

      But her video is probably going to wind up being one of the best contemporary tools the pro-life movement could have, showing these immature kids a reflection of themselves.

      • cartimandua

        There is NO mental health fall out from abortion. There is however for women who seek a termination and don’t get it, the Turnaways.

        http://io9.com/5958187/what-happens-to-women-denied-abortions-this-is-the-first-scientific-study-to-find-out

        “In other words, the Turnaway Study found no indication that there were lasting, harmful negative emotions associated with getting an abortion. The only emotional difference between the two groups at one year was that the turnaways were more stressed. They were more likely to say that they felt like they had more to do than they could get done.”

        “We find physical health complications are more common and severe following birth (38% experience limited activity, average 10 days) compared to abortion (24% limited activity, average 2.7 days). There were no severe complications after abortion; after birth complications included seizure, fractured pelvis, infection and hemorrhage. We find no differences in chronic health conditions at 1 week or one year after seeking abortion.

        If you look at all this data together, a new picture emerges of abortion and how the state might want to handle it. To prevent women from having to rely on public assistance, abortions should be made more widely available. In addition, there is strong evidence that making abortions available will allow women to be healthier, with brighter economic outlooks. By turning women away when they seek abortions, we risk keeping both women and their children in poverty — and, possibly, in harm’s way from domestic violence.”
        Which makes it very odd doesn’t it that Republicans have sought to increase costs and social harm by prioritizing their own emotional comfort.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          Sorry, I stopped reading after your first sentence, which is false.

          • cartimandua

            Not at all false. The joint UK medical colleges reviewed all the well designed international studies and that is what they found.

            It may disappoint you but the evidence says I am right.
            An unintended pregnancy is a stressful event whatever someone does about it. People who have unintended pregnancy may be anyone who has an accident or they may have pre existing poor mental health.
            That doesn’t “get better” if they complete an unintended pregnancy.
            Since the physical risks of pregnancy are very much greater than those of an abortion women cannot be forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16094906
            The only group who “suffers” are those who have had antis ring a peal over them.
            Those same groups have not been traditionally accepting of single Mothers either.

            • the viceroy’s gin

              Yes, at all false, and no need to read beyond that first phrase.

              • cartimandua

                You must be a troll surely. Otherwise you are claiming to “know more” than the joint medical colleges of the UK.

                There were studies from all over the civilized world.

                The antis have nothing in riposte they cannot have.

                http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/16/2/gpr160213.html

                “The AMRC concluded that “rates of mental health problems for women with an unwanted pregnancy were the same whether they had an abortion or gave birth.”9 The authors determined that it was the “unwanted pregnancy [that] was associated with an increased risk of mental health problems” and that the “most reliable predictor of post-abortion mental health problems was having a history of mental health problems before the abortion.”

                Less research has been done focusing on teenagers. In 2010, however, researchers from Oregon State University and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) conducted the first study of a nationally representative sample of adolescents examining depression and low self-esteem as potential outcomes of abortion. Few studies have compared adolescents whose pregnancies ended in abortion with those who gave birth, and followed them over a long period of time. The authors concluded that “the young women in this study who had an abortion were no more likely to become depressed or have low self-esteem within the year of the pregnancy or five years later than were their peers whose pregnancies did not end in abortion. Consistent with previous studies of abortion and psychological outcomes, the strongest predictors of depression and low self-esteem were prior depression and prior low self-esteem.”10”
                The antis do meet “distressed women” because antis cause the distress.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, trolls flood websites with spam, as you are.

                  Not that anybody’s reading your spam, obviously.

                • cartimandua

                  Evidence is not spam. Clearly you have no argument and no evidence to back up your misogyny.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  Spam is spam, like yours for example.

                  And save your empty insults .

        • sdb19

          Of course there is fall out from abortion by way of emotional and physical consequences. Not everyone all the time, not all of the same effects, but there IS fall out. Do some research as to increased effects and I think you will be shocked.

          • cartimandua

            The only women who “suffer” would also suffer if they continued with the unintended pregnancy whether they suffer because of pre existing poor mental health or religious wonks reading a peel over them.
            It is the unintended pregnancy which is the problem and “judgmental” people.

  • Benjamin O’Donnell

    So, should we enslave unwilling mothers? Imprison them for 9 momths to prevent them ending their unwanted pregnancies?

    • cartimandua

      And prosecute women who try to kill themselves ,have a drink , drive a car, lift an object, have a fall, eat the wrong cheese, keep a cat , catch a germ ,etc etc.
      The list of things women can “do wrong” when pregnant is endless.
      They have passed laws permitting prosecution for miscarriage, stillbirths ,and birth defects. None of it could be proved to have a direct effect but it doesn’t matter to the antis. They have passed and keep on passing anti woman laws even though being anti abortion makes nothing “better” at all.
      Abortions now here and in the USA are very very early. If they put delays in the way they merely make abortions later. The only possible reason for that is to punish the 40% of women in the USA who have abortions during their lives.
      There is no rationality behind it.
      Anti abortion places have more abortions. So the whole point must be the persecution of women.

    • sdb19

      No serious pro-life person that I know of suggests imprisoning the abortion minded woman-just the abortionist who carries it out. I would suggest some counseling, emotional and material support for crisis pregnancies, so the woman won’t feel so abandoned and alone (this is what crisis pregnancy centers already do). Show them their baby’s ultrasound (most women who view the ultrasound of their unborn child decide against aborting, which is why “pro-choicers” are so against women having access to this knowledge). In my experience working with abortion-minded women, many do not want to abort, but have emotional or financial concerns, but their fears are calmed when someone actually listens to and helps them.

  • cartimandua

    What is “creepy” Mr Gray is that in the USA women have been prosecuted for trying to kill themselves while pregnant, for having a drink (2 beers) while breastfeeding, for having a miscarriage. for falling while pregnant etc.
    They even forced a woman to have a C section knowing it would kill her. It did kill her and no live infant resulted either.
    The Taliban would indeed be thrilled. That is what is “creepy”, that lawmakers passed laws which doctors tell them makes it impossible to treat women safely and save their lives.

    • DrCrackles

      Off topic, but please can you give me a link for the statistics you claim show that homosexual paedophilia is less prevalent than its heterosexual variant?

      • cartimandua

        I did post it but the mods thought it off topic. go look it up it is readily available from reputable sources.

  • cartimandua

    And if women are “uncomfortable” about very early abortions they must have received an abysmal education around it all.
    All women in this country compromise their health for their entire adult lives using high risk contraception to placate anti choicers.
    That is why we have one of the lowest abortion numbers in the world and one of the highest breast cancer rates in the world.
    The pill ups the risk by a quarter.
    Hormonal methods list the risks of heart disease ,cancers, blood clots, depression, and of course obesity.
    While men do nothing at all and complain that “she must have made a mistake”.
    So unless a man has always worn a condom and then had the snip when the family is done he can place the sanctimony somewhere near his prostate.

    • sdb19

      Abortion TRIPLES the breast cancer risk, according to The Journal of Cancer Epidemiology. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955/Abortion-triple-risk-breast-cancer.html Women have used hormone replacement therapies for decades which has been linked to cancer. Smoking causes various cancers in women, as does poor diet, alcohol consumption and sedentary lifestyles. STIs cause various cancers in women.
      I find it highly dubious that women are taking birth control pills merely to please “anti-choicers.”

      • cartimandua

        The only study which ever found that was from China where it is the multiple pregnancies which up the cancer rate not their interruption.
        Chinese women have little access to a range of contraception.
        It is the total hormonal load which leads to cancer and in the case of China probably a degraded environment.
        And yes all women in this country take high risk contraception all their lives to avoid getting pregnant by mistake.
        Men need to step up or shut up.

  • cartimandua

    Liz its worse than that. Anti abortion laws and restrictions harm all women’s health care. The USA already has maternal outcomes so bad Amnesty calls them a scandal.
    Ireland was the great “hope” of the anti choicers”. Their supposed maternal outcomes are an obvious lie.
    They don’t report centrally. They call the deaths of pregnant women deaths by another cause(like sepsis or heart failure). They export women at risk to the UK when there is time.
    And they say women’s “health” (kidneys, eyesight, etc) doesn’t matter. So let no one be under any illusion about the safety of women in anti abortions countries.
    They are not at all safe.
    Anti abortion laws mean under treatment or no treatment in a crisis at all.
    The Personhood crew still maintain in the teeth of all science and evidence that
    ectopic pregnancies are not a risk to a Mothers life.
    The “evidence” they base that on is a study from the 1920s where ectopics were a guess not the certainty they are now.
    They don’t care if the USAs awful health stats for women get even worse. Maternal deaths in the USA are going up not down. They will not go down unless doctors are allowed to practice safely in a crisis situation.
    They certainly wont go down if women are prosecuted for natural events.
    The daft thing is in a crisis the foetus always dies first. The Catholic “vision” of sacrificing the Mother and saving the child is utter shoemakers.

  • Paul Mariani

    She is a tool.

  • Paul Mariani

    This “woman” has a few screws loose.

  • Ben

    Abortion is ugly. But just imagine how ugly the world would be with million and millions more screwd up, unwanted people

    • Saikourufu

      Speak for yourself, m8 !

  • Liz

    The alternative is to force adults to undergo full term pregnancies and childbirth against their will. Not going to happen. Can’t happen.

    So basically you’re pro choice so long as women are suitably grateful and unhappy.

  • Liz

    Next week an abortion video of a father positively oblivious.

  • Agrippina

    So you would rather women had all those babies they do not really want. What could possibly go wrong with all those children being brought up as unwanted kids.

    Let us ask the children in care and the looked after children which runs into 100,000 plus and that is without taking more into care, but there really is no further capacity to do so.

    Thank goodness for abortion because there would be even more damaged adults around us. Ask anyone involved in psychiatric/psychological care and they will tell you about the majority of their patients, mostly unwanted, neglected or harmed by their so called ‘carers’.

    • jennyct

      No, I would rather they used some form of birth control or at least not “promote’ their irresponsibility. In an interview she asked “doesn’t everyone make mistakes?” Well, yeah, but they don’t think it’s cool.

      She is definitely a strange bird.

      • cartimandua

        Most women with unintended pregnancies ARE using contraception at the time. The pill has an 8% failure rate even with perfect use. Every single method has a failure rate even with perfect use.
        Men have to use condoms and then get the snip and they don’t.
        In the UK only 16% of men ever do get the snip. In the USA only 9% are ever adult enough.
        It seems wrong to say that fertile people in committed relationships
        should use a condom as well just to “avoid” a very early abortion.
        Most abortions here and in the USA are these days very early indeed.
        Should the entire population obsess about not getting pregnant rather than enjoy love and closeness?
        Perhaps the antis should just grow up.
        Why is their emotional comfort more important than women’s health?
        The pill raises the risk of breast cancer by a quarter.

        • jennyct

          “It seems wrong to say that fertile people in committed relationships should use a condom as well just to “avoid” a very early abortion.”

          Abortion was never meant to be used instead of contraception. It seems that people cannot control themselves anymore. Maybe I’m lucky, but I never got pregnant in 15 years of marriage until I wanted to. If I thought it was risky, I used a condom. Oh well, I lived through it and it wasn’t awful, nor did I feel distanced from my husband.

          • cartimandua

            So what happens now is women have higher risks of breast cancer heart disease blood clots etc etc all for the self importance of anti abortionists.
            Maybe having a few early abortions is better that the raised risk of breast cancer.
            The pill raises the risk by a quarter.
            Bottom line though men have to step up and they are not.
            They are not backing it up with condoms and not getting the snip when the family is done.
            You cannot say ” I only got pregnant on purpose” and assume everyone has the same health fertility and luck.
            A few years ago women got pregnant in the 100s while using implants.

            • jennyct

              I did mention “luck.” And I never used birth control pills or IUD. I did have a regular cycle, which helped me identify the fertile times, and we used condoms when it was risky. I imagine that a lot of abortions could be averted this way… do people even know how their cycles work? It seems a very good understanding would help.

              • cartimandua

                and they call people using fertile period methods “parents”.

                Typical failure rate 24% condoms 18%.

                http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm

                It really isn’t possible to say that all would have your experience.

                • jennyct

                  Is the failure rate due to human error? Maybe. I’m just saying that it is helpful. I seriously doubt many people are educated on the subject.
                  I will check out your link.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      No doubt there are children in care, but let’s be clear that there is an adoptive home for every infant born, and the waiting list is extensive. People travel to foreign countries to adopt, even. Any child born can wind up in care, but extinguishing life is a heartless solution to that larger problem, and not really a solution at all.

  • Davison

    I think this satirical video of Emily’s abortion video nails what is wrong with her overly chipper abortion vlog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOVE0Bl5T3E

  • cartimandua

    Mr Grey
    In the USA 89% of abortions happen at less than 12 weeks. A third of abortions happen at less than 6 weeks.
    At 6 weeks the zygote is the size of pomegranate seed and looks nothing at all like
    the picture above.
    If you claim “science” has made us all sentimental about the zygote and embryo at least tell the truth.
    Not that it matters because the “prolife” position turns women into “less than” humans
    and increases the number of abortions and harms of all kinds.
    Western Europe counts and we have the lowest number in the world.

  • cartimandua

    What is truly scary is how a country with such a lot of WMDs can have people in it so stupid that they criminalize natural events like miscarriage and stillbirths.

    http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-Georgia

    “I doubt that a bill that makes a legal medical procedure liable for the death penalty will pass. The bill, however, shows an astonishing lack of concern for women’s health and well-being. Under Rep. Franklin’s bill, HB 1, women who miscarry could become felons if they cannot prove that there was “no human involvement whatsoever in the causation” of their miscarriage. There is no clarification of what “human involvement” means, and this is hugely problematic as medical doctors do not know exactly what causes miscarriages. Miscarriages are estimated to terminate up to a quarter of all pregnancies and the Mayo Clinic says that “the actual number is probably much higher because many miscarriages occur so early in pregnancy that a woman doesn’t even know she’s pregnant. Most miscarriages occur because the fetus isn’t developing normally.”

    Holding women criminally liable for a totally natural, common biological process is cruel and non-sensical. Even more ridiculous, the bill holds women responsible for protecting their fetuses from “the moment of conception,” despite the fact that pregnancy tests aren’t accurate until at least 3 weeks after conception. Unless Franklin (who is not a health professional) invents a revolutionary intrauterine conception alarm system, it’s unclear how exactly the state of Georgia would enforce that rule other than holding all possibly-pregnant women under lock and key.”
    As I said the Republican attacks on women’s Personhood would make the Taliban blush and that’s the “context”.

  • cartimandua

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/buckhalter-mississippi-stillbirth-manslaughter

    “A dozen medical and public health groups—including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists—made the same argument in a friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the Buckhalter case. And even for women who want to continue their pregnancy, the medical groups contended, the threat of prosecution could actually deter them from seeking prenatal care or drug addiction treatment, or from sharing important information with their doctors, for fear they may be reported.”

  • lookout

    Photos of the actual event using the latest tech show the full horror, especially part birth. Who makes the case for the baby? One floor of the hospital is saving short term premature baby’s the next floor is doing them in.

    • cartimandua

      In whose universe? That’s a “pro life ” lie. Late terminations are in the USA as they are here for severe and lethal anomaly.
      The % of pregnancies which are too ill ever to result in a live birth are the same there as they are here 2 to 3%.
      Only 1% are terminated forcing the dying infant to die when conscious and putting the Mothers life at risk.
      Savita died because of pro life lies.

      • sdb19

        I’m sorry, but this old pro-abortion canard cannot go unchallenged. It is absolutely false to state that 1) late term abortions are not being done, 2) they are rare, 3) they are only done on deformed babies or 4) they are only done to save the life of the mother.

        The abortion industry’s disinformation continued to be asserted by prominent voices in
        the abortion lobby, and accepted by many in the press, until just two weeks ago, when Ron
        Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP),
        told the press that he lied when he claimed that partial-birth abortions were performed
        only rarely and in extreme medical circumstances. He knew this was untrue, he said,
        because when the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was first introduced (in June, 1995), he
        called doctors who use the method, and “I learned right away that this was being done
        for the most part in cases that did not involve those extreme circumstances.”

        Testimony of Douglas Johnson Legislative Director, National Right to
        Life Committee on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (H.R. 929, S. 6] at a Joint Hearing
        Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee and The Constitution Subcommittee of the U.S.
        House Judiciary Committee

        Fitzsimmons now estimates that up to 5,000 partial-birth abortions are performed
        annually, and that “they’re primarily done on healthy women of healthy fetuses.”
        The New York Times (Feb. 26) reported, “As much as he disagreed with the
        National Right to Life Committee and others who oppose abortion under any circumstances,
        he said he knew they were accurate when they said the procedure was common. . . . In the
        vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy
        fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Mr. Fitzsimmons said.” http://www.nrlc.org/archive/abortion/pba/test.html

        • cartimandua

          The % of late abortions in the USA is the same as the % here 1%. The % of pregnancies which are too sick ever to result in a live birth is 2 to 3%.
          That 2 or 3% “carry on” leads to the USA having a stillbirth and neonatal death rate akin to Belarus although the USA spends the most in the world on newborns.

          Is the medical situation in the USA for women rubbish oh yes. Is the USA too cowardly to allow stopping the foetal heart when necessary very possibly but that is the prolifers fault.

          They are only done on deformed babies. Here are some of the things which can go wrong.

          http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/

          • sdb19

            They were not being only done on deformed babies, as several doctors admitted to a Congressional hearing. Michigan as recently as 2011 passed an anti-partial birth abortion law, so they are likely still occurring across the US in other states. And of course, unfortunately, Canada has NO abortion law whatsoever.

            • cartimandua

              When I read that they didn’t give any evidence only their “opinion” . These would be anti abortion docs would they?
              All the real evidence say that the % of late abortions in the USA is far less than even the % of pregnancies which can never result in a live birth.
              There are of course many situations where the Mother will die if the pregnancy continues.
              Cardiomyopathy has shot up in the USA as has eclampsia.

            • cartimandua

              And were these doctors “pro life”? Did they have “evidence”? Or was it just hearsay and opinion.
              And you tell us what is supposed to happen when a womans heart or kidneys are failing late on in pregnancy.
              The rate of pregnancy related cardiomyopathy is going up. The rate of eclampsia is going up.
              The US is behind 59 other countries now for maternal deaths.
              That’s down to you lot.

      • sdb19

        No, she didn’t. “It is deplorable that those who want to see abortion available here are
        exploiting Mrs Halappanavar’s tragic death when the Medical Council
        Guidelines are very clear that all necessary medical treatment must be
        given to women in pregnancy. Given this, we welcome the fact that a
        thorough investigation to establish what went wrong is taking place.

        It is also vitally important to acknowledge at this time that Ireland,
        without induced abortion, is recognized by the UN and World Health
        Organisation as a world leader in protecting women in pregnancy and is
        safer than places like Britain and Holland where abortion is widely
        available.”

        This is a tragic loss, and we need to remember that Irish doctors are
        always obliged to intervene to save the life of a mother – even if that
        risks the life of her baby.

        In fact, the Medical Council are very clear in this regard that their
        guidelines state that doctors will be struck off if they don’t
        intervene to save the life of a mother. The result of the investigation
        into Ms Halappanavar’s death will make the facts known, and journalists
        have been rushing to pre-empt those investigations when they are not in
        full possession of the facts.

        http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/14/ireland-lack-of-abortion-didnt-kill-woman-pro-life-groups-say/

        • cartimandua

          That’s from “life” news and has no credibility
          the reality is that Ireland is the worst in the EU for stillbirths and neonatal deaths.
          It is 14th in the EU for maternal deaths.
          It doesn’t collect death stats centrally or for the same period and with a tiny bit of research I found 6 other deaths of women who died while pregnant and were obviously undertreated.
          The stats it does have are supported by sending lots of very sick women here to the UK.
          That’s in their 100s and who knows how many others who do find out their babies are very sick.
          Its simple you just call it “heart failure” rather than undertreated because of an anti abortion ethos.
          In the anti abortion world no woman is ever quite “near death ” enough until she is actually dead.”
          Apart from abortion one would have to look at the health of Irish women as a whole.
          Since Irelands “doesn’t care” about womens health there will be plenty of problems around womens health.
          Ireland fails to meet international standards around womens health.
          Just to begin with Irish women are undertreated for sepsis
          while miscarrying compared to international norms.

    • cartimandua

      “part birth” is about American cowardice. Over here if for instance an embryo is terminated because it is missing its kidneys or half its brain the heart is stopped first.

      The cruellest thing is to make infants who will inevitably die die after birth when they might indeed be conscious and pain capable…. as they do in Ireland.

      • sdb19

        Except that healthy babies of healthy mothers are being aborted. Kermit Gosnell’s chamber of horrors in Philadelphia was the proof of that. People need to wake up! Babies are being burned alive in their mothers’ wombs through saline, or being excruciatingly dismembered by D&C. That is cruelty of the worst kind. Diagnoses have been wrong and babies that were predicted to have Downs’ or other deformities have been born healthy. At least a baby who is born deformed and dies in his own mother’s arms is comforted, and the mother has closure. Better that than to go through life knowing she denied her child any chance at all.

        • cartimandua

          No it wasn’t . I doubt that the health records of every woman and every baby was exposed to media gaze.
          Do you deny the reality of tanking maternal health? The USA now is behind 59 other countries for maternal deaths.
          Do you deny that there are genetic and structural anomalies incompatible with life?
          It is actually 2 to 3% of all pregnancies. It is just sadism to make a baby die after birth. Structural anomalies can only ne seen and assessed late on in pregnancy.
          A baby with no kidneys or half a brain is not going to survive.
          You tell me then where a woman in the USA whose kidneys or heart is failing is supposed to go.
          I found I think 2 places in the entire country where such women’s lives could be saved.
          Or to put it another way. Ireland doesn’t do TOPFA. Hundreds of women come here to end non viable pregnancies (when of course there is time). Ireland STILL has the worst neonatal and stillbirth rate in the EU along with of course Malta.

  • cartimandua

    Jesus never mentioned abortion “Karl” and the Bible only mentioned it to command it.
    Life “from conception” goes against the churches greatest theologians , its longest held traditions, and the Bible.
    It is a modern Catholic heresy and it has resulted in the USA in constant attacks on the healthcare of every woman who is or might be pregnant.
    Irelands supposed maternal outcomes are a fiction (they don’t centrally collect and they call deaths “something else”) rather than not treated because pregnant.
    Ireland says out loud women health “doesn’t matter”.

  • Karl Stuebe

    Filiæ Jerusalem, nolite flere super me, sed super vos ipsas flete et super filios vestros. Quoniam ecce venient dies in quibus dicent: Beatæ steriles, et ventres qui non genuerunt, et ubera quæ non lactaverunt.Tunc incipient dicere montibus: Cadite super nos; et collibus: Operite nos. Quia si in viridi ligno hæc faciunt, in arido quid fiet?

  • cartimandua

    So just to underline that point. With modern ultrasound there is no doubt at all about ectopic pregnancies and they NEVER result in a live birth, but they do kill women if not treated aggressively and quickly. And that is just one situation where “concern” for a zygote could and would prevent women having adequate life saving medical care.
    We even saw this shameful attitude in Ireland recently with the death of Savita who was never quite near death enough for them to actually save her life.
    No live birth was ever going to result.
    So perhaps rather than scoffing at the young woman’s film the Spectator should be taking pot shots at laws and law makers in the USA who would make the Taliban blush in terms of misogyny and utter stupidity.

  • cartimandua

    I think the Spectator needs a bit of context.

    Here are just a few of some of the anti woman laws enacted by Republicans in States recently.

    http://www.alternet.org/story/150526/10_states_with_the_most_shocking_anti-woman_legislation

    “Alabama. Alabama, considered by NARAL to be at the bottom of the list in reproductive rights, has decided that worst isn’t bad enough. The legislature is considering a “personhood” law that would define fertilized eggs as persons. Laws like this not only threaten abortion rights, but could also be used to ban in-vitro fertilization, prevent non-sterilized women from holding certain jobs, be used to prosecute pregnant and potentially pregnant women for drinking and smoking, and be used to deny even life-saving medical care to women. (North Dakota’s similar bill bars doctors from killing fertilized eggs, even during medically necessary care.) One of the most likely results of bills like this is that doctors will be forbidden from treating ectopic pregnancies with drugs, and will be forced to wait until a patient’s ovary explodes before administering treatment, putting the patient in danger of death. Anti-choice activists also hope to use misinformation campaigns that claim the birth control pill is “abortion” (actually, it works by suppressing ovulation) in order to use personhood bills to ban the pill.”
    And that’s just one State.
    So have a little context.
    If you cant “kill a fertilized egg” you either let a woman with an ectopic die or you remove the whole tube harming her future fertility.
    Ectopics are not rare they are 1 in 80.

  • cartimandua

    In the USA ending a pregnancy which is killing a woman is hard to do in some places which is why they ended up with Gosnell. The USA has the same % of pregnancies with lethal anomalies as we do and more health issues for women because of poor prenatal care, but they have only a few places to go on the entire Continent they end up with the worst maternal and infant outcomes of any industrialized country.

    • Simon Fay

      “Abortion is 14 times safer than pregnancy and birth. That is massively true in the US of A”
      Maybe everyone alive should be marched into extermination camps to minimise risk.

      • cartimandua

        The pro life position has nothing at all that ever makes anything better even in their own terms. Where there are abortion restrictions there are far more abortions.
        40% of women in the USA have abortions during their lives. Its just the way contraception is.
        There is more to be done by men though.
        Only 9% of men in the USA ever have the snip even when the risks of contraception and of pregnancy goes up with age for their wives.
        The pill ups the risk of breast cancer by a quarter.
        In the UK its only 16% who ever man up.
        Don’t all rush at once now.

        • Hexhamgeezer

          Rubbish. 40% of any social/national group’s females don’t have abortions, apart, perhaps from the former USSR and China.

          • cartimandua

            Over their lifetimes (now perhaps 40 years of fertility) 40% of women in the USA have an abortion. Only a small % of wealthy women in the USA have access to a full range of contraception so it isn’t surprising really. Only 9% of US men are ever adult enough to get the snip.

            http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/uslifetimeab.html

            Its 1 in 3 in the UK and everyone here has full access.
            Its the amount of time (4 decades) women have to manage contraception all of which has a failure rate.
            If it bothers you advocate for men to step up. It means always wearing a condom throughout life even when she is on the pill and then having the snip.

    • sdb19

      Even the Marxists know better than that: http://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.firstwave/cpl-abortion/section3.htm

      LOTS of complications from abortion, some of which don’t show up until years or decades later.

      • cartimandua

        The USA is now ranked behind 59 other countries where it is safer to give birth. That is down to Republican neglect of womens health care and anti abortion absurdity.
        “Pro lifers” are killing women because normal healthcare is denied them.
        The stats in Ireland for maternal deaths are a fiction and they export sick women here when there is time. Ireland say out loud that womens health “doesn’t matter”.

  • Ambriorix_Le_Belge

    Always remember….leftists can always find a way to go a step lower than you thought was possible

  • Alex Creel

    I find it laughable that Mr Gray paints use of abortion as a moral issue – ‘more and more women have more and more repeat abortions’. SO WHAT? Unless you’re suggesting we create a loving household for every one of those terminated youngsters I for one am relieved that all those terminations take place. I coudn’t give a damn whether a woman is careless or not – an unwanted child is unwanted full stop. I like the idea that to terminate one child is acceptable to you but to terminate a football team’s worth is unnaceptable. I’m sure foetus number 1 really appreciates your outrage over the deaths of number 2 onwards!
    Face it, the only reason to be against abortion is if you believe that it’s wrong to terminate a foetus – this is a binary issue. I can see that the extreme standpoint of Emily Letts doesn’t do the pro choice lobby any good but neither do pro-lifers who firebomb clinics – there are nutters on both sides.
    As an aside, re the ‘medical advances’ the Dutch health system routinely allows premature babies to die at an age where we softhearted brits strive to save them – in order to live a life of disability, pain and early death. They think we’re barbaric and I’m inclined to agree.

    • SimonToo

      An unwanted child may be, as you say, unwanted, full stop. But an unwanted child is also a child, full stop.

      Attitudes to abortion are not binary. There are those who are opposed in all circumstances, there are those who are opposed unless it is necessary to preserve the woman’s life, there are those who accept it in certain circumstances (with manygradations of what those circumstances need be) as the lesser of two evils, there are those who see it as a long-stop for a failure of contraception and there are those who see it as just another form of contraception. I will not have covered every shade of opinion : binary they are not.

      • cartimandua

        No it isn’t until capable of consciousness which is post 26 weeks and after birth.

        • nico77

          You’re Clueless. Pulling Stuff Out Of A Hat Are You? Have You Never Seen An Ultrasound?

          • cartimandua

            I have several children thanks and in between number one and number two I had a life threatening ectopic.
            I have also bothered to read up on the science and I understand it.
            The neurology is not joined up before 26 weeks for consciousness and the foetus is sedated before birth by maternal hormones.
            At 6 weeks gestation (a third of US abortions are at 6 weeks or less) the embryo is the size of a pomegranate seed and “God” loses them a third of the time anyway.
            There is no way to reliably pregnancy test earlier than 5 weeks.
            There is no way to please the antis is there.
            Women are not clockwork and with breakthrough bleeding many wouldn’t even guess they are pregnant.

            • nico77

              There is such a thing as worldview driven studies, and the sciences are often prime examples. Articles are often rife with assumptions in order to make a predetermined point about any given subject. Consciousness is far from understood and is an altogether profound mystery. I would take no comfort in a study of some detached scientist making assumptions on raw data to prove a nietcheian point about human life. When I see a baby yawn, kick, stretch, suck a finger and roll over at less than 26 weeks I happen to think research suggesting spasms and random behavior absolute nonsense.

              • cartimandua

                It suits your sentimentality to ascribe intention to a foetus in utero. Not only is the actual spine not joined up to the actual parts of brain which enable intention until that point the foetus is sedated by maternal hormones.
                It isn’t one sort of science it is every kind of science.
                If you cant “do” science you are free to behave like that yourself but not to impose it on women as a whole.
                It, the foetus, is unconscious in the same way we are under a general anaesthetic.
                Not that it matters. Abortions near to viability are not choice abortions at all.
                Insisting a baby with half a brain die after birth when it may have some capacity for consciousness and pain is nothing other than self serving sadism.
                Most abortions in the USA and the UK are very early indeed.
                The reasons the abortion limit should stay at the cusp of viability is assessment of severe to lethal anomaly and emergencies.
                Savita died because of a “no abortion” ethos. She won’t have been the only one.
                Ireland lies about all of it and they are the “best” anti abortion country in terms of prenatal care.

                • nico77

                  It’s the power of observable data and first hand testimony of former abortion clinic workers. Also, I don’t know where you’re getting your information or how the spine connection even makes sense. Watching smooth intentional movement in utero is unmistakable. They are without question acting to achieve comfort. Additionally, they are at most in a sleep like state. That’s far different than catatonia.
                  I’m glad you see pain and consciousness as a reasonable parting line, I just think you may be drawing it too short.

                • cartimandua

                  Oh dear well the scientific advice to Parliament sums it all up .
                  And “former clinic workers”? From when the 1950s?
                  The only late abortions now here or in the USA are in cases of severe and lethal anomaly and tanking maternal health.
                  There is no point other than sadism for making a dying foetus die after birth at full gestation.
                  The Catholic trope of sacrificing the Mother to “save the child” is cods. The foetus always dies first but as we saw with Savita sometimes not in time to save the Mother.
                  Ireland and Malta have the worst stillbirth and perinatal /neonatal death rates in the EU. If a foetus has half a brain its going to die. The only question is when.
                  The RCOG here suggest stopping the foetal heart but more for the emotional comfort of the Mother.
                  If you are talking about Gosnell. That “worker” had no access to the medical records . He had no idea whether the foetus was going to die or cost its Mother her life.
                  Its only US cowardice that leads to not stopping a foetal heart where a later termination is necessary.
                  When you talk about “observation” you are talking about ignorant people who are not up to nursing.

                • nico77

                  You have not done your homework on this, especially of you think Gosnell was an anomaly. A quick YouTube search will readily provide you with testimony from many sieves who watched babies die, as well as numerous articles on the matter of late term abortion clinics and dark room infanticide. Gosnell was caught because he carelessly let a patient die and someone actually complained. Abortionists just like him exist all over the country. There is no well defined criteria for preventing late term abortions. Health of the mother is intentionally vague, and Congress refuses to pass a bill that considers the pain of the unborn. Government reports sugar coat the reality because they benefit from minority children dying before moms collect on welfare. I don’t know how the UK is. It wasn’t until 2003 that partial birth abortion was federally outlawed in the US. Even so, there is no extant laws that prevent late term abortions from happening should the mother really want one. Abortion clinics in many areas are grossly unregulated and intentionally so.

                • cartimandua

                  It is prolifers who lead to the poor care of Gosnell.
                  The USA has the worst maternal outcomes of any industrialized country.
                  Life threatening problems are only found “late” and then there is nowhere to go.
                  2 to 3% of all pregnancies are never going to result in a live birth because of lethal genetic or structural anomalies.
                  In the USA there is then nowhere for people to go.
                  Women are not pigs. As we saw with Savita a foetus which dies in utero can and does kill the Mother.
                  Now you may think it “better” for a woman to risk dying or actually die for a foetus who can never live. Most rational people would think that is just stupid.
                  There are only a few places to go in the entire USA when it is found that the foetus will die and or the pregnancy threatens the Mothers life.
                  The rates of cardiomyopathy have gone up and so have the rates of eclampsia.
                  The dreadful maternal outcomes are sooo bad Amnesty have complained about them.
                  The biggest spend and the worst outcomes because of “pro life~” stupidity.

                • Tweety58

                  The GOSNELL MOVIE has been funded and will be made,Mrs.Sanger.

                • cartimandua

                  Show us where women who are carrying dying foetus or face death or disability are supposed to go. Go on tell us the truth.

                  Do you expect them to die? Embrace chronic life shortening poor health?

                  Show us the decent places women can go in the USA.

                  There are very very few which is why the maternal and infant outcomes in the USA are so very shamefully poor.

                  http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/campaigns/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right/maternal-health-in-the-us

                  Its a human rights failure.

                  “The USA spends more than any other country on health care, and more on maternal health than any other type of hospital care. Despite this, women in the USA have a higher risk of dying of pregnancy-related complications than those in 49 other countries, including Kuwait, Bulgaria, and South Korea.

                  African-American women are nearly four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than white women. These rates and disparities have not improved in more than 20 years.

                  Maternal deaths are only the tip of the iceberg. During 2004 and 2005, more than 68,000 women nearly died in childbirth in the USA. Each year, 1.7 million women suffer a complication that has an adverse effect on their health.

                • Tweety58

                  Please don;’t pull bogus figures out of the air with no credible references or cites-I provided TWO-one from Planned Parenthood itself.

                • cartimandua

                  Amnesty is pretty reputable but the death near death and disability figures come from the CDC.

                  http://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/second-trimester-abortion-ban/

                  “My friend Amy got pregnant and developed severe preeclampsia at 22-23 weeks. If she hadn’t ended the pregnancy, she too would have died. Amy’s kind of preeclampsia developed slower than mine. Her OB told her that whatever happened she shouldn’t go to a Catholic hospital because a Catholic hospital could let her die rather than save her if she hadn’t reached term yet.

                  Preeclampsia is a common reason to need to end a pregnancy but not the only one. I personally know stories of ectopic pregnancies. I knew someone who developed leukemia part way through a pregnancy. The doctor said you can wait to start chemo, but there’s a much higher risk that you will die from leukemia. I cannot conceive of the idea that some man in Washington DC should get to make that decision for her.

                  There is this myth that the maternal mortality rate is zero. That isn’t true at all. Even with the best medical care it is thousands of women each year and without that care it is hundreds of thousands. The Right Wing has done this masterful job of portraying pregnancy termination as irresponsible women not wanting to take responsibility for their actions. That is a gross misrepresentation. There are lots and lots of reasons that women end pregnancies. To be blunt I would guess that very few are ended without some real thought. But at the end of the day those are medical decisions.

                  They are medical decisions, deeply emotional and, as Burner’s story illustrates, deeply personal. And the list of possible complications that can maim or kill goes on and on: anemia, arrhythmia, brainstem infarction, broken tailbone or ribs, cardiopulmonary arrest, diastasis recti, eclampsia, embolism, exacerbation of epilepsy, immunosuppression, infection, gestational diabetes, gestational trophoblastic disease, hemorrhage, hypoxemia, increased intracranial pressure, mitral valve stenosis, obstetric fistula, placental abruption, postpartum depression, prolapsed uterus, severe scarring, increased spousal abuse, third or fourth degree laceration, thrombocytopenic purpura, peripartum cardiomyopathy . . .

                  Don’t have a clue what most of those words mean? Guaranteed the U.S. Congress doesn’t either. That is why a woman’s pregnancy needs to be managed by people who do.”
                  Irelands prenatal care is good compared to the USA. Ireland still sends 100s and 100s of women to the UK to save their lives and health.
                  Ireland is going to have to be more structured and open
                  about its real outcomes for women.
                  Ireland has just performed an abortion to save a woman’s life.
                  So the “pro life” pregnancy is always safe trope is cods isn’t it.

                • Tweety58

                  Don’t worry Dr. Mengele-no one will accuse YOU of sentimentality.

        • SimonToo

          I am unclear to what in my comment you are replying. I cannot see that you can be replying to my second paragraph, but my first is self-evident.

          • cartimandua

            There is no such thing as an “unborn child”. It is not a person . Human development is a process and what separates us from the animals is our capacity for consciousness. A foetus is not conscious as it is sedated by maternal hormones. Its neurology is not joined up until about 26 weeks gestation.
            There is no “life from conception”.

            • Tweety58

              Spoken like a true murderer justifying his crimes.At conception the person has it’s own unique DNA unlike any others in history. Just like we defeated the Jew Killers and the Slavers we will defeat your murderous cult of Child Sacrifice.You must be related to Ted Bundy.

              You people and your murderous proclivities such as the support of ripping children to shreds in the womb sicken me.

              Look deep into your own rotten soul.

              Abortion is not simply a procedure that, as Planned Parenthood puts it “gently empties your uterus” but is in fact MURDER.

              • cartimandua

                Firstly most abortion happens very early. 1 3rd in the USA is at less than 6 weeks and the embryo is the size of a pomegranate seed. Since it would be a medical termination

                there would be no “emptying”.

                Secondly there is no way at all to have an anti abortion ethos and not harm womens health on a population level and that is what happens in the USA.

                Its a human rights failure and a disgrace.

                http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/campaigns/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right/maternal-health-in-the-us

                “The USA spends more than any other country on health care, and more on maternal health than any other type of hospital care. Despite this, women in the USA have a higher risk of dying of pregnancy-related complications than those in 49 other countries, including Kuwait, Bulgaria, and South Korea.

                African-American women are nearly four times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than white women. These rates and disparities have not improved in more than 20 years.

                Maternal deaths are only the tip of the iceberg. During 2004 and 2005, more than 68,000 women nearly died in childbirth in the USA. Each year, 1.7 million women suffer a complication that has an adverse effect on their health.”

                Even Ireland says it doesn’t care about womens health. women at risk go to the UK to save their lives, eyes ,kidneys etc..
                So you don’t like women very much hey ho.
                Just keep your misogyny out of other peoples health care.
                Life from conception by the way is a modern Catholic heresy which goes against the churches longest held tradition, its greatest theologians, and the Bible.
                Life from conception demeans what it is to be human.

                • Tweety58

                  “Life from conception by the way is a modern Catholic heresy which goes against the churches longest held tradition, its greatest theologians, and the Bible.
                  Life from conception demeans what it is to be human.”

                  Absolute heresy and hogwash with no accompanying refences.My your good at making things up or as a child would say,LYING.

                  Job 31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

                  Psalms 22:10 I was cast on you from the womb: you are my God from my mother’s belly.

                  Psalms 139:13 For you have possessed my reins: you have covered me in my mother’s womb.

                  Psalms 139:14 I will praise you; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are your works; and that my soul knows right well.

                  Proverbs 31:8 Open your mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.

                  Isaiah 49:15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yes, they may forget, yet will I not forget you.

                  Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet to the nations.

                  Note that most care from the Old testament well before the Catholic Church was established in 33 A.D.

                  Scripture Passages on Pro-Life

                  Gen. 1:1-2,26-28 Creation of man Gen. 2:7-8,18,21-24 Creation of man and woman Gen. 4:8-16 The first killing of the innocent Ex. 20:1-17 The Decalogue Lev. 19:15-18 Love of your neighbor’s life Deut. 30:15-20 Choose Life! Jeremiah 7:27-31 The rebuke of child sacrifice Ezekiel 23:36-39 Child sacrifice Wisdom 1:12-15 God did not make death. Wisdom 7:1-6 I was formed in the womb. 2 Kings 24:1-4 The exile occurred because innocent blood was shed. Proverbs 6:16-19 The Lord hates six things. Jeremiah 1:4-8 I called you from the womb. Isaiah 49:1-6 The Lord called me from the womb. Isaiah 49:14-17 Can a mother forget her infant? Isaiah 1:10-17 Do justice! Amos 5:21-24 Let justice roll down like a river! Psalm 72 He will save the weak from violence! Psalm 82 Rescue the weak! Psalm 139 You knit me together in the womb! Proverbs 24:8-12 Rescue those taken to death! Matt. 18:1-6,10-14 Do not despise the little ones. Matt. 25:31-46 Whatsoever you do to the least… Mark 10:13-16 He blessed children. Luke 1:39-45 The babe leapt in the womb. Luke 6:20-26 Beatitudes and woes Luke 10:29-37 The Good Samaritan is neighbor to anyone in need. Luke 16:19-31 The Lazarus of the 20th Century: The Unborn Child John 1:1-5 All things, all life, comes through Christ. John 10:7-15 The Good Shepherd came to give us life. John 11:17-27 Christ is the Life. John 14:1-6 Christ is the Life. 1 Cor. 15:51-58 The victory belongs to life; you do not labor in vain. Eph. 6:10-20 Be strong in this battle! James 1:22-27 Religion requires us to help the helpless. 1 John 3:11-18 Love rather than kill. Rev. 4:8-11 You have created all things. Rev. 21:1-5 Death shall be no more!

                  Hoist on your own Petard my dear.lies are so easily outed.You should be ashamed of yourself.

                • cartimandua

                  Go argue it out with someone who cares.

                  http://brettongarcia.wordpress.com/

                  “the Bible itself never mentions abortion – except to command a priest to perform it (Num. 5.11-27). Then 2) Psalm 139 says that the embryo is not a fully formed human person, with a rational “soul” or mind; it is merely an “unformed substance,” whose “days” as a human person have not yet begun. 3) The Catholic Church to be sure, says abortion is bad; but how bad is it? The Church’s two main theologians and saints – St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas – following the Bible, agreed that the young embryo does not have a rational soul, and is not a human person. Then too, 4) two current Cardinals spoke against any dis “proportion”ate emphasis on just “one issue,” like abortion.”
                  You make you church absurd single issue and sexually obsessed.
                  Christianity always knew development was a process.
                  Humans have a “rational soul”.
                  Go care about something that matters and is actually about someone else’s well being rather than your emotional comfort and need to control.

                • Alex Creel

                  I admire your research but I wouldn’t waste my time producing a biblical justification for what is simply an appropriate, justified medical procedure. The men who wrote the bible wanted to live in a patriarchal dreamland where women were posessions, guilty of original sin and bound to slavery and abuse forever. Our bible scholar clearly thinks that is an attractive prospect – I’d suggest he moves to Afganistan and joins the Taliban, they share his strong views on abortion and wome’s rights.

                • cartimandua

                  The trouble is such extreme anti woman views have crept into British publications and even British politics.
                  This sneery little article is a case in point.
                  We have had leading politicians saying they want the limit lowered to 20 weeks. Never mind that structural anomalies cannot be properly assessed earlier, never mind that women will die “in the gap” because they would never be quite sick enough to help, never mind foetal medicine and surgery just stops.
                  They are not just harmless cranks these US pro lifers they are actually dangerous.
                  I was chatting to a friend the other day and we spoke about
                  how we cannot assume “where we are” is a steady state. It has to be guarded and defended.

                • Alex Creel

                  Absolutely. There’s something insidious and misogynistic in the abortion debate – I don’t know why it sparks such strong feelings in so many men (who effectively have no stake in it whatsoever) but with a male political class that puts us in a dangerous position. I’ve only recently taken notice of the state of abortion – prompted by backwards attitudes in the states and Ireland. For me, a respect for science and protection of our human rights (including the right to abortion) are the clearest signs that we live in a cilvilised society – any erosion of either pushes us back into dark times. It’s key though to push this debate back into the mainstream, talk freely about it, get organisations like Marie Stopes into the mainstream (fundraising events etc) and make it the norm for our country. There’s no nationwide backlash against abortion – the majority will believe we’ve struck the right balance between respect and protection so I’ll fight any moves by government to alter the status quo. Taking control of conception and our own eventual demise affirm that we are in control of our destiny, it’s no wonder that those who want power over us want to deny us those rights…

                • cartimandua

                  Ireland has just had its first “legal” abortion to save the life of a Mother too ill to wait until viability. They are going to have to be more open and honest about it all which takes the wind out of the sails of “it is never necessary” crew.
                  The sheer ignorance of politicians about women’s health matters is quite terrifying.
                  All we can do is “wise up” people we know so they too “keep guard”. My daughter is certainly “on it” although her school RE text was straight out of a fundy US State (I complained and she didn’t do it for GCSE).

              • Geoff Gray

                Well actually murder is probably a much more simple procedure, you can chose to do it several ways, shooting, a knife wound, a variety of implements for causing death in one blow, chemicals, electrical shock and probably several others I haven’t mentioned.
                An abortion is a careful medical procedure for the ending of an unwanted pregnancy. It takes a skill from the doctors and nurses, a significant amount of training in the medical field and good medical facilities.
                I’d say MURDER was much more dramatic and usually is a forced means of ending a current life. An abortion means that the women has to consent to it. Until an immature foetus is capable of life and breathing without out assistance it being given the title murder is actually not correct. Murder is the unlawful killing of an actual living and surviving human being, a foetus is not a surviving human being. An abortion is a lawful medical procedure, murder is not lawful.

        • Tweety58

          Twins play the the womb.Dullard.

          • cartimandua

            Not with intention. They are not “playing” they are competing for space and nutrients. Do you “play” while under a general?

            http://amormundi.blogspot.co.uk/2005/02/neurochemistry-suggests-that-babies.html

            “Consciousness first appears only after birth, associated with first exposure to air, gravity, hard surfaces, unlimited space and, usually, to cold ambient conditions,” he said…

            [Mellor] argue[s] that the embryo and foetus cannot suffer before or during birth, and that suffering can only occur in the newborn when the onset of breathing sufficiently oxygenates its tissues…

            When a baby [is] born, breathing oxygen cause[s] a critical chemical messenger, adenosine, to be cleared from the bloodstream in seconds, allowing it to start experiencing consciousness.

            This indicate[s] that stillborn babies that did not breath [also] did not suffer pain or distress – they simply went from being asleep in the womb to profound unconsciousness and death….

            Touch, sound and other stimuli affected the foetus, and could cause it to move in the womb.

            “But the evidence, accumulated over the last 25-35 years, is that this does not occur at the conscious level,” he said. Babies born with no cerebral cortex – the part of the brain essential for consciousness – could also respond with movements and hormone release and heart rate changes.”
            If these results are further substantiated, then they strike me as doubly significant to my own political commitments. First, they clearly provide yet more scientific support for the position that the “standing” of a fetus or embryo must always and absolutely be subordinated to that of the woman whose body undergoes the biological process of pregnancy in the first place. “

            • Tweety58

              You Are the ILSA KOCH of the Culture of Death. You have a rotten soul.Enjoy the Outer Darkness.

              • cartimandua

                Well when you need healthcare we should ask a priest whether you can have it. That is what you want for others.
                In Western civilization we have people called … doctors. They train for a long long time to know how to treat people.
                Mainstream doctors are clear that “no abortion” means dead and ill women on a grand scale.
                The USA has such poor outcomes now your lot haven’t got a leg to stand on . You already have hurt women’s health at a population level and you know what is really sick?
                The same people who are anti abortion are anti contraception and anti supporting the poor.
                That adds up to “Christian” doesn’t it. Not in my book.

                • Tweety58

                  You have no idea what “Christian” means -you have Relative Morality which means no morality at all Mrs MacBeth

                • cartimandua

                  I know that life from conception is a modern Catholic heresy.

                  http://brettongarcia.wordpress.com/

                • Tweety58

                  “Mainstream doctors are clear that “no abortion” means dead and ill women on a grand scale.’ Absolute bunkum.Cites and references please .

                  Here’s one for you,Dear.

                  Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, stated in a 1996 New York Times editorialthat “partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother.”1 Sixteen years earlier, he wrote: “In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother’s life.”

                  2 EVEN PLANNED PARENTHOOD
                  Dr. Alan Guttmacher acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”

                • cartimandua

                  Well that is odd because even in Ireland doctors have abortion on the books for intractable eclampsia supposedly for sepsis etc.
                  Even in Ireland women are supposed to be treated in life-threatening situations.
                  Of course 100s and 100s of women come to the UK often sent by their doctors.
                  Doctors responded to suggested laws in N Dakota by saying they couldn’t practice safely with abortion off the table.
                  The USA already has truly dreadful outcomes for women.
                  If you are carrying a dying foetus you would have to be hospitalized to secure your life when sepsis began.
                  That would be for many months. It didn’t work for Savita did it.
                  That problem alone would overwhelm the entire system.
                  What happens with cardiomyopathy is women die shortly after giving birth.
                  With eclampsia gee I guess you could keep a woman on
                  machines for a bit if she fits too much.
                  Guttmacher died in 1974 and Koop “pronounced” this in 1996.
                  Not only have things got even worse in the USA for women’s health reporting has got better.
                  650 women die every year in the USA of pregnancy.
                  So its just not true is it and 1.7 million have health consequences which harm them for the rest of life.

                • Tweety58

                  ‘night Mizz Mengele it’s 4 AM dear.Don’t let those murdered children haunt your dreams,Sweetpea.

      • Alex Creel

        Sorry, tried to post yesterday but couldn’t get Discus working. You make a fair point but I think I expressed myself badly! My point is that the shades of grey you paint above are effectively ‘excuses’ for abortion. That implies that abortion itself is bad as otherwise you wouldn’t need to ‘accept it in certain circumstances’. I agree with abortion in principle and therefore don’t need to know the circumstances – I’d defend the right of someone making serial terminations in the same way I’d defend the right of someone who was the victim of rape. So, I think the binary choice is – do I think it’s bad therefore I have to justify my support of it in by putting it in the context of circumstance OR do I think it’s just another medical procedure akin to having a mole removed, something which attracts no moral judgement whatsoever?

        • SimonToo

          Thank you for your clarification. None the less, views on a any given subject could be described as binary, consisting of the set of views of the proponent and the set of views not of the proponent.

          • Tweety58

            Enjoy hell.Tell God about your binary views.I’m certain He will be impressed as you’re surrounded by the souls of murdered children

        • Tweety58

          Enjoy Hell,Alex.Your belief or disbelief in it is totally irrelevant.

          • Alex Creel

            You’re a Christian? Then forgive me.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      “Unless you’re suggesting we create a loving household for every one of
      those terminated youngsters I for one am relieved that all those
      terminations take place”

      .

      I think you’ll find that there are couples desperate to adopt infants, in every country in the West.

      If you want to extinguish life, you won’t be able to use that as an excuse, lad.

      • Alex Creel

        Regardless of those couple’s desparation – someone has to carry the child to term – hardly without it’s inconveniences and dangers. Unless the mother to be is incredibly charitable I’m guessing abortion is the favoured option. We need to accept that the foetus is the property of the mother and if she wants to terminate, regardless of the circumstances, no-one else (even the father) should have any say in that.

        • the viceroy’s gin

          “We need to accept” no such thing, certainly not your dogma.

          It’s life, it’s not “property”. Extinguishing life isn’t to be left to any one dogma or person. That’s not how it works.

          Sorry, but you simply have a bizarre world view, and it doesn’t comport with how civilizations have evolved, throughout recorded history. Your view is a 20th Century sort of thing.

          • Alex Creel

            I’m interested to know what you think about abortion. Should the father have a right to decide whether the child is carried to term or not? Should a woman be legally compelled to carry a child to term. Should abortion be denied (essentially forcing a woman to carry the child). Should a democratic majority be able to compel government to enact legislation which denies the right to abortion or should the few be protected from the many in tis case? I just wonder how ‘modern’ your views are….

            • the viceroy’s gin

              Actually, judging by what you’re posted here, you’re not interested in what others think. You consider this a “binary” matter, and you’ve flipped that intellectual microcircuitry, apparently. So, no, you’re not interested.

              However, if you’ve suddenly moved off that strange position, a position antithetical to all of recorded human history, and would now like to join the rest of civilization and engage a full discussion, have at it. You haven’t shown it though, lad.

              Best you stick to your mole removals and such, from the looks of things.

              • Alex Creel

                I am genuinely interested. I may have a different viewpoint to many but that doesn’t exclude me from debate. I’m interested to know what your take on the rights of a pregnant woman are. Please feel free to convince me that my position is incorrect.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  No, you are not interested, and you’ve made that quite clear. Sorry, lad, but you’re asking that time be wasted on you, and it won’t be. You are one of those at the extremes, and you’ve resigned yourself to that. You should accept it and move on.

                • Alex Creel

                  And with that the 21st century man rode his steed into the sunset……

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …and the 20th Century man filled the slit trenches with “moles”.

                • Alex Creel

                  :-)

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …not much of that, after you anti-“mole” types get going, as we know.

                • the viceroy’s gin

                  …well, other than your own.

    • Tweety58

      Sick swine.

      • Alex Creel

        Get them to a vet.

    • Maritza Pfanku Stewart

      I am not a binary issue, nor are you. I did not have a wonderful life. I am very very thankful that I, wish i could bold and underline that but anyway, I get a choice.

  • cartimandua

    I should think abortion is “affirming” in the USA. Tennessee has just passed a law making it possible to prosecute women who have miscarriages and stillbirths.
    That is how bonkers a lot of the USA is. It has as a result the worst maternal and infant outcomes of any industrialized country.

    • gonefishing01

      To the best of my knowledge, which admittedly is limited of a place like Tennessee, the new law means a woman who miscarries or has a stillbirth can be charged with murder if she has used an illegal drug and it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the use of this drug caused or contributed to the miscarriage or stillbirth. It does not apply to alcohol misuse or any other form of behaviour.

      Your failure to expand upon “a law making it possible to prosecute women who have miscarriages and stillbirths” is unworthy of even the worst tabloids and invokes a suspicion that you deliberately wished to conjure in the minds of others that this law could be applied to a woman who is just unfortunate to have a miscarriage, through no fault of her own.

      If you still hold that such a law is “bonkers”, then that is your right. But you will find many persons, of which I consider myself one, that are neither clinically nor legally mentally ill, who do not sympathise with such a view.

      • cartimandua

        But it is bonkers. It is meant to persecute drug addicts and boozers. It means the 1 in 4 women who are in abusive relationships are at risk. Even pro lifers thought it a bad law.
        Women who “think” they “may have” taken a medication which “might” be harmful will have to terminate rather than take the risk.
        And since many kinds of birth defects are of unknown origin how on earth is a woman ever going to “prove” she is innocent?

        • Guest

          No, it is meant to prosecute those who fail to uphold their duty to the
          life that they carry within them by taking illegal drugs (i.e., an act
          that is itself unlawful).

          Again, to the best of my knowledge, a
          woman that takes a drug that is legal (e.g., freely available over the
          counter or that which is prescribed by a doctor) which may have
          contributed to the miscarriage or stillbirth has not committed an
          offence under the law. For example, an alcholic could not be charged on
          the grounds that her alcohol abuse caused a miscarriage. It would be
          interesting, however, to see how the law would apply to a woman who
          consumed excessive alcohol whilst under the legal drinking age.

          Regardless,
          this law is designed to prosecute one of the most negligent kinds of
          woman – that which has complete disregard for her unborn baby and
          contributes to its miscarriage or stillbirth through the consumption of
          substances that are prohibited under the law.

          Of course, this
          argument depends upon the views that a foetus is a legitimate form of
          human life in its own right and that human life should, on the whole, be
          protected. These are separate debates altogether, however.

          Your
          protestation that ‘many kinds of birth defects are of unknown origin how
          on earth is a woman ever going to “prove” she is innocent?’ is flawed.
          Unless the legal system in Tennessee is one completely detatched from
          its common law origins and the general principles and constitution of
          the United States, then the prosecution would have to prove * beyond
          reasonable doubt *, at the very minimum, that a) the defendant had
          consumed an illegal drug; and b) that this type of drug and the amount
          consumed caused or contributed to the miscarriage or stillbirth. It’s
          not as simple as dragging in a grieving woman and saying, “You had speed last Saturday night. What do you have to say
          for yourself?” It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the
          woman’s guilt, not for her to prove her innocence.

          • cartimandua

            Do you understand that the science about miscarriage stillbirths, and birth defects is not there? It isn’t known why these things occur.
            So a woman has a natural miscarriage and could be accused
            of causing it on nothing more than malice.
            What that law does is bring back slavery for women particularly black women. The State now owns their bodies and may persecute them at will or at the will of an abusive partner.

            • fundamentallyflawed

              Modern Political Science “the debate is settled” effectively meaning do as we say whether its right or not or face the consequences. Next – fat people taxed for being fat. Skinny people being taxed for not eating enough. Drinkers fined for drinking. Meat Eaters taxed for eating red meat. etc etc pick whatever you don’t like and fine them under “the debate is settled”.

              Its not your body.. its the states to work you to death (no pension) and tax you as much as possible in the meantime

              • cartimandua

                Well that does seem to be the “gist” of laws which criminalize being female.

                • sdb19

                  Nonsense. The state has a vested interest in protecting the lives of its citizens, which is why we have laws protecting against rape, theft of personal property, murder, assault, etc. Pro-lifers recognize the inherent humanity of the unborn child and we merely wish to see the same protections extended under law.

                • cartimandua

                  “Prolifers” are completely nuts. The zygote, embryo, and foetus are biological parasites. Until they do not need to use another body to live they cannot have “equal rights”.
                  Otherwise no one owns their own body and I could have your kidney without your consent if I needed it.
                  What you mean is “prolifers” want to remove personhood from women and make them “owned” by the State or men etc.

            • sdb19

              You’re forgetting that the state would have to prove its case-innocent until proven guilty. So your concerns are unfounded, and, I believe, a smokescreen to the real issue being debated here-the immorality of not only killing one’s offspring as Emily Letts did, but filming it and touting it as a “positive” experience. We mourn Emily and her lost child.

              • cartimandua

                What is immoral is to bring a child into the world when it cannot be adequately cared for and adoption is not a good answer. As I posted upthread if every unintended pregnancy was forced to continue to term all the adoption facilities would be overwhelmed year one. Those who “kept the baby”
                would overwhelm the Welfare system and all the other things found in the Turnaway study domestic violence ,poor health ,etc.
                I see you prefer hypocrisy. There are MORE abortions where it is not legal so you have no leg to stand on at all.
                There is no such thing as “no” abortion because women are fertile now for 40 years and all contraception fails.
                If you really want fewer unintended pregnancies get men to step up with condoms and with the snip.
                Aah but the Pope doesn’t like those things either hey.

          • cartimandua

            It isn’t possible to prove it. So an abusive man reports his ex or current partner and the state would persecute her when the science does not exist.

            There is NO WAY to prove a drug causes miscarriage.
            Miscarriage is a frequent natural event. There may have been drug use and it has nothing to do with the miscarriage.

            It opens the door for prosecutions for everything and criminalizes being female.

            http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/buckhalter-mississippi-stillbirth-manslaughter

            “Laws that criminalize hurting or killing fetuses are pitched as ways to protect pregnant women from abuse but are often used to prosecute those same women, NAPW says. The group has documented more than 400 cases across the country in which these laws have been used to detain or jail pregnant women. Earlier this year, Mississippi’s neighbor to the east, Alabama, set its own precedent for prosecuting pregnant women for drug use. In January, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld convictions against two women—Amanda Kimbrough and Hope Ankrom—for “chemical endangerment” of a child, under a 2006 law that was written to punish people who expose children—not fetuses—to illegal drugs”
            What will happen is women will have to terminate when they have any risk factors at all including one imagines obesity,
            high BP ,etc.

        • gonefishing01

          No, it is meant to prosecute those who fail to uphold their duty to the life that they carry within them by taking illegal drugs (i.e., an act that is itself unlawful).

          Again, to the best of my knowledge, a woman that takes a drug that is legal (e.g., freely available over the counter or that which is prescribed by a doctor) which may have contributed to the miscarriage or stillbirth has not committed an offence under the law. For example, an alcholic could not be charged on the grounds that her alcohol abuse caused a miscarriage. It would be interesting, however, to see how the law would apply to a woman who consumed excessive alcohol whilst under the legal drinking age.

          Regardless, this law is designed to prosecute one of the most negligent kinds of woman – that which has complete disregard for her unborn baby and contributes to its miscarriage or stillbirth through the consumption of substances that are prohibited under the law.

          Of course, this argument depends upon the views that a foetus is a legitimate form of human life in its own right and that human life should, on the whole, be protected. These are separate debates altogether, however.

          Your protestation that ‘many kinds of birth defects are of unknown origin how on earth is a woman ever going to “prove” she is innocent?’ is flawed. Unless the legal system in Tennessee is one completely detatched from its common law origins and the general principles and constitution of the United States then the prosecution would have to prove * beyond reasonable doubt *, at the very minimum, that a) the defendant had consumed an illegal drug; and b) that this type of drug and the amount consumed caused or contributed to the miscarriage or stillbirth. It’s not as simple as dragging in a grieving woman and saying, “You had marijuana last Saturday night. What do you have to say for yourself?” It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the woman’s guilt, not for her to prove her innocence.

          • cartimandua

            There has already been a case in the USA where a woman was jailed for having had a drink while pregnant. She died overnight of an ectopic although not having had enough to drink to be DUI.
            Such laws bring back slavery for women and particularly black women. One really would have thought the USA would have learned about slavery by now.
            Do you understand that the science around miscarriage and stillbirth is not there? Do you? There is no way at all any woman could prove “she didn’t” behave negligently in some way.
            Another case was about a woman falling while pregnant and being referred to the police.
            Making “Personhood ” laws criminalizes being female.
            Naturally miscarriages occur very often indeed.

            • gonefishing01

              “There has already been a case in the USA where a woman was jailed for
              having had a drink while pregnant. She died overnight of an ectopic
              although not having had enough to drink to be DUI.”

              This is rather interesting, but I fail to see the relevance to the debate we were having upon the issue of the new law regarding miscarriages and stillbirths in Tennessee. I must confess that I am completely ignorant of the case to which you refer, but I do wonder if it is as clear-cut as your statemet suggests. Did it even happen in Tenessee? Regardless, I still do not see its relevance to the discussion we were engaged in: those may be different laws applied in different circumstances which I may not be defending. I am defending the law really passed by the Tennessee state legislature.

              “Such laws bring back slavery for women and particularly black women.”

              What? Pray tell, how? Do you mean to suggest that women that engage in activities of their own will should not bear the consequences of (in this case, already illegal) actions? This is utter nonsense. A woman who does not get pregnant has nothing to fear. A pregnant woman who does not take illegal drugs has nothing to fear from this law. A formerly pregnant woman who took illegal drugs during her pregnancy that cannot be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to have caused or contributed to the miscarriage or stillbirth will not be punished under this law (though she may be successfully prosecuted under the laws concerning the drugs that she took). Perhaps you also believe that a man who impregnates a woman should not have to help with the upkeep of that child? People should bear the consequences of their actions. As it is, all this law does is to make a woman bear the consequences of actions that are already illegal. This is not slavery by any definition that I understand.

              ‘Do you understand that the science around miscarriage and stillbirth is not there? Do you? There is no way at all any woman could prove “she didn’t” behave negligently in some way.’

              A woman doesn’t need to prove her innocence. The prosecution needs to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

              I am aware that medical science is not knowledgable of all the causes of increased risk of miscarriage. Why should that prevent the submission of evidence on those causes related to illegal substances that they do have concrete, tested scientific evidence of? If the defence believe the science to be flawed, let them argue that with their own expert witnesses.

              “Another case was about a woman falling while pregnant and being referred to the police.”

              Your point being?

              ‘Making “Personhood ” laws criminalizes being female.’

              How so?

              “Naturally miscarriages occur very often indeed.”

              They do indeed, and many of them will not fall foul of this law.

            • LarryInIowa

              Just curious, what country do you think introduced slavery to the North American continent? You may have forgotten that the thirteen colonies were colonies of GREAT BRITAIN! You Brits were the ones who introduced slavery to the American South, profited handsomely from that slavery, and did nothing to end it until well after we tossed you out. You can knock off this crap about the US having some special guilt for what YOU introduced.

              • cartimandua

                Actually the first slaves were owned by the Dutch in early New Amsterdam. But of course slavery has existed in ever early civilization and exists to this actual very day anywhere there is child marriage. That would be Arab and Muslim countries and Africa.
                Notice those missing Nigerian girls?

                • sdb19

                  Actually, the Spanish (1400’s) preceded the Dutch (1500’s) in North America. The Spanish were enslaving the Caribbean and South American tribes before the Dutch were in New Amsterdam. Indian tribes enslaved each other before the Euros arrived. Black tribes have been enslaving each other for millennia, even selling them out to white slave traders. Blacks even owned other blacks in America. Muslims enslave to this day. No people group is innocent and there is plenty of outrage to go around. But the worse social injustice, especially in our age of technological understanding of fetal development, is the social injustice being perpetuated against the most vulnerable and innocent among us-the unborn.

                • cartimandua

                  Our understanding of foetal development should mean we don’t get sentimental about the embryo .the pro life crew operate entirely on sentiment and blackmail.
                  We understand that nature didn’t mean us to get sentimental.
                  Nature offs 80% of zygotes, another 3rd of embryos, and thousands by stillbirths just in the UK each year.
                  There are of course far more stillbirths and neonatal deaths in anti abortion countries and States. Without TOPFA that is what happens. That is natures way and it is cruel because before birth the foetus would not have experienced its death.
                  God by the way or Evolution gave people brains. The alternative to managing population ourselves using those brains is war, pestilence, and famine.
                  You must find that sooo much better.

              • Hexhamgeezer

                Wrong. Slavery existed amongst what we call the ‘indians’ (not sure if they were autochthonous)

              • sdb19

                Actually, some Indian tribes in North, Central and South America practiced slavery (cannibalism too), the Spaniards made slaves of the indigenous tribes before “the Brits” arrived in North America, and dozens of black tribes sold their fellow black enemies into slavery long before the whites or “the Brits” showed up on the scene, but I digress. Everyone has guilt in something. The point is to not continue in injustice-and murdering a defenceless baby in its own mother’s womb has to rank up there with one of the greatest social injustices.

    • sdb19

      Actually, no it doesn’t. http://news.yahoo.com/tennessee-bill-dont-criminalize-miscarriage-212700337.html It turns out that Section 2 of HB 3517 specifically excludes any
      action or omission by a pregnant woman or, to paraphrase, by a medical
      profession licensed to perform abortions. That means that this
      legislation does not criminalize miscarriage.

      What it really does is extend a law already in place that adds a second
      count to an offense of assault or murder against a pregnant woman. Now,
      regardless of the stage of pregnancy, if a woman is carrying an embryo
      when she is assaulted and then loses the pregnancy, the person who
      assaulted her can be charged with a homicide. If the woman is killed,
      the person can be charged with two homicides.

      While this law isn’t so great, it’s a far cry from criminalizing miscarriage. With up to half
      of fertilized eggs naturally ending in miscarriage, pointing to an
      assault as the cause seems difficult to do with any certainty, let alone
      beyond a reasonable doubt. To read the Bill for yourself:http://calladus.blogspot.ca/2012/04/what-does-tennessee-house-bill-3517.html

      • LarryInIowa

        Since when do the proaborts care about the truth?

      • cartimandua

        It criminalizes miscarriage . There have been 100s and 100s of cases already where a law meant to make it criminal to cook up drugs in the house near kids has been used on women who miscarried.

        https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/misc-j06.html

        “In 2006 in Mississippi, Rennie Gibbs, who became pregnant at the age of 15, lost her baby in a stillbirth at 36 weeks into the pregnancy. Prosecutors charged her with the “depraved-heart murder” of her child after they discovered she had abused cocaine, although there was no evidence that the baby’s death was connected to the mother’s substance abuse. The murder charge carries a mandatory life sentence.

        Some 70 organizations across the US have filed amicus briefs in support of Ms. Gibbs in this ongoing case. In particular, they take aim at the claims by anti-abortion forces that such prosecutions protect mothers and their unborn children. One of the briefs says that to treat “as a murderer a girl who has experienced a stillbirth serves only to increase her suffering.”

        Another woman, Bei Bei Shuai, has been imprisoned for the last three months without bail in Indianapolis, Indiana, charged with murdering her baby. According to police records, the 34-year-old woman attempted suicide last December 23 by ingesting rat poison after her boyfriend abandoned her when she was 33 weeks pregnant.

        Shuai was rushed to the hospital and survived, giving birth to her baby the next week. The baby died four days later, and in March Shuai was charged with murder and attempted feticide.

        Alabama has prosecuted at least 40 cases brought under the state’s “chemical endangerment” law, which was introduced in 2006. The law, purportedly designed to protect children from fumes inhaled from methamphetamine being cooked by their parents, is now being used to criminalize pregnant women who miscarry.

        Alabama mother Amanda Kimbrough delivered her baby prematurely in April 2008, and the baby died 19 minutes after birth. Kimbrough learned during her pregnancy that her child possibly suffered from Down’s syndrome, but she chose to carry the child to term.

        Six months after the birth, she was arrested and charged with “chemical endangerment” of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs while pregnant. She denies the claim.

        “That shocked me, it really did,” Kimbrough told the Guardian. “I had lost a child, that was enough.” She is now awaiting an appeal ruling in the Alabama courts. If she loses her appeal, she will begin a 10-year prison sentence. “It’s just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids,” she said. “They say I’m a criminal, how do I answer that? I’m a good mother.”
        You see there is no way to “prove” you didn’t take drugs at some point and the fact that there is no provable direct link between that and miscarriage doesn’t seem to matter.
        After all if there was a direct link women would not have had to
        resort to any other methods of abortion.

        • sdb19

          Abortion proponents always like to point to hard cases (those that are
          extreme or rare) and over-generalize to further their agenda. I’m not
          seeing cases of miscarriage specifically being criminalized. Also, being
          charged and being convicted are vastly different. As my original quote
          stated: “While this law isn’t so great, it’s a far cry from
          criminalizing miscarriage.”

          • Benjamin O’Donnell

            Are you, or are you not in favour of *forcing* a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will?

            • Hexhamgeezer

              Are you, or are you not in favour of *forcing* a woman to behave in a civilised manner?

              • Benjamin O’Donnell

                No. Only a tyrant would try to enforce “civilized behaviour” byrnslaving women. You may disapprove of her decision to abort. You may criticise, insult and even vilify her for it. But neither you nor the State may force her to endure an unwanted pregnancy against her will. She’s a human being, not a slave or an incubator. And if she decides she no longer wishes to be pregnant, forcing her to endure it is a disgusting form of sexual slavery.

                • sdb19

                  If the unborn is human, and it is, and if it is alive, and it is, then it makes one no more a tyrant to “force” parents to look after their unborn child than to “force” them to look after their born child.

            • sdb19

              I take it you are for the “disposal” of unwanted children? I am absolutely in favor of supporting a woman throughout all stages of her pregnancy.

          • cartimandua

            Then you haven’t been looking. 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 pregnancies
            end in a miscarriage.
            So any woman who has had a drink, driven a car, eaten cheese ,kept a cat ,lifted a box, had a fall, had a warm bath could be accused.
            And there have been women “accused”.
            And how dare you say “charging” is acceptable?
            There is no way to prove innocence if a woman has a miscarriage because the science does not exist.
            Nature provides a lot of miscarriages when something is wrong. It is not about women “doing something wrong”.

            • sdb19

              The onus is on the law to prove guilt and intent is part of the required proof.

              • cartimandua

                Soo having a bad thought is intent? A woman was reported to the police in the USA for having a fall. She was feeling very sick and they thought she might have done it on purpose or perhaps her abusive partner told them she had fallen on purpose.

    • nico77

      The USA hasn’t Fully Decided To Release God Of His Duties Yet. Apparently, There Are Some Pockets Still Existing That Hold On To The Notion That Human Brings Are Made In God’s Image, Intrinsically Values, And Worth Protecting.

      • cartimandua

        But the reason supposedly espoused in western civilization? There are more abortions where abortion is not legal. Mexico for instance has more than the USA with about a 3rd of the US population.

        Hypocrisy and not counting is not the same thing as not happening.

        https://guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/02/02/index.html

        “These findings confirm research from other parts of the world – that making abortion illegal does not significantly decrease its frequency, it just makes it unsafe and puts women’s lives at risk,” said Fatima Juarez, the study’s lead author. A professor at El Colegio de Mexico and a senior fellow at the Guttmacher Institute, Dr. Juarez added, “The contrast between U.S. and Mexican abortion rates reflects a larger disparity in awareness of contraceptive methods and access to family planning services. The best way to make abortion less necessary is to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place by increasing access to a wide range of contraceptive methods.”
        And by ascribing “Personhood” to women. Take it away and soo many more will have coerced unintended pregnancies.

  • FrenchNewsonlin

    Letts and any fellow travellers of similar whim are clearly insane, no need even to pose it as a question! Epitome of the value-free, rights-driven culture.

    • cartimandua

      Compared to prosecuting women who have miscarriages when no science could prove innocence? Compared to insisting even child victims of rape or incest be “probed” before an abortion?
      Compared to “no abortion even to save a woman’s life”? There are US States that nuts.

      • Tweety58

        Typical Leftist-take the extreme and lie about it being the norm.Pig.

        • cartimandua

          Not “extreme” the USA has 59 countries in the world better at womens health in spite of the top spend.

          The number of States with truly nasty laws or suggested laws is considerable.

          Do you think child incest or rape victims should be assaulted again with a probe?

          http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0118/North-Carolina-forced-ultrasound-law-struck-down-on-First-Amendment-grounds

          “The rancorous fetal ultrasound debate has had political reverberations as well in states like Virginia, after women’s groups – and subsequently many voters – objected to a proposed law that could force doctors to give women an intravaginal ultrasound ahead of an abortion. Gov. Bob McDonnell ultimately signed an ultrasound bill that did not mandate that invasive procedure.

          While so-called “personhood” amendments that would give Constitutional protections to fetuses have failed

          • Tweety58

            More Feminazi rationalization on murdering children for convenience.You have a rotten soul.

            • cartimandua

              Well at least I have a brain. Ireland (the great hope of anti abortion misogynists) has just performed an abortion to save a woman’s life. They still send 100s to the UK when there is time to save lives and health.
              So its not true is it that “pregnancy is always safe” . Its actually 14 times as dangerous as an abortion. So the RCOG want women who have an unintended pregnancy to be given the full facts about relative risks.
              Don’t have apoplexy now.

          • Maritza Pfanku Stewart

            I am regularly objected to a intravaginal probe to check for health concerns. Mainly cancer and STDs. Really? Why cant we save a life instead of losing it?

            • cartimandua

              Because the anti abortion stance doesn’t “save a life” it leads to more abortions and if you are subjected to vaginal probes for STDS I would change your doctor.
              The only cancer checked by a probe is ovarian.
              The people most likely to “miss” very early medical terminations are rape and incest victims too traumatized to face up to what has happened to them.

    • Inverted Meniscus

      She has all the makings of a Labour party candidate.

  • cartimandua

    And the “repeat abortion” trope? That is very old matey. Either some women decide not to compromise their health all their adult lives with contraceptive side effects or there are people living in the community now who in the olden days lived in institutions. It may also mean there are more abused women here.
    Unintended pregnancy is associated with domestic abuse.
    We don’t want to forcibly sterilize people although have to say since only 16% of men ever get the snip there is a lot of room for manoeuvre on that one.

    • jennyct

      condoms have no side effects. If someone has 5 kids in foster care or 5 abortions, why is it wrong to sterilize them?

      • cartimandua

        I think it probably does happen that long acting methods are “suggested” but no one can be compelled. As I said we now have people living in the community who used to either die or live in institutions.

        • jennyct

          I know. I have an undergrad in psychology. But I don’t think forced sterilization is any more barbaric than neglecting your kids. Personality traits are pretty much static, so most people will not change. I feel sorry for those unwanted kids, aborted or born, more than I do the parent (if the parent has a psychological condition, that’s not conducive to raising a family anyhow – look at all the pathologies a kid can get from a severely dysfunctional family).

          • cartimandua

            I think the Dutch do it for 2 years at a time (or no benefits). I think that might be possible but people will come screaming in about it.
            I personally don’t think anyone should have more than one child “free” with everything paid for.
            1 per adult with more help and then pay for them would stop all kinds of problems.
            No baby Fathers on benefits with 8 kids by 8 different women.

  • cartimandua

    Men cant “have a view” because they cannot get pregnant. Hunts name is mis spelled. He is a misogynist and like other pro lifers thick with it.
    The best way of having the fewest number of abortions is to leave women to it.

    • fundamentallyflawed

      I am sure that the same “men can’t have a view” brigade will be happy enough when absent Fathers do not pay for their childs upkeep because “they can’t get pregnant”.

    • Fergus Pickering

      What a curious thing to say. Can nobody have a view about anything they do not have direct experience of? Why should a man not take the view that abortion is murder. This is a moral question. I take the view that eating people is wrong though I have never eaten one, not even a baby.

    • Inverted Meniscus

      Perhaps you might be kind enough to let us have a comprehensive list of what we can and cannot hold an opinion. Perhaps you could also provide details of when and how this divine authority was granted to you. Or are you just another thick leftist who cannot tolerate an alternative point of view? Forgive the tautology, I appreciate that being thick and being leftist are one and the same thing.

      • cartimandua

        When you have a uterus?

        • Inverted Meniscus

          Keep it up and you could be challenging Telemachus as Britain’s entry in the Eurovision idiot contest. You are certainly stupid enough.

          • cartimandua

            Well I have facts and science and you have?

            • Inverted Meniscus

              Well I am certainly not an idiot like yourself who believes that an opinion is dictated by the possession of certain body parts. The point is that anybody can have an opinion on anything they like and it is up to you to prove that opinion incorrect. You, particularly a monumental idiot like you, do not get to determine who can and who cannot express an opinion. Enjoy your idiocy. Goodbye.

              • cartimandua

                As I said I have facts and science and you have.. nothing.
                Women’s access to medical care and women’s right to be treated as fully human cannot be diminished because of pro life “opinions”.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  Irrelevant sanctimonious nonsense. Right, wrong or indifferent we are all entitled to an opinion.

                • cartimandua

                  It should have facts evidence and a reason behind it other than “you don’t like women very much”.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  I’m not sure where that quote comes from but it certainly wasn’t me. You are quite possibly the thickest person ever to appear on this site and with Telemachus around that is saying something.

                • cartimandua

                  Your attitude is not based on evidence, science, or reason so it must be based on mindless misogyny.

                • Inverted Meniscus

                  I have equal respect for women and men and their opinions on whatever subject they care to raise but no respect for idiots like you.

                • cartimandua

                  Obviously you have no respect for reason or evidence or of course women.
                  Perhaps you are that odd little misogynist from Wales someone mentioned the other day.

                • sdb19

                  The scientific fact which every biology textbook will admit is that human life begins at conception. Abortion is not “health care” since it ends the life of an unborn human being. A woman’s “rights” end at the beginning of the baby’s rights. Society needs to affirm and support the pregnant woman-not encourage her to end her child’s life.

                • cartimandua

                  It is not a “scientific fact” because life from conception is a modern Catholic heresy.
                  They have been telling you porkies to get more Catholics.
                  Human development is a process.
                  The greatest theologians though the “human soul” began as a vegetative soul and worked its way up though animal and the human soul was there around viability.
                  That makes sense. What makes us human is higher brain functions and consciousness.
                  Nowadays it is known that is post 26 weeks and born.

            • Hexhamgeezer

              You have fat & sinus?

        • sdb19

          So men shouldn’t be against rape because they don’t have a uterus? Rape, abortion, slavery, etc are not merely women’s issues they are human rights issues.

          • cartimandua

            Men get raped. Abortion is not a human rights issue unless it is denied. Without it women are enslaved and they die in industrial numbers.
            I really don’t think you can be “for” forced pregnancy and talk about “human rights” at all.

    • jennyct

      Yeah, my nephew killed himself a few months after his girlfriend aborted their baby. He was a kind and considerate human, not a misogynist.

      • cartimandua

        Presumably the relationship had failed.

        • jennyct

          It failed because her parents thought she was too young (age 20), and basically threatened to disown her if she didn’t get an abortion. Don’t think it doesn’t happen, because it did. They had been together for about 5 years, and I don’t blame him for feeling upset. He wanted the child, and she agreed … until the parents stepped in.

          • cartimandua

            Young people at that age are mentally fragile and quite often tragically mentally unstable. In the end it was his state of mind and his decision and a tragedy for all.
            You really cannot blame “her parents” for that tragedy.
            One might wonder why no one was able to deal with his mental health.
            Was it not seen? Was there no access to mental health services? In this country that age group can fall into a gap between child and adult services.

            • jennyct

              Nope, he was totally normal and quite bright. Why is it that it’s not bad to be pressured by your parents to get an abortion? Isn’t that the opposite of pro-choice?

              • cartimandua

                Obviously he was hiding what was going on for him or he would not have killed himself. By definition at some point he was not of sound mind at all.
                That was no one else’s fault. What a dreadful pity he hid his
                inner turmoil.
                The problem with young men is they seem to choose methods of self harm which leave no time for rescue.
                In the USA a gun in the home is most likely to be used
                on the owner or a family member and by themselves.
                Presumably her parents knew her better than you do or felt they themselves were not able to “pick up the tab” if she kept the baby. Perhaps in health or financial terms they could not pick that up.
                Why should she not be encouraged to preserve her future?
                Early parenting shoves the future down the plug.
                It doesn’t sound as though this was an independent self supporting young couple who had completed all the education they needed.

        • Hexhamgeezer

          Presumably you have failed?

          • cartimandua

            It is far more likely that the poor chaps despair was about the failed relationship with the woman and not the embryo.

  • Keith D

    “I still have my sonogram, and if my apartment were to catch fire, it would be the first thing I’d grab.”

    Is it wrong for me to hope it does catch fire? As long as dear Emily is in it alone.

    • Erictheowl

      Yes.

      • Keith D

        You’re right. Suitably chastised.

  • Kaine

    Makes one feel rather sad actually.

  • Pootles

    Good God! What a swine.

  • Hexhamgeezer

    Emily Letts is an excellent example of how easy it is to find folk willing to staff gas chambers.

    Truly twisted.

    • telemachus

      What a dreadful comment
      This woman yes is a bit wired but her motives impeccable

      • Hexhamgeezer

        From someone who is an avowed fan of the Gulag, I take that as a compliment.

      • Reconstruct

        Have you read her Cosmo piece? To be honest, she comes across as completely off her head – the very last person one would want to be advising people on anything. I think Hexhamgeezer is right – the enthusiasm and sheer brio which she brings to what we’d all like to believe is a difficult area is kind of scary. What else would she and people like her be willing to do?

        I urge people to read the Cosmo article.

        • telemachus

          You need to read and heed the penultimate paragraph
          Beginning “our society breeds this guilt”
          Do not judge so harshly
          She is weird but her motives impeccable

          • ed77

            Her motives are obviously not impeccable. (Are anyone’s?) What an odd thing to say.

          • Delno_Rutherford

            Her motives impeccable?

            What are the motives of a teen who puts selfies of her butt on instagram?

            Attention, she is seeking attention.

          • Hexhamgeezer

            You are a sick man.

          • jennyct

            Understandable… maybe. Impeccable? No.

            • Tweety58

              Murder is understandable ?did you break your moral compass ?

              • jennyct

                I meant her fear of pregnancy. Personally, I am pro-life. Read my other posts.

          • Tweety58

            You’ll pay just like the Jew killing Nazis paid and the slavers-both atrocities totally legal as is baby murder.

            Future enlightened generations will revile your memory and consign you to the Hall of Human Monstrosities.

            I hope you’re cremated otherwise people will line up to piss on your grave.

            This isn’t about your ‘rights’ this is about murder which you are accessory to.I think your Eternity will prove to be most unpleasant but you won’t be missed.

          • Tweety58

            NO.Morality of which you have a dearth “breeds this guilt”

        • MSM

          What disturbed me the most about her Cosmo article was what she wrote in the comments section about why she didn’t want to adopt it out.

          If you sum up her words she basically preferred the baby to be dead than raised without her. That’s pretty selfish.

          And she gives no real answers on what people who do feel guilty having an abortion should do. Her answer is, “I don’t feel guilty so you shouldn’t either.”

          What?!

          That’s a terrible answer. Reconstruct is right. This women is the last person who should give advise to anyone on abortion.

          I can see it now. A girl sobbing her heart out, pleads that she can’t stop feeling guilt and is not sure she can go through with the abortion.

          And Emily with one of her plastic smiles pasted on tells the girl, “Stop feeling guilty. I had an abortion and I didn’t feel guilty. Can’t you be like me? Can’t you feel nothing?” Emily’s smile broadens into a macabre grin, “See no guilt here. I felt free afterwards. It was good for me. This is what’s best for you. You’re not ready to be a mother. Now just be like me. Shut down your mind, your heart. Stop feeling anything at all…”

          Stuff of horror movies.

      • Inverted Meniscus

        Idiot.

      • Tweety58

        You are complicit in the murder of her child,have the blood of billions of babies slaughtered in the most dangerous place on earth-the womb.

        Their voices cry out for justice murderess and He will deliver it to you and your Satanic ilk.Your belief or disbelief in God is totally irrelevant.

      • Senator SmellyPants

        You should have been aborted.

    • EF

      Thank you for that comment I completely agree with you.

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here