.This blog is for my various interests, such as bicycling, karaoke, clean living, internet memes, video games, roleplaying games, progressive politics, humor, and futurism.
- Dr. George Tiller’s killing was not justifiable homicide, it was murder.
- Blowing up abortion clinics is terrorism.
- Defacing and covering abortion clinics in graffiti is vandalism.
- Chanting “You’re next!” at doctors and clinic administrators is threatening…
A pro-choice Democratic legislator has taken a novel approach to fighting an Oklahoma “personhood” bill. - adds ‘Every sperm is sacred’ clause
State Senator Constance Johnson of Oklahoma City has introduced a measure that calls to mind the famous Monty Python “Every Sperm is Sacred” sketch from the 1983 film “The Meaning of Life.”
The concept of “personhood” defines human life as beginning at the moment of conception and, in the case of Oklahoma’s pending Senate Bill 1433, says that the resulting fetus “at every stage of development (has) all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.” If Senate Bill 1433 were to become law, all forms of abortion and some forms of contraception would be considered murder and therefore illegal.
Sen. Johnson, who represents Oklahoma’s 48th District has introduced an amendment to the bill mandating that the same rights and benefits be granted to spermatozoa, writing, “However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.”
A second legislator, Democrat Jim Wilson attempted to introduce an amendment stating that all men would be responsible for the full support and well-being of any woman carrying their child for the duration of the pregnancy, including housing, food, transportation, and all medical costs. The amendment failed.
Now, that second amendment failing is very illuminating and points out that this isn’t about the life of the child or taking responsibly for the consequences of sex. It’s all about limiting the sexual freedom of anyone who isn’t a male.
It’s more high level slut shaming.
(via stfuconservatives)
Take a look at who relies on contraception: 58 percent of women use it for purposes OTHER than family planning.
The last two times I took oral contraception, it was to calm down my cramps and what not. A couple of days a week, every month, I can barely function. I had negative side effects and opted not to continue.
To be on certain kinds of acne medication, you need an oral contraceptive to regulate your hormones.
Some women have periods all over the fucking calendar and oral contraceptives help them regulate it.
I think these “houses of worship”, run mostly by men, should grow the fuck up.
Sincerely,
Management
(via stfuconservatives)
A physician at an abortion clinic (via fuckititsfriday)
This is from The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion. If you haven’t read it already, READ IT RIGHT NOW.
-Jess
(via stfuconservatives)
(via stfuconservatives)
Hey, look. This is stupid.
““The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.””
—
Cardinal-Designate Timothy Dolan
Don’t they make these people go to school? I figured a Cardinal-Designate would have gone to college, taken some critical thinking courses, or logic classes. Or sixth grade public school, which is where I know for a fact that modern Texans learn about analogies.
Analogies are fun! Here’s how they work:
Amish don’t want health insurance. - The Catholics don’t want abortions. = The Amish don’t have to get health insurance. - The Catholics don’t have to get abortions.
Christian Scientists don’t want health care. - The Catholics don’t want abortions. = Christian Scientists are allowed to pray for healing instead of getting science’s medicine. - Catholics are not forced or required to get abortions.
Quakers don’t believe in killing for any reason, even in wartime. - Catholics don’t believe in killing fetuses. = Quakers are allowed to be conscientious objectors. - Catholics are not mandated to terminate their pregnancies.
Those are all GOOD analogies, as opposed to the BAD analogy up above. Let’s try another set, this time from Bizarro World! In Bizarro World, “respecting someone’s beliefs” actually means “unconditionally capitulate to the whims of politically-motivated religious extremists!” This is the Bizarro World that the Cardinal-Designate appears to want. Here we go!
Amish don’t want health insurance. - Catholics don’t want abortions. = The federal government disbands the insurance companies. - The federal government overturns Roe v. Wade.
Christian Scientists don’t want health care. - The Catholics don’t want abortions. = Every hospital gets shut down, every clinic gets bulldozed, doctors are outlawed. - Every abortion clinic is closed for business.
Quakers don’t believe in killing for any reason, even in wartime. - Catholics don’t believe in killing fetuses. = We overturn the Second Amendment, confiscate the weapons, disband the military, and disarm the police. - We let a politically-motivated band of religious extremists dictate what medical procedures a woman can have.
Man, Bizarro World sure is fun! It sounds like the Cardinal-Designate up above wants to live there! He must think that it would be swell if his religious beliefs were more important than everybody else’s religious beliefs. He seems to believe that it is possible to respect one set of religious beliefs by ignoring everyone else’s beliefs. Man, Bizarro World is wacky!
But, let’s try our hands at another set of analogies, this time from the Counter-Bizarro World, where the federal government actually tramples on beliefs the way that the Cardinal-Designate whines about! This is what would happen if the authorities actually did not respect your religious beliefs, as the Cardinal-Designate claims!
The Amish don’t want health insurance. - Catholics don’t want abortions. = Fuck the Amish, they’ll get health insurance when and where the law says. - Mothers-to-be would be compelled to get abortions in cases where it endangers the live of the mother, even if she’s Catholic.
Christian Scientists don’t want health care. - Catholics don’t want abortions. = People would be treated for injuries and illness, even if they’d rather pray to their invisible sky friend. - And, fetuses would be aborted if they were the product of incest, or if they were found to have abnormalities that would prevent them having a healthy, happy life, even if the parents cry about it.
Quakers don’t believe in killing, even during times of war. - Catholics don’t believe in killing fetuses. = Quakers can be drafted like everyone else. - Catholics would not be allowed to birth children if they have already demonstrated themselves to be unfit parents.
Now, Counter-Bizarro World is a pretty dark place, and I wouldn’t want to live there. But, I don’t want to live in Bizarro World, either. Here’s the thing, anti-choice asshole Cardina-Designate: Your beliefs get the same weight and respect as everyone else’s: No less, and usually not more. Your beliefs and feelings are not being attacked by the fact that the government will not overturn legal rulings and condemn millions of women to lifelong suffering.
Here’s a rule of thumb: Nobody who has taken a vow of chastity has a right to say shit about abortion.
Quality control was not great, and the earliest abortion legislation, in the 1820s and ’30s, appears to have been an effort to curtail poisoning rather than abortion itself.
=======
Added by SarahLee:
“One doctor’s “awakening” is vividly described in The Worst of Times, a collection of interviews with women, cops, coroners, and practitioners from the illegal abortion era. In 1948, when this doctor was an intern in a Pittsburgh hospital, a woman was admitted with severe pelvic sepsis after a bad abortion. She was beautiful, married to someone important and wealthy, and already in renal failure. Over the next couple of days, despite heroic efforts to save her, a cascade of systemic catastrophes due to the overwhelming infection culminated with the small blood vessels bursting under her skin, bruises breaking out everywhere as if some invisible fist were punching her over and over, and she died. Being well-to-do didn’t always save you.
Her death was so horrible that it made him, he recalls, physically ill. He describes his anger, but says he didn’t quite know with whom to be angry. It took him another 20 years to understand that it was not the abortionist who killed her—it was the legal system, the lawmakers who had forced her away from the medical community, who “…killed her just as surely as if they had held the catheter or the coat hanger or whatever. I’m still angry. It was all so unnecessary.”
All so unnecessary.
In the same book, a man who assisted in autopsies in a big urban hospital, starting in the mid-1950s, describes the many deaths from botched abortions that he saw. “The deaths stopped overnight in 1973.” He never saw another in the 18 years before he retired. “That,” he says, “ought to tell people something about keeping abortion legal.”“
—-Eleanor Cooney, The Way It Was (via prolifehypocrisy
)
Part 1 Gifset of Guttmacher Institute’s “Abortion in the United Sates”
(via stfuconservatives)
“The Bible is fair gain in political debates as long as secular writings are. Do not try to shove your secularism down my throat and throw out the Bible. And yes, secularism is a religion.”
secularism: a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations.
It’s funny how a doctrine the rejects religion is a religion, isn’t that funny guys? Guys? Isn’t that funny~
Bible is fair game you say? Well let me just point you in the direction of this awesome post I just made on my other blog. Don’t want to click through? I’ll copy paste it for you:
Exodus 21:22-23 If an attack on a woman causes a miscarriage the attacker must pay a fine. If he causes serious damage to the mother it’s “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. This indicates that a fetus does not have equal standing under God’s law.
Leviticus 27:6 Monetary values are assigned to lives according to age and gender. Lives under one month old have no value.Numbers 3:15 Similarly states that infants under one month do not count as people in the census.
Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28 A potion given to the Israelites by God is used to determine paternity. If the father is not the husband, an abortion occurs. god clearly places no value on a fetus that is not the result of union between husband and wife.
Genesis 38:24 God’s law states that if a woman is pregnant and is to be executed there is to be no waiting for the fetus to be born. It is counted as part of the mother and she burned to death with it still in her womb.Job chapters 3 and ten both have Job lamenting that he was ever born, and wishing that he had been miscarried.
Ezekiel 37:8-10 even defines “first breath” as the absolute beginning of life.
[thank you Rabble Anon and tehsunshine for laying them out for quick reference].
Even the Vatican State isn’t “pure” when it comes to abortion.
Furthermore God values consent when it comes to carrying a pregnancy, at least when it comes to Jesus.
EDIT: I forgot Hosea 13:16 which is a prophecy about Samaria that says “their pregnant women ripped open”, so if you’re a Sinner your embryo/fetus means nothing in the eyes of God.
Oh, and actually, the bible is not fair game in Political debates as everyone doesn’t follow the same book. The Bible is no more a source for governing a nation of diverse people than the Qu’ran or The Book of Mormon
If you respected Jesus at all you would respect his feelings on the separation of Church and State:
“Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.” Mark 12:17
“Fair gain”? You mean “fair game”? For fuck’s sake. Furthermore, sorry, but science and objective findings are more valid than a two thousand year old book written by men and enforced by men. It’s hardly “shoving it down your throat” to say “hey, stuff done by scientists and ethicists and people without a religious agenda are probably going to come to better conclusions than A TWO-MILLENIUM-OLD BOOK!”
(via stfuconservatives)
I was handing out these at the life chain last year. No propaganda. Just information and a cute little baby. (:
This reeks of propaganda, are you kidding me?
ALL BODY SYSTEMS ARE WORKING. You know, except the ones that allow it to live outside of another person’s body.
Oh my god you seriously need to read up on foetal biology. Fucking hell, the lies. THEY BURN.
OK here is what is actually happening at 12 weeks (this is a pregnancy site, not one that mentions abortion or anything) and also, 88% of abortions take place before 12 weeks, so this little “preborn” is probably safe.
-Jess
(via stfuconservatives)
reagan-was-a-horrible-president:
What a chart. 24 states enacted 92 abortion restrictions this year.
annnnnnnnnnd THIS is why republicans should never control congress
VOTE!!
“The Bible is fair gain in political debates as long as secular writings are. Do not try to shove your secularism down my throat and throw out the Bible. And yes, secularism is a religion.”
secularism: a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations.
It’s funny how a doctrine the rejects religion is a religion, isn’t that funny guys? Guys? Isn’t that funny~
Bible is fair game you say? Well let me just point you in the direction of this awesome post I just made on my other blog. Don’t want to click through? I’ll copy paste it for you:
Exodus 21:22-23 If an attack on a woman causes a miscarriage the attacker must pay a fine. If he causes serious damage to the mother it’s “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. This indicates that a fetus does not have equal standing under God’s law.
Leviticus 27:6 Monetary values are assigned to lives according to age and gender. Lives under one month old have no value.Numbers 3:15 Similarly states that infants under one month do not count as people in the census.
Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28 A potion given to the Israelites by God is used to determine paternity. If the father is not the husband, an abortion occurs. god clearly places no value on a fetus that is not the result of union between husband and wife.
Genesis 38:24 God’s law states that if a woman is pregnant and is to be executed there is to be no waiting for the fetus to be born. It is counted as part of the mother and she burned to death with it still in her womb.Job chapters 3 and ten both have Job lamenting that he was ever born, and wishing that he had been miscarried.
Ezekiel 37:8-10 even defines “first breath” as the absolute beginning of life.
[thank you Rabble Anon and tehsunshine for laying them out for quick reference].
Even the Vatican State isn’t “pure” when it comes to abortion.
Furthermore God values consent when it comes to carrying a pregnancy, at least when it comes to Jesus.
EDIT: I forgot Hosea 13:16 which is a prophecy about Samaria that says “their pregnant women ripped open”, so if you’re a Sinner your embryo/fetus means nothing in the eyes of God.
Oh, and actually, the bible is not fair game in Political debates as everyone doesn’t follow the same book. The Bible is no more a source for governing a nation of diverse people than the Qu’ran or The Book of Mormon
If you respected Jesus at all you would respect his feelings on the separation of Church and State:
“Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.” Mark 12:17
“Fair gain”? You mean “fair game”? For fuck’s sake. Furthermore, sorry, but science and objective findings are more valid than a two thousand year old book written by men and enforced by men. It’s hardly “shoving it down your throat” to say “hey, stuff done by scientists and ethicists and people without a religious agenda are probably going to come to better conclusions than A TWO-MILLENIUM-OLD BOOK!”
(via stfuconservatives)
A dialog that's been running through my head
- Me: In a dispute between a landlord and a tenant, which side do you think the law should favor?
- Strawman: The landlord, of course.
- Me: And in a dispute between a homeowner and a houseguest, which side do you think the law should favor?
- Strawman: The homeowner, of course.
- Me: And how about a dispute between a homeowner and an uninvited houseguest?
- Strawman: Homeowner.
- Me: Or between a homeowner and a squatter who's up and moved into the guest room?
- Strawman: Don't be silly, the homeowner.
- Me: Now how about if the squatter refuses to leave, does the homeowner have the right to evict that squatter, using force if necessary?
- Strawman: If it's your house you have the right to say who stays on your property.
- Me: How about if the homeowner threw a party and carelessly left out a spare set of housekeys, and one of the guests took those keys and moved in? Would that guest have the right to stay as long as they wanted?
- Strawman: Of course not.
- Me: But what if kicking out the squatter/guest would harm them, or even kill them? What if the house is in the middle of nowhere and there was a giant blizzard and being kicked out would be equivalent to a death sentence? Would the homeowner's rights still apply?
- Strawman: If the homeowner is a decent person, they might let the squatter stay until the storm passes.
- Me: But should the government mandate that they have to let them stay?
- Strawman: No. That would make property rights meaningless.
- Me: And what if the squatter was pounding on the walls at all hours of the night, and messing up the plumbing, and building something in the guest room that meant that when they finally leave they're going to bang up the doors on the way out or maybe even have to cut a hole in the wall? Should the government have the right to force the homeowner to let that squatter stay as long as they need to?
- Strawman: No.
- Me: Does it make any difference if the homeowner is a man or a woman?
- Strawman: Of course not. Everyone has property rights.
- Me: What if the house is a body and the guest room is a uterus? Does that owner still have the right to decide whether or not to allow an uninvited guest/squatter to stay? Or does the government have more right to our bodies than our houses?
I just had reason to revisit a post I wrote way back in 2007, regarding what happens when a country makes abortion illegal. Rereading it, I thought it was pretty good. There are few grammatical choices I wouldn’t make today, but the logic is solid and it’s a story I think needs to…
Pro-life versus pro-choice is a false dichotomy.
If you’re a man who supports choice, you don’t notice the difference. If you don’t want to be a father under a pro-life system and find the prohibition of safe abortion frustrating, it can seriously…