Two Choices

It always irritates me when speaking with the anti-abortion extremists that they believe the two choices involved when faced with an unwanted pregnancy are: gestating the pregnancy and adopting your child out or gestating the pregnancy and raising your child. When, in fact, the two choices are: terminating your pregnancy or gestating your pregnancy. Adoption isn't an option when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy... adoption is an option when a woman has chosen to gestate her pregnancy. Not surprising is that our own President does not appear to understand this concept as evidenced by this 2004 quote "I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life. I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion." Listen, you damned fool, adoption is not an alternative to abortion, it is an alternative to raising your child. Curious enough, when forming this blog and when posting on other reproductive choice blogs I have tried to bring in the issue of support for women who suffer from their choices... including post-partum support, exhale (for non-biased post-abortion support), and birth mother support groups for those who have adopted their children out. Do you know what? I had a terrible time finding support for birth mothers... it was horrible. I know women who have and do suffer from their decision to give birth and put their child up for adoption. I find it pitiful that there doesn't appear to be anyplace for these women to go for help or to simply connect with other women who may understand what they're feeling and could offer support. And then I came across this...

I found this site linked to a comment on the RH Reality Check website that you can find here (originally a response to the blog "True Reality Television: Where's Abortion?"). If you get a chance you should check it out and it should be mandatory reading for all of those forced motherhood freaks out there in the webdom.

Another phenomenon I've encountered has been by those claiming to be very anti-abortion women on the web... they post about how abortion is wrong and evil and that they (or "a friend") have suffered terribly for not knowing that if they had not terminated their pregnancy, they would have had a baby. Now, I have to wonder what these women thought they would've had if they hadn't terminated their pregnancy and gestated for nine months... a puppy? These fruitballoons claim that women are not aware that by terminating their pregnancies they will not have babies... silly me, I thought that was kind of the point. They claim to have been "shocked and devastated" upon learning (usually from their church group) that it wouldn't have been just a lump of cells that they'd have given birth to... it would have been an actual baybee! Seriously? They would have us believe that women are fundamentally ignorant and completely unaware of human reproduction and that is the reason why we cannot and should not be able to make our own decisions regarding the course of our own pregnancies... that strangers, who have absolutely no stake in the outcome of our pregnancies should be able to dictate if and when we will become mothers. It's for our own good ladies, we simply do not know any better... after all, we are the "weaker sex", right? These whack jobs can get their noses right out of my uterus and kindly keep them out of the uterus of my daughters, my sisters, my friends & loved ones. For that matter, they should keep their nose out of the uterus of any other random women walking the earth. Piss off, you ants!
KSo out!


Holy Hannah Montana...

What is up with the vehement response to the photos of Miley Cyrus taken by Annie Leibovitz? To tell you the truth... I was more freaked out by how way creepy (pedophilial?-probably not a word) her dad looks in those photographs. The black & white photo of Miley that appears in the magazine comes off as haunting (in my opinion, anyway)... the dark messy hair, the dark eyes, the pale, almost translucent skin... she appears ethereal. Take a look at Annie's other photographs and you'll find that many of them have this same quality to them. I don't believe for one second that Ms. Leibovitz sexualized this fifteen year old girl... but unfortunately for us all, men (and women) of all ages do just that with their salacious comments about the photographs. It is just horrible that this poor girl was made to feel as if she did something so wrong that it was worthy of an apology to the general public... the same public that would view a photo of the naked back of a teen aged girl with a wanton concupiscence. Shame on them.


And another thing...

... regarding blastocyst, zygote, embryo and/or fetal "personhood" - why must the crazy control freaky anti-abortion folks insist that the relationship between a woman and her fetus be adversarial? The maternal-fetal relationship has been and should be unitary. Are they suggesting that if a woman decides to gestate her pregnancy that she has willingly given up her civil rights for the duration of said pregnancy? These so-called "fetal rights" are nothing more than an attack on women's citizenship rights and the ultimate goal of those fetus-as-persons supporters is to criminalize abortion. They abhor abortion. They care very little for women (with the exception of those still inside of a persons uterus). And they can go fuck themselves.


Fuck women... we (heart) zygotes! Part I

Okay, so I'm going to lament on the whole idea of "fetal personhood" as it were. Bear in mind that my sorrow and grief on the subject is not limited to the fetus... oh, no... it is large enough to encompass the blastocyst, the zygote and the embryo as well as the fetus. Although (may I digress?) it is beyond me how one could argue that even though a pregnancy has not yet been established (at fertilization) there is still a "person" bouncing around my fallopian tubes. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, and almost all professional medical groups define pregnancy as beginning when the zygote has finished implanting (a pregnancy test is positive when the hormone HCG is present... after implantation) - but never mind all that when you're arguing that the rights of a woman are secondary to the rights of the conceptus, right? So... what these rather ironically self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" are saying is that a pregnant woman is less of a "person" than a thousandth of an ounce second old zygote (with, might I add, no capacity for thought, self awareness, reason, nor the ability to live without using a woman's body as life support). That is highly offensive at the very least... misogynistic at it's worse... and a severely flawed tactic.

Save Roe!!!

Join one million voices in urging Senate leaders to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee who won't support Roe, and TELL WASHINGTON WE WON'T GO BACK!



Fucking Tool

Anonymous writes:
Thanks Kelly, you receive a rather low grade
Kelly, thanks for the article. I did have the attention span to read it, considering that I must deal with over 90 university philosophy students every day, many of whom present arguments far more coherent and intellectually advanced than yours. For example:

Dude, if you're going to claim to be a professor of philosphy at "a university" you might want to try doing a little research about a) philosphy and b) professors... maybe we'll just throw in c) university, for a fully rounded education. And yes, the comment just ended with "example:" and no, there was no example and on top of that, it was posted twice. I replied with:

I know you're trying to tell me something, but alas, what is it... what is it? And why on earth did you post it twice? You're a strange bird, Anonymous, PhD.

Fucking Tool.

Some should keep their opinions to themselves

The following was in our "opinion" section of the buffalo news today:

Family-planning groups have a product to sell
Updated: 04/03/08 6:32 AM
I wish to thank News writer Fletcher Doyle for his March 23 Viewpoints article, “The case for abstinence.” It stated that when a New York Times reporter asked if abstinence-only programs could be behind the drop in teen pregnancy, “the president of Planned Parenthood assured the Times that it isn’t.” Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards cannot afford, literally, for abstinence to be effective.
According to its 2005 annual report, the profit from emergency contraception kits alone was $1,245,506. The profit from contraceptives was a cool $2,399,691. What must be understood is that the so-called family-planning outfits like Planned Parenthood are an industry, and they have a product to sell. If teaching kids to abstain works better than showering them with contraceptives, Planned Parenthood has everything to lose.
Helen Westover
Founder, Director, Western New York Stop Planned Parenthood

Members: 1

Anyhoo... does this woman actually believe that married women who do not wish to become pregnant should practice abstinence? She writes as if the whole of Planned Parenthoods being rides soley on the backs of the teens and unmarried harlots who are currently using contraception/EC. I love the "'so-called' family-planning" comment... last I checked the only way to plan your family is to control your reproduction (ie birth control) so why the "so-called", Helen? F.Y.I Helen... Abstinence only eduction has failed miserably... do some research: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf


the silent scream

Oh for the love of all things holy... why must certain people, who shall remain "anonymous" (their choice, not mine) subscribe to the George Castanza mantra "If you believe it, it's not a lie."? Why? Why? Why? Are people incapable of thinking for themselves... are we just a flock of sheep being led around blindly? My ire is derived from the RH Reality Check website... I commented on the CPC's deceptive practices blog and some idiot (anonymous idiot) told me that I should watch the "silent scream" to see how a fetus screams and claws at the uterus (trying to run away) so that it wont be aborted. Really? Are you for real? That freakin' thing was debunked by scientists & physicians (experts in the medical field, mind you) and it's very authors, for Pete's sake (I still don't know who Pete is) some 20 years ago. Idiots.
When I wrote this:
MellanKelly1: You say that the fetus "saw the needle, opened it's mouth to scream, and jerked way from the needle" - now you're claiming that a fetus can do something that a newborn infant cannot even do ("seeing" an object and not knowing: a) what it is and b) that it could hurt them, and then "jerking away" from said object.) Tell me, in this movie... was the fetus also writing poetry?

"Anonymous" replied with this gem which I've paraphrased:
Anonymous: This is a Human Being. He or she is alive. God gave you life. Your mothers did not chose to abort you. God knew you in your mothers' womb. He loves you all.

So I "says":
MellanKelly1 (thats me): Using your personal beliefs about your God is not a valid argument for denying reproductive rights to all women. There are plenty of clergy who believe in a womans reproductive rights (see http://www.rcrc.org/) You may also be interested to know that prior to 1973 many priests, rabbis and other religious people helped women with unwanted pregnancies to procure safe abortions... these same religious people were a driving force in legalizing abortion.

Anonymous: Yes, a newborn can recognize certain objects and be afraid of them. Babies are smart. Don't underestimate them.

MellanKelly1: To put it very bluntly.. no, newborn infants are not "smart" and I am most certainly not "underestimating" them. A neonate would no more move away from a needle than an office chair would. No offense to newborns, I love them and have had three of them... but they lack the cognitive development required to acknowledge what a needle is, let alone make an effort to move away from it (and certainly a fetus would be lacking the same cognitive development). That is a scientific fact.

So I insulted neonates... so sue me. I was going to make the statement that "newborn infants are, in fact, stupid" but I thought it was a little harsh. Anyhoo... if yer interested: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/04/01/crisis-pregnancy-centers-we-wont-be-fooled


"Personhood" in Colorado

this is so positively scary to me; to think that i live in a time where i could see birth control banned (and that's just the beginning of it). i would never have imagined. people don't understand the full effects of this ballot issue.

spread the word. and if you don't live in colorado don't think this doesn't effect your furutre choices because it does; if it goes through in this state, it's sure to come to your state too.

for more information go to http://www.prochoicecolorado.org/ballotwatch.shtml

RH Reality Check

Reproductive Health Reality Check is a fabulous site full of fantastic info including wonderful blogs (I'm a fan of amanda-marcotte and marcy-bloom ) and today they were blogging about Crisis Pregnancy Centers (rat-bastards, all of 'em). If you get a chance, try to catch about a girl who was manipulated-by-a-cpc. Disgusting!

Women On the Web

This is such a fantastic website full of fantastic women, including; Liz Smith, Marlo Thomas, Lily Tomlin, Candice Bergen, Leslie Stahl, Joni Evans (who happens to be the CEO) and many, many more wonderfully fabulous women. The question of the day is fun and the "conversations" section is a fabulous insight into the lives of these women. If you get the chance I would suggest stopping by the site!