censor those you don't agree with... how very "christian" of ya.

This chick (catholichomeschool) will not allow me to post this (or any other) response to her video... as you can see, it isn't offensive (unless, of course, the truth is offensive) so I'll post it here. This is in response to this poster (ignatiusofantioch2) who has this annoying habit of SPAM'ing the same tired copy & paste crapola from every anti-abortion site in the internets...

ignatius: "Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Where you are has no bearing on who you are. Does your value change when you cross the street or roll over in bed? If not, how can a journey of eight inches down the birth-canal suddenly change the essential nature of the unborn from non-valuable tissue mass to valuable human being"

me: That is precious. So, are you saying that a person who "cross[es] the street" or "roll[s] over in bed" ceases to be a person whenever they engage in these behaviours? You are being deliberately untruthful or misleading (at best) if you are going to pretend that gestation, labor and the birthing experience are merely about "eight inches "... which would be par for the course among the anti-abortion extremists.

I'd like to add more, such as the fact that the value of a womans pregnancy is determined by the pregnant woman... how this dude (or I) *feel* about her pregnancy is irrelevant... it doesn't change science and it doesn't change the law.

Unimpressed...

80,000 fans? I am unimpressed, JC... Ashton has over 1.5 million.

Typical Crazy Anti-Abortion Extremists!!

This is a rather disturbing (albeit amusing) exchange between a dude called "PheonixBornAgain" (PBA) and yours truly. I couldn't make this shit up if I tried really, really hard:

PBA: "the females. they make up over half the population in the world, so majority rule if applied would acutely give them the power to steamroll anything they want."

Me: "The females" sound super scary! And how crazy they appear... thinking that their opinions and/or personal beliefs should matter. I mean, who do they think they are... Men? Fu**ing chicks, man!

PBA: then if these same people were abducted and examined and found to be pregnant they were placed in very comfortable surroundings and made safe so they don't hurt themselves or their fetus. then after the unborn were allowed to be birthed the woman were simply let go.

Yes, he seriously wrote that... seriously. We should abduct pregnant women force them to risk their physical, mental and spiritual lives gestating a pregnancy and then take their babies from them. So the infertile can have them. Oh, but then we would totally let them go. My response? As follows:

Me: Wow. That is seriously deranged. You play pretty fast & loose with that whole morality thing, eh? It's good that you make yourself clear that you do not value the lives of women (particularly pregnant women, particularly if their pregnancies are unwanted and/or doomed.) It's easier to disregard your comments when you've made your disdain for women so crystal clear.

And this guy is simply a telephone number (and a tool):

7035601553: "The unborn gets killed and the mother gets wounded."

Me: Or... if you're not crazy (present company excluded, of course) the pregnancy is terminated and the woman feels a mixture of things, predominantly relief (I know, it's hard to admit that women are complex beings capable of a myriad of feelings)

36 Years of Roe

This year's Blog for Choice topic: What is your top pro-choice hope for President Obama and/or the new Congress?

The passage of FOCA (Freedom Of Choice Act) would be one of my hopes, to be sure. In addition, I would really like for the focus of the abortion debate to be put back where it belongs, on the women facing an unintended, unwanted or doomed pregnancy. Listening to the voices of these women (pro-voice) is one way to accomplish this task. Further, I believe putting our energy toward better ways to help women avoid unintended pregnancy would be simply fabulous (including making sure that any and all contraceptive options are covered by insurance and/or medicaid.) And another thing that I think would be worthwhile is listening to the women who may be faced with an unintended, but wanted pregnancy and helping them to find a way to gestate their pregnancies if that is their wish (prenatal care and/or economic help.) My hope would be that every woman is able to decide for herself the best course for her pregnancy and also be sure that women (in consultation with their doctors) have the ability to make any medical decisions involving her pregnancy. Full bodily autonomy/bodily integrity is my hope!

Exhale

Aspen Baker's Experience with Abortion. Exhale has such a fabulous mission... let's all pull together to end the silence and stigma that currently surrounds abortion. Shall we...

One in 3

This makes me wish that I lived in the Dallas area... I would love to see this play! Hell, I'd love to have played any part in it's production. Just seeing this and knowing that others are willing to end the stigma surrounding abortion makes me soooo happy!

Understanding the extremists

These are merely a few of the crazy statements made by the (mostly anonymous) anti-abortion extremists (oftentimes religious fruit-balloons):

But, suffering is very much a part of life, and everyone must come to terms that we all must suffer at one point or another.

You've gotta love the sado-masochists. Hey dude... suffer all you want, hold it real tight because it's yours and I'll have no part of it. I do what I can to ease the suffering of others (call me crazy)

Outside of the argument of rape, what gives a person power to choose whether or not she will have the baby?

What makes the fertilized egg that was the result of rape any different from the fertilized egg that was the result of consensual sex? That's what I thought... look out, it's the morality police and they're coming for YOU! Bwahahahaha!

As good as sex feels, it's main purpose is procreation.

Not for the many people who are actively sexing it up but have finished with the procreation (or have chosen to forgo that whole scene.) I'm done having children... I will not gestate or give birth ever again. That certainly doesn't mean I'm done having sex. My husband had a vasectomy and now we will happily have sex that feels really good without even being open to the possibility of procreation.

When is a seed considered a child? Conception

That sentence is just yucky... ew, I can't get it off of me. A seed? A seed is never, ever considered a child. YIK!

This deduction clearly states that abortion is murder. Regardless if you think it isn't, it very much is.

I love this... this is the crux of their argument. "It doesn't matter what your personal belief system is because what I say is the absolute truth. My thoughts, beliefs and opinions trump yours because... well, because I say so!" And then there is much foot stomping and hmph-ing.

By the way, the scientific community acknowledges the fact that birth begins
at conception.

No, seriously... he/she ("anonymous" surprise!) wrote that. That's right ladies and gentlemen... scientists are now saying that Conception is the new Birth! I couldn't make this shit up.

If you support Obama you clearly have no knowledge of basic economy or the basics of capitalism for that matter. Let me point out that that statement is not meant to be insulting; I'm just stating the truth.

I just threw this nugget in because of it's absolute absurdity. And to prove that these people exist (if only on the anonymous Internet.)

What do they mean by "life"?

Main Entry: 1life
Pronunciation: \ˈlīf\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural lives \ˈlīvz\
Etymology: Middle English lif, from Old English līf; akin to Old English libban to live — more at live
Date: before 12th century

1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2 a: the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b: one or more aspects of the process of living
3: biography 1
4: spiritual existence transcending physical death
5 a: the period from birth to death b: a specific phase of earthly existence c: the period from an event until death d: a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's life
6: a way or manner of living
7: livelihood
8: a vital or living being ; specifically : person
9: an animating and shaping force or principle
10: spirit , animation
11: the form or pattern of something existing in reality
12: the period of duration, usefulness, or popularity of something
13: the period of existence (as of a subatomic particle) — compare half-life
14: a property (as resilience or elasticity) of an inanimate substance or object resembling the animate quality of a living being
15: living beings (as of a particular kind or environment)
16 a: human activities b: animate activity and movement c: the activities of a given sphere, area, or time
17: one providing interest and vigor
18: an opportunity for continued viability
19: capitalized Christian Science : god 1b
20: something resembling animate life

It always seems as if people discussing "life" are referring to different meanings of the word. How can people argue about two different interpretations of the same word? It gets very confusing. It's like debating personhood. The "life begins at conception" crowd is always aghast that any person could deny this absolute truth. But, what do they mean? Do they mean the the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body? Well, what is meant by a "vital and functioning being?" Do they mean an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction? The fertilized egg does have the capacity for those things but studies done have proven that 1/3 of all embryo's fail. They certainly can't mean the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual - these things would occur after birth, right? I know that they don't mean the spiritual existence transcending physical death. Obviously they do not mean the period from birth to death. Do they mean a vital or living being (if so, we're back to the whole question of what constitutes "living"?)

I believe it is really difficult to argue an interpretation or perception. I think it is equally difficult to argue a personal belief system. I believe that each individual is capable of deciding for her or his self what these things mean to them. It would be wrong to force ones interpretation, perception or personal belief system upon the general population. Therefor I believe that is it every persons right to decide for themselves what life and/or personhood means when referencing abortion and to decide for themselves what the best moral decision would be. Now, why is that concept such a difficult one to comprehend?

If I were the king of the world, I tell ya what I'd do...

Mr. Jasper: Pro-lifers are not against measures taken to save (or that risk) the life of the mother. Induce labor or have a C-section.

Mellankelly: How lovely that you would risk a woman's life and her reproductive future by "allowing" her to have a Cesarean Section. Only (and correct me if I'm wrong here) there is not an instance where some third party with no stake whatsoever in the outcome is allowed to make private medical decisions for another person... that's too bad, since it sounded like such a win-win scenario and all. Perhaps you should be fighting laws which restrict you (and any other like-minded person) from being able to decide which medical procedures are in a woman's best interest... Lord knows that Doctors just don't know what the heck they're doing, right?

Mr. Jasper: If I had a born child with either of those 2 conditions, could I terminate his life?

Mellankelly: If it was your child, you would be the one to decide which procedures, if any, your child would have. I suppose, for many parents, the treatment (if any) would depend upon the severity of the brain damage and paralysis, how developed the problem was prior to and at birth would also factor into the treatment options. The bottom line is... each parent would decide for themselves whether or not to start any treatment at all, and if so, which treatments they would be willing to inflict upon their child. See, their child = their decision. Your child = your decision. Are you getting it yet?

Mr. Jasper: Btw: that mother referred to unborn baby as her 'child'.

Mellankelly: Of course she did... this was a very wanted pregnancy that went terribly wrong. I forgot to add this bit to my original posting:

"I wrote my doctor a long thank-you note on my good, wedding stationery. I thanked him for his compassion and his kindness. I wrote that it must be hard, what he does, but that I hoped he found consolation in the fact that he was helping vulnerable women in their most vulnerable of times. He keeps my note, along with all the others he's received, in a large bundle. And he keeps that
bundle right next to his stack of hate mail. They are about the same size"

And this really got to me because the people who invented the "PB" phrase (no such medical procedure... SURPRISE!) and the President who helped outlaw certain procedures have caused many good Doctors who have helped countless women to deny future women these options.
This is so very sad...

"The doctor who performed my termination talks about the women he has helped through the years -- the pregnant woman who was diagnosed with metastic melanoma and needed immediate chemotherapy, the woman who was carrying conjoined twins that had only one set of lungs and one heart, the woman whose baby had a three-chambered heart and would never live. Now, he is turning these women away. 'Now, today, I can say no, but what is she going to do?' he says sadly. 'What is she going to do?'"

And a chilling quote from that Doctor:

"Now, it's like the Stone Age, it's like a Muslim country here," says the doctor who performed my procedure. "This is the most backward law, it is not for a civilized country. If this was Iran, Iraq, I wouldn't be surprised. But to pass this law in the United States, what is this government doing?"

You said it, Doctor! And how!

Silly anti-abortionists, truth is our friend!

Here is another anti-abortion myth debunked... the "abortion" photo/dead fetus props...

"A considerable number of anti-abortion visuals feature an almost fully developed fetus. Abortions preformed at this stage via hysterotomy or D&Xabortions are rare [approximately 0.08% are performed after 24weeks, when the fetus may be viable - no fetal demise] A July 1992 LIFE magazine article, The Great Divide, reported that Reverend Robert Schenk, member of anti-choice coalition Operation rescue, attended a demonstration outside an abortion clinic in Buffalo, NY, with "Baby Tia", a7-inch, gray-tinted and formaldehyde-soaked dead fetus. In the escalating madness of the crowd, the fetus was dropped onto the sneaker-trodden street. Authorities arrested Schenk and confiscated the fetus, which was taken to a coroner, only to be identified as an approximately 20-week-old stillborn. The article reads, "Many pro-choice supporters in Buffalo are angry about the distance between their reality-what they see in the clinics-and the images the anti-abortionists present as fact. 'What they are showing to the public is a lie,' says Joni Ladowski, a nurse at a nearby clinic, as she unfolds a length of gauze. In the center lies what appears to be a clot the size of a peanut. It is a fetus, nine weeks old.'This is an abortion,' she says."

You know, without misinformation, pseudoscience and/or outright lies, the anti-abortion extremists would have nothing (except their religion/personal belief system) Those of us who live within the realm of reality will always be here to provide accurate information in order to educate the average person about the truth surrounding abortion... the information is there.

More on the misrepresentations and misinformation used by the anti-abortion forces:

"Through the construction of public fetal images as 'baby pictures,' the fetus is visibly separated from its mother and can consequently enter the social imagination alone. It is relatively easy to untangle the symbolic reasons that would encourage fetal autonomy: Embryo photography has personified the fetus by replacing the mother with empty space. As Daniels (1993) has said, 'In much of the promotional literature of the anti-abortion movement, the fetus is visually severed from the mother, presented as an autonomous free-floating being, attached tenuously to the 'mother ship' by the umbilical cord.' or, as Franklin (1991) says, 'The conditions for spectator recognition of and identification with the fetus are achieved on the basis of its separation and individuation from the mother.'"

~Taylor, Janelle. 1998. Image of Contradiction: Obstetrical Ultrasound in American Culture. In Franklin, S. and Ragone, H. (eds.) Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power and Technological Innovation. University of Philadelphia Press, Philadelphia.

~Daniels, Cynthia R. 1993. At Women's Expense: State Power and the Politics of Fetal Rights. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

This pretty well sums it up

Your response to my post titled Religious nonsense and public policy is very telling, Mr. Jasper. It appears as if you have no compelling argument to counter my points (how very surprising) and instead chose the only retort you could possibly imagine: your religiousness.

Mr. Jasper: Well, its obvious we just don't share the same values. You certainly can't be a beliver in Christ.

Mellankelly: Well boo for you, Mr. Jasper. The country that we live in (a democracy) is a far cry from the imaginary country you wish it was (a theocracy). Thankfully, this country was founded by the notion that we are free to practice any religion as evidenced in the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Freedom of conscience is the basis of the free exercise clause, and government may not penalize or discriminate against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views nor may it compel persons to affirm any particular beliefs. So while you may fancy yourself a "believer in Christ" it has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever. Further, I have many friends and family members who are Christian and do not share you limited views; I would also direct you to the The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice where you will find that religious people of many faiths support a woman's reproductive choices... are you now going to proclaim that they're not "real" Christians because their belief system compels them to protect the rights of all people (including - gasp - pregnant women?) Remember, "A closed mind is not only closed to outside thoughts, it is often closed to itself as well. It is closed to new thoughts and anything that threatens the status quo. But if you can open the doors, maybe just a crack at first, the ideas that have been patiently waiting at your gates will flood in."

And regarding your stories... rape victims and rape victims alone get to decide whether or not to gestate a pregnancy that was the result of rape. I believe that only a coward would hide behind his religion when insisting that women gestate rape-related pregnancies. You have proven yourself to be a coward on more than one occasion... and you've clearly demonstrated that your concern is not with "life" per se, but begins at conception and ends at birth. I pity you and I'm sorry that your religion prohibits you from caring about the life of women facing unwanted pregnancies (including rape victims). I will pray for you, Mr. Jasper.

Oh, and regarding your bogus photo ... debunked: This picture, also distributed on a 3 x 5 inch card and used in numerous anti-abortion campaigns is equally inconsistent. If the forceps securing its head over the jar are standard OR ring forceps, the ring is 1 x 0.5 centimeters, which would mean that the head is too small to be in its third trimester, yet one less developed would not have that much hair, says Dr. Ross. "I strongly suspect that this picture is fake, and the information on the back of the card certainly does not match what's shown," he adds. The second, and most obvious, fallacy lies within the description. It says that the pictured fetus was aborted in 1987 in Texas. However, that was the year that third trimester abortions were banned, rendering the alleged procedure altogether illegal

reading comprehension is a must!

Mr. Jasper: Exactly?? are you saying unborn children don't count?

Mellankelly: Again dear, I say what I mean and I mean exactly what I say. I'm saying that a person, even children (no need for adjectives or qualifiers - it is simply not necessary to change the meaning of certain words in order to get my point across) have no right to force another person, even their parents to endure any form of bodily invasion (I used "blood test" as an example). You cannot give a fertilized egg greater rights than a person (that would be unconstitutional).

Mr. Jasper: when you were pregnant with children, tell me, when they kicked inside of you, did you say "the baby kicked" or "the fetus kicked" or maybe you said (since you believe in bodily invasions) "the alien kicked". which was it?

Mellankelly: I've no idea why this would be of any consequence. I've been pregnant four times and experienced quickening three of the four times. I terminated my second pregnancy prior to quickening. During my first pregnancy we referred to my belly as "The Bean." My question for you sir is why would it be of any consequence which colloquial terms one chooses to refer to her pregnancy? Clearly, using adjectives and/or qualifiers such as "unborn" or "preborn" does not change what a fertilized egg is and neither would a colloquialism. Kind of sounds like Mr. Jasper is grasping at straws, no?

Mr. Jasper: Look, I don't doubt you're a good Mom, I bet you are. I think you get the point I was trying to make.

Mellankelly: I might have, if you'd actually made a point. As it stands, all you did was question my parenting skills... something that you know nothing about, may I add. Oh well, ad hominem is par for the course with anti-abortion extremists.

Mr. Jasper: Your side will never be able to win this debate. We are not a great nation if we allow the killing of unborn children

Mellankelly: My "side"? Really? We live in the greatest country in the world, a country where the rights of any person born or naturalized (this includes pregnant women) are fully protected by our Constitution. Considering that 43 million women of reproductive age (7 in 10), are sexually active and do not wish to become pregnant, I highly doubt that they would support legislation which would prohibit them from using any contraceptive method that may potentially harm a fertilized egg (such as the pill or EC). This great nation will not allow for rights and personal liberties to be taken away from half of its population due to the personal belief systems of a few... never. I thank God (daily) that I was born into a country where abortion was a safe and legal option for me.