Argh! I shouldn’t really blog when I’m this angry, but I really need to get this out of my system. I should also mention that I believe that the only time I’m allowed to have an opinion that matters on the whole pro-choice/pro-life debate, is the day I grow a uterus. However, that doesn’t prevent me from sympathising with those who have already grown one and what they choose to do with it.
Especially when they’re faced with a rabid and insane pro-life movement, that is all about the “life” of a bunch of cells and which couldn’t give a stuff about the baby, nor it’s mother, after it’s born. These are people who want to restrict access for these mothers to affordable medical care, or to welfare benefits, whilst at the same time insisting that a rape or incest victim carry the baby to term. This is because – if you’re seriously unhinged like Rick Santorum – they see any conception, even from a violent rape, as being a gift from God. Nice God they worship. This is on top of all the anti-abortion laws the various redneck states are passing, that are making any form of early termination – including the “morning after” pill – illegal.
It also seems as if the pro-lifers aren’t too keen on adopting all these unwanted babies, they’ve ensured are born. Hell, that creepy old insane preacher pat Robertson went as far as to say that foreign children, especially those who had been sexually abused, or subject to deprivation, should not be adopted, in case they turn out “weird.”
Now, if you are still in some doubt about the fact that pro-lifers care more about the well-being of a bunch of cells than that of the person actually carrying those cells around, here’s a little story for you.
The Domincan Republic has very strict abortion laws. Very strict. The ban includes conceptions following rape, incest, and in situations where the health of the mother is in danger.
I highlighted that last part, because it clearly shows just how fucked up the pro-life movement can be. Regardless of the fact that that developing bundle of cells is endangering the mother’s life, you cannot terminate the pregnancy. The problem here is that if the mother dies, then that little bundle of cells dies too. So exactly is that being pro-life – sacrificing a perfectly viable human being (albeit one with a vagina) for the benefit of a few cells, that are now also dead?
Anyway, getting back to the Dominican Republic, a 16-year-old girl has recently died from cancer-related complications. Now, as tragic as that may seem, that is not the whole story. After all, young people die in terrible ways every day. No, the problem here is that the girl was 9-weeks pregnant. In other words, the fetus (by no stretch of the imagination can it be called a “baby”) she was carrying was 3cm long and weighed about 3 grams. And looked like this:
Now you have to understand that there is no way that something like that can survive outside of the mother. However, because chemotherapy might have resulted in the pregnancy being terminated, hospital officials REFUSED TO TREAT HER. Because they were worried that they would fall foul of the abortion laws.
Bear in mind, they weren’t even going perform an abortion. Just the fact that the treatment could have resulted in the pregnancy being terminated would be seen as falling foul of the abortion laws.
Finally, after three weeks, they began chemotherapy, but even when complications set in, including bleeding, they refused to terminate. Eventually, the young victim miscarried and then died from blood loss.
Yes, I said victim. Because how else can you describe somebody – a perfectly functional, viable human being – who is now dead because of the actions… or rather lack of actions by people, held captive by an archaic law?
Sadly, this is by no means the only such case, and I’m willing to bet there will be plenty more – and not just on a Caribbean backwater either. If the pro-life lunatics have their way in the US of A, then plenty other girls and women will suffer the same fate.
Dying in the name of pro-life.
Just to finish off, here’s the plea from the girl’s mother. I think every pro-life politician needs to hear this – endlessly on repeat.
My daughter’s life is first. I know that (abortion) is a sin and that it goes against the law … but my daughter’s health is first.
Sadly, no. A bunch of cells and a political agenda came first in this case.
And a little girl is dead because of it.
We couldn't make this up... 
We’re not life to those people. We’re ashes. We’re dirt to those people. Dirty is sinfull. Ashes to ashes, dirt to dirt. Though considering their worship of gold, and gold comes from dirt, they are hypocritical even on this. But since we’re not gold we’re crud to them. God is life. God’s will, and the will of those claiming to be God, is life. Get it? That said they have a cute gimick of suckering in the weak minded with sympathy and forgiveness for being crud.
How the **** can it save the baby’s life, it the mother will die long before term?
Stories like these make my blood boil, all the more so because the very people who support this kind of shit have the temerity to call themselves “moral” to boot. Moral, my ass.
And since it’s kinda-sorta related, I’ll give you this little nugget as well:
“Rep. Todd Akin, the Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri who is running against Sen. Claire McCaskill, justified his opposition to abortion rights even in case of rape with a claim that victims of “legitimate rape” have unnamed biological defenses that prevent pregnancy.”
Yeah, saw that little gem yesterday. What worse, is that Akin sits on the House committee for science, space and something else.
Mmmm, that’s some tasty lookin’ fetus you’ve got in that picture.
They’re just a few steps away from the crazy fucks in Africa who still hunt down, beat, and burn alive “witches” all in the name of their warped Christian views that missionary tendrils have reached.
The whole point of the Akin thing now is hypocrisy. He’s being called to step down and disappear by the same people who supported a bill that included phrases like “legitimate rape” (Paul Ryan supported two bills with that inclusion, but when interviewed he just says “rape is rape”). They just don’t want people to know of their agenda until it becomes law, and the unfortunate consequence are young girls dying because of stupid political shenanigans.
“They just don’t want people to know of their agenda until it becomes law”
Mitt Romney’s entire campaign is based upon this principle.
I’d like to respond because I am pro-life but I don’t fit almost any part of the writer’s description of my view. To begin, though I am Christian, my view is not based on religion since the Bible doesn’t address abortion specifically, other than the obvious command not to murder; I am pro-life because I believe what is created at conception is scientifically a human being and should be treated as such.
This is where I disagree with the writer:
I and everyone I know cares about what happens to a baby after it is born and we would want to do everything we could to support women going through an unwanted pregnancy—and I know of Christian non-profits that do just that. I don’t know anyone of the pro-life view who wants to take away a pregnant woman’s access to welfare, medical care or other services. I have family that needed some of this assistance.
I don’t view rape or conception from rape as a gift from God. It is absolutely a hardship and God wants to help the victim through it.
I do not agree with Pat Robertson’s comments on adopting children, and neither does anyone I know. I have a few friends who are adopting with no reservations. Just because Pat Robertson says something does not mean it reflects Christians or those who are pro-life. It only reflects that man’s viewpoint.
This is where I agree with the writer:
I do not believe that if a woman’s or her child’s life is in danger that any person or government has any right to tell her how to handle it. It is her body, she makes the call, and no one should give her any grief for what she chooses. There are people who are so blindly pro-life that they neglect common sense, and that is a shame—I give you that point. If a woman’s life is in danger and an abortion may result from the treatment, the decision about the treatment should fall to the woman and no one else. You are correct, it makes no sense to lose two lives rather than save at least one. However, if the baby can be saved as well as the mother, that would be the best option and I’m sure you’ll agree.
One final point:
The writer stated, “Now you have to understand that there is no way that something like that can survive outside of the mother.” This was in reference to a 9-week old fetus. If this is an argument for abortion, it is a pretty bad one. Mentally challenged people as well as those with dementia and other medical problems, and healthy newborns as well, cannot take care of themselves without a lot of assistance from others—that does not give us the right to abort them for our convenience.
My point is those who are pro-life care about life as much as those who are pro-choice; we simply have a disagreement about when a human being becomes a human being.