State Senator Constance Johnson Introduces “Every Sperm Is Sacred” Amendment to Anti-Choice Legislation

I know she’d never get elected again, but how fantastic would it be if, in proposing the amendment to congress, her speech just copied the Python skit verbatim?

“My fellow members of congress, there are Jews in the world. There are Buddhists. There are Hindus and Mormons and then…”

‘Twould be the stuff of legend.

omg, that was great. thanks for the morning laugh.

“No no Congress, I know you’re trying to help, but believe me, my mind’s made up.  I’ve given this long and careful thought, and it has to be medical experiments for the lot of ya.”

“Awww”

The sad part is that I know there are people who would love for her proposal to actually go through.

There’s a fine line between making fun of a dummy and giving him ideas.

Yeah, but most of the Religious Right is more hypocritical than zealous. Try attaching an amendment outlawing adultery to one of their inumerable “Sanctity of Marriage” bills, and see how little they actually care about biblical laws.

And she could walk around the Hall of Congress as she goes on, pointing out various politicians for context.

“You don’t have to be a six-footer”               *points at Fred Thompson*
“You don’t have to have a great brain”         *points at Michelle Bachman*
“You don’t have to have any clothes on”      *points at Anthony Weiner… oh wait, he’s gone

I want to move to Oklahoma just so I can vote for her.

Man I’m in serious trouble…..

or divorce for that matter

At least it would save a lot of kittens…

What you mean a bill which would force MEN to control their sexual urges! Guffaw and Harumph of Distaste!

More women like this PLEASE.

Who knew there were funny people in Congress.

Good stuff…..

You have to read this article, if you like what Sen. Johnson has said. 

http://bonosrama.newsvine.com/_news/2012/02/07/10252153-dont-like-abortion-then-keep-your-dna-inside-your-own-body

“Always look on the bright side of life!”

Brian

This is not going to make Barney Frank or Anthony’s Weiner very happy at all.

This was brilliant!  Wish I’d thought of it. Amendment re “adultery and divorce”  – well, it would “clear the Congress out.”  Love the Monty Python skit — “every sperm.”   

Because the butchering of unborn fetuses is so funny. Wow. Hilarious.

No, what’s hilarious is that now that we ladies are actually taking that personhood bill seriously, we’re actually discovering a million other reasons why it’s ridiculous, particularly when it comes to patriarchal hypocrisy. Now THAT’S SO FUCKING FUNNY.

lol

Make fun all you want, but the breakup of the family was the beginnings of FAIL in this country.  Black families led the way, too.  Now there is a black woman in elected office, making laws for fun and monkeyshines.  But don’t forget that all that costs money, and it’s the money that they take out of my paycheck every week.  “Let’s see, shall I buy a gallon of milk for my kids, or shall I pay taxes so that some idiot state senator can make a pretend amendment about where sperm is supposed to go?”  Funny stuff, porch monkey.

Sure is strange first the right wing nut jobs keep saying get government out of our
lives. well stay the hell out of our bed rooms you self righteous jerks.

There’s nothing ridiculous about defending unborn children. As to the good Senator’s protest, she’s effectively arguing against a strawman (or “straw-woman” if you prefer). In actuality, a man’s sperm that’s been used in the process of fertilization already *is* being considered sacred on the same basis as the fertilized egg that it’s now joined to is: viz, the two are now joined and have resulted in a new human being. 

Eggs that haven’t been fertilized are not targeted by the bill at all, hence it’s baffling how the Senator’s proposal that targets sperm that are similarly uninvolved in fertilization could be meaningfully analogous. Either she’s very confused about reproductive biology, or her stance is so devoid of reason that she’s resorting to irrational side-show antics.

I love this woman!!!

I guess you didn’t comprehend

Nor you 

I love her! 

Is she related to Christine O’Donnell?

////

Like you’ve never masturbated?

Clearly the bill itself doesn’t explicitly target unfertilized eggs, but it certainly does not prevent that kind of interpretation down the line. Senator Johnson was clear on this:

“The Personhood bill would potentially allow governmental
intrusion into families’ personal lives by policing what happens to a woman’s eggs without any similar thought to what happens to a man’s sperm.

“My amendment seeks to draw attention to the absurdity, duplicity and lack of balance inherent in the policies of this state in regard to women.”

And it’s okay. You’re allowed to use “straw man” since it’s a term used to classify an argument, and it has nothing to do with actual gender. And the correct term is “attack a straw man”. A “straw man” couldn’t argue because it’s made of straw.  See what I did there? It’s just so you understand how people in general hate to be patronized. It’s also worth pointing out that “attacking the straw man” actually means, “to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”

Pro-choice arguments have been repeatedly clear about why anti-choice regulations are unacceptable for women’s health, and why this personhood bill is detrimental to that principle. It’s terms like “butchering”, “murderers”, and “defending an unborn child” that made us realize that the direct explanation doesn’t seem to be working because anti-choice activists are attacking the straw man a every turn.  “Pro-lifers” tend to throw in terms like that in people’s faces, to direct the attention away from the scientific reality that a woman’s body is a woman’s body, and nobody else should tell her what to do with it.  

A man’s semen is held sacred in religious doctrine–last time I checked, that’s not everyone’s law. But the reality is that there are no laws regulating what a man ought to do with his body. There are laws that continue to make a woman’s body the subject of official regulation, and a lot (if not all of them) center upon women’s reproductive health. It seems that the only way for men to understand the position women are in is to subject a man’s body to regulation as well. It may not be exactly the same, for how could it be the same? But it’s certainly a fair parallel.

if this passes where do all the men in Oklahoma have to go to turn themselves in?  is it a misdomeanor or will those conviced have to do hard time?

She is absolutely right.  If a woman’s eggs are subject to government control, then why not sperm as well.  She is only pointing out the absurdity of controlling women’s bodies.  Why can’t you see her point?

They should call it the Clinton Blue Dress law

This to me is absolute garbage talk by Constance Johnson…the reason why I see it as such is if the act of sex does not involve vaginal entry, it is not done with procreation in mind.

Life begins at conception…not a moment prior.

“…will those conviced have to do hard time?”’

That’s what she said!

Anna,

@it certainly does not prevent that kind of interpretation

How, pray tell, would it be conducive to it?

@You’re allowed to use “straw man”

You sure get worked up over a simple pun….

@A “straw man” couldn’t argue because it’s made of straw.

(?) I never said the strawman argued, but was being argued against.

@”attacking the straw man” actually means

Like proposing legislation to regulate sperm not involved in fertilization as an attempted analogous response to legislation that doesn’t similarly regulate eggs that are involved in fertilization. Exactly.

@Pro-choice arguments have been repeatedly clear about why anti-choice regulations are unacceptable for women’s health

The pro-baby-butchering lobby doesn’t really have any coherent legs to stand on per se; and mere feverish insistence doesn’t really count as sound reasoning.

@anti-choice activists are attacking the straw man a every turn.

Yet you strangely fail to specify how the arguments in defense of unborn children are “strawmen” to begin with.

@a woman’s body is a woman’s body

Which is an obvious tautology. Scientifically, her child’s body, while contained within her own, is also a distinct body and human being (often of the opposite gender!).

@There are laws that continue to make a woman’s body the subject of official regulation

It’s not the woman’s body itself, but rather what’s contained therein.

@But it’s certainly a fair parallel.

As long as you don’t really think about it….

HA!!  Thank you for posting “Every Sperm is Sacred” !!  Definitely brightened up my day…

There is no point this is ignorant garbage based on a specious premise, but as always theres plenty of idiots to get behind it.

there is a D by her name.

:)  Hilarious Adam!

LMAO

That was a very impressive justification for this piece of shit

So is a miscarriage involuntary manslaughter?

She is brilliant!  For once someone is standing up for the double standard the government has for men and women.  I totally believe that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body.  She and she alone has the responsibility to make decisions about her pregnancy 
even if it has a negative effect on her life I
don’t think abortion is a good idea, but I will defend a woman’s right to do what she needs to with her own body. All of a sudden men are having to think for one second about their sperm and for the very first time having to think about the responsibility of it. Believe me, she’s a lot smarter than  you think.

Uh, the idea that life begins at conception is often a philosophical one not based in fact.  Religious and spiritual concepts should not be unquestioningly used for laws affecting all people of all beliefs…or maybe never.  That’s fine if you believe life begins at conception, but I don’t…and even if I did, it would not trump the woman’s right to do with her body as she sees fit.

What about a wet dream Einstein? Not as smart as you thought, are you.?

Awesome!!  Three cheers for the State Sen. Johnson!  It is about time we take the wacky, weird and obsurd away from the radical religous extremists! I’d like to purpose that everyone making $1,000,000 or more be subject to a drug test (blood & urine if you work on Wall Street) before they can get their tax cut!!!

STAND FOR PROGRESS.  STAND WITH PROGRESSIVES!

But then there are the numbers – we know that regulating the legality of abortions does very little to disuade them.  Western European countries allow abortions and often cover them under their healthcare plans, but because of their extensive sex education and cheap contraception they have the lowest abortion rates in the world.

It doesn’t matter what you believe about when a collection of cells becomes a person.  It doesn’t matter what I believe, either.  Making abortions illegal does more harm than good.  The complication and death rates from botched abortions skyrocket in countries where abortions are illegal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

The only thing that, time after time – regardless of religion or law – causes a significant decrease in abortions rates is comprehensive sex education and cheap, widely available and easily obtainable contraception.  Push that, and push it hard, and you’ll be preventing far more abortions than you ever could by torturing the women who’ve already come to a decision to get one. 

It has nothing to do with when and where you let your sperm spurt out into the universe you idiot, it has to do with whether or not you have any responsibility for it.  If I’m responsible for my ‘EGGS’ then perhaps you can take responsibility for your sperm!

oh now only men have wet dreams-just another myth perpetuated by the men only society we women have to deal with 

Loved it all. Please, let her send that proposal to Ohio. I want to see their faces in our statehouse. 

Kat,

Even if the overly simplistic reasoning were granted, that’s still a red-herring. Appeal to consequences (ref: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html) doesn’t invalidate a morally right public policy move.

As an Oklahoma state senator, or I should say “etats rotanes,” Johnson might come off better if she talked backwards very fast, just like an Oklahoma teenage girl:

http://www.ethicsoup.com/2012/02/ooook-lahoma-where-a-girl-can-talk-backwards-down-the-plain.html

Nice try Mediaite, but i believe you failed to mention what party she belongs too.

DEMOCRAT

The facts do point to the concept that a viable embryo is a human being. Despite any word games, it is, genetically and functionally speaking, a growing & developing human (as opposed to mere separated tissue), a distinct being from both parents, and quite alive. That said, I can’t see any logically or factually sound justification to claim that a human embryo is anything less than an immature human being.

Her Political Party isnt a factor unless she is in California then she would be stoned (literally) since masterbation is Californias second biggest past time…Holier than thow Republicans and Marxist Democrats we be in trouble..  http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/12/ca-dem-party-occupy-movement-van-jones-and-pelosi-in-lovefest/

As a man I find it distasteful that men are arguing this with women.  Joshua, you never have to walk a mile in her shoes, nor will you ever fully understand the female perspective regarding laws that govern your body.  You choose the language you use because each time you demonize women it re-enforces how black and white you think this issue is.  And therefore it is useless trying to acheive any sense of consensus or compromise, and truly look for alternative approaches to lessening the amount of abortions that are performed, something I believe we all would like to see transpire.  From my perspective you should re-examine your approach if you really want to help.  Otherwise you come across as a blowhard.

This to me shows me that Adam has no sense of humour.  Hey buddy, most “vaginal entry” takes place without procreation in mind.  Try it, you may like it.

I think anyone with a brain could figure out what party she belongs to; the one that isn’t interested in pushing abortions into back alleys or made available only to the rich and powerful, you know, exactly what would happen if RvW was overturned.  I also think that any gun nut should keep their mouths shut concerning any issue involving the sanctity of life.  

It’s my sperm and I will do whatever I want to do with it. I could care less about your eggs as they are yours, not mine. Mind your own business

Do your wet dreams secrete eggs? To bad that you didn’t grow up during the womens lib generation. They didn’t whine like you.

Any day now someone with your mind set was about to come up with it, and not as a joke. 

I’m not whining at all.  Just read your own comments to see how backward and sexist they are. i would be embarrassed if I were you.  Why can’t you see that this is just something that has never been discussed before.  Open up that clogged brain of yours for once.

It was never discussed before since the mere idea is beyond any form of credibility. You are an embarrassment to any truely liberated woman but to naive to understand it. And again I say, mind your own business and don’t you dare donate any of those eggs to some infertile woman.

I also find it distasteful when people argue for more government intrusion in people’s lives. Especially the reactionaries who claim they are against that very thing.

  you misunderstood the article I think

State Senator Johnson is attaching this to the bill as a way to subvert it and prevent it from passing.  She doesn’t believe in the original bill, and most likely finds it to be a way of the government to take away a woman’s right to control what goes on in her own body.

 Yes exactly!  That’s what I want too!  For people to mind their own business and not involve themselves in the personal and private functions of anyone else’s body.

Ain’t that the truth.  Now if we were trying to argue getting handguns off the street what is deemed constitutional would be the crux of their argument, with abortion it is morality despite the law.  So sad..

masterbation isn’t an urge it’s a lifestyle

Yes, a conceptus is “alive.” So what? The laws of this country do not protect all “life” equally. For example, we have every right to kill cockroaches, or even mammals that we want to eat–mammals that are quite capable of feeling pain and fear. We also routinely kill human criminals and send members of the military out to risk death (and to kill other human beings). And family members get to decide when to cease life support for loved ones who are not going to recover. So you need more than “technically alive” to make your point.

At the stage of the vast majority of abortions, an embryo doesn’t have a nervous system developed enough to have self awareness or even to feel pain. It doesn’t value its own life. It will not suffer when it dies. It has no goals for its future. In fact, one-fifth of all conceptions spontaneously abort (if you believe in God, then you could say he doesn’t care much about conceptuses, or he wouldn’t kill so many of them). Personhood laws put all women at the risk of being scrutinized and possibly punished for miscarriages that they didn’t want or cause.

An embryo/fetus is the only example of a human life that requires another human–a specific, individual human, for its sole survival. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term inside her body, with all the attendant risks involved (don’t tell me it’s perfectly safe these days–I had a friend die unexpectedly in childbirth last year), is unacceptable. 

I don’t know your particular beliefs, but when you say life begins at conception and not a moment prior, I think of all the pro-life conservatives who are opposed to medically accurate sex ed and to making birth control more readily accessible. If life only begins at conception, then these folks should be handing out condoms left and right. Is it really about saving lives, or is this about punishing people for having sex? Personally, I feel that no child should exist simply as a punishment for his/her parents’ sexual decisions. Every child should be wanted and cherished. The foster system is already too overburdened to be bringing more children into the world whose parents aren’t able to support them properly.

When you say “viable” embryo, what do you mean? “Viable” to me means that it can survive on its own outside a mother’s body. So far medical technology has not made that possible, so there is no such thing as a “viable” embryo. It is only viable inasmuch as its mother is willing to host/nurture it. So it should be her decision whether or not to do that.

Her amendment was MEANT to be ridiculous. You do get that, right?

“Even if the overly simplistic reasoning were granted, that’s still a red-herring. Appeal to consequences (ref: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ad…doesn’t invalidate a morally right public policy move.”

How, exactly, is looking at data and coming to a logical conclusion about said data ‘overly simplistic’?  If you can think of (and support with evidence) some mystery factor  - other than sex education and easy access to contraception – in why Western European countries (where abortion is legal and often covered under healthcare plans) have the lowest instances of abortion in the world, please share.  
(btw, your link didn’t work).  How else can I phrase this… your morals don’t matter a whit to a girl who has no money, or no safety net, or no prospects, or will probably have to drop out of school, and will be required to go through months of discomfort with certain pain and the possibility of complications and/or death (nearly lost my sister-in-law to a ‘normal’ pregnancy), will have to outlay amounts of money for the birth (and if she keeps the baby rather than putting it up for adoption, more) that can be staggering, has to deal with public censure for being an ‘easy woman’… I could go on.This is why abortion rates aren’t markedly lower in theocracies where abortions are illegal and abstinence only is the law of the land.  I repeat, your morals don’t matter.  My morals don’t matter.  The only thing that matters is what works, and moralizing doesn’t work.  Abstinence only education doesn’t work.  Making abortions difficult to get/illegal doesn’t work.What works is education, education, education (the only way to be 100% STD free and avoid pregnancy is abstinence – but if you absolutely can’t hold yourself back, don’t let him pressure you into not using a condom, etc. etc. etc.), and free/cheap contraception.  Legal abortion just keeps the botched-abortion death and complication rates down.  That, to me, is morally right.

 So if she doesn’t want to nurture it, maybe it should be removed and implanted into a woman who does. Would that be acceptable to all the women who want to get abortions out there? That their biological child is given away to another family and never seen again? Somehow I think that would also be unacceptable to many people… there is a lot of “this embryo/child is MINE and I will decide what to do with it” emotion in the issue… whereas the other side says, this embryo/child belongs to society just as all humans do (including children, a difficult concept for some parents).

Be honest if you really believe women would happily allow their developing fetuses to be donated to another woman. Wouldn’t the wishes of the biological father somehow magically come into play, while they didn’t before? Interesting, isn’t it?

Thanks!

Unfortuniately, very few get the irony. One can never expect the muddling masses to comprehend anything beyond what they are told. Sadly, millions of people will take her seriously. Just look at shawnasong.

It always baffles me that the same people who argue “pro-life” are also the same people who get so mad when their right to possess guns is regulated. 

Kat,

@If you can think of (and support with evidence) some mystery factor

I have no need to. There are scores of other probable cultural/social factors, not the least of which are the society’s level of promiscuity (and by extension, how much such behavior is encouraged/discouraged), its general fertility rate and concerns about population growth, and expectations regarding parent/child roles. You are the one arguing that only a very limited set of factors is relevant, the burden of proof is therefore upon you to prove just that -otherwise your conclusion apparently is overly simplistic. 

@your morals don’t matter a whit to a girl who has no money

[sigh] And your political zeal matters even less to a child who’s being brutally murdered.

@abortion rates aren’t markedly lower in theocracies

Iran is a good example of a modern theocracy. Data on the nation is sketchy, but estimated to be ~7.5 per 1000 (NCBI, 2008 figures), as opposed to the US, where the figures are hovering closer to 19.6 per 1000 (Guttmacher, same year).

@The only thing that matters is what works

Which is a flawed pragmatism, since it heavily depends on the definition of “works” that you employ.

@Legal abortion just keeps the botched-abortion death and complication rates down. That, to me, is morally right.

Legalized homicide is morally right because it results in fewer deaths from complications than illegal homicide? That’s pretty dubious reasoning. In line with what I said before, you’re appealing to consequences to prove moral correctness, and thus employing a serious logical fallacy (URL above is corrected).

Corri,

Whether I have the same perspective as someone else has nothing to do with understanding the sanctity of human life. Emotional appeals are not relevant, facts are.

You claim that I choose the language I use because I want to demonize women to reinforce my worldview, yet you offer no proof for this other than the apparent implication that you can magically read minds and motives through the internet. And your assertion that I come across as a “blowhard” would be less comical if you presented anything resembling a coherent objection rather than inane accusations and pointless fluff.

The term “viable” in this context refers to an embryo with developmental potential. 
Reference: http://www.springerlink.com/content/vl3262068r291141/
One would still need nourishment (as all life does), but has all of the genetic information etc needed to develop.

@It is only viable inasmuch as its mother is willing to host/nurture it. So it should be her decision whether or not to do that.

That doesn’t follow: a child’s needs aren’t an intelligible excuse to kill it through deprivation. Newborns are also quite helpless, and only capable of survival with external support. Does that give their guardians the moral right of having a “choice” to starve them to death? Of note, Chinese orphanages already practice this barbaric philosophy on young girls in their infamous “dying rooms.”

That’s why I have a firm stance of guns and abortions for everyone….also drugs.

 replying directly to the line “an embryo/fetus is the only example of human life that requires another human-a specific, individual human, for its sole survival.”

This is very true, but it is also the beginning state of all human life- unless we introduce the idea of the crudely termed “test-tube baby” scenario.  So, it’s not just an example.  It’s the beginning phase of life.  Every human being begins this way.  “Only” is a poor choice of words, and so is “example”.  It is a pre-requisite to the rest of every human life- not optional.  Both of these words contain the insinuation of exceptions. 

So according to your line of logic, only the phases of life that require no support are- what?  viable?  worthwhile?  At which point do we consider that without the resources of another human being, we would not achieve independence?  I am very confused at the line of logic, and would enjoy a clarification of your point.

“[sigh] And your political zeal matters even less to a child who’s being brutally murdered.”

By your reasoning a miscarriage is manslaughter.  You seem to think that this is politically based, but this is personal experience.  I honestly used to think the way you do now – before I actually met and talked to women who’ve made the choice to have an abortion, what drove them to it, and heard first hand accounts of crack-babies dying months after being brought to term (and un-adoptable).   If it makes you feel better to think that this is political, I know nothing I say can change your perceptions.

“Iran is a good example of a modern theocracy. Data on the nation is sketchy, but estimated to be ~7.5 per 1000 (NCBI, 2008 figures), as opposed to the US, where the figures are hovering closer to 19.6 per 1000 (Guttmacher, same year).”

Yes, let’s be more like Iran (you’re right, this proves how cultural factors have an effect on abortion rates).  Where women are still stoned to death every year.  I’ll give you that in countries like Iran there are lower abortion rates (we can guess), because women  are regarded almost as property and guarded as such. Your example does more to discredit your overall logic than to prove your point. 
“Which is a flawed pragmatism, since it heavily depends on the definition of “works” that you employ.”

There is far more evidence out there to support education and access to contraceptives as an abortion deterrent than there is to support limiting it legally.  There are exceptions, yes, in extreme cases – but I know I don’t want my country to look like Iran in how it views women.
“Legalized homicide is morally right because it results in fewer deaths from complications than illegal homicide? That’s pretty dubious reasoning. In line with what I said before, you’re appealing to consequences to prove moral correctness, and thus employing a serious logical fallacy (URL above is corrected).”

Again, is a miscarriage manslaughter?  She didn’t lose the baby on purpose, but the baby died, so she should be punished?  You make accusations of simplistic thinking without apparently realizing that you’re doing it yourself.

Newborns are independant of their mother in terms of breathing on their one and independant movement. Terminating a pregnancy is not brutal murder that’s crazy it really is.

Kat,

@By your reasoning a miscarriage is manslaughter.

Um, are you missing something about how miscarriages typically occur? Many arise from genetic or implantation problems. Hormonal imbalances and infection are sometimes treatable, but not always caught in time. Legally, manslaughter involves proactively illegal action that results in death, or criminal negligence. In such cases as described above, the mother herself does nothing to kill the baby (ruling out constructive manslaughter), and there’s nothing in our power to prevent them (ruling out criminally negligent/involuntary manslaughter). 

@Your example does more to discredit your overall logic than to prove your point. 

(?) Seriously, do you not understand objective reasoning either? I was merely showing that your assertion about “theocracies” was mistaken, and that the set of relevant factors is likely larger than those you listed. It should be fairly obvious that citing a counter-example isn’t an endorsement: I never hinted that we needed to be more like Iran (which btw actually does allow limited, legal abortions), so you thinking that this somehow “discredits” my logic only serves to demonstrate that you really need to brush up on your critical thinking skills.

@There is far more evidence out there to support education and access to contraceptives as an abortion deterrent than there is to support limiting it legally.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive, so thinking it has to be only one or the other is a false dilemma.

@You seem to think that this is politically based

Not quite correct: not all political zeal has a political basis. That said, arguably extreme cases don’t justify abortion on demand.

Adam,

@Newborns are independant of their mother in terms of breathing on their one

Which doesn’t touch my point: newborns are still dependent upon external support for survival, which is not an excuse for murderering them any more than need for maternal support is an excuse to murder the unborn.

Right, it’s perfectly okay to take away a woman’s (who has the capacity to think and make decisions for herself) personhood away for a cluster of cells that may or may not be born.

Captain Obvious over here.

Apparently because a child being recognized as a person somehow magically negates its mother’s personhood…or something…? Kool-aid-drinking liberals: when your position is too incoherent to argue, try confusing the issue.

“Um, are you missing something about how miscarriages typically occur? Many arise from genetic or implantation problems. Hormonal imbalances and infection are sometimes treatable, but not always caught in time. Legally, manslaughter involves proactively illegal action that results in death, or criminal negligence. In such cases as described above, the mother herself does nothing to kill the baby (ruling out constructive manslaughter), and there’s nothing in our power to prevent them (ruling out criminally negligent/involuntary manslaughter).”

Doesn’t matter, by your logic abortion is murder. The fact that any of the miscarraiges are of hormonally balanced, non abnormal fetuses means that if the mother of a viable fetus was, say, out jogging and accidentally caused a miscarrage, she’s culpable for involuntary manslaughter.  If she was j-walking, it’s constructive manslaughter. If we follow your line of logic that “abortion is murder”, then the mother doing anything that could possibly endanger her own fetus, regardless of whether she knows it or not, means that she is committing manslaughter.  
“(?) Seriously, do you not understand objective reasoning either? I was merely showing that your assertion about “theocracies” was mistaken, and that the set of relevant factors is likely larger than those you listed. It should be fairly obvious that citing a counter-example isn’t an endorsement: I never hinted that we needed to be more like Iran (which btw actually does allow limited, legal abortions), so you thinking that this somehow “discredits” my logic only serves to demonstrate that you really need to brush up on your critical thinking skills.”

Your ‘objective reasoning’ that Iran, which is a country that barely acknowledges the personhood of women and premarital sex for girls over the age of 9 is subject to capital punishment – is somehow comparable to the U.S., where women have the same rights as men (excepting their reproductive rights), seems flawed to me.  I’ll admit, perhaps I should have made my original statement clearer with a “*does not apply to crazy-ass countries where premarital sex is against the law and punishable by death”, but I had assumed that you would be able to rule these out on your own.  My bad.

“The two aren’t mutually exclusive, so thinking it has to be only one or the other is a false dilemma.”

It’s true, they’re not mutually exclusive. Abortion is illegal in Ireland (excepting for health of the mother, etc.), but Irish women effectively get around it by leaving Ireland and getting abortions in other countries where abortions are legal.  

“Not quite correct: not all political zeal has a political basis. That said, arguably extreme cases don’t justify abortion on demand.”

Every case is extreme to the prospective mother.  

It’s always easier to pin your opponent with the ‘political zealot’ badge than it is to consider that they have their own reasons for supporting/opposing legislation.

Kat,

@Doesn’t matter, by your logic abortion is murder.

It very much does matter, because you’re equivocating what is meant by manslaughter. If jogging were to somehow trigger a miscarriage, it couldn’t be involuntary manslaughter by any sane definition of the term because no criminal negligence is apparent.

@If she was j-walking, it’s constructive manslaughter.

How exactly could anyone reasonably (either epistemologically or legally) pinpoint the time a miscarriage was triggered to a timeframe of mere seconds? Your fears sound more based in paranoia than clear thinking.

@”*does not apply to crazy-a** countries where premarital sex is against the law and punishable by death”

You were plainly addressing “theocracies,” the primary ones still in existence being Muslim countries which are typically under Sharia law. If that wasn’t what you were talking about, then what was? All those Roman Catholic theocracies still in existence [note: sarcasm]? Or have you lost your cool so badly that you’ve forgotten what you were arguing?

@Your ‘objective reasoning’ that Iran… is somehow comparable to the U.S. …seems flawed to me.

Newsflash: you were the one comparing western nations to theocracies to begin with. Addressing your point, I merely cited statistics from a modern theocracy to contrast the abortion rates, and you somehow infer that I’m using “flawed” logic because I’m addressing the very issue that you brought up!

@It’s always easier to pin your opponent with the ‘political zealot’ badge than it is to consider that they have their own reasons

[facepalm] You didn’t read, obviously.

@Every case is extreme to the prospective mother.

Which is highly subjective -not to mention absurd.

“It very much does matter, because you’re equivocating what is meant by manslaughter. If jogging were to somehow trigger a miscarriage, it couldn’t be involuntary manslaughter by any sane definition of the term because no criminal negligence is apparent.”
As soon as you give personhood to developing fetuses, a woman who accidentally causes a miscarrage from jogging can be charged with negligent manslaughter.  Whether it would result in a conviction would probably depend on what state you’re in.  I’m sorry, but to me even the possibility is patently insane.  They don’t have that kind of belief in countries where they include the time you’re in the womb in your age.  On top of that, you raise the question of whether the health of the mother is more important than the life of the child, and if it’s a child of rape/incest you… what, make an allowance for which unborn lives are considered ‘sacred’?  Are you going to force a pregnant 14 year old to bear a child to term in those cases?  ”How exactly could anyone reasonably (either epistemologically or legally) pinpoint the time a miscarriage was triggered to a timeframe of mere seconds? Your fears sound more based in paranoia than clear thinking.”See, you’re not in a situation where your choices are being defined by the opposite gender.  I’ll cop to the fear, though:

If the (let’s say nearly all-female) government could force you to go through financial hardship, sweeping hormonal changes, probable loss of income and possible complications (including death), because of a broken condom, you’d be a bit paranoid, too.  But the government can’t force that on you, because you don’t have the right equipment. It’s easy to see in black and white (fetus = person = right to a womb regardless of the womb-owner’s position) when you’re not the target of a law.

“You were plainly addressing “theocracies,” the primary ones still in existence being Muslim countries which are typically under Sharia law. If that wasn’t what you were talking about, then what was? All those Roman Catholic theocracies still in existence [note: sarcasm]? Or have you lost your cool so badly that you’ve forgotten what you were arguing?

Newsflash: you were the one comparing western nations to theocracies to begin with. Addressing your point, I merely cited statistics from a modern theocracy to contrast the abortion rates, and you somehow infer that I’m using “flawed” logic because I’m addressing the very issue that you brought up!”"

You’re correct – I was in error.  A better way to put it would have been “the 33 countries where abortion is not legal or available” – and generally, the call of ‘when life begins’ is decided, in one way or another, by religion rather than science.  I’m sorry an incorrect term on my behalf led to the confusion.  I was wondering why you chose Iran for your example, because Iran is about the worst country to hold up as an example of low abortion rates.  Now it makes sense.  My apologies.

“[facepalm] You didn’t read, obviously.”Agreed – I misread.  But I don’t consider having a strong opinion on one specific subject political zealotry.”Which is highly subjective -not to mention absurd.”

What, are you seriously telling me that the choice to have/not have a baby isn’t extreme?  You’ve never had to deal with a pregnancy scare, so I know you can’t understand this on a visceral level, but generally speaking it’s a Big F*ing Deal.  I’ve yet to meet a woman who had a child/ chose to have an abortion who felt it was anything less than life-changing.

Let’s try it this way: a woman should be able to tell the government to take a hike when it comes to controlling a woman’s body.  The government doesn’t have the ability to force women to have abortions – it would be a huge human rights violation on the part of the mother…  But somehow to force a woman to put her life (both figuratively and literally) on the line to have a baby is ok.  While maternal death rates are low, there’s still a 13/100,000 (within the US) chance that a woman will die because of a pregnancy.  That may seem negligible, but then most small percentages seem negligible until you’re one of the unlucky few.  

Now add that risk to the mountain of other reasons women might not want a pregnancy, and you can see how something that is, for all intents and purposes a cluster of cells (until it can survive outside of the womb) would be uninspiring to women who don’t hold the same views of when life begins as you.

Kat,

@a woman who accidentally causes a miscarrage from jogging can be charged with negligent manslaughter.

1.) There isn’t really an conclusive proof that exercise causes miscarriages in the first place. Some of it seems to suggest the opposite: it’s quite probable that exercise reduces its chances and results in healthier babies.
2.) That said, it’s quite doubtful that jogging while pregnant could be considered “criminal negligence.”
3.) Even if exercise could do that, how could that be legally proven as the cause when there are multiple other common causes?

I don’t think there’s any sound warrant for such fears. To the children of rape issue, I don’t believe a parent’s crimes justify killing a child. But on the question of the life of the child being more important than the mother, I wouldn’t think so: even the most ardent pro-life doctor that I know places the mother’s safety before her child. The child being a person doesn’t make its mother a non-person.

@could force you to go through financial hardship, sweeping hormonal changes, probable loss of income and possible complications (including death), because of a broken condom, you’d be a bit paranoid, too.

Of note, abortions can also result in major complications, including death ( http://afterabortion.org/1999/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-physical-complications-related-to-abortion/ ). I don’t really find the your hypothetical government example very scary. Failed birth control or no, I already do believe that men are to be held financially responsible for the children they sire, and that “deadbeat dads” need to be brought to task legally. Lastly, this isn’t due to some chauvinistic outlook: my wife is as adamantly pro-life as I am -and for the exact same reasons. And yes, we have plenty of experience with pregnancy (our third is due any day now).

@generally, the call of ‘when life begins’ is decided, in one way or another, by religion rather than science.

“Science” itself can’t decide anything of that sort. It’s a tool that’s used to derive facts using empirical methods. It can’t directly answer deeper, underlying philosophical questions like, “what constitutes a human being?”

@My apologies.

No biggie.

@are you seriously telling me that the choice to have/not have a baby isn’t extreme?

I’m saying not every pregnancy is an extreme case. “Extreme,” by definition, is something out of the ordinary. If every case of is this fairly common occurence were considered extreme, then the term ceases to have any meaning. Cases such as an ectopic pregnancy (in which the child usually *will* die and the mother could die if it’s not removed), up next to someone not wanting a kid because it infringes upon their social life, are hardly comparable.

Kat, as pointed out above, abortions carry their own set of risks -including death of the mother. You also appear to be making an error in logic: since possible risks of pregnancy have nothing to do with whether unborn children are people or not.

“1.) There isn’t really an conclusive proof that exercise causes miscarriages in the first place. Some of it seems to suggest the opposite: it’s quite probable that exercise reduces its chances and results in healthier babies.
2.) That said, it’s quite doubtful that jogging while pregnant could be considered “criminal negligence.”
3.) Even if exercise could do that, how could that be legally proven as the cause when there are multiple other common causes?”
As soon as they have proof of any kind of physical exertion that causes miscarriage (a list of self-induced abortion techniques includes bellyflopping onto a hard surface, lifting heavy weights, yoga, etc.), you would,, by law (if the fetus is considered to have the same right to life as the mother) to view any of those as preventable – thus, negligent manslaughter.  Even (per a study done in India -http://medind.nic.in/iaj/t00/i4/iajt00i4p177g.pdf), eating mutton marrow or carrot seed soup could cause a miscarriage - and is regularly used as self-induced abortion technique in India.  So a woman who unknowingly ingests a substance that causes miscarriage in a state where a fetus is considered a full person could be charged with manslaughter.  If she did it knowing it might result in the miscarriage, it would be murder.  And to me, that is patently ridiculous.

    ”I don’t think there’s any sound warrant for such fears. To the children of rape issue, I don’t believe a parent’s crimes justify killing a child. But on the question of the life of the child being more important than the mother, I wouldn’t think so: even the most ardent pro-life doctor that I know places the mother’s safety before her child. The child being a person doesn’t make its mother a non-person.”

It’s not about the parent’s crimes – it’s not victimless. Rapes are so traumatic that many victims end up with PTSD.  While some women will view a resulting baby as a blessing despite the horrible way it was forced on them, other rape victims view as a cancer growing inside of them – especially if it’s also a result of incest.  Do you want to tell a raped 12 year old – or her family – that she has no choice but to bear the child to term?  You want to force her to go through labor, by most women’s accounts the most painful thing they’ve ever experienced in their lives, on top of what she’s already gone through?  To me, that is making the mother a non-entity.  
“Of note, abortions can also result in major complications, including death (http://afterabortion.org/1999/… ). I don’t really find the your hypothetical government example very scary. Failed birth control or no, I already do believe that men are to be held financially responsible for the children they sire, and that “deadbeat dads” need to be brought to task legally. Lastly, this isn’t due to some chauvinistic outlook: my wife is as adamantly pro-life as I am -and for the exact same reasons. And yes, we have plenty of experience with pregnancy (our third is due any day now).”

It’s true, abortions can result in complications – Less than 0.3% that result in needing further medical care.  Unfortunately, maternal complications and death rates have doubled in the US in the last 20 years, disproportionately so – poor and/or minority women have a higher chance  of complication or death than other women (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-12/health/maternal.mortality_1_maternal-deaths-deaths-and-complications-pregnancy?_s=PM:HEALTH).

So you want to tell women that they have to put their lives on the line for your beliefs?

“Science” itself can’t decide anything of that sort. It’s a tool that’s used to derive facts using empirical methods. It can’t directly answer deeper, underlying philosophical questions like, “what constitutes a human being?”

And you’re arguing that the traditional religious views on when life begins should be how we draw the laws.  What about people who don’t believe that the fetus is a baby until it’s born?  You would, in essence, be enacting a religious law on them.
“I’m saying not every pregnancy is an extreme case. “Extreme,” by definition, is something out of the ordinary. If every case of is this fairly common occurence were considered extreme, then the term ceases to have any meaning. Cases such as an ectopic pregnancy (in which the child usually *will* die and the mother could die if it’s not removed), up next to someone not wanting a kid because it infringes upon their social life, are hardly comparable.”

Yet you’re making judgments on why women are making their choice.  I can assure you, the vast, vast majority of women don’t make the choice to have an abortion because of their social lives.  This is why I say it’s extreme – because people like to generalize this to ‘oh, those lazy women who are so morally corrupt that they think their social lives are more important than a child’… when the reality is that the majority of abortions are done because the woman has serious financial problems and/or they know they wouldn’t be able to handle the pregnancy or, if they chose to keep it, the child.  
Did you know that it’s nearly impossible for a pregnant woman to obtain health and/or life insurance (at least until Obama’s healthcare reform kicks in)?  I had to take a blood test to qualify for my life insurance, and one of the make-or-break ‘pre-existing condition’ items they checked was whether I was pregnant or not.  

If insurance companies aren’t willing to take on the financial risk and burden of a pregnancy, what does that tell you about the costs that a woman has to shoulder?  And that’s discounting the possibility of the mother being in school at the time, or having to take time off from a job when they might already be financially strained.  You want to make it a law for the fathers to shoulder as much of the financial burden as the mother (actually more, since she’s taking actual physical risk and going through labor and all) and, if the mother dies or goes through complications and pain, so do they… then maybe I could see your point.

Kat,

@As soon as they have proof of any kind of physical exertion that causes miscarriage

1.) This requires assuming that concrete evidence that regular exercise causes miscarriages will be found. Exercise typically benefits human bodily systems, so I’m doubtful such research will ever be forthcoming.
2.) Belly-flopping onto the baby, etc, is hardly in the same category as jogging.

@So a woman who unknowingly ingests a substance that causes miscarriage in a state where a fetus is considered a full person could be charged with manslaughter.

Unlikely, a parallel case would be a parent feeding a child something they didn’t know would produce a violent allergic reaction resulting in death. Such would (or at least should) be considered akin to a freak accident, not criminal negligence.

@If she did it knowing it might result in the miscarriage, it would be murder.

Well obviously. If you premeditatively kill another person, that would be murder. By the same token, a parent who killed a child by feeding her something that’s known to cause a strong reaction could likewise be charged with murder.

@other rape victims view it as a cancer growing inside of them 

Approval or disapproval of others has nothing to do with whether one is a person.

@Do you want to tell a raped 12 year old – or her family – that she has no choice but to bear the child to term?

Not if it poses a serious danger to her life, but otherwise it’s not right to kill her child. I fail to see how the best method to subvert “abuse” of one child is to kill another.

@Less than 0.3% that result in needing further medical care.

I think that’s a bit off. The study I cited put major complication rates between 2 and 3% (not that all of them are caught immediately). Strangely, there appears to be a connection between abortions and complications with subsequent pregnancies, which may contribute to the rising complication rates you mentioned.

@What about people who don’t believe that the fetus is a baby until it’s born?

I would challenge them to provide scientific and/or logical evidence that a child in the womb is somehow not a child. 

@You would, in essence, be enacting a religious law on them.

For starters, the fact that a child in the womb is simply a less-developed, more dependent human being is supported by an overwhelming amount of scientific data. Unless one wants to play with words or invoke special pleading, there’s not really a case to be made for an unborn child being a non-human. Secondly, all laws relating to objective morality have a religious/faith basis of some sort. Science can only tell us about physical phenomena. By definition, it can’t answer questions pertaining to the immaterial such as what is “right” and “wrong,” e.g. science can tell us how a murder can occur, but cannot tell us why it shouldn’t have occurred. Objective morality cannot exist apart from religious (or similarly philosophical) principle.

@Yet you’re making judgments on why women are making their choice.

I didn’t pass judgment, I was saying that two hypothetical cases weren’t comparable.

@Most women in your position will make the choice you’ve made.

My position hasn’t always been what it is now. Our first was born when we didn’t have a job between us, and I was still carrying well over a full-time load in school; we even had to live with family for a while. Though financial/social/insurance difficulties, while real and relevant, don’t say anything as to whether the child is a person or not. If the child is a person, none of these are justification to murder it.

We’ll take a similar scenario: what if there was a woman who had just had a baby, but suddenly fell upon hard times? Husband left/died, got laid off, etc. She’s in for some hard times, so she decides to ditch the newborn in a trash bin. Does her financial burden suddenly justify her actions or make her baby an impersonal “mass of cells”?

@You want to make it a law for the fathers to shoulder as much of the financial burden as the mother

I’ve stated that I have no objections to child support, and believe that men should likewise be held legally responsible for the care of their own children. As for making men suffer if their wives do, that’s wholly unnecessary, and rather on the loopy “one is harmed, we must harm the other” side, kind of like the practice of some Eastern communities where they bury the widow with her deceased husband (sorry ladies, longer average lifespans aren’t fair to the men -jk).

@congratulations on the third child!

Thank-you very much. Incidentally, I’m also from a family of four (eldest).

“1.) This requires assuming that concrete evidence that regular exercise causes miscarriages will be found. Exercise typically benefits human bodily systems, so I’m doubtful such research will ever be forthcoming.
2.) Belly-flopping onto the baby, etc, is hardly in the same category as jogging.”

Yes, regular exercise is good for the body, but trust me when I say that a sudden push when your body isn’t prepared for it can result in badness.  If a woman who isn’t normally a jogger has to make a mad dash is can be dangerous to the pregnancy.  And if she trips while running and lands on her stomach? Seeing as that has been proven to cause miscarriage, she’s committed manslaughter by not taking enough care of her body.

“Unlikely, a parallel case would be a parent feeding a child something they didn’t know would produce a violent allergic reaction resulting in death. Such would (or at least should) be considered akin to a freak accident, not criminal negligence.”

“Should” doesn’t always mean that’s how things go down.  We live in one of the most litigious cultures on the planet.

“Well obviously. If you premeditatively kill another person, that would be murder. By the same token, a parent who killed a child by feeding her something that’s known to cause a strong reaction could likewise be charged with murder.”

And we get back to the crux of the issue – where, exactly, a fertilized egg becomes a person.  There are some people who believe that taking the morning after pill constitutes murder.  That is a religious belief, and so making it into a law that is enforceable even over women not of that religious belief system guarantees a loss of personal liberties and freedoms.  To me, that’s not acceptable.  Everything we’ve been going back and forth about hinges on this very basic, very faith-driven belief system.

“Not if it poses a serious danger to her life, but otherwise it’s not right to kill her child. I fail to see how the best method to subvert “abuse” of one child is to kill another.”

Okay, we’re done here.  If you believe that forcing a 12 year old girl to bear a child to term – to go thought labor (did I mention it’s one of the most painful experiences in a woman’s life?) that is a product of incest, there is absolutely nothing that I can say that will make sense to you.  What you’re saying is that a collection of cells is a life, and what I’m saying is that torturing 12 year old girls because of a law isn’t ok.  We have different views of when viable life begins, and nothing you can say will change my basic belief on it any more than I could change yours – and since it’s impossible to actually prove when a collection of cells becomes a person, we’re at a stalemate.

You know what the answer is?  Mandatory vasectomies for all boys who become sexually active.  They’re reversible now, and more reliable than temporary tube-tying, so why not require them by law?

Kat,
  
@If a woman who isn’t normally a jogger has to make a mad dash is can be dangerous to the pregnancy.

Could be, but without more hard data that’s a pretty weak conjecture. And as I pointed out, legally pinpointing that as the cause when many others are attributable would be nigh-impossible.

@And if she trips while running and lands on her stomach?

Could be considered accidental death, that happens as well, and often without charges brought against the parents.

@”Should” doesn’t always mean that’s how things go down.

Indeed, but the answer to judicial abuse is judicial reform, not lack of laws protecting the innocent.

@so making it into a law that is enforceable even over women not of that religious belief system guarantees a loss of personal liberties and freedoms.

Personal liberties shouldn’t entail rights to deprive others of their liberties, such as their right to not be killed without justification.

@What you’re saying is that a collection of cells is a life

What you’re saying is that a life is merely a collection of cells (what life on this planet isn’t made up of a set of cells?). One has to employ word-play or fallacies of some kind to conclude that unborn children are somehow magically not children.

@what I’m saying is that torturing 12 year old girls because of a law isn’t ok.

Pregnancy, while by no means comfortable, isn’t “torture” in any meaningful sense (hyperbole-laden rhetoric isn’t an argument). And needlessly slaughtering one child for the comfort and convenience of another is simply absurd.

@That is a religious belief
…
@and since it’s impossible to actually prove when a collection of cells becomes a person, we’re at a stalemate.

Religious people holding to fact-based beliefs doesn’t make said beliefs strictly a matter of faith. To the contrary, as I’ve stated before, the scientific evidence for unborn children being just that is overwhelming now; anyone arguing otherwise is positing a rather backwards view that, far from comporting with science, is based upon equivocation and more abjectly blind faith than Harold Camping’s followers have. That children are plainly alive before they are born is also evident to anyone who has had children, felt them move and respond even in utero, and understood the obvious truth that they are separate, living entities of human makeup. Advances in scientific research have made this fact all the more obvious, even to secular thinkers.

“Personally, my pro-life beliefs belong to the discoveries in science. While I am sympathetic to women’s rights and would even consider myself a Feminist as would any man who believes in gender equality, the right to life outweighs our personal discomforts. I will hesitantly concede that had I been born 10 years earlier I most likely would have considered myself pro-choice based upon the absence of scientific evidence within the pro-life movement at the time. More so, if science had proven that life began at birth I would have had no foundation for an anti-abortion belief. Thankfully for the pro-life movement, science has reemphasized the movement’s argument that abortion takes the life of an unborn child.” (Ptomey, P., “Confessions of a Pro-Life Atheist, Why I Fight Abortion” http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/28/confessions-of-a-pro-life-atheist-why-i-fight-abortion/ )

He also fittingly quotes the late Christopher Hitchens (obviously no friend to religion),

“As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body.  There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even-this was seriously maintained-a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped.  Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.”

Hitchens raises an especially good point about premature babies. What about babies who actually have survived abortions such as Gianna Jessen? Is she somehow a “non-person” because she was technically aborted rather than born? Did her life just never begin or something? Or did the attempt to kill her magically bring her to life?

Obviously you don’t know what a coherent objection looks like.  Try re-reading the post you just replied to.  You also forgot to deny that I was right about my assessment about your language so I guess my intuition was correct, no?

This
is a poem written by a female inmate at Mabel Bassett Correctional
Center in McLoud, Oklahoma, where we have the CSI cognitive program. Be
sure to have something to dry up your tears after reading this poem as
told through a child’s eyes. “Sarah” My name is Sarah. I am but three My eyes are swollen, I cannot see. I must be stupid – I must be bad, What else could have made my daddy so mad? I wish I were better – I wish I weren’t so ugly, Then my mommy would still want to hug me. I can’t speak at all – I can’t do a wrong Or else I’m locked up all the day long. When I awake I’m all alone. The house is dark. My folks aren’t home. When my mommy does come, I” try and be nice, So maybe I” get just one whipping tonight. Don’t make a sound! I just heard a car. My daddy is back from Charlie’s Bar. I heard him curse – my name he calls, I press myself against the wall. I try and hide from his evil eyes. I’m so afraid now, I’m starting to cry. He finds me weeping – he shouts ugly words. He says it’s my fault that he suffers at work. He slaps me and hits me and yells at me more. I finally get free and I run for the door. He’s already locked it, and I start to bawl. He take me and throws me against the hard wall. I fall to the floor with my bones nearly broken, and my daddy continues with more bad words spoken. “I’m sorry!”, I scream – but it’s now much too late. His face has been twisted into unimaginable hate. The hurt and the pain – again and again. “Oh, please God, have mercy! Oh, please let it end!” And he finally stops and heads for the door, While I lay there motionless sprawled on the floor. My name is Sarah, and I am but three. Tonight my daddy murdered me.
This poem by this female inmate is so real. It happened to her
daughter. I don’t know the inmate’s name but this poem comes from her
heart after being in a special program that helps the women to work
through their abuse. So many of the female inmates at MBCC are victims
of abuse, including physical, sexual, and drugs that let to the crimes
they were sentenced for many years and life at times. Somehow their
stories must be heard. I plan to help them, so stay posted. Love
always, Dr. John N Hatfield
Like · · Share

So… Every month when I ovulate I’m killing babies? Oh, and so is she. This is so ridiculous! I love America :/