.
Opinion: 'Doonesbury' strip says Texas' abortion law is rape - I agree
"Doonesbury" is currently focusing on Texas' abortion law. You can view the strip at GoComics.com/doonesbury.
March 15th, 2012
07:41 PM ET

Opinion: 'Doonesbury' strip says Texas' abortion law is rape - I agree

Editor's note: Carole Simpson is the leader-in-residence at Emerson College’s School of Communication in Boston, where she teaches journalism and communications classes. She is the first woman or minority to be the sole moderator of a presidential debate, and chronicled her 40 years as a broadcast journalist in her memoir, "Newslady."

For an opposing view, click here.

By Carole Simpson, Special to CNN

(CNN) - Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Garry Trudeau has done it again.  For more than 40 years his comic strip, “Doonesbury” has been criticized for poking fun at presidents, other political figures and government decisions. But his strip is being yanked from some newspapers this week because, for the second time in his career, he has created a storyline that takes on abortion, God forbid.

What prompted Trudeau to invite the wrath of conservative pro-lifers everywhere is the new Texas law, which demeans, demoralizes, and may even damage the reproductive organs of women who dare to seek an abortion.  Passed by the Republican-controlled Texas legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Perry, the law forces a woman who wants an abortion to receive information about her fetus that only can be obtained by a vaginal ultrasound.

During the procedure a doctor inserts a 10-inch sonogram wand into the vagina of a pregnant woman. Then the doctor must show her the image of her fetus and make her listen to the heartbeat.  Then the woman goes home to spend 24 hours considering her decision to abort.  Texas lawmakers wanted to make the procedure so invasive, so painful, and so emotionally devastating that the woman would change her mind.  They hope the woman bears the baby, which may have been conceived through rape or incest, or even if the birth may endanger her life.  It’s a prescription for child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.

For this week’s “Doonesbury,” Trudeau created a story damning the Texas legislature.  It begins with a Texas woman going to a clinic seeking an abortion.  The nurse tells her:  “The male Republicans who run Texas require that all abortion seekers be examined with a 10” shaming wand.”  WOW.

Another strip shows a doctor about to perform the procedure, and the bubble of words coming from his mouth says, “By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape.” BAM. Trudeau pulls no punches.

Trudeau told The Washington Post that the procedure, in itself, is a form of rape: “The World Health Organization defines rape as ‘physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration— even if slight– of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts, or an object,’” said Trudeau. “You tell me the difference.”

The cartoonist has picked sides on what’s being called the “war on women.” He thinks women are getting a raw deal.  But that’s of little comfort.  Eight states now require ultrasounds before a woman can get an abortion and two others are fighting legal challenges to implement the procedure.  None of the other states, however, have laws that require the invasive ultrasounds Texas mandates.

Women of the Lone Star state should look into the possible infringement of their rights guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishments.”  That would appear on its face to include vaginal ultrasound procedures inflicted on women by a state government.

Women used to proudly herald, “We’ve come a long way, baby.”  But now it looks like we’ve hit a brick wall and men are starting to take back some of the mileage we fought so hard to gain.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Carole Simpson.

Posted by ,
Filed under: Health • Politics • What we think • Women
soundoff (2,400 Responses)
  1. SurRy

    The Republican-Teaba$$er-American Taliban want a government so small it will fit in a woman's va$ina.

    March 14, 2012 at 1:02 am | Report abuse |
    • C. Cole

      lol

      March 14, 2012 at 1:03 am | Report abuse |
    • John-117

      Ignoring the obviously untrue remarks you just posted, why is small government a bad thing? Why do we want the government managing our private lives? Wait! Could is be possible that big government is the reason for the US being trillions of dollars in debt?! Is it the governments job to pay my living expenses?! Should people just trade in mooching off their parents to mooch of the government. One who is a supporter of big government would probably answer yes to the last 2 questions.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:10 am | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        How ironic that you are lauding small government on this particular article dealing with government mandated penetration

        March 14, 2012 at 1:13 am | Report abuse |
      • C. Cole

        I agree. Why would we want a government so invasive it would try to dictate when a woman can have access to her health care and when she can't. big government thinks of all sorts of things to be invasive with.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:14 am | Report abuse |
      • John-117

        Drew, I said small government, not no government.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:15 am | Report abuse |
      • Just a guy

        It seems you small government advocates are all about contraction of our current government except when it comes to controlling other people's lives. Think of what a world without abortion will look like. The abortion pill will be on the black market, people will be watching Facebook to see who's pregnant and turning them in, friends turning on friends and the government puts uncooperative women in medical jail until they give birth. Is that really your version of a small government?

        March 14, 2012 at 1:18 am | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        John-117,

        So the government should be small enough to do just what you want it to. Anything more is "big government".

        March 14, 2012 at 1:19 am | Report abuse |
      • John-117

        I want to government to be small, yet big enough to protect life. There should be laws protecting life, not destroying it. I keep hearing women say its their body, but its NOT their body, its the body of another human. Why not legalize killing a born child? You could argue that its YOUR life and you don't want this child keeping you from having a good time in life. Now does that sound right? Of course not. So why does abortion sound right to you? hmm?

        March 14, 2012 at 1:28 am | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        John-117,

        Nobody likes abortion. The real problem is that you really have no right to decide if the physical and mental conditions of the mother should not be considered.

        FACT: giving birth to a baby is FAR MORE medically dangerous than an abortion. You are making a decision to FORCE the mother to risk her health without any input herself or your knowledge of her unique conditions.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:36 am | Report abuse |
  2. Your Panties

    That is a terrible law. The Texas legislature should get it repealed.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:49 am | Report abuse |
    • John-117

      On the contrary, that is a great law. No one is taking away their right to get an abortion. This law makes the mother humanize the child growing inside of her. God forbid you see what actually is growing inside of you before you choose to kill the child or not. I know you liberals would love to ignore the child by dehumanizing it before an abortion. There is a reason for this, because if you actually realize what abortion means, you would have a sick feeling of it being wrong.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:01 am | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        Don't pretend that liberals don't know what abortion is. Get serious. No one likes it, but that's not a good enough reason by itself to be anti-choice.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:05 am | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        So Observer, by your logic, we shouldn't have outlawed slavery since it was a financial necessity at the time and no one really liked it.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:09 am | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        It also has the effect of dehumanizing the mother, is this something you approve of?

        March 14, 2012 at 1:11 am | Report abuse |
      • Suzy

        Funny, I have that "sick feeling" that your forcibly imposed sense of "right and wrong" into my private parts is wrong.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:13 am | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        Scott,

        When did I talk about "financial necessity"?

        Didn't you agree earlier that you SUPPORT ABORTION at times?

        March 14, 2012 at 1:13 am | Report abuse |
      • John-117

        @drew, I don't see how an ultra sound dehumanizes the mother. With your logic, paying taxes dehumanizes an individual.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:16 am | Report abuse |
      • evangelist

        the klan and evangelist make for strange bedfellows

        March 14, 2012 at 1:19 am | Report abuse |
      • RillyKewl

        Its not a child, its a life-ruining albatross. Besides, it is not wanted. It is not born. A girl or woman in that position need not be tortured. Her life has already been thrown into crisis.

        Maybe you'd like it if a doctor was forced to perform unnecessary, invasive procedures on you, but you have no right to demand unnecessary, invasive procedures be performed on someone else.
        Shame on you.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:19 am | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Lets examine your statement, Observer. You say that "Don't pretend that liberals don't know what abortion is. Get serious. No one likes it, but that's not a good enough reason by itself to be anti-choice." Lets break it down, Barney style.

        1. You say liberals know what abortion is. What is it? Is it the killing of a human life or is it a blob of cells?
        2. "No one likes it" Why? Who is it bad for?
        3. No one likes it is not a good enough reason to oppose it...What would be a good enough reason? This goes to answer your question to me. I told you I am in favor of allowing a woman to choose an abortion if it means that continuing to keep the baby would (90% chance) kill her, such as an ectopic pregnancy; in that case the baby is also going to die anyway. My very pro-life aunt had this done.

        My mention of financial necessity applies to the often cited argument that it's better to abort than have an unwanted kid. The point was there was a right thing to do – free slaves. This had a disastorus effect on the Southern economy, the effects of which still linger, ever so slightly. However, the necessity of treating another person as a human being trumped the financial model of the south. In this situation, there is a right thing to do – outlaw abortion as birth control. Just like the South had to figure things out when their slaves were freed, those who wish to have abortions just because it's not a good time need to figure things out too. It's called responsibility.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:37 am | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        Scott,

        Abortion terminates the life of a fetus.

        We are both pro-choice. We are just at different points on that spectrum.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:41 am | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Observer, with all due respect, I am not pro-choice. I am pro-life. Pro-life doesn't mean that you are completely opposed to any and every abortion. As I explained, I am opposed to abortion-because-we-haven't-partied-enough-yet, which is what those who advocate no restrictions are essentially supporting. I believe most pro-lifers hold this same position, and would understand that sometimes pregnancy may kill the mother, such as an ectopic pregnancy. I would gladly leave the decision of what to do in that situation up to the woman and her doctor. Rape is a really difficult subject. There is another poster on here who says she has a son concieved by rape, and she loves him dearly. Not all victims will feel the way she does. The only thing I can say there is that why should the innocent child have to pay for the stupidity of the man that assaulted his/her mother? I don't want to cause either of them more pain, but I don't think the innocent baby should be made to pay. If it is too painful for the mother to keep it, there are many people, including infertile couples that I am friends with that would love to adopt kids who need a family.

        March 14, 2012 at 2:03 am | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        Scott,

        EVERYONE is pro-life. It just depends if that life is the mother or fetus.

        The real "sides" are pro-choice or anti-choice. Since you are willing to let the mother decide in some cases, you would qualify as pro-choice. As I stated, we are dealing with a spectrum here. There are a spectrum of possibilites for the unique situation of every mother. Each case should be viewed individually. You need to realize that the mother may have to decide if terminating a 2-inch fetus that she couldn't give a good life to, is better to do and then be able to give a much better life to a wanted baby later.

        I'll bet you've never considered that you might only be alive today because of an abortion in the distant past that lead to another birth that wouldn't have happened without it. It's part of planned parenthood.

        March 14, 2012 at 2:20 am | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      I completely agree up until you said "men are starting to take back some of the mileage we fought so hard to gain." There's an awful lot of women in the religious right that agree with this shameful policy. I think it is time that free thinkers start banding together and send a clear message to the religious right that their reign of terror is over. This is the 21st century.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:08 am | Report abuse |
      • RillyKewl

        Free thinkers need to speak up + speak out as often as needed.
        And boy, is it needed now!

        March 14, 2012 at 1:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Anna

      It is a horrible and demeaning law. Republicans think they know better than anyone else and can decide for women. What can you expect from a state that has Perry as governor? What an embarrassment!

      March 14, 2012 at 2:05 am | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      Observer, it's also possible that I am here because somewhere way back someone robbed a bank that made a policeman miss his date with his girlfriend who broke up with him and married someone else that led to my existence. Or, perhaps when the pioneers were heading west they were acosted by a gang who raped the women and one of the victims gave birth to a great-grandparent of mine. I'm not trying to say we don't need roads where we're going, but my existence doesn't justify legalizing bank robbery or rape. I could also easily say we've probably aborted the next Albert Einstein or Steve Jobs.

      March 14, 2012 at 2:43 am | Report abuse |
  3. C. Cole

    I'm guessing that those who support such a law are trying to argue that; 'life begins at conception'. I think most have heard this phrase and theory.

    I may be inclined to agree. First and foremost however, I would need indisputable scientific proof that this was the case. But lets be honest, that would be some pretty difficult proof to come by wouldn't it?

    The proof would be so difficult to come by because 'when life begins' can never be defined, ever. It's science, it morals, it's issue of consciousness, feelings of loss and an endless string of things that mean 'when life begins'.

    I've known a few women that have made the decision to have an abortion. None of them wanted it, None of them escaped what it did to them emotionally. And one of them had another one. Trying to make women feel guilty about a very important decision in their lives, that will affect them for the rest of their lives, is on so many, many levels, not the right way to go about this.

    Think about one day in the future, when some very impassioned group of people that believe that religious teaching to your children is extremely serious child abuse that. Because of that, and because they are sincere in saving the life of that child, your child is taken away from you. Additionally, you access to any form of health care is denied to you to create and birth another child. Can you imagine how invaded you would feel if someone that really wanted to save your child's life did that to you and your choices in life? Be mindful how much control you seek to demand on other, it might come back to return the favor.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:48 am | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      Well, I guess my kid would still be alive...

      March 14, 2012 at 1:10 am | Report abuse |
  4. Stephen

    So I've heard abortion compared to 1st Degree Murder, worse than slavery, and worse than the Holocaust. If you think abortion is as bad as genocide, you're no better than the Germans who turned a blind eye to the Holocaust, if you think abortion is worse than slavery, you're weak for not offering to adopt and 'take them to freedom,' and if you think abortion is First Degree murder you suck for not doing anything to stop it. You don't do anything about it because you know it is not as bad as any of those but you love the rhetoric.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:46 am | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      So we should bomb abortion clincs right? Nope, I'm handling this one the right way – through legislation. You're not goading me into giving you more ammo to keep killing babies.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:51 am | Report abuse |
      • Your mother

        Reading comprehension.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:12 am | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        What parts did you have trouble understanding?

        March 14, 2012 at 2:07 am | Report abuse |
  5. Fiona

    Years ago, I was raped by a male ultrasound tech, who claimed he "couldn't locate my ovary" as he prodded and pushed. At the time I was so worried about the possible tumor he was supposed to be scanning that I said nothing, and I did not report it to the medical center. A few years later, I saw him in radiology,where he'd been moved, now doing x-rays. He was still creepy, asking personal questions, looking down my gown. This editorial piece brought back that first exam, and the violation. Trudeau is correct - in the wrong hands, and with the wrong intentions, that probe is a tool of rape.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:43 am | Report abuse |
    • Your Panties

      Fiona, I am interested iln your situation. Did the male ultrasound tech rape you with his dick or with the ultrasound device?

      March 14, 2012 at 12:57 am | Report abuse |
      • Just a guy

        There's some great guys in prison that could teach you what rape is. I bet you don't care what they stick up there...you'll call out RAPE! What a stupid thing to say!!

        March 14, 2012 at 1:02 am | Report abuse |
      • Thinks2010

        Lowlife.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:09 am | Report abuse |
    • John-117

      I'm not sure that is considered rape. Sounds more like molestation. It is still very well possible that that was standard procedure.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:22 am | Report abuse |
      • Fiona

        You have no idea what you are talking about, so don't embarrass yourself further.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:39 am | Report abuse |
    • John-117

      I'm not sure that is considered rape. Sounds more like molestation. They aren't suppose to go inside you with an ultra sound.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:23 am | Report abuse |
  6. Mack

    So your sister is raped and impregnated in an alley and you want to live in a society where she can't make a decision about how to handle her own personal health/medical situation? Really? I know it's rare, but, really? If so, your world sucks.......I'd rather live in your fantasy world in the clouds, but you won't let me go there either. Selfish dip ess'es.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:41 am | Report abuse |
  7. J Bourgeois

    I'm raising a supporting a child who was the result of a rape. She is a wonderful child and I'm glad that I had the guts to volunteer to support her. What a mistake an abortion would have been...Maybe she'll be president someday and show women that they are on the wrong side of this issue.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:40 am | Report abuse |
    • Just a guy

      That was your DECISION. What if the argument was going to other way? They forced you to have an abortion! If you don't have control of your body the next regime may not be so moral.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:44 am | Report abuse |
    • Mack

      Wow, if only every rape could result in such a delightful situation. Good for you and good for her in this instance, but taking the decision making-power away from the victim is colossally disturbing. So you're pro-rapist now as long as they are fertile and give joy to people like you and their offspring?

      March 14, 2012 at 12:45 am | Report abuse |
      • Whomever

        Don't be stupid, Mack. that's not what J said.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:00 am | Report abuse |
      • Sally

        @Whomever – Stupidity is in what J *didn't* say: The rape victim was traumatized enough and has the right to not proceed with the criminal impregnation.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:06 am | Report abuse |
    • Keith

      I applaud the fact that you are supporting this child, BUT that gives you NO RIGHT to allow this travesty of human rights to take place. No matter what happens a womans body is hers not yours or the Texas state legislatures. This law would have been loved by the NAZIS. Hang your heads in shame Texans.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Whomever

      I have a son who was conceived through rape as well. Killing him in the womb would not have helped me to heal from the rape. Now I have a marvelous 28 year old son, an Army veteran, and an artist. Being a rape victim does NOT give me the right to kill another human being.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:59 am | Report abuse |
      • Keith

        Neither does it give you or a government body the right to force a woman to continue her pregnancy. Imagine the terror of a helpless woman who has already been violated who is now violated again, what if she struggles? will a couple of goons tie her down, what if she closes her eyes will those goons force her eyes open.
        What kind of a society are you creating in Texas, it sounds remarkably like Nazi Germany.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:04 am | Report abuse |
    • John

      Yes, rape has brought so many blessings into your life. It was probably the victim's fault anyway. (sarcasm)

      March 14, 2012 at 1:00 am | Report abuse |
  8. kayjulia

    The Texas law just creeps me out, and the reasoning is so bizarre it is almost beyond belief. Where did these ideas come from some sick male mind? This law is so wrong in so many ways it would be laughable if it weren't true. The logic supporting it is so childish and woman hating that it stuns the mind. I remember how it was in the bad old days when abortions were done in back rooms and motel rooms and woman were damaged beyond repair and many died. I though we had matured past that .... I guess I was wrong we are slipping back into the dark ages. What next repeal women's right to vote and own property, get permission from the male head of household to get a job ? What if we made men get an anal probe with the same instrument to get viagra and see how far that idea would get after all men are part of the baby making too !

    March 14, 2012 at 12:39 am | Report abuse |
  9. Jeffery

    I am pro-life; I am reasonable. The two are not mutually exclusive. I believe that women should be made fully aware of the risks involved in terminating a pregnancy, as there are certainly risks. Smokers are required to be warned of risks associated with their vice, as are patients undergoing any serious procedure, or those taking certain medications. However, I don't believe an invasive sonogram is anywhere close to reasonable. It does seem invasive and beyond an explanation of risk. I don't agree with abortion and wish against it. However, this seems to be a forcing of belief in an offensive way, and as such, I cannot support it.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:38 am | Report abuse |
  10. Mike Wade

    I thought female peodophilia was rape, boy was I wrong.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:37 am | Report abuse |
  11. ClaudiaL

    The Republicans promote the "Cadillac model of conception: Life begins a conception and loses all value at birth.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:30 am | Report abuse |
    • Sue

      So going inside a woman with a wand is rape, but going inside with forecepts and knife mutilating a growing baby is OK. Is the woman afraid to learn and better understand what she is about to do rape?, or is abortion a violent end to a life that is convenient? I remember speaking to an ultrasound tech who changed her mind about the abortion question due to the unmistakable fact that she was looking at growing babies day in and day out.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:57 am | Report abuse |
      • Suzy

        Rape is forced but abortion is requested, therefore you cannot compare the two. You're twisting things to fit your warped sense of view.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:21 am | Report abuse |
  12. Joshua

    All human children must immediately be murdered for the sake of the earth – a woman must have the right to murder their children and drink their blood. A human child isn't a human child – it is a parasite which must immediately be extinguished and put to death. All hail the great state.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:26 am | Report abuse |
    • Shneeky

      Well at least you're not one of those pro-choice nuts... what a relief, they say the stupidest things!

      March 14, 2012 at 12:35 am | Report abuse |
    • Suzy

      Other than being a troll? I'd say you're just another Republican with a black and white world view, watching news on your backwards black and white television.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:26 am | Report abuse |
  13. Joshua

    All Children must be murder immediately – a human child is a parasite which must be eradicated at the first sign of life.

    Babies are a punishment, the human race must be annihilated.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:20 am | Report abuse |
    • Sheryl Mexic

      You are insane.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:27 am | Report abuse |
    • Just a guy

      Now you know why the legal standard is viability. We don't want people like you controlling someone else's bodies. Most people don't want partial birth or late term abortions unless the life of the mother is at risk. Yes, I want my daughter to control her body, not the government. I don't want the state to tell my daughter she must give up her life for a non viable fetus. You may be willing to give up your life for a loved one, but the government should not put you to death just for being pregnant.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:34 am | Report abuse |
    • swannee

      troll

      March 14, 2012 at 1:05 am | Report abuse |
  14. mjts993

    "They hope the woman bears the baby, which may have been conceived through rape or incest, or even if the birth may endanger her life. It’s a prescription for child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment."

    So ... let's kill the child ... just in case.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:16 am | Report abuse |
    • Dr. Knowitall

      A little warped in your views maybe ?

      March 14, 2012 at 12:21 am | Report abuse |
    • Andrew

      Huh? "Just in case"? Since when is this law targeting "lets make every woman who ever gets pregnant have an abortion, just in case it could harm the mother, or was concieved through r pe?"

      What do you mean "lets kill the baby, just in case"? What if, as happens more often than you'd care to admit, the mother's life really IS in danger? Why the h-ll should that woman have to consent to a probe being shoved up her va -gina? Doctors tend to know that kind of stuff in advance, what good is this bill doing?

      It's very easy to say 'abortion is universally wrong', but it's very difficult to keep that line up when faced with the realities of a not black and white universe. This law does nothing to address any underlying complexities, it simply attempts to shame.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:29 am | Report abuse |
    • evangelist

      another evangelical behaving just like klan members

      March 14, 2012 at 12:42 am | Report abuse |
      • Mammaduck7

        Hmm...I don't remember the Klan every trying to save a life.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:50 am | Report abuse |
    • Suzy

      The other side: The poor rape victim who narrowly escaped death is sobbing, scared, and feeling overwhelmed with her options. Let's rape her again to teach her a lesson about life....just in case.

      You're a terrible person inside.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:31 am | Report abuse |
  15. Bob

    The damn anti-choice trolls have ruined the comments section of CNN. CNN might want to drop it lest they want to be associated with these fools.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:15 am | Report abuse |
    • C. Cole

      They don't choose sides on CNN. They just try to keep personal attacks at bay, if they can. Most blogs anywhere like this with this sort of online discussion.., has become bias, nasty, insulting, name calling, demeaning, polarizing, and in the end mostly an unproductive free for all where the best insult WINS. At least the person doing the insulting thinks so.

      Compared to most, CNN keeps it within reason.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:22 am | Report abuse |
      • Michael

        Yep.
        Yahoo is worse.
        In America crassness and insults have become the common currency.
        Actual discussion left the building a long time ago. It is hard to see a way forward with such vitriol.
        America is quickly becoming a country of 2 realities and 2 peoples who have nothing but hostility for one another.
        This house is now divided, but hopefully we can be united like I felt we all were after 9/11.
        Where did that feeling go so many years ago?

        March 14, 2012 at 12:35 am | Report abuse |
  16. candyblaster

    10 inches you say? hmm..depends on who is wielding it, i suppose.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:15 am | Report abuse |
  17. Tom

    Willard Romney has grit between his toes. Do the Mormons baptise someone's dead ass?

    March 14, 2012 at 12:14 am | Report abuse |
  18. Mike

    We don't prevent other medical procedures because of prior choices. Denying women their medical freedom is like denying fat people their right to a quadruple bypass. They chose to have a heart attack right?

    March 14, 2012 at 12:13 am | Report abuse |
    • Dr. Knowitall

      medical ?

      March 14, 2012 at 12:22 am | Report abuse |
  19. polycarp pio

    I wonder how women managed to survive all these years without the help of you liberal ,murder endorsing repobate women and supporters. Left up to you, the only ones left on the planet would be, sodomite,lesbian and death row inmates. The carnal mind is emnity with God. PP

    March 14, 2012 at 12:09 am | Report abuse |
    • Observer

      polycarp pio,

      The Bible NEVER mentions abortion

      Read it sometime.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:11 am | Report abuse |
      • GWP11

        Really? I believe MURDER is in the bible. Abortion = Murder

        March 14, 2012 at 12:18 am | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        GWP11,

        The word "abortion" is NOT in the Bible. Actually there is more in the Bible to support abortion than to oppose it.

        Read it sometime.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:21 am | Report abuse |
      • Don

        That's because it's so reprehensible, that it doesn't need to delineate that it's wrong. It's just common sense. No other creature self-inflicts an abortion during gestation. The rape and incest scenarios are passe. Everyone knows that abortion on demand is the goal. Less than 5 percent of all abortions are performed on raped women.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:23 am | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        Don,

        "That's because it's so reprehensible, that it doesn't need to delineate that it's wrong"

        LOL.

        So apparently all the other sins like murdering adults are not so reprehensible.

        Get serious.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:27 am | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        The isrealites were commanded to wipe out societies who practiced things such as child sacrifice. You were saying?

        March 14, 2012 at 12:28 am | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        Scott,

        The Bible says that at one time, God torturously drowned EVERY pregnant woman, child, baby, and fetus on the face of the earth.

        You were saying?

        March 14, 2012 at 12:32 am | Report abuse |
      • Neeneko

        Actually, old church law from the time period when the bible was written allowed it.. the soul did not enter the body till later.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:37 am | Report abuse |
      • Lenny Pincus

        Well, the Bible is fine with slavery. In fact, it provides a number of excellent ways to regulate slavery. It has some strange views about women's periods. No one here could follow the eating habits it proscribes. It does mention if you cause a woman to lose her baby, you get fined. As far as regard for human life, God kills a whole lot of people in the OT and commands others to do the same for some really weak reasons. In fact, if you tried to follow all the rules in the Bible, your head wold explode.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:38 am | Report abuse |
    • evangelist

      the evangelical movement is the single most dangerous enemy to this country, foreign or domestic

      March 14, 2012 at 12:45 am | Report abuse |
    • Suzy

      I'm sure that women would survive just fine without the GOP, no thank you very much.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:38 am | Report abuse |
  20. C. Cole

    I have to agree with the definition of rape in every legal way and description, and that this invasion fits that category perfectly.

    I would guess that many, if not most, or all states have rape laws similar to World Health Organization description. Should this be the case, then those who actually drafted, voted for and implemented said forcible rape laws of Texas women, and anyone that performs such forcible rape in any procedure, should and will face criminal charges of forcible rape not only in the State Courts, but the Federal Courts as well. Legislating forcible rape is a federal offense in itself.

    If someone has a differing opinion of the woman's decision to abort her pregnancy, they shouldn't rape her for that. And or plead with government to dictate when and how women are allowed to access their health care.

    I don't care which side of the moral debate someone might be on. But I don't think I personally know anyone, from any walk of political thought, that supports forcibly raping women, while legislating when a woman can or cannot access her health care.

    WOW, that's really, really stupid. Who in their right mind would do such a thing?

    March 14, 2012 at 12:04 am | Report abuse |
    • lastword2

      If you think a sonogram is equivilant to a rape, than congratulations, you are one of the few here that have never been raped.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:11 am | Report abuse |
      • Whomever

        AS a rape survivor, I agree. I get so disgusted with people throwing that term about. Also, this whole abortion fiasco has almost nothing to do with rape or incest. It has to do mostly with reasonably intelligent women allowing themselves to get pregnant and not taking responsibility.

        It's a two-edged sword; do we want women who are willing to kill their children for convenience having children in teh first place? Birth control used correctly, people. Grow up.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:39 am | Report abuse |
      • Logan

        Of course rape is a horrible but you know what the intention of the writer is. This is a terribly written law pushed upon women by ultra religious. I am pro life but I don't believe a woman should be subjected to this ype of exam.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:55 am | Report abuse |
      • Suzy

        @Whomever – Funny, you GOPers would deny birth control, too.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:40 am | Report abuse |
    • Gale

      Actually, a friend of mine mentioned that this was rape when this controversy first started. What we now need to do is start labeling Republicans supporting these law as rapists in political ads, in debates, at political rallies where Republican candidates appear, and hold them accountable for breaking the law, these wonderful family values conservatives who are in favor of raping women. Shame them for their extremist stands against women.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:32 am | Report abuse |
    • Dr. Knowitall

      You are as warped as the writer. This law is about self reflection but you have a need to name it as rape because you can't stand to look at your reflection in that mirror.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:33 am | Report abuse |
      • C. Cole

        Actually, the point of the remark, and I'm pretty sure the opinion article, is that it's not some pro-choice political nutjob describes this as rape, it's the World Health Organization, most states, the actual federal law on rape (read it) and in most civilized countries around the globe. If the entire political and legal world says it's rape, and some a couple of guys in Texas say it isn't, then that's like saying I'm always right and everyone in the world is always wrong. Sometimes it's good when we look in the mirror and see we stand alone, helps us grow up.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:56 am | Report abuse |
      • Anna

        No, it is really rape and men have no right to make decisions for women. If you don't want abortions, don't have them! No one is making you, but let women make their own decisions on whether they want to have one or not.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:09 am | Report abuse |
      • Suzy

        Why are you so obsessed with others' reflections in the mirror? Take a look at your own holier-than-thou, judgmental, and crusading reflection.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:43 am | Report abuse |
  21. Person

    You guys can attack Trudeau all you like. Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of people who's stance on the issues is weakly reasoned. The facts are that Trudeau is not taking a stand on abortion rights in this cartoon. He's taking a stand on the deliberately invasive and humiliating procedure mandated in Texas, which is far nastier than other means available (and mandated in other states) to encourage a woman to carry her fetus to term. That law deserves ridicule and repeal, whether or not you like or respect this cartoonist.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:04 am | Report abuse |
    • Just a guy

      I totally agree. This is the methodology of the anti abortionist is to erode the rights of women in a measured way. Push just a little bit harder from one state to the other. Look for Alabama or Mississippi to try to outdo Texas.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:13 am | Report abuse |
    • CommonSense

      Very well said. This article is about the procedure and not about abortion. And the procedure has no medical purpose (at least none that I can discern from the article).

      March 14, 2012 at 12:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Company

      Agreed, well said.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:48 am | Report abuse |
  22. kirk

    your argument that it legal is folly WHAT HITLER DID in his country was legal because he said so
    AND WE MAKE HIM LOOK LIKE MOTHER TERESA
    WE HAVE MURDERED MANY TIMES HIS ENTIRE TOTAL
    OURS LIKE HIS IS SLAUGHTER OF THE UNWANTED
    BUT WE ARE WORSE WE KILL THOSE WHO CANNOT FIGHT BACK or even have a say
    he would have loved us and been proud and said damn why didn't i think of that
    for it or against it have the BALLS to call it what it is MURDER ...come on be proud
    your for the killing of children....make Hitler proud as you lay your offering on the altar of lust
    and oooo...oooo.. those poor women who could not keep their legs closed look at how some whee killed in illegal abortions a few thousand against multiple millions your logic is insanity and reeks of DEATH
    your no better than dogs in heat

    March 14, 2012 at 12:03 am | Report abuse |
    • Observer

      kirk,

      Do you SUPPORT ABORTION if it's necessary to save the life of the mother? Yes or no?

      March 14, 2012 at 12:06 am | Report abuse |
      • Charlotte

        Um, apparently Kirk is all in favor of it as long as it is post-natal. The guy is a raving lunatic and hasn't said anything coherent much less worthwhile. Must be a religious sort. They're all nutjobs and stupid.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:11 am | Report abuse |
      • Dr. Knowitall

        Just think, you may have already mudered the one person that could have solved the Worlds energy woes.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:11 am | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        Dr. Knowitall,

        Just think. The person that might solve the world's energy problems may be alive today because of an abortion by his mother in conjunction with planned parenthood. As a Knowitall, you already knew that.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:28 am | Report abuse |
    • evangelist

      evangelical synonymous with klansmen

      March 14, 2012 at 12:38 am | Report abuse |
    • evangelist

      the one group this country needs to have a high abortion rate just happens to be the most ardent supporters of anti-choice policy.............how ironic for all the normal people

      March 14, 2012 at 12:53 am | Report abuse |
  23. Tree

    We need to have completely open abortion laws.
    Early, Late Term, and still under 3 years should all be legalized.

    Let the Libertines and Feminists (most American women) kill off all their children and in a few generations there won't be any left.

    Problem solved 😛

    p.s. Be sure to make divorce laws so horrible against men that they won't dare agree to marriage.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:02 am | Report abuse |
    • Charlotte

      Most of them (present company included) aren't worth marrying. You really are pathetic.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:12 am | Report abuse |
  24. Janet

    A very high percentage of abortions are NOT because of rape or incest. Stop using the rape/incest defense. Women use abortion as a contraceptive.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:00 am | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      Almost all abortions are done for convenience. Very few have anything to do with rape.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:03 am | Report abuse |
      • Mack

        Quite a convenient – and obvious – position, Janet. So you support your fellow females being probed by a 10-inch wand? I'll bet you scream and yell against government involvement in your life *except* when it comes to this issue, then you take this evil turn? Really?

        March 14, 2012 at 12:16 am | Report abuse |
    • Just a guy

      And you are the same person that decries insurance covering bill control. Most low income people cannot afford it for themselves or their kids. We get it...you want a world full of Duggards or be celibate. Most of us don't want your view of the world.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:06 am | Report abuse |
    • Mack

      That's fine, Janet. You're right. But I don't want to live in a society where government *makes* a woman bear the child of a rapist or blood-related molester. Furthermore, this ludicrous requirement that women are violated by a 10-inch ultrasound is so effed up it's hard to comprehend. Aren't you so lucky you've never been in that situation that you can sit back and campaign against women's rights? Disgrace....F-.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:14 am | Report abuse |
    • Shane Wegner

      So let's get better contraceptives. No woman in her right mind deliberately uses abortion- a painful, invasive procedure as contraception. That's like finding someone who prefers root canals to brushing their teeth. Abortion isn't a convenience thing, it is a difficult way out of a seeming dead end for a woman whom education and contraception have failed. Perfect contraception makes abortion obsolete. Let's figure out perfect contraception.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:21 am | Report abuse |
    • Anna

      So what? The government has no right to force a woman to carry a fetus. If you object to the procedure on moral grounds, do not do it. No one is forcing you.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:23 am | Report abuse |
  25. Jim

    Doonesbury has never been terribly funny, so Mr. Trudeau compensates by being controversial. Just what I want. Cartoons about abortion. Tomorrow his strip will feature pictures of the prophet Mohammed being crucified, while being urinated on by Rick Santorum in the 2 papers left that still publish his garbage.What ever happened to Calvin and Hobbes?

    March 13, 2012 at 11:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • JimmyJimJim

      Sorry, Jim. Doonesbury is published in 1,400 newspapers.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:02 am | Report abuse |
    • Mack

      Two abortion-related cartoons in 40 years hardly requires that post. Sorry, dude. Try again next time.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:17 am | Report abuse |
    • evangelist

      anything that causes it to rain havoc down on the absurdly bigoted Santorum I am all for

      March 14, 2012 at 12:57 am | Report abuse |
  26. ArchieDeBunker

    Ms. Simpson – as usual you have biased your comments so badly that you're not worth reading. You started the biasing at the very front of the article when you incorrectly stated that Troudeau makes fun of presidents. Troudeau NEVER makes fun of any presidents other than Repulbicans. He is so far radically left that he wouldn't know the center if he tripped over it! You'll never see any cartoon making fun of Socialism (which so richly deserves being made fun of, since it's the least successful of ALL political/socioeconomic systems!). Various commentators on CNN have spent thousands of words and hot air criticizing Rush Limbaugh this week because he told the truth. Troudeau is one of the Media's darlings who is off-limits for any criticism. At best his stupid cartoons belong on the editorial page where all cartoons which criticize O'Dumbo and his administration automatically get stuck – and always carefully placed where the dumb spouting of you Left Wing s**ta*ses get first billing. Gary Troudeau's opinion on any subject, let alone abortion, are not worth the paper it would take to print them! Very, very certainly, those of you who think that Rush Limbaugh should be banned from the air waves also must agree that Gary Troudeau deserves to be banned ten times more. He is twice as bigotted as Limbaugh and way, way, way less intelligent!

    March 13, 2012 at 11:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Observer

      It's entertaining to have a righwinger talk of how ignorant Obama is with a Harvard Law School degree with honors and Gary Trudeau with a Yale degree and praise the intelligence of a college FLUNK-OUT like Limbaugh. Well done. Bet you like Glenn Beck too.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:00 am | Report abuse |
    • Sharon

      Repulbicans! Snort!

      Otherwise, I think you are a misinformed person.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:01 am | Report abuse |
    • Charlotte

      @Bunk, it's actually YOU who aren't worth reading. Troudeau is doing a great and relevant series here. If you don't like it, don't read it. There is a long tradition in AMERICA of cartoonists speaking out on political and social issues. This is a crucially important one and he's doing a spectacular job. Just because this editorialist recognizes it is no reason for you to spew your woman-hate.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:06 am | Report abuse |
    • evangelist

      the definition of insanity is someone that just wrote what you wrote attempting to assess anyone's intelligence let alone that of Barack Obama or Gary Trudeau

      March 14, 2012 at 1:02 am | Report abuse |
    • swannee

      Errr....Limbaugh intelligent? He didn't even finish college right? Don't confuse loud with intelligent. I know it happens all the time and it's sometimes hard to tell. Don't confuse arrogance with understanding...again an issue for Limbaugh.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:18 am | Report abuse |
  27. lastword2

    Pro-choice, like Doonesbuy, is SO yesterday. It's time to wake up, the whole philosophy that human life is disposable has been extremely dangerous to our society as a whole. If you care about your own future than it's time to uphold respect for human life. Get over yourselves, there have been over 372 school shootings just since 1992, does this not tell you that rendering human life disposable has it's consequences? It should. Think about it.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Charlotte

      thou neanderthal

      March 14, 2012 at 12:07 am | Report abuse |
    • Clone

      The author makes a very good point.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:14 am | Report abuse |
    • Mack

      Gun control may have helped out in those instances but you're not too concerned about that. I'm concerned about the 7 billion lives on this planet, are you?

      March 14, 2012 at 12:19 am | Report abuse |
    • swannee

      Says more about gun control than human values. But sure I'll follow you. Let's say it's supply and demand. There's too many of us therefore our value is lower...support contraception.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:21 am | Report abuse |
  28. Will

    In a perfect world, only future liberals (i.e. morons) would be aborted.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Observer

      Grow up.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Charlotte

      and those like you.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:07 am | Report abuse |
    • Shane Wegner

      In a perfect world, perfect contraception would prevent all unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. That would render all abortions (and this debate) unnecessary. Both Choice and Life are happy in a world where women could have abortions but never need them. So the question is how we get to perfect contraception.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:09 am | Report abuse |
      • Whomever

        Wrong. My stepdaughter planned her pregnancy but then panicked and changed her mind. She had an abortion – the definition of frivolous. I can't stand it! Now less than a year later, she's going to try and get pregnant again. This is NOT unusual. I know several women who have had more than one abortion and then have had children and then have had more abortions. Most of the time, abortion has nothing to do with rape or incest.

        Now go ahead and blast me.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:23 am | Report abuse |
    • swannee

      I'll do my best crotchety Bachmann laugh: Haaaaaaa Haaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaaa

      March 14, 2012 at 1:23 am | Report abuse |
  29. J

    Please these kinds of exams are routine, no woman feels raped by them especially a pregnant one many of who have these exams anyway. This is OVERBLOWN sensationalism. I am not against abortion, but is really giving a woman an informed decision the wrong thing. Maybe they don't realize that a beating them is inside. Give them the info save the the anguish.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • WilltheFree

      I don't disagree with your sentiment J. But they are not giving the women anything... they are forcing the women to endure an invasive procedure prior to receiving medical care.

      I agree that this isn't a decision to be taken lightly, but there's no place for the state to mandate those kinds of things in a hospital room.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Miera

        They make you have this kind of exam before an abortion ANYWAY. This is ridiculous sensationalism only matched by the ridiculousness of the law itself. I have had numerous miscarriages because of a hormonal disorder-I only wish I could have a choice to have a baby. Every time I have been pregnant they do this kind of exam. The probe may be 10 inches but only a small portion of that is actually inserted. And they need to look, especially before an abortion or D&C for miscarriage, in order to determine how much tissue they need to remove. It's for your safety. It's not painful. It's actually a lot less invasive than having one done on your abdomen-no pushing or shoving to get the picture. A pelvic exam is more painful and invasive, and you have to have those too before an abortion. People need to educate themselves before they open their mouths, or at least before they start throwing the "rape" word around.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Just a guy

      So you don't think that a 15 year old girl that has been gang raped by 4 guys would mind if the state of Texas required a 10" wand to be inserted in her is a problem? That's what a guy would say! That's the problem. Women not standing up for their rights. Letting wealthy, white politicians and preachers determine rights to control their bodies.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • bobo

        This makes up less than 1% of abortions, over 75% of abortions are performed simply because someone does want a kids and didn't want to use protection

        March 14, 2012 at 12:00 am | Report abuse |
      • Dr. Knowitall

        Wow you never have seen a sonogram huh ?
        Just like a guy, its a lot smaller than that, maybe 4 inches and it never goes inside, just rubs on her belly. Probably something like your last date.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:37 am | Report abuse |
    • Michael

      So.. you speak for ALL women! Amazing! I wonder tho, if any kind of penetration THAT IS UNWANTED and FORCED, could be considered rape? Just a thought.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:40 am | Report abuse |
    • evangelist

      how much are membership dues in the Klan (er, I mean you're evangelical church)?

      March 14, 2012 at 1:06 am | Report abuse |
  30. Jim

    Cram it up Perry's ass

    March 13, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • borntothebreed7

      There's a problem with that - Perry would actually enjoy having a 10" object crammed up his ass.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:02 am | Report abuse |
  31. Just a guy

    Ladies, keep in mind that if the anti abortionist gets their way as soon as a government official finds out your pregnant you become an incubator for the state. Just imagine that pregnancy tests automatically contact the government when it tests positive and your physician will be required by law to notify the government about your pregnancy. Big brother? It's not that much of a stretch for me when considering what they're cooking up in Texas now. That's the real issue for me is giving up your body for someone else's religious comfort. It's legal, get over it. I don't want it to be used as a contraception either but without access to the pill, reproductive education...that's the by product. You can't legislate at contraception, it's a non starter for every reasonably intelligent adult.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • nancy

      right you are

      March 13, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      So how come you're an "incubator for the state" if you are required to get a sonogram before an abortion but you aren't property of the state if the state has to pay for your:

      a.) housing and food if you're poor?
      b.) your detox if you can't afford to get off drugs yourself?
      c.) the injuries you caused to someone else if you don't have auto insurance and cause an accident?
      d.) your hospitalization and care if you don't have your own health insurance?

      Don't you think "incubators for the state" is a stupid argument?

      March 13, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Just a guy

        Why don't you accidentally get pregnant and find out in your world. Wouldn't like to make that decision rather than having the state make that decision for you? Most of the women I know on both sides of the argument would at least want to make that decision themselves. I really feel sorry for women who think it is best someone else should determine their next 9 months and beyond.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bildad

      Yeah, those pro-lifers have a bill in Congress right now to MAKE you have babies, men and women BOTH! Those darn conservatives!
      They lie that's it's a baby just cause it's got little arms and legs, and a heartbeat, and brainwaves, and it's own DNA that's different from Mama's.
      They also made up those stories about medical ethicists saying it's now just as OK to off your newborn babies as it is to have an abortion. Don't google it, just take my word for it. (and don't even look at those ultrasound pics, the pro-lifers photoshopped those images)

      March 13, 2012 at 11:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Whomever

        Amen.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:26 am | Report abuse |
      • evangelist

        apparently you're just another card carrying Klansmen that or an evangelical because there is no discernible difference

        March 14, 2012 at 1:09 am | Report abuse |
    • Dr. Knowitall

      Please take two of something and check yourself into a hospital for further psychiactric tests.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:45 am | Report abuse |
    • Dr. Knowitall

      Rather to be an incubator than some soylent green !

      March 14, 2012 at 12:48 am | Report abuse |
  32. TDJ

    Someone should do an ultrasound of Doonesbury's head to see if there's a brain there, or of his chest to find out if there's heart. Him, and all those of you who support abortion.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • WilltheFree

      They should scan your brain too. Regardless of your stance on abortion, are you indicating that you are in favor of allowing the state to stick something in your wife/daughter if she is r@ped and doesn't want to have a felon's child?

      This isn't about abortion – it's about the state reaching into the hospital suite. The abortion issue's been settled in the US for 30+ years.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Observer

      Speaking of having a heart, would you SUPPORT ABORTION if it was necessary to save a woman's life?

      March 13, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • UtahBaptist

      So you want to rape a woman so she won't have an abortion? I don't see you taking care of unwanted kids. I don't see you comforting victims of rape or incest (by the way, I volunteer for such work). All you do is gripe and post on CNN. Do you feel like you're better than all these people now?

      March 13, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • nancy

      i will keep supporting choice and vote for choice every time. Science determines vitality not religion. Move on into the 21st century. This is no longer 400ac and the world is round.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jerry

        You......are just a moron.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • kayla

        Amen sister! I totally agree.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:17 am | Report abuse |
    • Dr. Knowitall

      The brain cells are just dead.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:08 am | Report abuse |
    • evangelist

      I'm sure the Klan agrees with your evangelical position

      March 14, 2012 at 1:13 am | Report abuse |
    • Suzy

      So enforcing your religion on everyone else is better than letting them decide for themselves? I don't understand that, but perhaps the Taliban do.

      March 14, 2012 at 2:01 am | Report abuse |
  33. db cooper

    In 1967, nearly 200 women in the US died from abortions. In 1972, the year before roe vwade, 39 died from abortion.

    So, the reality is that the US traded the lives of roughly 1600 to 8000 women at a cost of over 50+ million preborn US babies. Simply brilliant policymaking.

    During the same 4 decades, the US government opened the floodgates of 40+ million legal and illegal immigrants. According to he Pew Hispanic Center, there are roughly 400,000 offspring born to illegal aliens in the US each year. The hospital costs of these births ranges between $30,000-$45,000, which are almost entirely paid for by US taxpayers. As are the food stamps, welfare, and education costs of these newly minted US Citizens whose parents entered the country illegally.

    The bottom line: Your government replaces aborted US babies with illegal aliens and anchor babies at YOUR expense.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Suzy

      Yes, we already know the GOP is xenophobic.

      March 14, 2012 at 2:07 am | Report abuse |
  34. Mike

    I find it strange that a potential woman is being aborted and no one is concerned about her rights. Where are the women fighting for the rights of the unborn woman?

    Show the mother an ultrasound so that she sees if the baby has female rights or male rights, then she will know what color of clothes to bury the dead in. Abortion is murder.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • WilltheFree

      Glad you think so. Fortunately, we live in a society where abortion is not murder, and the rights of the mother trump the rights of an unborn child/fetus/whatever.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Patrick Feeney

      So... you're saying that we should take away the rights of a woman who is currently not only alive, but an active member of society, so we can give those rights to a fetus? Regardless of whether or not you believe the fetus is a person, coercing a woman into having a child not only takes away that woman's right, but guarantees that the woman, and her child, live a live lower than what should be their standard. T

      March 13, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        The vast majority of abortions do not occur because the woman wasn't a willing participant in the making of the baby. I can see abortion being legal for some cases of rape (incest, etc) and saving the mother's life (ectopic pregnancy) but not becuase the kid was an oops.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • dddavid

        Scott: That is where you are confused. The mother has not completed making a baby yet, it is still just a fetus. If it was a baby, then it would definitely be illegal to kill, but it is a fetus, she is merely deciding not to continue using her body to make it into a baby.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:03 am | Report abuse |
      • bobo

        @dddavid what the hell is a fetus? You do realize that unborn babies are the same as born babies, only smaller. And don't give that crap about born babies being able to survive outside the womb, they have exactly the same ability to fend for themselves as the unborn, which is exactly 0%.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:07 am | Report abuse |
      • Courser01

        Dear God, I hope you're being satirical. Because Embryos don't look ANYTHING like a tiny human baby. In fact, human embryos are almost indistinguishable from other mammals like puppies, kittens, etc.. At one point in their development, they actually have tails!

        Yes, I love developmental biology! And you are so very, very misinformed and brainwashed by the anti-abortionists.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:30 am | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Who cares if it's illegal to kill the baby? Laws change all the time based on who is in power. Legal or not, abortion kills a developing human being. An innocent human being, one zygote or 20 billion cells.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:34 am | Report abuse |
    • rafael

      Murder is against the law. Abortion is not. Until that changes, all the preaching you care to do does not give you the right to violate other laws, no matter how much you want to rationalize it.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Slavery is not against the la.....what's that? – it is now? Since when? There was a war? They're considered people now? I can't believe it...

        March 13, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • David

      Unborn woman = not a woman yet = no rights yet. Is this difficult to grasp?

      March 14, 2012 at 12:51 am | Report abuse |
    • Suzy

      Mike, it's nice to know you know best for women.

      March 14, 2012 at 2:13 am | Report abuse |
  35. Fact-checker

    Nowhere in Doonesbury does it say " The male Republicans who run Texas require that all abortion seekers be examined with a 10” shaming wand." Nor does it say "By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape.” The strip with the actual (and funnier!) words in it can be found here: http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2012/03/13

    Those vulgar, tasteless and simpleton quotes are a disservice to Trudeau's subtle wit and thought-provoking humor.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • DasShrubber

      I see that Mr. Limbaugh made an appearance in today's strip. There is a person I'd like to see ride off into the sunset.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Will's Mom

      Fact-checker, the columnist had access to the entire week's worth of cartoons.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • JustMe

      That's not the strip this article is referring to. It's going to come later in this series, in the next day or two. This is a strip that was already published, although they already have the strip in question, it hasn't been published yet.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
  36. theRAPIST

    Thankfully I'm packing 12 inches so when I rape your mom or sister in Texas she won't mind a 10-inch shaming rod. My 15 minutes of fun, gonna be a lifetime for your family.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • agnostrick

      Two things: 1. you wish 2. seek help

      March 13, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • mgthinking

      Was this supposed to be intelligent? Glad you represent "them"...

      March 13, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • nancy

      For all you laddies in Texas just order the chemical abortion pills on line (if you are less than 11 weeks along) and take them at home. To hell with Texas laws. Then you and I can hunt down TheRapist and take care of his like a true Bobbitt!

      March 13, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Will

      That's ok. Your 15 minutes of limp-dicked fun will quickly land you in a prison cell, where there is no doubt you will permanently assume the role of "girlfriend".

      March 13, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      Thankfully, the .45" hole in your head trumps the 12" between your legs if you try to rape my family.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:36 am | Report abuse |
  37. agnostrick

    Why is it rape when the state requires it before an abortion can be performed, but not when Planned Parenthood requires the same thing? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-abortions-ultrasounds/

    March 13, 2012 at 11:22 pm | Report abuse |
    • pacman357

      Well, for one thing, last I checked, Planned Parenthood didn't hold exclusive rights to perform abortions.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lauren

        You didn't answer the question, pacman357. Why is it "rape" if the state of Texas requires an ultrasound (any 'ol ultrasound) and it isn't rape if Planned Parenthood requires it?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • WilltheFree

      And.. for another... going to planned parenthood is voluntary. This is blocking something that is legal in the US by forcing a women to have an invasive procedure. I can't believe that the 8th amendment wouldn't shoot this down in time.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gavin

        I have to get fingerprinted to own a gun; can you find me a pro-choicer that has a problem with that? Who's drawing the line between what's "invasive" or not, and what's an appropriate requirement to be able to follow through on respective "rights", be it gun ownership, abortions, obtaining a drivers license, or a host of other things. There are plenty of examples of rights that require obstacles to obtain them.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • WilltheFree

        @Gavin Are you really making a case that requiring a permit to own a gun is the equivalent of having the state put a 10 inch rod in a woman's privates just so she can have access to legal medical care?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gavin

        I'm simply asking you to tell me who should draw the line between what's an appropriate restriction to obtain a so-called right, and where that line should be. To be consistent here, we at least have to acknowledge that restrictions to rights exist all over the place. No, it's no equivalent. But you're the one that made the argument based on legality, I'm simply pointing out the intellectual inconsistency in your argument.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:06 am | Report abuse |
    • jim

      The story at http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-abortions-ultrasounds/ explains the difference. Planned Parenthood can't do the procedure without consent. Nowhere does the article say that the Planned Parenthood patient is required to look at or listen to anything, unlike the Texas law.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Shannon

      It's called CONSENT Lauren. It's not that hard to understand. Maybe you'll be raped some day and get it.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • JT

      I believe that Planned Parenthood requires the external style ultrasound. The Virginia GOP requires a ultrasound "wand" inserted into the woman. Plus Planned Parenthood is based in the medical community, I'd rather have them tell me this makes good medical sense as it pertains to my wife versus a legislator tell my wife this is lawful mandate as it pertains to our personal moral beliefs.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • UtahBaptist

      Panned Parenthood does not require these ultrasounds. There is no medical or moral reason for them.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
  38. Bob the Janitor

    " It’s a prescription for child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment." There you have it, America...Yellow Journalism at its best. What ever happened to authentic, objective, fact-based journalism. I guess being a part of the liberal media before becoming an "educator" gives her a little more respectability and integrity...NOT.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • pacman357

      If you don't like what the site posts, don't read it. Tune in next week, when we teach you how to change the channels on your TV.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bob the Janitor

        I didn't say I don't like it, I commented on the lack of journalistic integrity...better catch up, skippy. Judging from all of your nonsensical rants, thinking before you hit the "Post" button isn't one of your strong suits. LOL

        March 13, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Aragon

      Can you old people hurry up and die off already? You are ruining this country. Most people under 40 don't care about abortion or gays or any of that religious crap you old people try and shove down our throats. Take religion with you when die also. The world will be such a better place without it.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • bridhesdottir

        I'm 43 and I don't agree with all this anti-choice crap either. However I can appreciate your point. The problem is that they don't die before they indoctrinate another generation of idiots with their lunacy.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Shannon

      If you would bother to look at the studies on the impact of Roe v. Wade on crime, you would find that a causal link was found between legal abortion and reduced crime rates. We know that abuse and neglect in childhood are precursors to criminal behavior in adulthood. Ergo, the author's point is totally valid. And you are ranting at her because the facts don't match your opinion. Shame on you for trying to bury the truth.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bildad

        Hmmm. Make a criminal procedure legal and the crime rate goes down, aha!
        Now I'm finally catching on to liberal philosophy.
        Soooo, next let's make other types of murder legal, too, and watch that ol' crime rate go down some more. Hey, this is fun!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shannon

        Abortion was never categorized as a crime in the statistics databases. Try again.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shannon

        PS – the crime rates started falling 16 years AFTER Roe v. Wade. If abortion had accounted for the crime drop, the effect would have been immediate. Again, please bother to READ the study before making ignorant comments. The truth still matters to some people.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • WilltheFree

        Shannon – you clearly didn't read what this person posted. Abortion wasn't the crime, the drop in crime was when unwanted fetuses that would have been born without RoeVWade would have reached criminal-age, such as when they were 16 or so (to quote you). You just proved the opposite of what you wanted to.

        Regardless, the causal relationship is one of those inconvenient truths that you have to deal with. Regardless of your stance on abortion, an unwanted child has a higher chance of developmental issues which lead to crime. Period. It's fact. Not opinion. If you disagree with the fact, then feel free to. But that is your opinion (unsupported) and against facts it is only interesting to you.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shannon

        WilltheFree I think you're confused. I'm the one who made the original post.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shannon

        Oh, I see why you're confused. When I say "abortion didn't account for the crime drop" I mean that women/doctors being charged with performing abortions didn't account for the crime drop.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • WilltheFree

        @Shannon – you are correct, and I apologize. I get fired up about this kind of stuff, and sometimes I hit the wrong reply button. Glad to have a kindred spirit here to keep me on the straight and narrow...

        March 13, 2012 at 11:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shannon

        No worries, I'd rather be called out when I'm not being clear than leave anyone with the impression that I'm saying something I don't mean.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Hey, lets kill a bunch of innocents because a few of them might be bad apples...I'll go warm up the ovens. Should we use charcoal or propane? Kinda of a charcoal guy myself.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shannon

        Hey Scott, thanks for the hyperbole. It doesn't invalidate my point.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bildad

        Would you pro-abortionists make up your mind? You liberals even write books and essay's saying that it was a crime. (example: When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973 by
        Leslie J. Reagan)

        March 14, 2012 at 12:00 am | Report abuse |
    • Unknown

      It's an OPINION piece. If you didn't like the way it was being presented you didn't have to finish reading it. Get over it.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • Unknown

        This response was to Bob The Janitor but posted under another commenter.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse |
  39. Stephen

    Ah yes the same group of people that think contraception is wrong also are opposed to abortion. Abortion, whatever, I disagree with those who are opposed to it but as far as contraception, how can you be opposed to that? Oh right, you should only 'spread your legs if your married' right? Wrong. Since when the heck did you supposed 'conservatives' want to get so involved in people's personal lives? Oh right, when it goes against your personal beliefs. KEEP THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF EVERYTHING!.... Except for contraception, the bedroom, marriage etc. You set a dangerous precedent guys, just wait until a president who is not along your line of religious beliefs comes into power and puts his ideals on you. You can't blame anyone but yourselves because you set the precedent for 'I don't want the government involved in our personal lives except when it comes to issues that follow my specific religion.' Keep it up dummies.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • agnostrick

      Actually, no, not the same group of people. Just about anyone with any clue whatsoever knows that those opposed to contraception are a much, much smaller group than those opposed to abortion.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shannon

        Actually, yes, it is the same group of people. Pro-lifers. If you don't like the company you keep, that's not our problem.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      Sorry. Stupid argument. There may be an intersection between the small minority that disapproves of contraception and the majority who believe that abortion is immoral, but that doesn't mean that the people who think killing a baby in utero are against contraception. In fact, the vast majority of people against the killing of fetuses have no problem with contraception. Next argument please.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • pacman357

        Always nice to get the scientific take from the Department of Statistics I Pulled Out of My Azz.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        pacman....said the guy on the internet

        March 13, 2012 at 11:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • agnostrick

      Actually, it's I don't want the government involved in my life unless it really, really, really makes sense, and protecting an unborn child qualifies – the ultimate powerless minority. It's really very simple: Human DNA + beating heart + movement = human life > woman's convenience.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • Stephen

        Okay. Right now, if you truly, TRULY believe it is murder, go to your local abortion clinic, be willing to give up everything, money, time, whatever. Offer to take up the child for abortion instead of the woman getting the abortion. If you really believe it is MURDER, 1st DEGREE MURDER, and you have the ability to do something, anything about it and do not, you are completely amoral.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Report abuse |
      • WilltheFree

        Sounds nice, and I like your use of equations. But the Supreme Court had the sign reversed. In the US, a woman's rights trump the rights of the unborn child. They don't diminish them, they trump them.

        I'm not even pro-abortion. It just sickens me when our lawmakers who should know better than this go out of their way to pass a bill that has no chance of being upheld.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Report abuse |
  40. Mike

    These same ultrasounds are used to check the well being of healthy babies and mothers, as well as to assist in caring for unborn babies and mothers with complications. But if the mother wants to kill a beating heart ... then the ultrasound procedure is rape. What's the matter with watching the heart beat of your baby before you terminate it?

    In the old western days, if you killed someone, you were suppose to be able to look them in the eye, and they had to be able to defend themselves. If you couldn't do this, then you were charged with murder. Guess those were the good old days. Now you don't even have to have the courage to listen to the heart rate of an innocent baby before you kill it.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      So you are saying that a woman who was raped has to be penetrated a second time just because you think she should become an incubator for 9 months and get a daily reminder of her rape inside her body? And then abandon the newborn or mistreat it because she is now traumatised?
      Or do you just condone rape as a means of reproduction for loosers? Because this is what will happen.

      If a man is raped, she he also undergo an invasive procedure against his will? You know, a second penetration?

      March 13, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mike

        Chris ... this article does not insinuate that abortion is only for victims of rape. The abortion issue is about choosing to end life regardless of how the baby was conceived. I do not have the statistics, but I'd say that the majority of abortions are not due to rape. Tried to find some states real quick ... only 1% appear to be related to rape, while "93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

        I'd say lets discuss the vast majority of cases, not put our focus primarily on the minority. The minority needs to be addressed, but let's make sure the rapists get's buried 6 ft under before the baby does!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Whomever

      Excellent point about courage.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Anna

      It is sad that man think they can decide for woman. No womb=no opinion

      March 14, 2012 at 1:50 am | Report abuse |
  41. Scott

    Funny how womens rights only apply if they are already born. Sticking a small commonly used medical instrument in the womb to do an exam is rape, but sticking a shop vac in there to suck out the living baby developing inside is ok. I don't care about "consent" – if you want an abortion, then you have to know what you're killing first.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      Yeah, right, because men know what a fetus is and women do not. You have to show them a pretty picture and perform an invasive procedure for them to understand.
      If you don't care about consent, beware next time you visit a hospital or your doctor's office... the next procedure that won't require consent might be done on you.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Chris, I hate needles. The next time the doctor needs to do a blood test to determine if I am ok for a vasectomy, I'll be sure and tell him that if he sticks me I'm going to sue him for assault.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Shannon

      SMALL??? DELUSIONAL!!!! You're an out of touch loony.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        An ultrasound wand is more intrusive than forceps and a suction device, and I'm the delusional one? Woman, please...

        March 14, 2012 at 12:00 am | Report abuse |
    • WilltheFree

      Wow! You just left the reservation. So instead of dealing with a potentially traumatizing choice (unwanted baby vs abortion), you want the added emotional damage of seeing a picture and hearing a heartbeat? It's like you don't care at all for the woman involved. Thank god the Supreme Court got this one right.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mike

        So approx 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient) but you want to say that the mother is traumatized? Not a lot of trauma going on during the Big-O! Irresponsible ... yes, but rarely traumatized. If you want to study the trauma associated with abortion, then study the mothers who have had one ... not the ones who are asked to have a normal procedure. What trauma is there is hearing the heart rate ... oh yea, it makes it sound more like murder!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mike

        You want to say that the mother is traumatized? Not a lot of trauma going on during the Big-O! Irresponsible ... yes, but rarely traumatized. If you want to study the trauma associated with abortion, then study the mothers who have had one ... not the ones who are asked to have a normal procedure. What trauma is there is hearing the heart rate ... oh yea, it makes it sound more like murder!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Good thing too. I always thought the reservation was a bad place to be – lots of alcoholism, very poor, not much hope.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:04 am | Report abuse |
  42. OT Guy

    O-tay! I have an idea from way back before all this "abortion stuff" started to be an issue. Back in the old days, when Molech was the big "G," we just burned the unwanted children. Later, we decided it would be easier to leave them in the local garbage dump. So, what's all the fuss? If you don't want them, just kill them. Who cares, anyway?

    ........Just a little baby, after all.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      Waaaait, I thought the Christians were the bad guys...you mean they were against that stuff?

      March 13, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • amz123

      Hey, lunatic, it's not a baby. It's a zygote/embryo/fetus. Do not equate dumping a baby in the trash once its born with terminating the existence of a bunch of cells that may someday become a baby.

      March 14, 2012 at 8:21 am | Report abuse |
  43. Fact-checker

    by the way, even if Doonesbury included those quotes, he would not screwed-up so greatly as to say 'authority invested in me' when the phrase is actually 'authority vested in me'. Just sayin'.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
  44. Will

    Here are the simple, incontrovertible FACTS:

    1. The willful termination of a human life is murder.
    2. The point at which a human zygote "becomes" a human life can NEVER be determined.
    3. Since this magical point can never be determined, logic dictates that the developing embryo must be assumed to be a human life from the moment of fertilization onward.

    1 + 2 + 3 = abortion is indistinguishable from murder.

    And as for all those dim wits who predictably repeat that old, worn out canard about "viability outside the womb", consider the FACT that modern prenatal medicine has made it possible for 25-week old (and even younger) fetuses to survive outside the womb. So given the FACT that these premature infants are today OBVIOUSLY human beings, tell me... would they cease to be human beings simply by being born in a time before the advent of modern medical technologies? I can only assume that clueless liberals would say "yes", while logic clearly says "NO".

    March 13, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Observer

      Speaking of dimwits, the LAW can understand the difference even when you are incapable of doing it.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lauren

        No, you're wrong. The "law" until Roe v. Wade was that killing a baby in utero was wrong and even illegal. It wasn't until Roe v. Wade that 5 Supreme Court justices decided that killing a baby in utero was a personal choice that the government shouldn't interfere with. Most of America disagrees.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Really? The Law? You mean the law that allowed slavery of people because they weren't a complete person? The law that allowed the systematic extermination of a people because they were seen as less than human, or they didn't toe the party line? The law that could have you executed because you didn't follow the state releigeon (sic)? Yeah, those laws sound great. Hey, if it's a law, its good!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • Will

        Ok clueless liberal, I challenge you to define – using ONLY facts, logic and analytical argument – the precise point at which the developing "blob of cells" magically transforms into a human being.

        And remember, ONLY facts, logic and analytical argument. You cannot lean on the crutch of your faith-based liberal ideology, as you are so accustomed to doing. Also recognize that if you fail, you are also admitting that you are in favor of murdering unborn human beings for convenience.

        We're waiting....

        March 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      Well stated. Unfortunately your logic is lost on those who think a woman's "choice" to kill her baby is more important than the baby itself. To ease their conscience they have to draw an arbitrary boundary between a zygote, embryo, fetus and a human being, though in reality there is no way to determine what is human and what isn't during the development process.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Will

        Absolutely correct Lauren. It never ceases to amaze me how few people (most all of them Democrat-voting liberals) lack the basic intellect required to recognize this simple fact.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Willidiot

      Very well said sir. May your wife or sister be raped by a gang member and be forced to have the child.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        interesting last name....anyway, what are the numbers when it comes to rapes that result in an abortion?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Observer

        Scott,

        So do you SUPPORT ABORTION if having the baby could kill the mother? Yes or no?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        I know I would support the option of abortion if having the baby would (90% or above) kill the mother – ectopic pregnancy comes to mind. I have no problem with a woman and her doctor making that decision, especially since there is a high probability the baby won't survive either. I don't support abortion as birth control, which is what many pro-abortionists want.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:09 am | Report abuse |
    • Observer

      Lauren,

      Get serious. Are you really going to try to tell us that the law considers abortion and murder to be identical like he said?

      lol.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Nick

      The saddest thing I have learned today is that people like you can vote. Oh god...

      March 13, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • pacman357

      "Here are the simple, incontrovertible FACTS:

      1. The willful termination of a human life is murder."

      Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!!! Not in this country, so says the SCOTUS. You might want to get a dictionary and look up the word "incontrovertible".

      March 13, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Will

        Another liberal, predictably FAILING to refute any of my argument. Pathetic....

        March 13, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Will's Mom

      Wow, that is some of the worst logic ever. You would get a failing grade in a real logic. I could take points 1 and 2 and simply state: logic dictates that the developing embryo must NOT be assumed to be a human life from the moment of fertilization onward.

      1 + 2 + 3 = abortion is distinguishable from murder. See how your logic fails, will? Good lord, that was a pathetic attpemt on your part.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Will's Mom

        attempt, my bad.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Problem with your point

      Please think about how forcing a woman who has been a victim of rape, incest or even has an ectopic pregnancy will be affected.

      Victims have certainly suffered enough with the original crime.

      Ectopic pregnancies implant in locations other than the uterus and will cause a rupture as it grows, not only risking the mothers life, but her fertility. The fetus doesn't survive and doesn't develop. Arizona doesn't require the doctor advise of this or other life threatening conditions anymore. And the doctor is not up for malpractice if the woman dies.

      And there are other conditions. Not everythign can be legislated, so leave things as they are.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        I very pro-life, and I don't have a problem with abortion in that situation. It's abortion as birth control with which I have an issue.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:11 am | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      you forgot the most important part......In your opinion, which isn't worth much.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Diane

      Clearly, Will does not support abortion. That's fine – as long as he keeps his opinion to himself. That may or may not be my opinion, but it is not up to me to decide whether another person should or should not be able to have an abortion. That is a decision for the woman alone (and the father if she is in a relationship at the time), and is not up to anyone else.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • WilltheFree

      #3 is an opinion, not a logical fact... it's hardly logical at all. You do not assign value (ie human rights) to something that might not be human. And since you don't know that, your leap of "faith" is telling you to draw a conclusion that's "safer" in your estimation. Now while I might not disagree with you, the simple fact is that your logic is wrong.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • CommonSense

      FACT: capitalizing the word FACT does not make it a fact

      Let's see if your incontrovertible points hold up:
      "1. The willful termination of a human life is murder." While this is not always true (some exceptions being willful combatants in wartime, euthanasia in some countries, suicide, DNR (do not resuscitate) requests, etc.), I get your point enough to agree with it
      "2. The point at which a human zygote "becomes" a human life can NEVER be determined". This would depend on your definition of human life. If you can define it unambiguously, you may be able to determine when a developing embryo reaches that point. What I think we can agree on is that all zygotes go through stages on their way to becoming a human life. And the greater the number of stages through which the zygote passes, the greater the liklihood of survival. Although each zygote develops at its own pace, by and large, they pass through stages in roughly the same timeframes as other zygotes. Some develop earlier, some later, and some never develop enough to survive. But it is a process and each is different,however, slightly. So, I see your point, but I don't think that it is as strong as your first point.
      "3. Since this magical point can never be determined, logic dictates that the developing embryo must be assumed to be a human life from the moment of fertilization onward." This point does not follow from your second point. Disregarding for a moment that this is not a FACT (as you say), it is not reasonable to assume that the developing embryo is human life from the moment of fertilization onward. If development is a process, then the weakest moment of all is at fertilization, where the chance of survival is 0%.Your strongest argument is to say that it occurs at live birth, where the chances of survival are greatest.

      It's good, amidst all of the howling, that someone is trying to make a logical, reasoned argument. Thanks for posting.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:03 am | Report abuse |
    • s4agilbert

      Will, time to back to logic class. Claim #3 is a perfect example of argument from ignorance. In case you were asleep during class this is the argument that because something has not been (or can not be) proven false, it must be true. This is a logical fallacy (within the larger group of logical fallacies known as false dichotomies). So even without disputing your other premises (#1 is also incredibly shaky), your syllogism falls flat.

      Alternately you are arguing that because we can not know, we must assume that it is true to prevent the potential for an unjustified taking of a life. Unfortunately this is a ethical rather than logical argument. Also, the U.S. in general has legislated this principle is not absolute. We have criteria for capital punishment that allow the death penalty to be carried out, despite the fact that court findings can never be 100% sure of being correct, and indeed have been shown to be incorrect after the fact. So your claim is not incontrovertable logic, but instead an ethical argument (or really bad logic). One way or the other, it proves nothing. And really. If it were that simple, would we be in a national debate about it?

      March 14, 2012 at 12:14 am | Report abuse |
      • Whomever

        So what do you think that zygote will become if it doesn't die?

        March 14, 2012 at 12:48 am | Report abuse |
  45. nplmdphd

    Another situation in which someone that hasn't had to deal with the situation judges and makes decisions about things they will never need to personally experience.

    Before a single invasive procedure is performed each legislator that voted for this and each physician willing to perform this procedure should be raped and then probed with the 10 inch wand so they can understand the pain and humiliation involved. If the aforementioned legislator or physician is a man, then afterward they should be forced to adopt a baby so they can learn the difficulty of an unwanted baby that they are now forced, shamed and humiliated into keeping because ALL LIFE is sacred... then go watch an execution for good measure.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      You can't tell me that the actual abortion isn't more invasive than this procedure, consented or not.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • DasShrubber

      Good point. If ALL life is sacred then so is the life of the mass murderer. Why does Texas have capital punishment?

      March 13, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        All some fallacy – if some of the sky is white, then all of the sky is white. Well, except on a sunny day with no clouds. But anyway, There is nothing wrong with being pro-life for the innocent unborn, and pro-death penalty for those who deliberately kill innocents like the mass murders in your example. Don't twist that into bombing abortion clincs. That's wrong too.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:16 am | Report abuse |
  46. Deicide Incarnate

    Carlin said it best, "Conservatives are all about the unborn, they love'em. But once you're born...you're on your own. No Neo-Natal care, no head start, no school lunch. If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-school, you're screwed. They want nothing to do with them until they reach military age. Conservatives want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers."

    March 13, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      And pro-abortionists just want dead babies – sounds about right.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • Whomever

        Good, Scott!

        March 14, 2012 at 12:50 am | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      That's just about the most ignorant statement I've heard....ever. Keep spouting the liberal talking points, though, and don't think for yourself!

      March 13, 2012 at 11:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • steve19

      George Carlin was funny, but what he said was fallacious. Kids should first be, and most often are, taken care of by their parents and/or extended family. If they don't have parents or extended family, or they can't fully take care of them, we have many social safety nets to take care of those folks. Conservatives, like others (maybe more than others?) pay taxes and give to charities so that those safety nets can exist. One of the debates between liberals and conservatives is in what manner and to what degree it is healthy and practical for society to do this. Too much of the wrong kind of help, and people become helpless dependents of government assistance. Too little, and people can get mired in poverty. It is a difficult balance that liberals and conservatives have been debating for decades.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Well said steve

        March 14, 2012 at 12:17 am | Report abuse |
  47. MarylandBill

    There is a basic problem with the argument here. The actual abortion is going to be at least as invasive as the ultrasound probe. Abortion is the only "medical" procedure where people complain about being given as much information as possible before making their decision. Has to make you think.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • steveo

      I propose a new law where every male repuglican who believes this to be fair treatment of ANY woman to be required to have an ultrasound inserted into their anal cavity in hopes that we might find where they've inserted their heads as we alas, cannot seems to find their brains.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • dudereally

      Having someone listen to the heartbeat is not "information". Information is learning what the procedure will do to your uterus. The former "information" is just a tactic to make someone regret their decision. It's not your job, or anyone else's, to try to coerce someone into changing their mind.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • LOL

      You realize this applies in cases where the womans life in actually in danger as well?

      I strongly recommend becoming informeed on all conditions related to pregnancy before you continue to embarrass yourself. Google ectopic pregnancy.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Right

      This is true, but doesn't fit with the agenda.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Whomever

      Excellent point! Information is power!

      March 14, 2012 at 12:52 am | Report abuse |
  48. Dan

    "Texas lawmakers wanted to make the procedure so invasive, so painful, and so emotionally devastating that the woman would change her mind."

    Sounds terrible – but still not as bad as what happens to the aborted baby.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      How many rape/incest babies are you going to adopt? At least one a year I hope.
      And how many babies that killed their mother during pregnancy or delivery? Because this also applies if the pregnant woman risks death from her pregnancy.
      And how about if the baby will be severely deformed and not survive more than a few hours after birth? Should the mother be guilty of that too and penetrated just for your peace of mind?

      And I think the father should get an anal ultrasound with the same probe, just so that things are equal.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
  49. workingmom25

    Oh my GOD! What are we going to do with all those "babies" that are stuck in deep freeze because of all the infertility treatments???? Thousands of them!! We have to SSSSSAAAAVVVVEEEE them!!!

    Seriously, where is the moral outrage when these so-called conservatives need a little assist in the fertility department? So hypocritical!

    March 13, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • agnostrick

      Your point is only valid as applied to the "personhood" laws that have become popular of late and and abortifacients. But when it comes to abortion itself, it is off point: by the time an abortion is performed, the unborn child has beating heart and can move. Human DNA + beating heart + movement = human life. Plain. Simple. Logical. Takes a hard, calloused heart to choose a woman's convenience over such a creature.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jen

        So just to clarify – I'm five weeks pregnant – no beating heart. I'm still okay to get rid of it? I need your input because you are obviously the medical and moral authority on human life....

        March 13, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        No Jen, you don't. Kill that baby!!! When the sweet, innocent child is born, totally in need of you, picture someone sucking it's brains out or dismembering it. That's what they do, you know. But BY GOD, don't take your choice away!!!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jen

        Well idiot, it doesn't have a brain yet. It is a cluster of cells.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Well spoken Jen. I suggest since it isn't a baby, then, that you go ahead and get rid of that 'cluster'!! It's just a cluster, right???

        March 13, 2012 at 11:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Seriously, I know I'm being sarcastic and it probably doesn't help, but when it comes down to it, Jen is a perfect example. She is pregnant and WILL DO EVERYTHING she can to protect her baby, because she knows IT IS A BABY. (that is, unless she really is going to have an abortion) This is the true test against abortionists. They DO KNOW, intrinsically, that the baby IS a baby.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jen

        If I was raped I'm sure I would consider it (I can't say what I would do as I have never been in that position – nor, unlike you, would I consider someone who was in that position a murderer).

        March 13, 2012 at 11:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Jen – don't you see, then. You wouldn't consider it now, though, BECAUSE you know it's a baby. If it isn't a baby, then you WOULD get rid of it. We get rid of cancer – we don't let it grow. But you know it is a baby and I suspect are already loving that baby.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jen

        As I have said Andy, there would be cases where I would consider an abortion. Like above. Like if my fetus had some terrible disease that would cause suffering and early death. I have no idea what I would do and hope to never find out. But according to some people, I would be a cold-hearted murderer. So ridiculous how black and white people see things. I for one try to not judge people.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:54 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jen

        it's something that has an 85 percent chance of becoming a baby – yes. But I get to make the decision of taking all the risks and life changes that come with pregnancy. And I don't want that right taken away. Period....

        March 13, 2012 at 11:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Jen – you judge all the time, yet only speak against it in terms of things like abortion. Is child abuse wrong? That's a judgement. Is rape wrong – judgement. It's a label to keep people quiet that don't agree with you. See what I mean? Now when it comes to your child, do you really think you'd be the best person to make a JUDGEMENT as to whether they should live or die?

        March 14, 2012 at 12:06 am | Report abuse |
  50. abmarconi

    Anyone else find it ironic that the state with one of the most invasive abortion related laws also is known for its high count of people put to death by death penalty? The death penalty is actually state sponsored murder where the other is a choice and isn't forced upon anyone.

    March 13, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • db cooper

      A preborn baby is innocent, while condemned inmates have been given a trial, appeal, due process and deemed guillty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers.

      Only a warped mind believes murdering the innocents and coddling the guilty is somehow Justice.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • LOL

        And in the cases where an inmate has been refused re-testing of evididence which, after death proves them innocent?

        Nice try, please play again!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • dudereally

        The argument comes down to whether you think man has a right to extinguish life. In the case of abortion, you don't think we have a right to terminate the gift of life. But when it comes to adults who have committed a crime, all of a sudden the special-ness of life isn't an issue.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • xx4zu1

        A fair trial???? Apparently you only comprehend the "news" as it suits you. how many innocent people were put to death in Texas? How many cases are waiting appeal based on DNA evidence that may exonerate the convicted and how many cases do they refuse to hear because they know the DNA evidence will overturn the conviction.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • Saith

        You sure about that? For every four inmates put to death one is found innocent.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        I know, seriously!!! Libs are on the side of life when it comes to rapists and murderers, but when it comes to babies, they say let's kill them, because they are unwanted. Who the heck wants the rapists and murderers?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Report abuse |
  51. theworldisnotflat

    A clump of cells or a zygote is quite different from from a 7-month pre-term fetus. So when does it cross a line to become an actual human being? Some draw the line at brain-wave function. No brain function (no functional complete nervous system, no ability to think or feel pain or have emotions, etc.) = not a human being yet, just viable human tissue that also has the potential in the right environment to develop into a full human being, brain function included, if left to do so.

    As for "unwanted babies should all just be slated for adoption!" – it's a great concept in theory, but there are thousands of children in foster homes whom no one wants to adopt because they aren't:

    a) white (to be brutally realistic: most people with the financial resources to adopt ARE white and fairly well-off and most seem to want same-race children that may appear as if they weren't adopted, or at least light-skinned asian children if pressed to look for an alternative), or:

    b) have the misfortune to be older than cute little so-called "clean-slate" babies that adoptive parents can enjoy and mold from birth without any possibility of a "bad upbringing history", or:

    c) the birth-parents came from an impacted socioeconomic background, so there is an irrational fear of the children having some sort of "bad genetic taint" (mental deficiency, tendency toward substance abuse, etc.), or:

    d) the children have some sort of medical issue, and generally adoptive parents usually want fully healthy children, or:

    e) the children are victims of abuse and/or neglect; see reasons b), c) and d) why adoptive parents usually avoid them.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • steve19

      So let me see if I have this right. You're saying that kids who might be less "adoptable" would be better off if they had been aborted?

      March 13, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Report abuse |
      • nancy

        yes and cheaper too. I would much rather pay for a abortion and support a child in the welfare system until they are 18 they support them in prison afterwards. Sounds good to me.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • theworldisnotflat

        Don't attempt to put false words in my mouth. You didn't actually read my post.

        I believe ALL children who are born and enter foster care and are available for adoption, yet who are deemed by the current existing crop of potential adoptive parents to be "less adoptable" for whatever reason, SHOULD still be (and would be, in an ideal world) adopted and given a loving home.

        I am saying that these adoptions are already not happening because we DON'T live in an ideal world. Who is looking out for and adopting all these innocent and suffering children; YOU? Are you also lobbying for everyone you know to adopt these children, pay their medical bills, putting your money where your mouth is?

        Do you think it is a good idea to add to the numbers of children whom current potential adoptive parents don't desire to adopt by preventing all women from having even early 1st-trimester terminations before there is evidence of embryonic human brain function? (Note: I'm asking questions, not telling you what "I think you're saying", which is the nonsense you tried to pull on me.)

        I don't think abortion should be considered on a whim, but forcing even all early 1st-trimester pregnancies to come to term so as to create more suffering (of unwanted children, of rape victims, etc.) is cruel.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Report abuse |
      • steve19

        @theworldisnotflat
        You seem like a nice caring person. But, yes, I have read both of your posts carefully. And again, in your second post, you have implied even more strongly, that you believe it is better to let women abort in the first trimester than to bring more unwanted children into the world. Better for who? Certainly not the "potentiially unwanted child". Give them a chance to try to make it. Of course, there are unwanted and poorly cared for children in the world. I see them every day in my job as a teacher and I have helped many in many different ways, including financially. I am not trying to put words into your mouth. I have taken statements that you have made to their logical conclusions and asked you if that is what you really believe.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:45 am | Report abuse |
    • Leslie B.

      How about if instead of killing the children, we find and provide the support and resources for the mothers? How about promoting life instead of death?

      March 13, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Shannon

        How does forcefully ramming a ten inch probe into a woman's reproductive organs support her in any way?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Shannon, any doctor who forcefully rams anything into a woman as part of an exam is probably not going to be a doctor very long, so you can can the hyperbole.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:19 am | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      If you don't know when life starts, you HAVE to side with life! If someone is brought into the ER appearing to be dead, do they just let them lie there, do they try to revive them!! The argument is easy. You just have to open your eyes and hearts.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      Obviously you know nothing about adoption. This is gonna be fun.

      There is no shortage of parents to adopt newborns. Most people wait years to be able to adobe a newborn. Older kids in foster homes is a different matter entirely, not to be confused with the adoption of newborns.

      a.) most parents who want to adopt a newborn don't care about race. I know several personally. They'll even go to other countries to adopt because it's so difficult to do in the U.S. sometimes.
      b.) adoptive parents of newborns accept that they don't know what they're getting with a newborn, unless there are obvious, visible problems like a Fetal Alcohol Syndrome baby. Even then, they'll get adopted.
      c.) is so full of your projected racism that you really ought to take a look at where your ideas come from.
      d.) unhealthy newborns get adopted all the time.
      e.) victimized children are not newborns. They are older children, and a lot of adoptive parents don't have a problem with them. In fact, they WANT to help them have a normal life.

      In the end, most people, especially adoptive parents, are much more loving than you apparently are.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • theworldisnotflat

        "Older kids in foster homes is a different matter entirely, not to be confused with the adoption of newborns."

        I see you agree with me that children from unwanted pregnancies (whose parents for whatever reason may have felt pressure to keep them past the newborn stage) don't seem to count for much with adoptive parents. I personally think it a terrible tragedy for these older children. They deserve better.

        So you "know several people personally". Excellent. I also "know several people personally", and so do other people who are neither you nor me, nor who live in our own personal spheres. People tend to know other people, even adoptive parent people – what a surprise.

        I know people who have lovingly adopted children outside their "race", and people who have adopted children born with health issues. However, I also know people who went to other countries to adopt without ever – appallingly IMO – even discussing (let alone rejecting) the possibility of a possibly "darker-skinned" infant from a local city. I also know parents who actually insisted – no kidding – they HAD to adopt a white child, a Jewish child, etc.; these are loving parents to their children too, but I am personally chagrined that they felt a so-called 'need' for these self-imposed limitations.

        "unless there are obvious, visible problems like a Fetal Alcohol Syndrome baby. Even then, they'll get adopted." "unhealthy newborns get adopted all the time."

        Clearly there ARE caring, kind people in the world with compassion. However, this does not mean that prospective adoptive parents are all, or even the majority them, willing to do so.

        "Obviously you know nothing about adoption. This is gonna be fun."

        You may "know several people personally", but you do not know me. That statement is projecting. You don't know whether I am male, female, old, young, adopted & at what age, a parent or not, an adoptive parent or not, a foster parent or not, a naturalized or born citizen of whatever nation I reside in, whether I have any 'disabilities' or not, or what race(s) I am, etc.

        I will tell you that I would love to live in an ideal world where no one one is ever hurt anyone else, no woman ever gets pregnant who doesn't want to (or child ever gets in a situation where they could get pregnant), and all children are born wanted and raised by loving, caring adults. Unfortunately the real world is something else.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:32 am | Report abuse |
  52. Dave

    To those of you who are vehemently opposed to abortion and are also opposed to reproductive education and the provision of contraception you are hypocrites and are creating the conditions for abortion.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      You should be a house painter, because you'd work really fast with that broad brush you're using.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:21 am | Report abuse |
  53. Raja Drambo

    Sad day for America when a cartoon makes more sense than the Lone Star State's government.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
  54. David

    The writer, and the bloggers, have ignored the fact that the ultrasound is already required by most abortion providers, including Planned Parenthhood. Is PP "raping" women who seek an abortion? This "rape" issue is an inflammatory comment designed to get people upset and smear the anti-abortion people. The point of the law is to try to convince women not to go through with the abortion. In my opinion, this is a bad law. Abortions are legal, and the state legislature should either make abortion illegal or leave the issue alone.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
  55. TAK

    I take issue with the author's last line about men taking back what women have won. The first step in winning a battle is identifying your enemy. Men are not the enemy here. Backwoods, stone age, religious lowlifes are the enemy.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
  56. Leslie B.

    Here's what's really sick about treating abortion so lightly; this occurred in Nov. of 2011:

    A hospital in Australia making news for having killed the “wrong” twin in an abortion of a healthy unborn child when the mother of the babies wanted an abortion on her child who doctors said had little chance to live. Now, both babies are dead.

    The Herald Sun newspaper reports that the unnamed woman from Victoria had already named her unborn children when doctors told her one of the unborn babies had a congenital heart defect that would requires years of operations, assuming the baby survived long enough to have them. The mother decided to have an abortion, terminating the life of one of her unborn children and allowing the other baby to live.

    The newspaper indicates an ultrasound tech checked on the healthy baby before the abortion and determine the child was in a separate amniotic sac than the sibling. However, the abortion, which took place Tuesday afternoon, went awry and the wrong baby was injected with drugs meant to end his or her life.

    After the mother was informed of the error, doctors did an emergency Cesarean section and the sick unborn baby was killed in a three-hour operation, the newspaper indicates.

    ***

    First of all, not have copied the whole article, this wasn't talking about a "cluster of cells" – these were THIRTY-TWO WEEK OLD BABIES. So once they were stupid enough to kill the wrong child....at a perfectly viable age, which should have made it criminal infanticide....it took a *three-hour operation* to kill the other? How can it possibly take three hours to kill a child?

    March 13, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Report abuse |
  57. Leslie B.

    Here's what's really sick about treating abortion so lightly; this occurred in Nov. of 2011:

    A hospital in Australia making news for having killed the “wrong” twin in an abortion of a healthy unborn child when the mother of the babies wanted an abortion on her child who doctors said had little chance to live. Now, both babies are dead.

    The Herald Sun newspaper reports that the unnamed woman from Victoria had already named her unborn children when doctors told her one of the unborn babies had a congenital heart defect that would requires years of operations, assuming the baby survived long enough to have them. The mother decided to have an abortion, terminating the life of one of her unborn children and allowing the other baby to live.

    The newspaper indicates an ultrasound tech checked on the healthy baby before the abortion and determine the child was in a separate amniotic sac than the sibling. However, the abortion, which took place Tuesday afternoon, went awry and the wrong baby was injected with drugs meant to end his or her life.

    After the mother was informed of the error, doctors did an emergency Cesarean section and the sick unborn baby was killed in a three-hour operation, the newspaper indicates.

    ***

    First of all, not have copied the whole article, this wasn't talking about a "cluster of cells" – these were THIRTY-TWO WEEK OLD BABIES. So once they were stupid enough to kill the wrong child....at a perfectly viable age, which should have made it criminal infanticide....it took a *three-hour operation* to kill the other? How can it possibly take three hours to kill a child? At least one article I read reported it was "delivered by C-section and killed later." How can a civilized society possibly believe that these things are appropriate and should be legal?

    March 13, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • modelo

      This article you have mentioned has no bearing on abortion and its legality. This is just a story about a doctor who made a horrible mistake. I'm pretty sure that there are many stories out there are many horror stories out there about doctors making just as depressing mistakes in other instances of surgery. Should I use those to explain to you why you should never ever visit a doctor again?

      Your argument serves no purpose except to frighten people into agreeing with you.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Report abuse |
  58. Joey

    Someone has to speak for the unborn...and try to protect their right to life. What is so evil or unreasonable about that?

    March 13, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • Leslie B.

      Nothing, until you talk to the pro-Margaret Sanger crowd. One of reasons the founder of Planned Parenthood was in favor of abortions was to keep too many black children from being born. I"m not making that up; do the research for yourself. She wanted to help weed out "undesirables." Kind of like Hitler.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • nancy

        my body my choice. i will vote for choice forever, plan parenthood saved my life when I was raped at 14. THANK YOU PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kay

        I think nancy responded quite nicely here. But, if you folks had your way, she'd have been forced to remain pregnant. Have you guys no shame?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Kay – who here has argued against abortion in the case of rape? On the other hand, you support murder, yet you ask who has no shame?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Kay

      Uh...how about when women are forced to take second place to a zygote with no brain or nervous system? Or when women are told they have to hope for a miscarriage if they have a fallopian pregnancy that will kill them otherwise...and the embryo will 100% die regardless.

      It's so sad how many men seem to think that zygotes and embryos should have more rights than living, breathing women. And, yes...it's MORE rights.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Kay – can you agree then, that except in the case of rape or the life of the mother, abortion is murder?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Diane

      Joey, how is it your obligation to worry about whether or not a woman has an abortion? That is a decision she alone has to make, though she most likely will also include the father in the discussion if she is in a relationship at the time. It is is not a decision that should be left to people OTHER than those immediately affected. Abortion is a legal medical proceedure, and whether you or the government happen to agree with it or not is immaterial.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Report abuse |
  59. pacman357

    The real irony of the argument from those who believe that abortion is murder is that, in my experience, these are the same people who are most likely to beeotch about someone having too many kids and being on welfare.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Report abuse |
  60. frostybvue

    Last paragraph – Ooops, not "men taking back some mileage", Christian Conservatives taking back the mileage (men and women), a much smaller, and aggressive set of believers who want to force the world to their beliefs. Would you believe Christians make up only one third of the religious groups in the world. Who the heck are they to rule the world!

    March 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      You don't want Christians to fight for the rights of babies – oh the nerve. Yet we are supposed to sit idly by for your beliefs? Don't you see the ignorance in that?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • TAK

        A christian accusing someone of ignorance. Oh the irony.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dave

        And I would guess you also support the death penalty. Wasn't one of the Christian 10 commandments 'Thou Shalt not Kill' – I don't remember any caveats or footnotes that provided any exceptions. If you are anti abortion then you should be anti death Penalty, pro reproductive education and pro the provision of contraception.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • jack johnson

        The point is after they are born you people don't give a damn about the children!!!!!!!!!!!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • modelo

        @dave....pro contraception????

        but every sperm is sacred!!

        "If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate."

        March 13, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Dave – no, it says 'thou shalt not muder', not kill. There was plenty of killing in the bible. And Jack, our churches in the area are THE largest provider for state foster care and adoption. What have you done?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • jack johnson

        What about frozen embros? They are life according to you. So keeping them frozen is restraint against their will. If the mother of these embros don't want to have them inserted, what do you do with them (you can't kill them) So all these christian dogooders should line up and be impregnated with them!!!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Hah – nice Jack – lose your argument so make up another. Why don't we worry about the actual babies in the actual women, then we can tackle your other arguments.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Christians are ignorant – you know, like Dr. Ben Carter, John Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, William Thomson Kelvin...

        Blanket statements don't prove you right, keep you warm at night or help you send smoke signals

        March 14, 2012 at 12:26 am | Report abuse |
  61. WilltheFree

    Abortion is not murder. Not in the US, or most of the civilized world. We can argue at what point a fetus becomes a baby, and even I would admit that the gray area there hasn't gotten any clearer with time, but regardless this is defined in the US as a women's rights issue. That being said, I'm also generally against abortion where other options exist.

    What truly disgusts me is when people attempt to project their morality on others. Comparing abortion – a completely personal experience that affects no one outside of the woman herself – with murder is ludicrous. So many religious nut jobs out there still claiming that a book written a couple thousand years ago and based upon other religions has to be the right one, and therefore even though abortion is not mentioned at all in it, it must be wrong. And those people make fun of Scientologists for believing we're all descended from an alien warlord or something. Please... you have people rising from the dead and walking on water. Not to mention virgin births..

    Regardless, I'm fine with the way the laws are now, this Texas r@pe law excluded. Abortions are legal, and the states can discourage them based upon the morality within the state. But there's a line, and it's clearly being crossed when the state forced a women to insert something into her body and then has to go through the guilt trip that is 100% designed just to cause her emotional problems. Way to go, Texas – you just decided to condone rape over "murder".

    March 13, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • SodaPop

      IT AFFECTS THE BABY. The fully formed child, that has a heart beat, and feels pain.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • WilltheFree

        That's the whole gray area I mentioned. And why I said it affected no one outside the women herself (which happens to include the fetus/baby)...

        March 13, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Report abuse |
      • SodaPop

        Ahh, so by your reasoning as long as that life is inside her, it belongs to her, and she can crush it as she pleases?

        If that the case then; if she gets pregant, it's her problem, and the guy shouldn't have to pay a cent EVER, right?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Report abuse |
      • CommonSense

        This procedure has no effect on the fetus. The article is not about abortion – it is about the procedure.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • Diane

        First of all, a fetus at, say, 12 weeks is most certainly not fully formed. Secondly, how is it any business of yours as to whether a woman has an abortion or not, unless you happen to be the father? That is a decision that is up to the mother alone, and the father IF she is in a relationship at the time (allowing for potential involuntary pregnancies).

        March 13, 2012 at 11:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • MarylandBill

      There is no grey area. The grey area is created by those who want to avoid the moral dimension of what they are doing. Even "ethicists" like Peter Singer (who supports abortion and even infanticide, but is against eating meat...go figure) admit that morally there is no distinction between a fetus and a baby. Of course as I pointed out, he then goes on to say that it is ok to kill babies as well. But at least he is intellectually honest enough to admit that morally they are the same.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Report abuse |
      • Chris

        If there is no difference, I have the perfect solution! We get the hospital to deliver the 9 or 12 weeks old "baby" and you take care of it at your home until he goes to college. I wrote he because I assume you won't want a girl to go to college, these incubators belong in the kitchen and the laundry room.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • nancy

      smarty pants, i total agree

      March 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • RBY

      Man do the proselytizing anti-religion zealots get old. No matter the topic, every heated blog somehow becomes a pulpit for their whining and preaching.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:33 am | Report abuse |
  62. Betty

    Christian bible thumpers trying to force their fairy tales on the rest of the world! This could set womens rights back a long way! Welcome back the back alley abortions and deaths you bunch of freaks!

    March 13, 2012 at 10:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • pacman357

      I think you need to remember this is Texas we are talking about. This sort of thing will probably set women's rights back only a week or two in Texas.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • biscuit

        THAT was funny.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • steve19

      The best arguments against abortion are based on science and reason. Do some investigating on human prenatal development.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Report abuse |
  63. SodaPop

    My wife had two abortions, before I met her. She grieves for it to this day. The scar tissue, she was left with, caused two miscarriages, one of which was serious. Yeah, abortions is just great.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ze

      I'm sorry to hear that. And you make an interesting and fair point. OTOH, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that crime rates went down significantly one generation after roe v wade was passed. It seems that overall, human suffering is reduced by having the legal availability to have an abortion.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Colin

        Eugenics, surely? No, this is not even eugenics – it's just a case of bad logic.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • SodaPop

        What ever happened to being tried, and found guilt, BEFORE being executed???

        By your reasoning we should we kill all pit-bulls because they've been kown to attack more.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lauren

        What a load of nonsense! There is no causal link between Roe v. Wade and crime rates going down. Crime went down because we started locking up criminals. And save your fake sympathy for your friends who apparently never grieve when someone destroys a nascent human life in the womb.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • MarylandBill

        Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Or literally, "After this therefore because of this". Its a classic logical fallacy. To put it in modern terms; Association does not equal causation.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jean Hunter

        On the issue of complications from abortions, I believe that, especially in very young mothers, the risk of complications is higher for continuing the pregnancy and giving birth. That may not have been the case when only illegal abortions were available in this country.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Xairesephos

      WIth all due respect, I hope that you would have married her had she had those two children at the time. That would make you a great guy, better than a lot out there.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • SodaPop

        Actually, my wife DID have a 7 year old girl, now my daughter. We now also have my son.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • pacman357

      Well, that is all the evidence I personally need. After all, women everywhere are exactly alike. All of them. Everywhere.

      Duh.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Report abuse |
      • SodaPop

        Gee you think??? The point was that abortion has risks. SERIOUS RISKS. And that it can cause problems later on. Not that all women are the same. talk about being dense...

        March 13, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse |
      • pacman357

        Wow. Thanks, SodaPop. If it wasn't for you, I would have never, ever, ever, ever, ever guessed that a medical procedure carries any risk. BTW, you really need to talk to your partner about cutting down on the donkey punches. They appear to be having an effect on you now.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • modelo

      I'm sorry your wife had such unfortunate side effects from the procedure. This does not mean all abortions carry these same side effects. Look at all the medication that exists in our society, and all the possible side effects that go along with those. And yet, day after day, people still choose to take these medications because the benefit far outweighs the possibility of something bad happening. Which is the same in this case. There are situations in which having an abortion is a much better decision than going through with the pregnancy. Once people put the rights and feelings of the actual human being dealing with the situation over the interpretation of a religious teaching, we will all be much better off.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Report abuse |
      • nancy

        the new chemical abortions leave no uterine scaring like a actual procedural abortions can. if we could clear the way for women to abort as soon as they find out they are pregnant instead of making them jump through hoops for 3 weeks we could make abortion much safer.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
  64. Mark

    I am so sick and tired of this argument. Pro-lifers see this as murder, which to me is simply incorrect. A fetus is not a person. Of course, there is a certain point during pregnancy in which the grey area becomes a little darker. For each person it's a little different. For some, life begins at the moment of conception, which is completely ridiculous. A cluster of cells is not a person. It has no heartbeat, no conscious thought, no nervous system, nothing. There should not be a problem with terminating a pregnancy any time before 6 weeks. After that you get into some grey area.

    Here's the thing – if you have a teenager that gets pregnant, which i would imagine is the most common demographic, there are a lot of things to consider. When a teenager has a baby, she has made life for herself and her child much more difficult. As a result, that child grows up MUCH more likely to make the same mistakes as her mother did. It's a cycle that needs to be stopped.

    Abortion is NOT murder, people. While I agree that adoption is ideal, for some people that is not an option, be it for their physical, or mental health. I have seen someone close to me at one point give up a child for adoption. It was incredibly difficult for her to do it. She was devastated for a very long time, and may have never recovered. Was it the right choice? Of course it was. A family who was unable to have children got the child they wanted so badly. However, it is a VERY understandable decision when a woman makes a mistake (which is human nature) and becomes pregnant and chooses to abort. If you feel you are incapable of raising a child in a way that gives him or her a chance to live a happy life, you should consider all your options.

    A woman that has made the decision to abort should not be forced to have additional physical and mental pain and anguish brought upon her. This – which is RAPE, is the absolute worst possible form of that. It's the lowest of the low, and it's unacceptable. Those responsible for this decision should be in prison.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      And a newborn isn't an adult either. Neither is a toddler. Neither, in fact, is a teenager. At what point do you become human? You apparently aren't qualified to make that determination. I vote we give the fetus the benefit of the doubt.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:42 pm | Report abuse |
      • Leslie B.

        I agree, Lauren. Especially if one of those older "fetuses" becomes less than perfect enough to care for themselves.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • Colin

        Hear, hear. Also seems CNN is avowedly anti-life, or pro-abortion, or whatever you want to call it. Kinda gets you upset that media is so biased.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Raksha

        Wha ? What ? Who is talking about adults ? Didn't you read what he said ?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Report abuse |
      • Law Student

        It's been legally defined through our judicial system that it begins at birth (whereas the abortion cut-off point is when the fetus is fully viable, which has no direct legal correlation with personhood, or as you so eloquently put it, humanness). Please don't confuse being "human" with being of the legally decided age of majority.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        I said nothing about toddlers, teenagers, or adults. I am talking about the transition point from an unconscious fetus unable to experience anything at all due to a lack of.. you know, having SENSES, to a human being. This is different for everyone, and I think there should definitely be a point in which it becomes unacceptable to have an abortion. But this whole "abortions are murder" thing, without thinking about how far along a pregnancy is is simply ridiculous.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      Mark – this really is SAD. You have a life, then it ends, yet somehow you have convinced yourself it's not murder. It is. There is really no way around it, except lying to yourself. Keep your blinders on, though, and live your life....

      March 13, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        I'm sorry, I just cannot possibly agree with you on that. While I do realize at some point during pregnancy, it becomes unacceptable to abort, and abortion at all should be avoided if possible, there are very valid reasons to do so. When you have a pea-sized fetus, with no functionality really, no senses, and therefore, no ability to experience things on a human level, it's not a person, and therefore not murder. It's really not even a human being at that point. You say it's a human being at the time of conception (I'm assuming here, I may be wrong), but it isn't. It really isn't. If you let it go long enough, yes, it absolutely becomes one.

        It really boggles my mind how people can't see things for what they really are or aren't. The conservative mindset is that you must protect unborn children at all costs... but once they're born, they're on their own!

        And people wonder why the cost of healthcare is so high!

        March 13, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Mark – the only real solution is to side with life – if you don't KNOW, 100%, when the baby is truly a baby (I think I do, but..) then you have to side with life! If you find someone on the side of the road after an accident, yet you can't find a pulse, you STILL CALL AN AMBULENCE!! Just in case. You side with life. Always

        March 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy's Mom

        it's not your right to make that decision for other women, Andy. You don't have to carry the baby to term and you have no say in the decision. It's called a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        Andy – you're talking about a person on the side of the road that's been born, and is capable of experiencing things. A person with a family that has grown to know and love that person. What I'm talking about is something I feel has not made the transition to personhood.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Mark – don't you see – you just keep making excuses. So now a baby has to have a family before it's allowed to live. And if it isn't having 'experiences', then it can be killed? What of a baby born early and has to be put in an incubator. By your definition, we should be able to kill THAT baby. Again – the only answer is siding with life

        March 13, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        No, these are not excuses – this is me looking at it for exactly what it is. An embryo. Of course I agree killing a baby is wrong. But an embryo is not a baby, and neither is a fetus.

        And as I have said multiple times. There is a certain "point of no return" with regards to how far along a fetus has gotten. What point that is, I don't know, and I hope I never have to help anyone make that decision.

        Look – I realize you're not changing your mind. You're set in your ways. I'm going to go to bed now. Enjoy your night.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • SodaPop

      So you're argument is that the child MIGHT grow up to be a criminal, so let's kill it now????

      Good thing no one suggested that to Obama's mom.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        That's quite the twist you put on that. You went from me saying I understand if a potential mom doesn't think they can give their child a fair shot at life to I think all children born to mothers that aren't ready are going to be criminals.

        It doesn't matter what I say. With your mindset, you're going to take everything I say and try to make it sound evil (I fully expect you'll respond with "yes, and murder is evil").

        March 13, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jen

      You aren't qualified to make that decision either Lauren. You can believe it is murder. I can believe it's not. I won't force my opinions on you – don't force your opinions on me.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Ze

        We are qualified to say that a full grown adult is a different sort of thing than a fetus. We may have a moral obligation to all things with a CNS, but that obligation must vary based on sentience, self-awareness, capacity to suffer...

        March 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        YES Jen – let's not force our opinions on the Germans about killing Jews, either. Or for that matter, what was the North doing forcing their opinions about slavery on the South!!!!! The nerve!!!!

        March 13, 2012 at 10:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Colin

        Thank God your mom was pro-life! Otherwise you would not be here to voice your opinions.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jen

        I'm five weeks pregnant and I'm telling you for a FACT that the cluster of cells in me is not a human (hence why the scientific term of it is not human). No CNS, heart not yet beating, nothing.....). I already love this potential human. But if this embryo was created by a rapist and not my loving husband I can't say I would have it (I don't know unless I am in that position). I don't judge others. Try it sometime!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lauren

        I DIDN'T make that decision. You and your abortion-minded friends did when you decided to make an arbitrary distinction between a fetus and human. I vote for life. Let the fetus live and become a fully-grown human. Currently you don't give the fetus a choice in the matter.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • pacman357

        Brilliant. When someone opines that abortion isn't murder, that is arbitrary. When Lauren says it is, that somehow isn't arbitrary. Lauren..when your spouse or partner brings home a dozen seeds for Valentine's Day and tells you they are roses, does he/she have to sleep on the couch? Just curious.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lauren's Mom

        uh, Lauren, the law made that decision. Might want to learn a few things.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Jen – that's the popular thing to say, but you actually are shoving your beliefs down our throats.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jen

        Let me guess Lauren. You are a forty year old virgin that has six cats and doesn't have a clue about what it is like to be pregnant. Of course you are. I am a loving mother of two with a third on the way (not sure how I can be an 'abortionist' as you call me and still have given birth twice). How about this? Let's not kill the embryos. Let's just remove them and incubate them. Then women don't have to give up their bodies and babies won't be 'murdered'. Oh wait......

        March 13, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jen

        Really Andy???? So I'm forcing women to have abortions???? Interesting......

        March 13, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dr. Knowitall

        If I come to your home, drag you out of bed onto the front lawn and rip your lungs out and you ultimately die.... is that murder ?

        March 14, 2012 at 1:13 am | Report abuse |
    • steve19

      You can have a reasonable debate about when someone becomes a person, but by any scientific definition, a fetus is alive at conception. It has it's own unique DNA and it is growing and developing.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • davonskevort

      Abortion is murder. The germans knew that by killing the parents that keeps the kids from existing who were Jewish... and they didnt view Jews as human of their parr. Abortion is cowardly murder of someone who cant do anything about it. Preventing someone from existing when you know they are coming is just as bad as killing someone who you know exists.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • pacman357

        "Preventing someone from existing when you know they are coming is just as bad as killing someone who you know exists." So hitting someone else's car and preventing them from arriving at their destination is murder? Wow...I've apparently been killed a few times by some lousy drivers.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • workingmom25

      Well thought out and exactly what a lot of us believe. Great if you have the luxury and resources and health to carry a fetus to term and give it up for adoption. Wonderful. Beautiful. Etc. But life isn't perfect and sometimes terminating the pregnancy is the best course of action. I just wish some of those wanting to restrict people's rights could spend one day in the shoes of a frantic teenager or a victim of rape. Maybe they would follow their "Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" and wouldn't be so judgmental.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:52 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        workingmom25 – then you'd be ok killing young children who 'appear' to be without hope? My brother just took in a couple boys whose Dad just committed suicide after their Mom leaving. I guess we should just kill them. They obviously have no hope!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      @Mark, At what point did you come into existence? It was the moment half of your father's genetic material combined with half of the genetic material of your mother's. that is when life for you began. Before that instant you were nothing. After that instant you came into being. Your genetic profile from that one cell when you came into existence, baring some slight mutations, would match your genetic profile from a cell taken from you today. There are man stages in your life and the moment you were conceived is but one stage in your life. From that one cell many cells were created to make you who you are today. As you get older your cells will begin degrade and die until you die. that is your life. It has a beginning and an end.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        Why – oh why, can I not just walk away from these arguments?

        I disagree. I did not exist until I had the capability of experiencing my 5 senses, and became self-aware. If my parents had terminated me before I gained those 5 senses, I never would have experienced what happened to me, because I did not exist.

        When I die, I will lose the ability to experience those 5 senses, and the ability to experience conscious thought. I will therefore, no longer exist.

        I'm going to bed now. Man, I need to stop posting comments about this kind of thing. Once you get started it's hard to stop!

        March 13, 2012 at 11:48 pm | Report abuse |
  65. Gavin

    Uh, without taking sides here, we have 4 kids and I've been in the room when my wife got this same ultrasound with each of them. The "shaming wand" is certainly no bigger than what went in there to cause the pregnancy to begin with. You can disagree with the legislature forcing women to get one, but don't feign that it's the procedure itself that's "invasive". if you're contemplating an abortion, maybe you shouldn't have let anything up there in the first place.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gavin's Mom

      Hey Gavin,

      Is it ok to finger a woman while doing this? Because fingers are smaller than the wand and therefore ess invasive, right? RIGHT?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Drew

      The wand is ten inches... either you misread the article or you are a very fortunate man

      March 13, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jen

      And I'm on my third pregnancy and told them if they couldn't get a clear picture using the external wand I did not want the ultrasound. See how that was my choice?

      If it didn't hurt your wife when it went in then she might want to consider doing her kegal exercises....

      March 13, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • Whomever

        Wow, Jen, that was mean.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:23 am | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      With all due respect, Gavin, people make mistakes. People can even take precautions and still get pregnant. Things happen, and when they do, abortion shouldn't require an unwelcome 10" long wand to be shoved up there. When it is unwelcome, that is rape, my friend.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • SodaPop

        A mistake is when you accidently knock a glass off a table. What you're talking about is a poor or lazy choice.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • rk403

        SodaPop. Look up "Pearl Index" and do some reasearch before spewing ignorance on the web. All birth control methods have a known failure rate. There is a huge difference between "perfect use" and "typical use" when it comes to contraception. For example. Oral contraceptives have a failure rate of <0.5% with perfect use. This rises to 8% with typical use. Do your research before calling someone lazy.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • pacman357

      So...am I correct that you wouldn't mind if a complete stranger did this? I mean, your wife has, I am assuming after four kids, a regular doctor, and I would hope there is some familiarity there. If you are OK with a complete stranger performing such an act, can I get your home address?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gavin

        You're a sick man, maybe you should get some help for that.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • pacman357

        I was making a point, Gavin. Besides...I already know where you live.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gavin

        I see your point, but again, I'm just saying that the author here (sticking to the topic about which we're debating) is outraged about the procedure itself, and I'm just pointing out what I see to be false outrage. Pro-choicers want unfettered access to abortions, period, and they'll be outraged about any required procedure that stands in the way, not just "invasive" ones. It's a nuanced difference, but an important distinction. Same story, different procedure. And, besides, I would guess a stranger is going to provide the actual abortion, right, so why the outrage about a stranger doing an ultrasound? And you're still creepy.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • liz

      " maybe you shouldn't have let anything up there in the first place "? are you serious? what about the uncle that rapes his neice, or the woman who was raped and traumatized? do they have no say what happens to them? you are delusional if you think it's just that simple

      March 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gavin

        no, it's not that simple! but the overwhelming vast majority of abortions come from poor decisions, not rape or incest. Society should deal with the exceptions with the utmost compassion, not make laws based on them.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Gavin

      Mom, don't get your point, sorry. Drew, maybe both, either way they didn't insert it 10". Jen, I congratulate you on your choice, and I'm not saying I agree with the legislature on this one. It's invasive, no argument about that. But (yes from a guy's perspective), this is far more about pro-choicers getting stepped on than it is about the procedure, which the author portends as this horribly invasive, painful, procedure. Mark, people make mistakes and I believe we should have all the compassion in the world for them. That does not necessarily mean bail them out of the consequences of their decisions.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Report abuse |
      • Law Student

        Dear Gavin,

        I hope you get your prostate examined on the regular after a statement like that.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gavin

        Law Student, as a law student, I would think you'd be able to draw more accurate comparisons of the functions for different body parts. Very funny, though.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      Let me guess... your wife wasn't raped in the weeks preceding this procedure?
      And the doctor asked for her consent for this procedure?

      Getting moles removed from my skin didn't hurt me psychologicaly or physicaly so I vote for removing chunks of your skin without asking for your consent just because it didn't hurt me and I am sure you have done something my beliefs disagree with. I promise we will use sterile instruments and give you local anesthesia.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:58 pm | Report abuse |
  66. pacman357

    Welcome to Texa, the Land of Enlightenment, where you are free to do with your body as you please. Unless, of course, you have the poor taste to be female.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Report abuse |
  67. unger

    I'm sorry, but I don't see what's so bad about 'raping' someone who's planning to violently dismember her child.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Drew

      Wow what a "moral" person you are, believing that one wrong justifies another

      March 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • pacman357

      Interesting. I've been alive for nearly half a century, and you are the first Neanderthal I have ever heard or read espouse the idea that rape is some times justified. Celebrate the moment. Party like it's 1399.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lauren

        And you apparently have a Neanderthal's sense of irony. The irony in unger's statement was completely lost on you.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • pacman357

        Lauren, if you think that unger was making an attempt at humor, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. While I don't generally believe that women should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, I am willing to make an exception in your case.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lauren

        Ah ha ha ha! Joke's on you! You don't seem to know the difference between humor and irony.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • ThinkAgain

      Abortion is a decision made between a woman, her doctor and her conscience. The day you let women evaluate which men should be publicly castrated is the day men should decide what women do with their bodies.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • pacman357

        I'm guessing more than a couple are going to vote to put Unger at the top of that list.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • klwr333

      Wow. Just . . . read what you said! First of all, two wrongs equal a right? Secondly . . . you're ok with rape if a person is about to do X, Y or Z. If that isn't an awful statement, I don't know what is. I pity people who have abortions. It isn't an easy decision to make. As the mother of a baby who died (slowly and painfully) from a condition that could have been diagnosed at 12-16 weeks of pregnancy, if I knew I were having another child with no chance at life and a 100% chance of a horrible death, I'd definitely terminate and feel that I'd done the more humane thing. This topic is simply not black and white. Abortion as a convenience is not something I, personally, would consider. But in cases of incest, rape, potential danger to the mother's life, or if the child is found to have a catastrophic defect . . . yes. We need to be able to turn to our doctors for help in these situations. And shame on you for not having a problem with rape, in ANY situation!

      March 13, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • liz

        at least there are still some people who are of sound mind, i agree with you 100% and don't understand how others can just be so blind, and i am sorry for your loss, there is nothing more devastating then seeing a child in pain.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Report abuse |
  68. Seriously

    Pretend all you want folks, but none of you really KNOW whether a fetus is "alive" or not. Defending your OPINION (or that of your chosen religion) and lashing out at those who disagree with you is human, but also arrogant and pathetic. You'll likely discover the truth only when you die and meet your maker (or don't).

    March 13, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • ioho

      Science long ago defined life, and a fetus is squarely in that category.....quit burying your head in willful ignorance.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:44 pm | Report abuse |
      • Daniel58

        That's great news ioho! Science has finally solved the mystery of consciousness! Thank God!

        March 13, 2012 at 10:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        An INSECT is also life. You going to villify me for killing them too?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • s4agilbert

        Umm... sorry no. Science has not definitively defined life. Viruses are debated because they can not survive outside of a host organism and can not replicate without the biochemical machinery of a host cell. Prions are even more problematic because they are a self replicating protein, but lack the means of actually producing the protein precursor. An embryo that can not survive and develop independently outside the womb of the mother is most definitely in the "gray area" of life. There are scientists and physicians on both sides of the argument.

        Besides. The issue here is not that of life/non-life. The issue is whether lawmakers that disagree with a national law can force intentionally humiliating and medically unneccesary procedures on women in an attempt to prevent them from getting a legally permissable procedure that those lawmakers find morally repugnant. It is a cowardly attempt to skirt the law. If you can get the law changed, then change it. Better yet, if it is your religious convictions that drive you, try to expand your church and convince people of the right of your moral position, don't try to force people of other relligions to follow your rules.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:34 pm | Report abuse |
  69. Moe Vee

    Let us thank the TEA NAGGERS for showing us what they want for America. You want tyranny then vote for the Tea Naggers and they will oppress and rob you of personal rights.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Doug

      The Obama re-election ad is on the top right of the page, or you can get to it on the ticker. Uncle Joe tould you that the tea party is terrorists, he's always right, right, or left?

      March 13, 2012 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
  70. Tom

    We have GOT to protect women from realizing they're killing a child through abortion.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Drew

      So you think raping them is called for? why not just a non-invasive ultrasound?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • mistamista

      Except....they aren't. They are denying a fetus the right to destroy the lives of others who did want the pleasure, but not the penalty. Please understand that your religious views DO NOT impede any of my logical understanding. It's not a child until it is born....not conceived, BORN.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • ioho

        Why deny the science?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Justin

        Your views are illogical already.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Report abuse |
  71. Lori

    The procedure is harmless and painless. Have had one. Abortion is harmful and painful. Have seen one.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Drew

      I don't think anyone would really say that. I'm sure it must be a horrible decision for a woman to have to make, but if she decides to abort I would rather have it be a comparatively safe legal procedure rather than a back-alley one

      March 13, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        So Drew, you would rather a Nazi in WWII use a safe weapon to kill a jew, than to use, say, an unsafe weapon that could harm him? What does it matter when the jew still dies?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        Andy, it seems pretty low to me to compare a woman making a difficult decision that has direct bearing on her health and well-being with a nazi committing genocide

        March 13, 2012 at 11:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Drew, yes it is a low blow to the Nazi's. They killed, what 6 million? Abortion, just in the US, kills 1.37 million PER YEAR!!! The Nazis could learn a lot.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        Andy – you really need to stop godwin'ing this. Drawing a direct line from abortion to the holocaust is ridiculous.

        On one hand you have a 6 week old fetus (the 6 week number is just for sake of example), incapable of experiencing senses of any kind. In this case, it's the woman carrying the 6 week old fetus making the decision.

        On the other you have the genocide of millions of people, who DO have the ability to experience smell, taste, touch, sound, and sight, who btw, have families that have grown to know and love them. And to boot, it's someone else making the decision for those millions of people.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lori's Mom

      Lying is a sin, Lori.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lori's Father

        Seriously, leave our daughter alone and make me a sammitch. It's a sin to be out of the kitchen too.

        Obviously, this is a joke, but the issue is very real. If you're going to strip women of their rights to control their own bodies, why not just make them indentured servants....like slavery, but with women....such a dumb society we've become.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • pacman357

        I always wondered about that. I mean, look at the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not lie. OK, pretty simple. Thou shalt not kill. OK, I can side with that. However, they are on the same list. I mean, and I admit I am going off on a tangent here (mostly because some of the comments make me weep for the future of the human species), is telling your wife that her jeans don't make her butt look fat as bad as stabbing her in the head? Outside of Texas, of course. Don't want to split this too finely. Seems like the Ten Commandments should really be more like the 5-6 Commandments, and the rest should just be on the Really Good Ideas list.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      Drew and Lori's Mom, read up about ultrasounds and come back to us more informed. You apparently don't know anything about them.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:39 pm | Report abuse |
      • liz

        had an internal one, not for an abortion but for something else, i can see where it would be traumatic for a woman who has to make a very serious decision. what a woman does with her own body should be of no one else's concern.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • CommonSense

      "Harmless and painless" aren't the points and your personal experiences aren't necessarily relevant to others.

      Were you forced to submit to a highliy invasive procedure for no medically beneficial purpose? That's closer to the points of the article.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lauren's Mom

      Lauren,

      Is it ok to finger a woman as well? Generally speaking, fingers are smaller and less invasive. It's apparent you are an ignorant conservative who doesn't comprehend the right of a woman to make her own healthcare choices. It's her body, not yours.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • ioho

        But then you want the complete and total control of another's body....that makes sense.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dr. Knowitall

        Do you know what a sonogram is Mom ?

        March 14, 2012 at 1:16 am | Report abuse |
    • pacman357

      I've seen the reptile house at the zoo. That doesn't make me a bearded dragon.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      Did you get to give consent and were you therefore relaxed or did they force it inside you? I can't believe it would be painfree if you are were relaxed. Even a regular exam is painful for me and I do consent to them every year.
      And would you really want to get that exam after a rape?

      March 14, 2012 at 12:05 am | Report abuse |
  72. Chris

    Like I needed another reason not to go to Texas. Do we have to wait for them to secede, or can we just throw them out?

    March 13, 2012 at 10:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Pat

      If we kick texas out will they sell us their oil since we will now be a foreign country?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tmans

      Honestly, have you ever even been to Texas? All politics and this hot-button issue aside, there are a lot of greeat things about the state. I was born and raised in the ATX and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. Now I gotta go hit up SXSW; enjoy living in not-Austin, not-Texas! Sucks for you!

      March 14, 2012 at 12:10 am | Report abuse |
  73. peick

    Is it really true that the only way to do a fetal ultrasound is with the wand? That does seem intrusive. But if you are lying, columnist, and there is another way to do it, then I see no problem requiring a non-invasive ultrasound to ensure the woman is fully informed.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chris

      I guess we just skipped way past the part about why it's any of their freaking business.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lauren

        Umm... explain why it's anyone's freaking business whether you murder someone or not? Or rob or store or not? We create laws to protect people. In this case, Texas is trying to protect an unborn baby.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Breckgirl

        Right on!

        March 13, 2012 at 10:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      She's lying. Or stupid. Or both.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Report abuse |
      • abmarconi

        Dr Lauren Medicine Woman- I'm not sure when you were last pregnant but she's not lying. Just because that's not what you saw in the movies or what you read online doesn't make it true. It's a wand and it goes where only my doc and my husband have gone before.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • abmarconi

      It's the only way to tell there is a heart beat before the end of the first trimester or hear the heatbeat. The abdominal ultrasound wouldn't suffice for earlier pregancy. Is it invasive..yes. Even when you're thrilled to see the blob on the screen as I was (looks nothing like a baby earlier on btw) it's embarassing and awkward and not comfortable if the ultrasound still isn't showing up well (they just press harder). The ultrasound though is something they tend to do 12 weeks or later...I'm not sure what you'd see before four weeks personally...there is a certain point at which the baby is no more than a few cells and not visible to the naked eye. I would just hate to be a mother who wants to have a baby but would die if she carried the baby to term (eptopic pregnancy or where a mother has to choose between chemo or a baby) and then forced to go through that. Which is worse...suicide or abortion?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Lauren

        You can opt for a non-invasive ultrasound. So if Ms. Simpson doesn't know that, she's stupid. If she knows it and still chooses to call it "rape" then she's lying.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Report abuse |
  74. abmarconi

    You know I never remember learning about the great abortion debates of the late eighteenhundreds...oh that's because they didn't exist back then. Yes they went on but no one thought to make it illegal. Abortion became a point used in politics used to divide an otherwise solid base. I think most people (not necessarily the trolls who spew their vitriol on web posts) would agree that a government shouldn't spend it's time legislating a personal choice. We should stop letting government/politics use this to divide the silent majority. Let's let this issue go (and stop legislating medicine altogether!) and get back to focusing on growing jobs and fixing the economy.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Drew

      Absolutely. No one will ever be able to prevent people from having abortions anyway

      March 13, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      Wow have you got your history wrong. It wasn't until Roe v. Wade that abortion became "legal" in the United States.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • abmarconi

        Do you know when Roe V Wade was? That was in your mother's lifetime if not your grandmothers. Back in medieval times people knew what herbs to take to induce abortion and once surgery became less of a death sentence in the early 1900s abortion was sometimes done that way. Was it something anyone was proud of heck no...who would be? But there was never a law nor was it something that was up for debate. It's a hot button issue that politics latched onto because people felt strongly about it and it could divide groups that would otherwise agree on many other political issues. Would I ever want to abort a child...no. But that's me. I don't think my opinions on this issue should be forced on anyone else through the government.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      And in case you forgot, the baby that gets killed doesn't get a personal choice.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • prolife woman

      You should check out the "abortion debaters" of the women's suffrage period: Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Alice Paul ( the author of the Equal Rights Amendment), were all OPPOSED to abortion-do your own research.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:03 pm | Report abuse |
  75. Marie

    If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one.
    But keep your principles off those of us with morals and intelligence, who simply disagree with you.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Lauren

      We have laws against murdering people. That's a moral issue. Sorry you have trouble with morals, but lots of our laws are founded in morality.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • SodaPop

      Oh. you mean like; if you don't believe in guns, just don't own one?
      Oh yeah, that's right, Libs ARE trying to change that aren't they?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      I agree Marie – let's also let 35 year old guys marry 13 year old girls – and multiple ones at that. Oh – and lets do the same thing for the Man on boy love folks too. Who are we to expect them to conform to our morals!!!

      March 13, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      For that matter, I think murder of anyone under 5 should be ok! Don't stuff your morales down my throat and say that's wrong!!! I have my rights.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        The sad part is some will think you're actually serious and completely miss the point.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Will

      If you don't believe in murdering a person, then don't do it.
      But keep your principles off those of us without morals or intelligence, who simply disagree with you and wish to commit murder anyway.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:44 pm | Report abuse |
  76. SodaPop

    They say that one day, in the future, that you might be able to tell if your child is going to be gay, before it is even born. Would it be ok to abort it if you just didn't want a gay child?

    Let's make it simpler: Would it be ok to abort if you just didn't like the color of it's skin? Would it be ok to abort if you didn't want a girl child?

    March 13, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Drew

      Hopefully we can arrive at a just society where no one would want to abort a baby on the basis of gender or race. Hopefully we will arrive at a society where abortion is no longer necessary due to strong family planning!

      March 13, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • SodaPop

        Gender, race, or just laziness.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • steve19

        Hopefully we can one day arrive at a just society where no one would want to abort a baby, period, even when it causes them inconvenience

        March 13, 2012 at 10:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        Steve the fact is we aren't there yet. Desperate women will still try to get abortions even if they are illegal, and it will be much more dangerous

        March 13, 2012 at 10:31 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bildad

        That would be wonderful if abortion were no longer needed. PPH makes a lot of $$ from it and that $$ has corrupted a lot of Republican & Democrat politicians.

        One day, when the world faces the truth that "Hey, it really is a little human baby!", we will ask ourselves, "Why didn't we stop it?", and "Who were the Nazi's of that day who operated the centers?"

        March 13, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Report abuse |
      • Deicide Incarnate

        Until the fetus is born, it can survive only by absorbing nutrients from the mother. What do we call something that can only survive by living off of another organism.....a parasite.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Deicide Incarnate, my grandfather has advanced Alzheimers and can't care for himself. He is completely reliant on my mother and uncle. Should we abort him since he's a parasite too?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • steve19

      It commonly happens right now in China. Girl babies are often aborted just because they are girls. Tragic.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Report abuse |
      • theworldisnotflat

        Not to mention second children – by mandate of the government. Definitely tragic.

        March 14, 2012 at 3:54 am | Report abuse |
    • dg

      Funny how you went to getting rid of gay people...is that the next thing TX legislature is going to do?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        dg – I think you were just pointed out the ridiculousness of liberal logic.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • SodaPop

        So, just for the record, you would against abortion if it was used to kill possibly gay unborn babies?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        'I' wouldn't sodapop, but under the liberal mindset, that should be totally acceptable. After all, it's the woman's body, right? Now do you see how ridiculous this is?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Moe Vee

      If that is what the mother wants then let it be. If your Mom knew you were going to be a moron, well that would be her decision. In most third world countries, Texas excluded, the Government will not systematically rape you for making a personal decision.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • SodaPop

        In most countries you can also eat your dog.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
  77. coldwarped

    " 9/11 was a plot by terror mastermind George W. Bush." " I AGREE!!"

    March 13, 2012 at 10:17 pm | Report abuse |
  78. Carl, Secaucus, NJ

    I hope the people in favor of this new law are not the same ones who protested against the government getting involved in people's health care, or coming between a patient and her doctor.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      So ridiculously not the same thing. I'm for limited govt, but when murder is involved, yes, I want our govt to protect the innocent. Let us know when you have a good argument

      March 13, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Carl, Secaucus, NJ

        Murder, you say? The last time I checked, abortion was legal in this country.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        How does this procedure "protect the innocent?" It seems to me that it just causes the women tremendous discomfort

        March 13, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        So Carl – you believe because it's legal, that means it's not murder? Ask the Jews in the holocaust how they feel about that argument.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:28 pm | Report abuse |
      • Deicide Incarnate

        It's not a "little human"...it's a parasite, or a tumor...a clump of cells that feeds it's own growth at the expense of the host organism

        March 13, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bildad

      Ya still don't get it, do ya??
      IT'S A BABY WE'RE DEFENDING!

      March 13, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dr. Knowitall

        to you and me its a babay. To them it is just another burder on society.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:18 am | Report abuse |
      • Whomever

        If folks who are "pro-choice" realized we are talking about real babies here, they would understand why we are so passionate about protecting them.

        March 14, 2012 at 1:49 am | Report abuse |
    • Carl, Secaucus, NJ

      I feel that if you are going to say it is murder, then why have this law at all? Would someone pass a law requiring two people plotting to murder a third to first consider the biological status of the victim before deciding to go ahead? Of course not; it would arrest both of the two for conspiracy to commit murder. If you really advocate abortion to be treated as murder, you must also advocate both the woman and the doctor to be treated as those plotting to commit murder, and punished accordingly. Are you prepared to send those women and their doctors to prison?

      March 13, 2012 at 11:00 pm | Report abuse |
  79. Dave R.

    Each of those TX lawmakers should be required to adopt each of these would-have-been-aborted children!!

    March 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      There are so many people in America wanting a baby we go out of the country to adopt. We could adopt these children, but because of people like you, they die.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dave R.

        So, go ahead and adopt them now. What the heck is stopping you??!! DO IT NOW!! Oh, that's right you really don't want do do it do you?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • dg

        You carry the fetus and go through delivery...

        March 13, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Dave – what's stopping us! Are you kidding!!! They're being aborted! In fact, my wife and I ARE adopting – a kid from foster care. There are people who care and want to adopt – IF we only would stop killing

        March 13, 2012 at 10:27 pm | Report abuse |
  80. Moi

    OK, I used to be pro-life. I am now changing sides. This IS rape.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • SodaPop

      You were never pro-life...

      March 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      Right...used to be pro-life. Dont' believe it. Murder is murder.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • Paul

        And rape erases a murder? Or rape is less of a sin than murder? Or rape isn't a sin at all? What is it you people are trying to say exactly?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • Drew

      Even if you are pro-life you should oppose this procedure, because it it 100% medically unnecessary

      March 13, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      To be clear, I don't support this procedure. I think it's ridiculous as well, but not as ridiculous as murdering a baby. And an abortion is MUCH more invasive than a wand.....where's the outcry?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        Fair enough, I respect your opinion

        March 13, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kusandha

        Andy, you blithering idiot, it's only rape if it's coerced/forced/pressured on to the person. Nobody is saying the procedure itself is the problem. It's the coercion involved. If the women were requesting the invasive procedure you wouldn't have an outcry. It's the government mandate that is the issue.

        If you want to prevent abortions, support contraception and family planning.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Seriously, if you want to compare this to rape, then, the differences are so vastly different that you are the idiot.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Report abuse |
      • Kusandha

        I'm going to just reuse the text of the article here – "Trudeau told The Washington Post that the procedure, in itself, is a form of rape: “The World Health Organization defines rape as ‘physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration— even if slight– of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts, or an object,’” said Trudeau. “You tell me the difference.”"

        I pose the same question to you Andy, and any of the other "pro-life of the child over that of the mother" folks, tell me the difference.

        March 14, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bildad

      You were never pro-life

      March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Report abuse |
  81. SodaPop

    On the bright side Chins is using abortion to great affect. They use it to get rid of unwanted female children.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
  82. Hansel

    For anyone who thinks a fetus is just tissue and not a "real" person, please google "Gianna Jessen", then come back and explain to all of us how an aborted fetus isn't human.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Paul

      So to save an unborn child it is ok to rape a woman? I think in the eyes of God there is no difference. One sin does not make another sin better.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • asimj

        So how exactly would the abortion be performed? wouldn't tha involve penetration of some sort as well?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Report abuse |
  83. Dawn

    i have had the procedure done for a ovarian problem. I got really upset and cried when they put it in . The ultrasound tech was upset too. i can only imagine how terrible and scared a woman would feel to be forced to undergo this procedure. No one wants to support unplanned pregnancy so why are we making everything so much harder?

    March 13, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • BobTBuilder

      Why didn't you just have someone hit you in the stomach really hard? Then you wouldn't have had to cause that poor lab tech so much stress.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dawn

        i didn't have an abortion i found out i couldn't have children. The ultrasound was awful and i feel for anyone who is forced to have it
        and stop being violent toward woman

        March 14, 2012 at 12:25 am | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      Does ANYONE see the obvious double standard here. To have an abortion, you are doing much more than inserting a wand! Yet that's ok and an ultrasound is rape.....ok. I know it's not supposed to make sense. It's just another way for liberals to justify murdering babies.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Anne

        Andy-you are an idiot. When a women chooses an abortion she thereby consents to an abortion, this is rape. Forced consent is not consent in the eyes of the law. There is a clear difference.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dawn

        the ultrasound is the part you are forced to have and that is rape

        March 14, 2012 at 12:27 am | Report abuse |
    • Hansel

      I can only imagine how terrible and scared a baby must be whose life is about to be vanquished. Also, please explain your logic that "no one" wants to support an unplanned pregnancy. There are pregancy crisis centers all over the country, not to mention PLENTY of families willing to adopt. I myself have adopted two kids – I supported an unplanned pregnancy, so please tell me again how "no one" supports it.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • the times are changin

        Adopt? Oh yea, like that is a solution. All that is is a bottomless pit for lawyers to make a small fortune. It has very little to do with finding homes for children.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Dawn

        I knew 4 girls in high school wanted to put up children for adoption Parents didn't let them do it . they wanted to punish them. the kids punished their kids.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Drew

      I'm sure it was awful, and what really galls me is that this particular procedure is 100% medically unecessary

      March 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Drew

      hahahha Hansel, you actually believe that a fetus is conscious of its own abortion?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:17 pm | Report abuse |
      • james stabaum

        youve never seen video of a fetus reacting to an abortion have you? youve never seen it recoil and squirm, have you? youtube abortion: the silent scream

        March 13, 2012 at 10:55 pm | Report abuse |
  84. Drew

    I might believe that conservatives really believe in "the rights of the unborn" if they cared about protecting the environment and leaving it in working shape for said unborn

    March 13, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      so given the choice between saving a tree and saving a baby – you give them equal weight?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        Not above a baby, but it is worth considering whether life is really worth anything if we don't have a world anymore.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Missouri Hank

        Nice straw man argument...set it up, knock it down.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bill

        Take a tree for a baby anyday. Too many people andy

        March 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        Bill has a point Andy, there are a lot of people.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      Drew and Bill – please comitt suicide soon. We have too many people...if you don't, then you disagree with your own argument and agree with me. Life is more important!

      March 13, 2012 at 10:23 pm | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        I think priority should be given to real human beings rather than hypothetical ones

        March 13, 2012 at 10:29 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Of course you do Drew, because it means you remain ALIVE. I think the babies would choose the same. LIFE

        March 13, 2012 at 10:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Brad

        Andy, it's against the law to commit suicide except in Oregon...The right to lifers have demanded that it be this way. Don't start going softy liberal on us or you might get mistaken for Governor Barbour who let all the murderers out of jail.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:21 am | Report abuse |
  85. BMW57

    Dean:

    Your religious ideal is not the basis for law in this country. You have the right to believe but I have equal rights to not accept your god. You may not force me or others to live by your morality. A fetus is not a person and does not enjoy the rights of a person.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      Double standard – we have to live by your beliefs and it's ok, simply because your beliefs aren't based on anything? ridiculous

      March 13, 2012 at 10:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • Joe Smith

        I hope Andy does not vote. God help us... Andy doesn't understand the concept of a secular society whereby we have the right to not practice religion and the ability to practice religion. Free choice allows Andy to not have abortion and BMW to have an abortion.

        We fought a war to keep religion out of our lives. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If you oppose them, offer women having an abortion to adopt their baby.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Joe – this is where today's world is so sad. You are sickened that I oppose the killing of babies!!! Really – stop and think about that a second.......

        March 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Andy

      when is a baby a person then? What do you base that on?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        When it can survive outside of the mother's body perhaps?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Report abuse |
      • Missouri Hank

        The fetus is a person when the mother decides its a person up until the gestation age specified by the Rowe-vs-Wade decision. Human life may begin at conception but the mother's rights do not instantly go to zero at that time. You are free to make the argument to the mother that a fertilized egg is a person. The mother is free to not agree. That's freedom and the rule of law.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        So...no one exactly knows when a baby can live outside the womb. We should err on the side of life. The argument of when the mother decides is ridiculous.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • Leslie B.

        I agree with Andy. It's ridiculous to play these "a fetus is not a baby" games. Come on, geneticists (and even moderately educated human beings). We know perfectly well what/who is growing inside the mother...it's a human being, and it's never going to be anything else.

        I do believe that women should have all of the knowledge possible – the kind you won't hear Planned Parenthood mention even in whispers – about child development, how soon there is a heartbeat, that this tiny *separate" creature is not some tumor to be removed. I also believe that knowledge should include every possible view of the woman's baby - without invading the woman's body, unless she agrees to it. What I can see happening here, however, is that we take one step farther away from presenting women with the whole truth. They will be discouraged from agreeing to this practice, rather than being given an option.

        Kind of like how it's NEVER okay to show pictures of an aborted baby...it might be too traumatizing to see the little cut up baby parts. Women (and the men who actually stay involved with them/encourage them into this) need to know exactly what is being done. We see live operations of every kind done on television shows; if this is just another routine, minor, surgery, why are people so afraid of letting the public see it?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • Brad

        "We should err on the side of life." How come that doesn't apply to a life that has been convicted of a capital offense based on dubious evidence?

        March 14, 2012 at 12:35 am | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      OK, define person for me then.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      Drew, so 'survive'... a newborn still relies on its mother. Not a person?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hansel

      Please google "Gianna Jessen", then come back and explain to all of us how an aborted fetus isn't human.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • RL

        Gianna Jessen is the survivor of a 30 week saline instillation abortion attempt. American physicians do not perform abortions at that gestational age in this country and they do not perform these types of procedures at all. In fact, most 30 week neonates at academic medical centers survive these days when born at this age. This is not anywhere near the gestational age at which abortions are performed in this country. Please become educated about the person you are referring to and why it does not apply in any way to this debate.
        Also, the limit of viability outside the mother's body at this point is 22-23 weeks gestation, well beyond when abortions are generally performed. Most abortions are in the first trimester (<12 weeks). The viability threshold will NEVER get this low due to human physiology.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm | Report abuse |
      • Zmanjax

        I'm afraid that you are mistaken. Here in Florida, particularly in South Florida, they do abortions well into the third trimester.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      Joe Smith–What if my secular belief allows me to kill YOU. Are you OK with that? You better be if you think that killing people is just up to each individual's own moral compass.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • Riley123

        That's a pretty silly argument Bob. Last I heard, we have laws that cover the Secular Bob kills Joe Smith scenario.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      @Riley123 – So if the nation made laws forbidding abortion you'd just be fine with it? Legality does not equal justice. How many unjust laws have there been throughout history? I'll let you figure out the ones you find unjust.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
  86. db cooper

    In 1972, 39 women died in the US from abortion prior to Roe v Wade.
    http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp

    Using that as a rough average, in the 40 years since roe v wade, roughly 8000 women perhaps would have died from abortion had roe v wade not passed.

    In other words, Roe v Wade saved the lives of 8000 women at a cost 50+ million babies

    March 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • BMW57

      Fetuses cooper, not babies

      March 13, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        That's how you justify murder. By calling a baby a fetus..... let's call mentally underdeveloped children something else, too and kill them; after all, it would be more humane than make them live like that, right?\

        March 13, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • BobTBuilder

        Truthfully we should just kill babies too. There are too many ret@rds and artistics around. Clear out the gene pool. No one wants them anyway.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • XACTOMUNDO

        ...or zygotes, or tadpoles, or bloodclots...

        March 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • XACTOMUNDO

        Andy, my dad had his gall bladder murdered a few months ago... the funeral service was really moving...

        March 13, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        XACTOMUNDO – seriously, when you grow up, come back and post

        March 13, 2012 at 10:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • David Johnston

      It's not a baby! Fetus's are not babies. They don't wear diapers and you don't find a fetus in a daycare. When will you idiot people figure that out!

      March 13, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • Mark

        From a biological perspective it is a human being in development. If you are going to present the argument that the 'organism' is of such and such a developmental stage. That this developmental stage means that it isn't afforded the same protections a fully developed human being has. Then this opens the door for full term and delivery where their is serious malformation.

        My brother and a prior GF of his fooled around, got pregnant, and had had an abortion 18 years ago. I still wonder what kind of person he or she would have turned out to be. My brother now has three children by three different women. These aren't really bright people and I wish:

        1. That they would take the simple step of birth control or simply control their urges and not behave like chimpanzees.
        2. When they make a mistake own up to it and not make some innocent pay for it.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • db cooper

      Correction, I took the 1967 number of nearly 200. In 1972, it was 39.

      40 per year for 40 years = 1600 women for 50 million babies

      March 13, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • dg

      So it is O.K. to kill women?! Do you speak with a Middle Eastern dialect?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • db cooper

        You think it is ok to kill 50 million babies? Do you speak with a German accent?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Report abuse |
  87. tennisjudi

    In what way is this different from those Egyptian soldiers that did "virginity tests" on women? I'm not pro abortion, but I'm outraged by this flagrant violation and demeaning of women.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Report abuse |
  88. Andy

    Just goes to show you how low we've gone. A sonogram is inhuman, yet killing a baby isn't? Wow....

    March 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Drew

      If you believe the abortion is inhumane, more power to you. It doesn't mean you should try to shame women through a procedure that is entirely unnecessary

      March 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        Yes – it is totally unnecessary. Have the baby!!! Don't kill it!!!

        March 13, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • David Johnston

      It's not a baby! Isn't, never was, never will be you moron. This column is inditement on our education system. Their are lots of ignorant people out there. You have to take a test to drive, but not to vote.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bob

        Not a baby? Fine do you prefer "human in-utero"? Have you ever studied science? How about genetics? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing you are blinded by ideology too much to even pick up a basic scientific textbook about human anatomy, genetics and reproduction.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Report abuse |
      • Tal

        @Bob

        @Bob

        Baby vs. "Human in utero" is a fallback on petty semantics not 'science'. If an organism lacks anything conceivably comparable to human consciousness it is not human, its that simple. A fetus, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy prior to 6 weeks gestation is utterly without self conscious thought. To call the abortion of an unformed, essentially inert being murder, is to compare apple to oranges. Unless you believe in the immortal human spirit that is. And that's between you and your imaginary friend.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • dg

      Would you allow the 10 " rod inserted in your body to save a fetus?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Report abuse |
  89. Drew

    It seems pretty inhumane to force a woman who may have already been to raped to have a ten inch rod shoved up her woohoo. If you want to fight abortion then fight abortion, don't take it out on the victim

    March 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Report abuse |
  90. steve19

    Perhaps Mr. Trudeau can work on some other definitions. What term would you use to describe something that is growing, has it's own special DNA, has a heartbeat, responds to stimuli and will continue to develop unless some misfortune happens or somebody purposely DESTROYS it? How about "alive"?

    March 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • Drew

      "unless someone purposely destroys it." Incorrect, fetus's are destroyed all the time naturally, as are sperm and eggs

      March 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • steve19

        Read more carefully..... "unless some misfortune happens or somebody purposely destroys it"

        March 13, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Drew

        ah, my mistake

        March 13, 2012 at 10:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe Smith

      Sorry buddy – if it can't survive outside the womb, it ain't a life. Also, why is it your business what a woman chooses to do with her body? Have you adopted any orphaned special needs children or do you sit on your self proclaimed religious throne and simply tell others what to do. Religion is for weak minded people who are scared of the real world and they are scared of what they don't know so like a scared child, they simply say no.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • steve19

        If it isn't alive to some degree, then there is no reason to destroy it.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • Leslie B.

        And if you are in a car accident and can't survive without the help of others, is it okay if we kill you,too? Should we kill all the returning maimed veterans who can no longer walk on their own? Should we kill all the old people as soon as they need some assisted living help, or only wait until we're sure they've gotten their will written and signed the way we want?

        A tadpole is alive (until you and your buddies get to it). It's going to be a frog if you don't kill it, but it is a living being that is part of the process of being a frog.

        There are a lot of scary Hitler-esque people here who see someone they consider not 100% human as worth killing.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • ioho

        Uhh...did you take a science class?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:54 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        If it can't survive outside the womb, it aint a life – that would imply that what is in the womb is a life.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • BMW57

      We have a term, FETUS.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • Scott

        Oh look, a talking blob of cells.

        March 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
  91. Joe Smith

    Woman around this country need to take a long hard look at what is going on with our country's policies and how they will impact women. They are trying to deny you contraception and abortion – even if you are raped!!! What happened to the right to do what we want with our own bodies? We are going backward folks and the next step will be to take away womens' right to vote. Texas is so backwards it should just be given to Mexico as these hillbillies are stuck believing a fairy tale called religion and using religion to influence what a woman can do with her body.

    Santorum and Rick Perry and backwards rednecks and have no place setting policy for anyone.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Report abuse |
  92. baldwink

    Rape and inscest? What are those percentages compared to what this percentage really is....genicide of convienence.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe Smith

      Genocide of convenience? What a joke. Tell you what – why don't you adopt a few orphaned children, particularly ones with special needs. What have you done for society other than try to keep us adhering to a book that is thousands of years old and hardly relevant to modern society.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • Andy

        You got it Joe. Just kill them all! I see you are anti-Christian as well. That's ok – that's the popular thing to be now adays.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:06 pm | Report abuse |
      • Joe Smith

        Andy – again, what have you done to help adopt orphaned babies? Do you drop your $1.00 in the church bin every week and feel you are making a difference? Have you ever been to an orphanage with thousands of kids sitting there that are engaging in self harm as they nothing in life – family, friends, etc. How much do you give per year to help take care of kids?

        We are mammals who stupidly breed an abortion is a natural remedy to rape, incest, mistakes and prevents these overcrowing of orpnages and unwanted children. Sorry, I know this sounds mean but it is the hard truth. Add insult to injury, you have all the warriors of childrens rights like andy that are content to whine but have never considered adopting a special needs orphaned child.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • dg

        Hey Joe,
        When you spineless men start taking responsibility for your spawn and I don't have to support all the single mothers in the world then great, have a bunch of babies. Or let the churches pay for all the unwanted children.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • BobTBuilder

        Yeah ok Mr. Smith I suppose you're a big fan of governmental health care as well. How much of your money do you donate to health care for the poor?

        March 13, 2012 at 10:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • abmarconi

      What are those percentages smarty pants? You don't know...but you'd be willing to let those folks either prove it or bear a child that they do not want. Also unless you've been pregnant you don't know what it's like to spend nine months sharing your body-literally with another person. This law just pushes woment to do unsafe things that could lead to a miscarraige or a back alley abortion. Let's let individuals make a choice...it's not one I've ever heard of being made lightly...and if it is do we really want that person becoming a mother?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • JLS639

        Actually I found it hard to find anything on the rate of conception after rape. A search of PubMed gave lots of hits dealing with mustard fertility... (Rapeseed Oil)

        A web site claimed that various studies put the rate of conception after rape somewhere from less than 1% to just under 5%, but no citations were given. It was much easier to find studies dealing with the psychological impact of rape at different times of the menstrual cycle or likelihood of rape at different times of the menstrual cycle.

        So, there you have it, while the rate of rape is unknown, maybe somewhere between 1% and 5% of the unknown rate results in conception.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Leslie B.

        "Unsafe things....?" We KNOW someone is going to die with every abortion.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm | Report abuse |
  93. BobTBuilder

    I think we should just legalize rape and then we don't have to have all these nasty comparisons to abortion.

    March 13, 2012 at 9:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • BobTBuilder

      It's obvious that rape is much more natural than an abortion.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm | Report abuse |
  94. indianinusa

    white lib women voluntarily ceded the rights on their body to the white males when they wanted healthcare to be in the domain of the state. they cannot have it all ways – state takes care of healthcare, they file lawsuits if a woman decides that the abortion was wrongly carried out but the doctor should not check to see if the fetus is in fact a live baby!

    March 13, 2012 at 9:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • David Johnston

      It's not a baby! Get it? Not a baby, God you people are dumb.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • ioho

        Not a baby...but a life nonetheless. That's science, not opinion. Quit being willfully ignorant and research it.

        March 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • dddavid

        Caterpillars and slugs are lives too, but I will still squash them when I find them in my garden. What's your point?

        March 14, 2012 at 12:13 am | Report abuse |
      • Mammaduck7

        Of course it's a baby. If you really don't believe that then go look at some of the pictures of aborted "fetuses". It has a heartbeat, it kicks, it moves, it urinates, it dreams. You can call it a duck if you want but it is a living human being.

        March 14, 2012 at 12:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Bruce

      You can argue all you want, but you'd still be wrong. Women did not cede the right to their bodies by accepting national healthcare any more than you ceded your body since viagra is covered.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • dg

      What does race have to do with any of this?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Report abuse |
  95. David Johnston

    Is a tadpole a frog?

    March 13, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chas

      Is a tadpole alive?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • KP

        Are your skin cells alive?

        March 13, 2012 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
  96. dc

    Are we saying here that ALL women are of the same opinion? HARDLY!

    March 13, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Report abuse |
  97. indianinusa

    luckily trudeau is not an ob-gyn. he has revealed that he has a p3rvert3d brain and sees all obgyn actions as opportunity to rap3. mark my words, it is not just this test. obgyns do many other things and if trudeau had been an obgyn, he would have used the opportunity to rap3 women. really sad.

    March 13, 2012 at 9:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • AntiPalinAlaskan

      Get therapy.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • dg

      Doctor the point is not about the rich OB/GYN's....

      March 13, 2012 at 10:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • alpha

      You have some deep mental issues that need to be treated as soon as possible.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mack

      Sounds like you're using a hypothetical example to display your own sick, twisted, and demented thoughts. Typical GOP nut job. Move back to the extreme margins (and feel free to fall off) so the real conversation can continue...

      March 14, 2012 at 12:22 am | Report abuse |
  98. Zon

    Is it not fair to say that women have at least in small part ceded their rights to the lunatic fringe? More than a few women voters elected these people making the laws. Ladies, if enough of you don't stand up for your rights, don't be surprised when someone eventually gets into position to take them away.

    March 13, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • yopblog

      Good comment. I've been saying ths for years. It's too bad it has taken this extreme turn to hopefully wake some of the conservative women up. "But I won't have an abortion," some of them will say. But, as you point out, it will be about all of their rights not too far down the road.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mammaduck7

      Yes, let's stand up for the right to murder our children! Andrea Yates can be our patron saint!

      March 14, 2012 at 12:53 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5