Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Proving my point for me

I posted about my caveat to angry clown and her abortion recipe. This chick has some serious denial issues! She said:
Well, gee seeing as this is a recipe TO INDUCE A PERIOD/POSSIBLE MISCARRIAGE and NOT an abortion recipe there is very little risk in this. This will only coax your body to let your blood flow and there is NO EMBRYO, just A COUPLE OF CELLS.

Well, angry clown, here's a little info about the embryo at the implantation stage, before your period is even late:
The inner cell mass divides, rapidly forming a two-layered disc. The top layer of cells will become the embryo and amniotic cavity, while the lower cells will become the yolk sac.

Ectopic pregnancies can occur at this time (Hello, clown?) and sometimes continue for up to 16 weeks of pregnancy before being noticed.

Now let's look at the "COUPLE OF CELLS" when mom's period is a week overdue:
In Stage 7, gastrulation continues with the formation of the audoderm and mesoderm, which develop from the primitive streak, changing the two-layered disc into a three-layered disc. The cells in the central part of the mesoderm release a chemical causing a dramatic change in the size of the cells in the top layer (ectoderm) of the flat disc-shaped embryo. The ectoderm grows rapidly over the next few days forming a thickened area. The three layers of the will eventually give rise to:

- Endoderm that will form the lining of lungs, tongue, tonsils, urethra and associated glands, bladder and digestive tract.

- Mesoderm that will form the muscles, bones, lymphatic tissue, spleen, blood cells, heart, lungs, and reproductive and excretory systems.

- Ectoderm that will form the skin, nails, hair, lens of eye, lining of the internal and external ear, nose, sinuses, mouth, anus, tooth enamel, pituitary gland, mammary glands, and all parts of the nervous system.

Let's check out what the "COUPLE OF CELLS" are like when mom's period is two weeks overdue:
Stage 10 reflects rapid growth and change as the embryo becomes longer and the yolk sac expands.

On each side of the neural tube, between four and twelve pairs of somites can exist by the end of Stage 10. The cells which become the eyes appear as thickened circles just off of the neural folds. The cells of the ears are also present.

Neural folds are rising and fusing at several points along the length of the neural tube concomitant with the budding somites which appear to "zipper" the neural tube closed. Neural crest cells will eventually contribute to the skull and face of the embryo.

The two endocardial tubes formed in Stage 9 fuse in Stage 10 to form one single tube derived from the roof of the nueral tube, which becomes S-shaped and makes the primitive heart asymmetric. As the S-shape forms, cardiac muscle contraction begins.

And, last but not least, the "COUPLE OF CELLS" when mom's period is three weeks overdue, when clown's window of opportunity for not-an-abortion closes:
The brain and head grow rapidly. The mandibular and hyoid arches are noticeable. Ridges demarcate the three sections of the brain (midbrain, forebrain and hindbrain). The spinal cord wall at this stage contains three zones: the ventricular, the mantle and the marginal. The ventricular zone will form neurons, glial cells and ependymal cells, the intermediate mantle will form neuron clusters and the marginal zone will contain processes of neurons. Adenohypophyseal pouch, which will develop into the anterior pituitary, is defined.


Esophagus, the tube through which food is swallowed, forms from a groove of tissue that separates from the trachea, which is also visible.

Semilunar valves begin to form in the heart. Four major subdivisions of the heart (the trabeculated left and right ventricles, the conus cords and the truncus arteriosus) are clearly defined. Two sprouts, a ventral one from the aortic sac and a dorsal one from the aorta, form the pulmonary (sixth aortic) arch.


Upper limbs elongate into cylindrically-shaped buds, tapering at tip to eventually form hand plate. Nerve distribution process, innervation, begins in the upper limbs.

Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt.


vi0let_vanity said...

I don't see why you people bitch so much about abortion. Of course theres tons of parents wanting children and children needing parents..The key point is..There's already a shit load of kids that need to be adopted. It's not like we're running out of the supply of adoptable children, it's just that people only want the "babies" not the older kids. Look at dog pounds, all the puppies get adopted but what about the adult dogs? It's the same thing. Abortion is a great thing. It's population control, and god knows we don't need anymore simple minded people. Besides, I believe that you shouldn't have a say in something unless you've actually have been in that situation. Did you ever get pregnant at a young age and face the decision between abortion, adoption, or raising it?

Christina Dunigan said...

How can you look at another human being and say, "There are already plenty. You're surplus. So if somebody wants to kill you, more power to them!" It sounds like Scrooge: "Let them die, and decrease the surplus population."

Anonymous said...

Give us a break, granny... it's great to help people watch out for their health while making these decisions, but not in this context. Humans are amazing, and so is the development towards what it won't even be until 12 weeks of gestation: a fetus. Humans are amazing because we are capable of controlling our own destinies: building houses, communities, discovering the nature of things, and even ending a pregnancy when we're not ready to raise a child.

Christina Dunigan said...

KT, it's the fact that we're capable of so much that makes it so much more inexcusable that we slaughter our own young. That's the kind of behavior you'd expect from hamsters and guppies. We ought to be above that.

JacqueFromTexas said...


Abortion is a great thing... So I guess animal euthanasia is also a great thing. I'm thinking the dog that I adopted at age 7 that's curled up beside me right now and the 2 day-old abandoned kitten that I'm currently bottle-feeding would disagree with you. I'm only commenting because I was offended on their behalves.

Your defending the killing of little human beings- that I'm used to, but typically your kind have at least some compassion for born furry things that redeems you in a small, minute, miniscule way. But you appear to be "all living things that get in my way be damned!"

Anonymous said...

Jacque,What Violet was saying was that it is sad that people only want the kittens and puppys and the same goes for humans, the most common age for kids to be adopted is when they are young.

Anonymous said...

i'm not really going to state whether i think abortion is right or wrong, but i would like to state this:
at least in the US, we preach, fight, argue, and die for our rights and our freedoms.
so who is anyone to try to take a personal freedom from a woman?

i'm not agreeing with abortion, i'm just stating a fact that people seem to use one-sidedly. Woman have fought for their freedom to vote and own property (and a great number of other things), and if anyone were to try to take those away now, that person would be considered crazy.
however, it's okay to tell a woman that she absolutely cannot have a personal, generally rather private procedure done?

the very reason that unsafe home abortions occur is because of this line of reasoning. Abortions are not going away. It's sad, but true. Eliminate safe, clinical procedures and all you'll have is more lost, scared, and generally very young people going back to methods that aren't necessarily safe, aren't necessarily healthy OR effective, and are potentially life threatening.

so which is worse? terminating what COULD have been, or opening the door to killing what already is?

Christina Dunigan said...

a.n., when society grants Person A the right to treat Person B as property, that's not freedom. It's tyranny. Just because you personally sympathize with the one who wants to do the killing doesn't change that.

Anonymous said...

I agree grannygrump, it's so sad when people don't realize that small clumps of cells with no sentient thought, free will, or a comprehension of emotion/ pain are people JUST LIKE US. I mean, come on, I know that I would want to be treated like a person if I were a clump of cells... oh wait, I WOULDN'T!! (refer back to the sentient thought line)

My girlfriend is currently using the method detailed in clown's article to induce menstruation. she isn't pregnant (unless it's immaculate) but it bothers her so much to think she is late/ skipping a period that she is trying this method.

My God, when will you people learn that the only source that might say a clump of baby cells is a "person" would have to be the good ol' out of context word of God (aka: the Bible.) and several small facts: Modern christian movements are the only religion that regularly dictates that early stage fetus' have souls. Judaism and Islam say (in orthodox practice) that there is a certain amount of days that must elapse before a fetus has a soul (21 days.)

so, let's reevaluate the statement "when society grants Person A the right to treat Person B as property..." hmmm.. that is true. However, Creator A has the right to do whatever she wants with Clump of Cells B.

deal with it.

Christina Dunigan said...

Anon, you were once one of those "clusters of cells", just as you were once a baby and once a toddler.

How much bigger, smarter, and older does Person A have to be than Person B for it to be okay for Person A to kill Person B? Because clearly that's your criteria. The woman gets to kill her embryo because she's bigger, older, smarter, and more sophisticated.

A society that says that the bigger and stronger get to kill the smaller and weaker is tyranical. God forgive you for advocating such a thing.

Anonymous said...

Just some food for thought for you weak minded sheep, who believe abortions are a bad thing. First off, without abortions, the human race will continue to over populate this world consuming everything in their path until we cease to exist. Not because of the "divide will of god" but, because there, in reality, probably is NO GOD. The destruction of the earth will come from over population. Therefore, the right to have an abortion(not saying that you think it should be illegal) is a good thing, and therefore...the fact that women DO HAVE abortions is a very good thing(population control). Its called responsibility. When women take the responsibility to not have a child for whatever their reasons...its one more day we have to create a world that can sustain the massively growing population of humans in this world.
Another thing, I noticed you talking about cells and embryos. If you really want to debate on that...if you think that losing an embryo is bad or making your self have a miscarriage(basically getting your period, which by the way...will be basically like getting rid of a pile of goo...thats what basically a three celled embryo is...a pile of goo in a girls well, every woman who has her period could be considered a murderer. Do you know why? lol Its because every woman, when having her period gets rid of an egg and gets a new one, and sometimes, fertilized eggs DO get flushed out of the body, NATURALLY. Well as every person knows, every egg is basically a cell, which basically is an EMBRYO. Therefore...every woman who has her period is a killer any way you look at it(if thats the way you want to look at it...I don't though) Unless of coarse, you decide to have surgery to never have a menstrual cycle, in which case is fine too.
And Seriously do have a brain, stop being SHEEP...just because somewhere, some person, states that there is this magical person called, "GOD" doesn't mean there actually is. Quite LITERALLY, the BIBLE is a collection of stories written by a group of men who claim they have seen these acts of some guy named JESUS who "claimed" to be the son of god. Here is a very good question, if you believe in the bible, why don't you believe in the two men known as "The Brothers Grim?" and when I ask this, I ask it very seriously. I say this because The Brothers Grim wrote a collection of STORIES, some rather remarkable ones if I might add. Now most adults who have any common sense know that thats all they are, stories. However, if you ask a child if they believe in these, "stories," they will believe that they are true. So how can you believe in something you have never witnessed, written by someone you don't personally know, and personally have never seen the evidence of or analyzed??? Are really that weak minded that you seriously CAN'T think for yourself?
If that is the case then believe me when I say that I am God and Jesus in one and I am here to save the world from chaos, destruction and suffering which I once created and bring my people to enlightenment! Grow up, do some research, stop being a sheep and realize that the world wasn't created in so many days and so many nights...there IS NO PROOF, of how the world or other worlds were created(as yes there are other worlds with other beings and you are very ignorant you believe we are the only intelligent life in the universe)people like to kill, eat meat, have sex with many different partners, we like loud music and we like you know why? Because we are human, we are born freethinkers(there is no such thing as original sin) and we like getting fucked up sometimes ok. If you seriously want to save a babies life, then seriously, pay for the GOD DAMNED hospital bill to have the pile of goo transported from one girls belly into another's who wants it. Don't tell women that they SHOULDN'T have an abortion!!!! Its not your life or your body....GET A LIFE OF YOUR OWN AND STOP BOTHERING ANOTHER PEOPLE.
Seriously, would like me outside your place where you go to church telling you, "there is no god, you won't go to hell, I'm gonna follow you home and kill your dog just to prove it, I know its lent, I thought a nice church steak grill out day would be awesome this Friday" Seriously, get a life and stop being a burden to the world by annoying other people, who can think for themselves, who want to have an abortion, or need to have an abortion, with your own insecurity's, beliefs or whatever.
We don't force our beliefs on you so stay the hell away, and stop talking to us, because seriously, one day, all of your badgering is going to turn on you.

Christina Dunigan said...

Freethinker, why don't you break that huge massive post down into digestible chunks?

If you do I'll take that as a sign that you're actually trying to communicate, rather than just coming in and vomiting out a torrent of words.

Anonymous said...

yeah, no, its not my fault you can't read in large quantity's, most of us are past second grade.

Christina Dunigan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christina Dunigan said...

And evidently things like capitalizing the first letter of a sentence, using apostrophes in contractions, and not using apostrophes in plurals managed to elude you in your extensive, post-second-grade education.

Clearly you are here just to vomit out words and feel superior without having to actually engage your brain. Please take your babllings to other head-in-the-sand embracers of every excuse under the sun for their own bad behavior. I have no time for you.

Anonymous said...

seriously Granny, have you been in a situation where you might have considered abortion before? maybe you were a student who drank a little too much at a frat party, and couldn't afford to raise a child? Maybe your boyfriend's condom borke that one time? or maybe you were brutally raped once or twice and just too afraid to do anything about it, then found out you were pregnant from it a month later? Would you want to bring a child into this world, from that kind of background?

I mean really, if you think about it, if a person isn't ready to have a child, for whatever reason, it's probably best for the would-be child to not exist any further than the early stages of pregnancy.

And of course, let's not forget about post martem depression, or whatever its called. y'know, when the mother goes through with the pregnancy, and gets so depressed she commits suicide, infanticide, or both. Infanticide being where the mother kills the already born human child within the first twelve months of its life. Why? Because the hormones after the pregnancy made her depressed. Would you rather that happened?

Honestly, I can understand where you're coming from --I'm facing an abortion myself. Am I happy about it? No. Do I think it's wrong? Yes. DO I really have any other choice? No. Because I would rather that child die in me, and mourn it now, than raise it in the inevidable poverty that I know would follow and mourn the life I wouldn't be able to provide for it.

Christina Dunigan said...

Anon, it's largely because there but for the grace of God go I that I'm so rabidly against abortion. I could have ended up like so many of my friends. But I didn't, because I had a friend who understood that the pregnancy wasn't the problem, it was my circumstances. And he could see clearly enough how to change them, and was willing to help. A different friend, and I'd not have my son. I'd have the memory of an appointment at a Planned Parenthood, and I'd have a mantra of "I had no choice, I did what I had to do," which would have been cold comfort.

There may be women who can kill their unborn offspring without compunction, without remorse, without a second thought. They're not my concern. It's the women who feel trapped, who want another way out but can't see one, who have my sympathy.

You can click on "Why Abortion?" in the sidebar if you really want to know.

Anonymous said...

I have got to say that I agree completely with Anon above. Right now I am facing that same choice, and I have only been late for a couple days but this has been one of the scariest days of my life. I am in my first year of college, the first of my entire family. Tuition is $40,000 a year and I am already in debt for quite a large amount. I wanted to go to school and get out of poverty, but having a child right now would destroy all of that for me. This is the choice that I will have to make very soon if I am in fact pregnant. Living without my child now continuing my studies and hopefully having a successful life where I could have as many children as I always desired. Or give up all my family and my dreams because of one mistake. What would you do Granny?

Christina Dunigan said...

Let's see... my plans, versus another human being's life...

When the Quecreek Mine disaster struck, there wasn't a single person who had "Go out in the boondocks and start drilling day and night to see if a bunch of guys are alive or not" pencilled in on their calendar. Hundreds of people put their plans on a back burner on the off chance -- the very remote chance -- that nine absolute strangers were alive in that mine.

Now, you may be in doubt as to whether or not an unborn child is really, truly a living human being. What do we do when we're in doubt? What do the odds have to be that your actions will kill somebody for you to decide which is more important, that person's life or your plans?

Anonymous said...

Turns out that I wasn't pregnant. I was just late due to stress from school and thinking that I was pregnant. But now that I have had that scare I really understand that yes I would choose my plans over an embryo. It may sound disturbing to you but I guess you have no idea what it's like to grow up in poverty. 1 in 4 children are doing it everyday.

And every 1 out of 5 of those children will graduate high school and go to college. I guess the others will just have to keep scraping by feeding children that they can't afford.

Hopefully if they have the opportunity to go to college and do something positive with their lives, they will achieve their dreams before sacrificing their lives along with an embryo that will be destined to continue the circle of poverty.

Thank you for your time and your response. But I guess there is no convincing someone like you.

Christina Dunigan said...

I'm glad it turned out you're not pregnant. And no, there's never going to be convincing somebody like me that money trumps a human life.

I just finished reading "Miracle in the Andes", by Nando Parrado. He was one of the two young rugby players who made the impossible trip out of the heart of the Andes, to find rescue for their teammates left behind at the site where their plane had crashed ten weeks earlier.

The story of the crash, the search, and the survivors has been told in book and film. If you have read the book or seen the film will no doubt remember the moment when Nando stood atop the mountain, where he had expected to find a vista of a green valley, and saw nothing but more mountains.

I long wondered: How did he find any hope to go on? How did he not let despair crush him where he stood? What was it that goaded that half-starved, desperate young man off the mountain to save not only himself, but his friends?

Nando shares the answer:

In that moment, all my dreams, assumptions, and expectations evaporated into the thin Andean air. I had always thought life was the natural thing, and death was simply the end of living. Now, in this lifeless place, I saw with terrible clarity that death was the constant, and life was only a short, fragile dream. I felt a sharp and sudden longing for my mother and sister, and for my father, whom I was sure I would never see again. But despite the hopelessness of my situation, the memory of him filled me with joy. It staggered me—the mountains could not crush my ability to love. In that moment, I discovered a simple, astounding secret: Death has an opposite, but it is not mere living. It is not courage or faith or will. The opposite of death is love. How had I missed that? How does anyone miss that? My fears lifted, and I knew that I would not let death control me. I would walk through that godforsaken country with love and hope in my heart. I would walk until I'd walked all the life out of me, and when I fell, I would die that much closer to home.

The only thing that ultimately matters is love. And we as a society are willing to flush that love down the garbage disposal. That is a far greater poverty than lack of money will ever be.

Anonymous said...

That last comment didn't really make much sense to me Granny. An analogy between a lifetime of struggling due to a lack of money and two mountain climbing kids from the suburbs who had maybe a couple weeks of being stuck on a really cold mountain due to a lack of helicopters.

I would suggest picking up Native Son by Richard A. Wright. I'm not completely convinced that abortion trumps poverty by the last example you delivered.

Christina Dunigan said...

It wasn't an analogy. (And clearly you don't know Nando's story or you'd be beyond flattered at the thought that somebody might even be remotely comparing you to him.) The point was that Nando learned that the only thing that really matters when the shit hits the fan is love. Something that we're perfectly willing as a society to shred and send to the pathology lab if it shows up at an inconvenient time.


Anonymous said...

I'm reading this about two years later via a link from feministing to lost clown's page.

I disagree with you Granny regarding aborting the mass of cells at that early state. (At later stages we probably have a lot more in common.)

However, you are clearly a lot saner and communicate much better than many of the commenters and lost clown herself.

Best wishes

Christina Dunigan said...

Thanx, anon. And read Nando's book, just because it's amazing.

Anonymous said...

For those advocating adoption as the band-aid for abortion. Abortion is an alternative to unwanted pregnancy. Adoption is the alternative to parenting. Adoption doesn't solve the abortion issue. Better contraceptives, better sex ed, and allowing those of us who want to be sterilized to become so will lessen the need for abortions. Also, let's castrate rapists after their first offense...

Christina Dunigan said...

I notice first of all, commonsense, that we agree on a lot:

I agree that adoption is not a band-aid solution for abortion. Everybody's circumstances are different, and adoption would only make sense for some women and not for others. You can't just give every woman who considers abortion a referral to an adoption agency and everybody lives happily ever after.

I also agree that it ought to be much easier for people who want to be sterilized to arrange it. Yes, there ought to be hellacious informed-consent process, similar to what my oral surgeon put people through before he'd perform jaw surgery on them, to make sure that people really ARE getting all the information they need before making a life-changing and typically irreversible choice.

I'm a bit leary of the "castrate rapists on the first offense" -- I do think the punishment needs to fit the crime, but I don't like giving the government that kind of control over people's bodies. This is one where I could go either way and a whole lot of roads in the middle, trying to balance competing issues. Locking them away forever with nobody but each other for company seems like it'd solve the problem.

I do think that you're right that better sex ed would go a long way to reduce abortion. Teach kids to treat each other and themselves with love and respect, and not as a way of getting yoru rocks off. And teach them what Ian Malcolm made such a point of in "Jurassic Park" -- Life will find a way. Trying to separate sex from babies is thowing yourself headfirst into a battle against Nature, and just like any other battle against Nature, you're gonna get creamed. You can increase or reduce the odds of any given encounter producing a baby, but unless you get the gonads removed, biology is going to be working against you 24/7, trying to perpetuate the species. We need to stop being like the guy in "Life of Brian" who screamed that he was being oppressed because society wasn't changing his biology for him.

That said, let's move to where we disagree:

Abortion is not an ALTERNATIVE to pregnancy. It's one way of dealing with it. Once the woman is pregnant, the baby exists. An abortion will not undo that. She will spend the rest of her life as a mother. The question is, will she spend it as the mother of a dead baby or a live one? That needs to be looked squarely in the eye. If abortion is going to be legal, the woman ought to have to sign a death warrant, just as a judge would sign when putting somebody to death. She should have to acknowledge that she's putting a human being to death. This specific human being. She ought to list the cimes this human being has committed that warrant the death penalty. There's absolutly no reason for a "civilized" society to allow Person A to choose death for Person B for any reason from financial difficulties to vacation plans to relationship issues to "this is just how I choose to manage my fertility". Don't want a baby? Don't make one.

And the relationship between contraception and abotion is a complex one. It's not "the more contraception, the less abortion" by a long shot. The more abortion, the less contraception is more of a rule. Read Kirstin Leuker (sp?) "Abortion and the Decidion Not to Contracept". Trying to get rid of abortion by throwing contraception at people is like trying to get rid of motorcycle accidents by teacing EVERYBODY to ride motorcycles and giving them away for free.

Anonymous said...

Is everyone forgetting that there are even cases of induced miscarriages in the bible. Matter of fact they even stoned disobedient children because one bad seed could bring down a whole nation. remember when King David impregnated the general of his army wife and how God cause the child to be miscarried.

I am not saying go out and be irresponsible. That's just crazy.

I have known women who have died because they have kept a child despite their life threatening health issues. I know a woman who was raped and became pregnant. She kept the child but put him up for adoption later because her son looked exactly like her raper. The child is still not adopted.(Back children don't get adopted often.) I also know a few women who kept the child, but guess what...they have no why to provide a decent home, not a even a christian home.

Well, what I really want to say is...don't be so judgmental every case is personal and individual. Let God be the judge..not you. That's why "so called" Christians have a hard time bringing other to God.

Christina Dunigan said...

Anon, how can encouraging grave sin bring people closer to God?

Anonymous said...

wow..... seriously? get a fucking life. you can sit here and rant all fucking day long about how angry clown is voicing their opinion and because you don't like it you have to go boo hoo on a blog. seriously? get over your self. no matter what you say or do, women are going to continue to have the choice to have abortions. and even if that choice is taken away, they will have the choice to use herbs for abortions as well. infact i liked clown's herb recipe! given that i am pro-choice, i have missed my period this month. granted i may be preggers... but then again I am 4 states away from home and extremely stressed out. so i'm going to give the recipe a try [btw you dumb fuck it's NOT an abortion recipe, what exactly are you trying to say? tell us that parsley will uproot an implanted egg, shove it back up the fallopian tubes, and let it re-implant?], if nothing happens then oh well i'll have the baby and give it up for adoption since i cannot afford to give a child the life it deserves and i'm sure there is a family out there that would want it more than me.

Christina Dunigan said...

Yes, anon, you're right in that some women will continue to kill their own children, despite every effort to protect those children, just as some men will beat their wives, some men will rape, some people will kill and steal and commit arson. I can't eliminate all evil. But I can speak out against it so that it's only normative among the evil.

Anonymous said...

God knows all. God sees all. Only God knows. Only God may bless & take away. With that all said, why the hell does God get 12 year old girls raped & pregnant when he sees and knows that they are getting an abortion? OH yes, a test from God. She must make the right decision & follow the grace of God or else she will suffer at the Gates when she must answer to God! Please. God needs to worry about the 100% healthy and wanted babies who are kidnapped and raped to death everyday before he worries about the tiny embryos getting aborted. Maybe you should start a blog about child offenders who rape little boys to death and bury little girls alive, before you attack young women who are making a stand for themselves and taking control of thier bodies. Not every girl gets drunk and sleeps around, some don't have a choice. God made the choice for them! & don't you DARE blame that on the powers of Satan. That's just rightious Christian bullshit. All this crap about God and his power and blessings and crap should be put on hold until you die and see the entity for yourself. Then you can come back and show proof. & I don't mean anything to do with the Bible. I could write a Bible and go bury it somewhere in the middle of nowhere and wait 500 years for someone to find it and believe THAT is the truth. There's no God. Mary cheated on her husband and lied about it just to get away from it. Jesus was a good hearted man, nothing more. & women are allowed to make thier own choices to better themselves! If they are making a selfish choice then oh well! At least they are not raping and killing small children. It's a fetus. It's in her womb. It's HER womb! Take it from a once pro-lifer who's now pro-choice. Mind your own business.

Christina Dunigan said...

What makes you so bitter, anon?

Anonymous said...

While I appreciate GrannyGrump's allowing opposing-view posts and replying to them, I notice that she never responds to the best arguments posted ... instead, opting for one-line insults, diversions, etc.

Christina Dunigan said...

Show me one actual VALID argument I've failed to respond to. All the abortion lovers do is chant slogans as if that clinches the argument.

It's NOT your body. Not unless you have two separate and distinct sets of chromosomes.

It's NOT your right. Nobody has the right to kill somebody else just to achieve their personal goals in life.

And chanting those slogans is just asserting, "I think I have a right to kill this person because he's small and weak and totally dependent on me."

That's EVIL. And if you can't get it, then you're either missing a heart or key logic circuits or both.

Anonymous said...

How about this, I want you to ask a congregated bunch of cells their opinion and get back to me on it ;)
Its not alive so stop bitching. and another thing you pro-life bible wagging piece of shit, its not your body so you have no right to dictate what is done with whats inside it. Oh and wait one more thing, EVIL? i know your not stupid enough to believe that evil is a tangible thing. Evil is a Concept and no abortions are not EVIL. Fagget Slaughtering Religious extremest enforcing their beliefs on others might be. but its just a hunch. BTW don't talk shit if you don't know what your talking about, and posting shit you copied from bloody wikipedia isn't proof of knowledge, next time you want to ring of stupid shit reference me first Names D,
and yes I'm Pro-choice, and i smoke, and i think gays should have all the rights everyone else have. I also believe blue laws are a breach of separation of church and state.

Christina Dunigan said...

How about this, I want you to ask a congregated bunch of cells their opinion and get back to me on it .

Well, as a congregated bunch of cells, I'm qualified to respond. All of us are, after all, composed of cells.

Its not alive so stop bitching.

Well of course it's not alive after you kill it. If it's not alive in the first place you're having a miscarriage and you're just endangering yourself to do things to try to kill an already-dead embryo.

and another thing you pro-life bible wagging piece of shit,

It's amazing the hatred. Why are you so threatened by being told to pick on somebody your own size?

its not your body so you have no right to dictate what is done with whats inside it.

And the intent of the abortion is to kill somebody whose body isn't your body either. If the right to one's body is that important, you need to respect your child's right to his or her own bodily integrity. Every time one of you aborts, you are violating somebody else's bodily integrity. In the name of "bodily integrity". Quit taking lethal action against other people, how about it?

Oh and wait one more thing, EVIL? i know your not stupid enough to believe that evil is a tangible thing.

Clearly you do believe in evil because you respond to me as if I am evil for not wanting you to practice abortion. You just disagree with me on what is evil, not that it exists. I think killing little people is evil. You think trying to convince people not to kill tiny little people is evil. But on the existence of evil clearly we agree.

yes I'm Pro-choice, and i smoke, and i think gays should have all the rights everyone else have. I also believe blue laws are a breach of separation of church and state.

What does any of this, aside from your assertion that you espouse "choice" on the issue of killing your offspring, have to do with the matter at hand?

Anonymous said...

yes I'm Pro-choice, and i smoke, and i think gays should have all the rights everyone else have. I also believe blue laws are a breach of separation of church and state.

What does any of this, aside from your assertion that you espouse "choice" on the issue of killing your offspring, have to do with the matter at hand?

It has to do with ones beliefs and obvious bias.
Looking at the situation of abortion from a logical point of view their is no reason to argue pro-choice is the only logical side to the argument. YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is what corrupts that view.
Excuse me for having hatred for a book thats gotten millions of actual people killed, and if your to dence to tell the difference between a embryo and a bloody human being than theirs no use arguing with logic cause you won't bloody understand it.
So if you ever decide to pull your bible out of your ass please come talk to me, like a REASONABLE PERSON , with, and i know this is a stretch, INTELLIGENT VIEWS

Christina Dunigan said...

How does the idea that being bigger, stronger, and more capable gives you the right to kill equate to intelligence? That's ruthlessness in my book. And it has nothing to do with religion. It's the same morality any toddler in the playground can grasp: Pick on somebody your own size. Atheists get it. Hindus get it. Muslims get it. Jews get it. Agnostics get it. Everybody but prochoicers. For some reason, to the prochoicer it's "Might makes right" and the very dependence of the child confers a right to kill him.

The more you argue that the baby is small and helpless the more I will defend her.

Kathy said...

D -- an embryo is alive, and it's genetically unique. You fail in your attempt to prove otherwise; and anything you base on your erroneous belief that an embryo is dead and just part of the woman's body will likewise fail.

Have you ever read the Bible, or do you just hate it because some people have corrupted it? And if you hate "a book that's gotten millions of actual people killed", I suppose you equally hate the Qu'ran, and Nazism, and Communism, and any other "ism" or belief that has been used as the reason or defense for killing millions of people. And I hope you include in this, your own hatred which is so vile that it appears as if you would kill those whom you hate.

Also, (I say this as gently as possible) if you wish to have a conversation with somebody as a reasonable person and with intelligent views, it would help if you didn't call that person a "bag of shit", so that *you* look like a "reasonable person." It would also help if you used proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling -- as well as finding better words than "shit" to express yourself -- so that *you* look like you might have "intelligent views." I understand not everybody is a good speller, and that does not indicate a lack of intelligence (I know some people who are very smart but are horrible spellers), but you can expand your vocabulary (by using a thesaurus), so that you don't have to use "shit" every time you can't think of something better to say. It would help your cause so that you don't look like the ignorant, vile, hate-spewing individual you appear to be from the two messages you've sent so far.

Anonymous said...

Jeeez if you gave me more material to kill you with you'd be emo....

Living. lets explore the world of the LIVING to, live you need three essential things A: you must intake a sustenance. B: You must Exert energy, C: You must Excrete Sustenance.
As for the isms, No i do not hate everything under the sun. I hate religions. and the people who take them to the extremes, Beliefs on this life and morals i have no problem with them given they are based on wait whats that word FACTS.
If i wanted to express my vocabulary id go to a fucking spelling B'. I'm just trying to express some knowledgeable reasoning to people with obvious mental in fractures.
When i start caring about embryos rights i will finally consider myself so bored and useless that its time to end my own pathetic life.
Again let me stress a embryo is not a living being and thus forth has no rights it is a congregated mass of cells, such as puss on a soar.
Women ending their life's cause people like yourself telling them their murderers if they get an abortion is senseless but it seems no one out their has respect for HUMAN (not to be confused with embryo) LIFE.
I'm tired of this blog you people bore me sadly =/ Give me a valid argument and i will respond. PROVE TO ME A EMBRYO IS A LIVING HUMAN BEING and i will tip my hat, put on a pro-life shirt and see you at the rally s' with a smile and hope to god abortion is made illegal. However until this happens I view you as no better than a fascist group of ignorant beings that have no respect for the rights of others.
oh by the way..... SHIT


Christina Dunigan said...

Anon, you have no grasp of science whatsoever. Go back to 5th grade and come back when you can distinguish an organism from a non-organism.

Anonymous said...

Ouch that hurt.

If it where true. You see unlike yourself i studied the subject. I didn't just I dunno choose a side based on my beliefs and what my parents and or friends said I should choose. Oh and i have no grasp on science?? i don't??? For someone who thinks a embryo is a living human being you should probably think before speaking about bloody science.

Don't feel ashamed i didn't expect you to come up with a logical response from your stand point because their isn't one the fact of the matter is your wrong and you will have to coupe with that one day else live in ignorance, Though i find most religious extremest have no problem with that anyway.
With respect.



Christina Dunigan said...

D, if there is not a living embryo or fetus, REMOVING IT IS NOT AN ABORTION.

Can you not distinguish between an embryo and a hydatidiform mole?

Anonymous said...

Yes i can and what I'm telling you is a BLOODY EMBRYO isn't a BLOODY HUMAN BEING. thats why their called FUCKING EMBRYOS. Their 2 different things your not fighting for human rights. Your fighting for YOLK RIGHT's. god get it threw your thickened skull. And no a EMBRYO is never ALIVE the cells that make it up are but the congregation you call EMBRYO is a label for the collection and is no more living than the keyboard you type on!


Christina Dunigan said...

"I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said." -- William F. Buckley

Anonymous said...

Yes as insulting as it is i believe proven facts and the truth and i will leave it at that. ^.^


Christina Dunigan said...

D., you have been dethroned as the person putting forth the lamest and least defensible argument in favor of abortion. Another poster said that her mother claimed that the Spanish word for pregnant is "preguntas" (which it isn't, it's embarazado), and that means that the entire Spanish language recognizes that pregnancy is a question, not a reality.

Which, of course, I shouldn't say to you because you'll now go, "Yeah! I can argue that! Spanish for "pregnant" is "preguntas" which means "question" so pregnancy is a question, not a reality!" The fact that the Spanish word for pregnant is embarazado will not even enter into the equation.

What is there is your life that's so important that you buy it at the cost of your own reason and intellect? That's what I wish I knew.

Kathy said...

D, you said, "Living. lets explore the world of the LIVING to, live you need three essential things A: you must intake a sustenance. B: You must Exert energy, C: You must Excrete Sustenance."

You have therefore just proved that an embryo is alive. An embryo is what the human is called from the moment of implanting in the uterus until the 8th week. From the time it implants, it begins to take in sustenance from the mother (which is the reason for the umbilical cord, and the scar every human has on his abdomen called the belly button), it most definitely exerts energy (as is evidenced by its growing and changing in form, complexity and size, as well as the heart beginning to beat -- most definitely requires energy, even if you think that growing from the size of a pin-head to the size of a peanut or papaya takes no energy), and it excretes (amniotic fluid is partially made up of fetal urine; the baby's first bowel movement usually happens after birth although it can happen before, and it is called meconium, and it is sticky, black, and tarry, and is essentially the solid parts of the amniotic fluid the fetus has been drinking in and not peeing out for the entire 9 months of pregnancy). If you don't believe me, you can consult any childbirth educator, obstetrician, gynecologist, pregnancy website, or any other source that uses something akin to facts to form their statements.

You ready for your pro-life shirt yet? :-)

Anonymous said...

I would be given you had proven what I had asked. You are definentally correct when pointing out the activities of the umbilical cord. Again you are right when you say a embryo does in fact exert energy. However sadly I'm afraid it takes almost 2 to 3 weeks before the embryo sees a umbilical cord. Therefore for the first 2 to 3 weeks it is not living. And just to clear a little air that i failed to do, Mostly out of anger. I believe heavily in human rights. I think abortions after the first month should be illegal. However their is nothing wrong with an abortion before the first month. But what angers me the most is most Women despite their situation will not make a decision that fast because of people like Grumpy Grandma Here that call them murderers which causes them to hesitate and get a n abortion 5 or even 6 months in. Which i believe is wrong.
Not to mention does anyone remember what happened last time abortion was made illegal, Does any one remember how many women killed them selfs? But people justify it saying its just Gods way.
Kathy your Obviously a intelligent person no doubt on that. However our views cross and that probably as stubborn as i am, will never change. However i wish you luck in your cause no matter how much i disagree with it.
With respect,


Anonymous said...

For the grumpy old woman ;)

I'm only interested in what you say if its relevant labeling my argument does not bother me, saying its indefensible and not proving it wrong, does not bother me. quoting people from the past in your defense(that have nothing to do with the situation oddly enough but expected)does not bother me. please if your going to post think first.
And seriously if i gave 2 shits or a fuck about what some idiotic spanish woman said i would waste my time on a blog spot I'd be reading in hopes to gain a intellect above that of what i had, Or at least i hope i would @.@


Christina Dunigan said...

It's good to see some actual dialogue! I'll jump in. takes almost 2 to 3 weeks before the embryo sees a umbilical cord. Therefore for the first 2 to 3 weeks it is not living.

How can it not be living? It is metabolising nutrients. It is developing in a spectacular way, differentiating new cells and tissues at breathtaking speed. How could it do this if it is not alive? Argue if you will that it has no moral value, but you can't legitimately argue that it is not alive.

I believe heavily in human rights. I think abortions after the first month should be illegal. However their is nothing wrong with an abortion before the first month.

I'm going to assume that you're counting from conception, not from the last menstrual period.

The first two weeks of that month, the mother doesn't even know that conception has taken place, because her period isn't late yet. So it'd be tough for her to seek or perform an abortion.

The second two weeks she might get an early pregnancy test and know that she's pregnant. And now thanks to chemical cocktails it is possible to abort. But that's only a two week window -- and a two week window during which we don't yet have the technology to distinguish between a viable pregnancy and other obstetric conditions. So to subject a woman to an abortion procedure during that two weeks window, even if you believe abortion is morally acceptable, is subjecting her to a medical procedure to "cure" a condition you haven't really yet diagnosed. She might have an ectopic pregnancy -- in which case the attempt to perform an abortion could injure her. She might have a blighted ovum, which would self-correct. Attempting to perform an abortion would be needlessly subjecting her to the risks in volved in ingesting dangerous chemicals. She might have gestational trophoblastic disease. Again, this typically self-terminates. And I'm not sure what risks and benefits there are from trying to administer a chemical abortion at that point.

But what angers me the most is most Women despite their situation will not make a decision that fast because of people like Grumpy Grandma Here that call them murderers which causes them to hesitate and get a n abortion 5 or even 6 months in.

I have not the pleasure of understanding you. How can a woman who has no qualms about aborting a 5 or 6 month fetus be somehow deterred from having aborted that same entity when it was a 4-week embryo just based on other people's opinions?

Not to mention does anyone remember what happened last time abortion was made illegal, Does any one remember how many women killed them selfs?

Again, I have not the pleasure of understanding you. Do you mean that women committed suicide because abortion wasn't legal? Do you mean they used fatal attempts to perform abortions themselves? Please clarify.

But people justify it saying its just Gods way.

I was a prolifer for a good ten years before I became a Christian. There are addtional reasons for Christians to reject abortion besides the obvious ones, but it's biology, not faith, that determines when a human life comes into existence, and there are atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, and even Pagans who recognize that it's wrong to kill somebody just because they're very small and completely dependent upon you.

labeling my argument does not bother me, saying its indefensible and not proving it wrong, does not bother me.

But embryos are unequivocably alive. If you sell an abortion to a woman who does not have a living embryo in her uterus, you are guilty of fraud. It's not an abortion to perform procedures or dispense medications to remove a dead embryo or a hydatidiform mole. It's only an induced abortion if it removes a living embryo, killing it in the process. That's the very definition of an abortion. Your argument that embryos aren't alive is absurd on its face, because if there is no living embryo, there can be no abortion. It's like arguing gun control questions when the person in question is holding a butter knife and not a firearm.

If there is no living embryo, to perform an abortion is an act of fraud (or malpractice).

Kathy said...

D, if the embryo is not living without the umbilical cord, how then does the umbilical cord form? To believe that it is not living is to believe the idea of spontaneous generation (that life comes from non-life), which was disproved a few centuries ago.

If you take one of your cells out of your body, it will continue to live for a time -- under certain lab conditions, it may even live for hours, days, who knows? Even though it is no longer vitally connected to your body, and can no longer take in blood, oxygen, nutrients, etc., it continues to live for some time. Viruses, for example, can live for a couple of days on doorknobs, which is why it is so easy to catch a cold from somebody else -- it doesn't have to be sneezed directly onto you. During that time, they are living, although they will eventually die unless they find a medium in which they can live. All cells are the same in that respect. It is easy to take a cell or group of cells and make them die; it is impossible to take a dead cell and make it live again.

When a woman ovulates, the egg continues to live for about 24 hours, at which point it dies if it is not fertilized. When a man ejaculates, the sperm is alive at that point and can live for as little as a few minutes to as long as several days -- when a woman has sex around the time of ovulation, the cervical mucus thins out and actually nourishes the sperm, enabling it to live long enough to reach the egg, even if the woman does not ovulate for a few days after she last has sex. When these two living cells unite, they create a genetically unique living human (you may still argue that it is not a "being" or a "person" at that stage, but you cannot argue that it is not alive). At the moment of conception, two cells become one completely different cell; within 24 hours, they divide into two cells, within another 24 hours each cell divides into another two cells, and so on -- all this happens prior to implantation. Since cell replication and division cannot happen to dead cells, it is proven that these things are living. By the time the fertilized egg, the zygote, implants (in as little as a few days or as long as a week or more after conception), it is quite complex; at implantation, it divides still more into the structures that will form the placenta and the fetus. Here is a website which talks more about that.

But this thing is alive, regardless of what you think about its humanity or "personhood." It is genetically unique (unless it becomes identical twins, and even then there may be genetic differences). It is human -- were you to give a cell of this thing to a scientist, along with cells of an ape or an octopus, it would be evident from the DNA that this thing is human.

So, in one sense, life starts at conception, in that it is a genetically unique being; and in another sense, life does not start at conception, it merely continues -- from the life of the gametes of the man and woman.

Anonymous said...

Okay I'm tired of writing pages upon pages of the same thing. Stop Going in circles I'm getting dizzy. The bottom line is a embryo is not a living human being, its a fact not a opinion theirs no fine lines its just the way it is. I'm not writing anymore I'm tired of bloody writing if you want to continue arguing my phone number is (803 236 1896) however only call between 11am-9pm EST for if you call me when I'm sleeping i will fucking murder you.


Anonymous said...

I wish idiots like you would stop posting on other people's informative sites just because their opinion differs from yours. Your type makes me sick with your years of brainwashing by corrupt uber-christians and right wing good 'ol boys. You need to respect your neighbors by respecting their individual rights. It says so in the bible you so proudly thump and beat over the heads of women, who for their own reasons, feel that their only option is to abort. Have you seen the economy? $300 abortions are much more affordale. And don't even start with your adoption rhetoric. Who wants 9 months of misery and expense, not to mention a lifetime of sagging breasts and stretch marks or skin that won't shrink back to last year's figure, and constantly wondering if the child that you had to give up because you couldn't afford it is being raped or sodomized or neglected by its adopted parents and all the birthdays you miss- it isn't yours or anyone else's business what other people do with their bodies. What's tattoos or hair dye? What, did you go to Bob Jones University or are you just into the cult of mid-western good 'ol Joe the Plumber heartland christianity.

Anonymous said...

Oh, by the way, I'm having an abortion next week.

Christina Dunigan said...

You need to respect your neighbors by respecting their individual rights.

You, who come here and announce your plans to have your own child put to death, have a lot of nerve lecturing somebody else on respecting people's rights. Where is YOUR respect for other people's rights, when you impose YOUR opinions even to the point of death?

Kathy said...


Care to give the book, chapter and verse that says that Christians have to respect a person's decision to kill an unborn baby?

And, you're one to talk about "idiots" "posting on other people's informative sites just because their opinion differs from yours" -- isn't that what you've just now done?

Anonymous said...

has anyone... ever... like, thought... abortion usually tends to be a hostile subject, for both pro life and pro choice. I understand that grannygrump wants to put information out there so people can make an informed choice, which is good, but there's a point where you go from a calm debate, to a ridiculous argument.

I have been at both ends of the spectrum. 4 years ago when i was ridiculously in love and would do anything for a child, but kept miscarrying, i was the most ADAMANT pro-lifer anywhere. Then i actually carried through on a pregnancy.

Motherhood is the most terrific experience ever, but, financially, it is very stressful. Especially as a single mother. 2 months after i left my husband, i found out i was pregnant again, and i could NOT bring a child into the financial bind me and my daughter were in.

I started seriously considering abortion, and felt like a hypocrite the whole time. I never aborted the baby, i ended up miscarrying again due to stress, and i was heartbroken.

However, it did not take those few weeks from my memory, when i was so upset about what to do. I understand adoption is an option, but... what about the mothers who will die during labor for a slim chance of survival for the baby?
or even the teens who werent smart enough to protect themselves? they WILL find a way. through either legal methods, herbal alternatives, or going to the "midwife" down the way who has a coathanger made just for them.

No, abortion is not a choice i would make, but i do think it should be legal for the simple fact that people will find less healthy alternatives, such as the one angry clown posted that started this whole thing.


Christina Dunigan said...

Mae, Angry Clown and her ilk aren't doing herbal home abortions because they can't get a legal scrape or pill at the doctor's. They're doing it for the same reason people rub aloe on burns, or gargle with salt water instead of reaching for the Cepacol -- because they consider it more natural. There's an entire subculture of women who flat out hate the idea of involving doctors in abortion because they consider it a "Wise Woman" thing, and they think it's demeaning to their bodies to medicalize it.

We can discuss the other aspects of your post if you like, but you need to grasp that first of all.

Kathy said...


The maternal mortality rate in the United States is (most recent figures) about 15/100,000 (lower in most other Western nations). There are approximately 4 million babies born every year, with between 1-1.5 million abortions. Assuming all maternal deaths are "dying in childbirth" (which is not the case), about 600 women will die as a result of pregnancy. Assuming no maternal deaths from abortions, 6,667 babies would have to die by abortion to "save" the life of one woman from "dying in childbirth." Is that a reasonable trade-off to you? It is to some people, because they don't consider the life of the fetus to be worth anything.

But it is more complicated than that, although I will not go into more details unless you wish it.

However, there is a very small risk, and it is many times identifiable and with good care should be able to be avoided, with proper care. Still, abortion is almost always allowable for "the life of the mother," which abortions are extremely rare. These may include ectopic pregnancies, and in very few cases certain health problems that threaten the mother's life before the baby is viable. After viability, the baby can be born alive and kept alive, with a very good chance of survival. At 24 weeks, survival is high; by 30 weeks, it's something like 90% and with few if any long-lasting effects from prematurity.

So your argument about "mothers who will die during labor for a slim chance of survival for the baby" is extremely rare, especially for women who are not high-risk, especially since most babies will have a high survival rate.

The problem with this argument is that it is used to justify the 20% termination rate in the United States, although probably fewer than 1%, maybe fewer than even 1/10% of abortions are done to save the life of the mother, or to preserve her from very serious potential health consequences. Yet millions of babies have been killed for no greater reason than that they were not wanted.

As far as the argument that "they WILL find a way" -- what else will we use this argument for to keep or make legal? Driving under the influence of alcohol? Drug use? Stealing? Prostitution? Bribery?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Anonymous said...

How many dead baby's does it take to paint a room?

Depends on how hard ya throw um ;)

Anonymous said...

GrannyGrump, I love you

jadynsmom said...

I am 22 with a 7 month old daughter and just found out im pregnant again..I am so disappointed.I know someone will say well stay off your back or take responsibility..If your not in my shoes or been in my shoes dont speak on the subject please.I had an iud after my baby Jadyn but had problems with side effects and pain.a month later I had it taken out.The iud caused me alot of problems.I ended up in the er with PID.afer I took all my antibiotics and was back to myself I made an try another birth control(only 3 wks later)but 2 days before my app i got 3 positive pregnancy results.Im so stressed out and dnt know what to do.I already have my wedding dress and was plannin a wedding.I am also in 2 more wedding within the next few weeks.i could never have an abortion.knowing how much my daughter means to me changes alot.My real problem is I find myself hoping for a chemical pregnancy or a miscarriage.(not a self miscarriage but natural)please pray for me and give some advice.I dont like thinking this way!!thanks

Christina Dunigan said...

Well, congratulations on getting married, first of all. And I will indeed pray for you. And I know what it's like for the pregnancy to seem like a total disaster. I thought I might as well crawl in a hole and die. But my son turned out to be a blessing for the entire family. And I wouldn't have been nearly as stressed out if I hadn't been taught that an unplanned pregnancy is that horrible. If somebody had been encouraging me all along that I'd freak out but adapt and even thrive, I'd have not had so much anguish -- needless anguish.

I'd ask other single women reading this to reflect on whether or not the stress of sex in untenable situations -- the wrangling with birth control, the risk/reality of STDs, the pregnancy scares, the pregnancy panic -- is the sex worth it? And is the guy paying the same price you're paying?

I know of a lot of women who have finally said, "If he doesn't love and respect me enough to only have sex with me in a secure situation, he's not getting any of me." We agree that there are times when it's hard -- but also that it is so liberating.

When I went to Korea to live for several years and didn't have a car -- only then did I really see how much of my time and energy and money a car had been sucking up. And it's the same for sex. Once you say, "No more without a ring, buddy!" you find that you have so much more time and emotional strength to invest in other things. I haven't had a pregnancy scare for over ten years. It's GREAT! I have ZERO worries about STDs. And when I see women with troublesome men, I can reflect that I've weeded out the worst of the losers in weeding out those who don't respect my sexuality as much as I do.

Just food for thought.

Momof7 said...

Just a comment on the idea that everyone always wants babies... My husband and I have adopted six children. When the kids came to us, they were ages 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. I also have one biological son who is 17. When I got pregnant with him, I was in college--the first person in my family to go to college--and was terrified. I was married, but my husband was abusive (not my current husband). When my son was two, I found out I was pregnant again, but that baby was ectopic, so I lost it after carrying it for 12 weeks. I nearly died when my fallopian tube ruptured. Thank you for your attempts to educate people on the medical dangers that are possible when they try these home "remedies."

Anonymous said...

Granny ..

I just wanted to say thank you. You have posted something that you believe in and you're tolerating all the attacks from all the idiots. I skipped two periods in a row a few months back, and my mom brought up the issue of abortion. I'm ashamed to admit that I did consider it for a while, but I came to my senses within a week.

I'm only 19 so it's understandable why I would be so afraid. I found out that I'm indeed not pregnant.. but I am proud to say that I would not have been able to bring myself to have an abortion anyways.


It's not an issue of money, competency, or even mental stability ... but of responsibility. If one knows they cannot handle a child, they need to just obstain from engaging in activities that can put them at risk.

Simple as that! Once again, thank you granny. The world needs some more people with educated minds .. and common sense. :)

Anonymous said...

I see here that many pro-lifers use the argument that the fetus/embryo is in fact alive, a human being, so it should not be killed. I honestly believe that the aborting of fetuses is actually the most humane way of "culling the herd" of the human race, such as we do to control populations of many other species of animal. Abortion is something that people should be thankful for, because we have the ability to control the human population, and decrease the number of unwanted/abused children through means that takes the life of a being that cannot have emotions or coherent though. As much as it is a life in the making, I believe it is important to focus on the well being of lives already here; the ones learning, working and contributing to society, including the pregnant woman, her family, and the father. I believe it is illogical to turn away from these important people, who may have financial problems, (as well as others) and simply cannot live their own happy lives with a child, which in turn may traumatize a child itself if it is to grow up in poverty or domestic violence, among other things. Abortion is for those who do not want a child, and for those who cannot see a place fit for a child at that moment in their lives. Statistically, it would be very... troubling if those 200,000 say abortions never happened, and every one of those children were put up for adoption, from all walks of life. I personally wouldn't want to force anyone, especially a child, through that.

Christina Dunigan said...

Ashwerk, if we need to "cull the herd", wouldn't it make sense to kill, say, career criminals? Think of what a blessing it would be to the rest of society to get rid of those who make our lives miserable by stealing from us, breaking into our houses, setting fire to our buildings, assaulting us, and murdering our loved ones?

With a fetus, you simply don't know the quality of the person you're killing. You could be killing the next great physician, the next great artist, the next great leader. They're not all "rejects".

It makes much more sense, if we're going to improve our lot by killing people, to kill people known to be destroying the quality of life for everybody else.

Kathy said...


If abortion reduces child abuse, why do we still have child abuse, and not only is it still in existence, but is much more prevalent and prominent than it was before abortion was legal in the United States?

Unknown said...

I realise that this is a long time after the original post. But do you not think that there are more important things than saving a bundle of cells?
Think about all the people in the world living in poverty, do you not think we should help them before spending hours arguing about something which isnt able to exist outside of its mothers womb?
People are dying everyday, when they dont need to just because the wealthy keep all the wealth, LIVING PEOPLE who are actually alive are suffering (we know they are suffering, it is clear to see, not a guess that 'oh dear you might hurt the unborn cells'). And yet i dont see you arguing about their basic human rights.

Christina Dunigan said...

loz, first of all, we're not talking about "bundles of cells". In cases of hydatidiform mole or blighted ovum, nobody objects to removing the bundles of cells from the uterus. They're not little people; they're just cells.

As for "living people" -- by which I presume you mean "born people", you don't see me arguing about their basic human rights because you don't know me. You only come in on one particular blog post. I'm often on my soapbox about getting potable water, basic sanitation, and malaria control to people in developing countries. I'm very active with KIVA, that does microfinance for people in developing countries. I spearheaded fundraising to provide a well for a village in Sierra Leone. I support mission work to provide medical centers for people in poor areas. And I spent many years as a volunteer EMT, getting up in the middle of the night to go take care of sick people and accident victims. I intervened during a mugging to chase off the attacker who was assaulting an elderly woman. I stop and direct traffic around accident sites until the first responders appear. I do plenty for born people. It just doesn't sow on an abortion blog.

You can't judge a person from a single blog entry. I'd advise you to get to know a few people who share my respect for the smallest and weakest members of the human family, instead of getting what you know about us from others who think that being small and young and weak makes you disposable.

Unknown said...

Considering I attend a christian high school I am in constant contact with people who argue pro-life. Although being in the UK there are less extreme views.

It's great what you are doing to help people. But forcing women or girls who are mentally or physically unable to deal with pregnancy or birth is not helping them.

I noticed in one of your responses that you argued how the cells aborted could have been the next world leader, or someone who cures major diseases, but they could have been a mass murderer, there are two sides to every argument.

'You can't judge a person from a single blog entry' is this not what you are doing? Assuming that i don't respect unborn babies. In fact i do, i used to be against abortion too. But i have gained insight and perspective, for example the world IS overpopulated, if all the babies that were concieved were born this would get much worse. The world cant sustain this many people, especially when it is being abused.

I think this is something that will go on, so i think it would be easiest to agree to disagree. Things to do and all that. But it's been interesting seeing someone else's point of view. Perhaps you could try that sometime?

Kathy said...

Quite frankly, you're wrong about overpopulation. The problem isn't population, but how resources are being used. Many people in third-world countries are starving and dying not because there isn't enough food in the world, but because they do not have access to it. Many times it is because of harsh governments and dictators that are starving people into submission. Killing fetuses in America will not feed one more person in Darfur.

One thing that always gets me about people who claim the world is overpopulated, is that they never seem to take the conscientious step to reduce their own personal "burden" on the planet (which I don't think is truly a burden, but you do and they do, so we'll pretend you're right), and remove themselves from the planet. I wonder what would happen if all the world's people who scream about overpopulation were to take all their money over to impoverished areas and give it all away and then put a bullet in their brains. Now *that* would be truly acting on your beliefs!

I rather suspect that the overpopulation crowd don't do this because they like life as much as the next person, and they don't want to have their own life snuffed out... they just don't mind killing others or letting them be killed.

Unknown said...

I am fully aware of the fact that resources arent being distributed evenly, but if there WERE less people there would still be more to go around, although the american government still wouldnt bother trying to do anything, despite it being the most powerful, instead people are too busy worring about the feotuses (i know i cant spell, so dont have a go at me about that).
Its also about what WE in the richer countries choose to make the resources, for example there is the choice of feeding grains to humans or other animals who are then slaughtered in order to feed humans. The amount of grain used in order to produce other food is ridiculous.

The people claiming over population arent saying that everyone on the planet is a burden (or at least im not, as the planet isnt yet OVER populated, its like on a bus in rush hour when you could cram a few more people on, but everyone on the bus is praying that the driver wont open the doors) Anyway back to the 'burden' if all the people trying to make a positive difference to sustaining the planet (i.e the ones who would consider themselves a burden) killed themselves how will this planet survive? It wont, thus everyone, including embryos, would die anyway.

'they just don't mind killing others or letting them be killed' - this is pure ignorant vile & i cannot believe that you can make such (wrong) accusations based on one aspect of a persons belief. If this is in referance to alowing women to have control over their own lives, a right many women have fought and died for throughout history, consider this; if a life cannot keep itself alive is it really alive?

Kathy said...

Don't worry -- I'm not going to jump down your throat about spelling or anything. :-)

The world is not now overpopulated, nor will it be for many billions of people more -- perhaps trillions.

Take a lesson from history -- people in the Middle Ages often died of starvation or diseases caused by overcrowding and malnutrition. We now have many, many more people living in the world than lived back then. More efficient use of resources, better farming, etc., has all raised the standard of living along with the number of people. Why can it not happen again?

You said that the world is currently overpopulated in your previous comment, and that it is being abused. I disagree with that philosophy and the conclusions of it, but I'm not going to get into it now.

I see no difference between the murder of unborn babies and the murder of born people. Perhaps I was a little harsh, but some days I just don't like to beat around the bush. You think it should be legal to murder fetuses; I do not.

Yes, a life that cannot keep itself alive, is still a life, by simple definition. You could not keep yourself alive if six strong people held you underwater -- does that fact mean you are not really alive? You are not self-sufficient, I daresay; and even if you do grow all your own food and make all your own clothes and build your own shelter, etc., it could all be taken away from you by people who are bigger, stronger, better armed, etc. There is no difference between you and a fetus in that -- the human genetic code, from the moment of fertilization, operates independently of the mother. All she adds is nutrition and oxygen -- if you were deprived of either of these things, you would also soon die.

The problem I have the "overpopulation" crowd is that their solution is at first to kill the most helpless members of our species -- the unborn. Eugenicists of the past (including Hitler and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, which she founded to reduce the number of births to the minority races, which she thought were inferior to whites) did not stop with the unborn, but advocated forced sterilization of the people they considered to be unfit to reproduce. Hitler, of course, went even further, to gassing not just Jews, but anyone he thought inferior -- babies born with mental or physical disabilities, blacks, dwarves, etc. Forgive me for lumping you in with other people who are more vocal about where their philosophy of death takes them.

Oh, and the United States is pretty freakin' generous! We do a lot more than most countries, and I daresay, we do more than every other country, when it comes to charitable giving abroad.

And when Bush did try to go and relieve people outside of our borders, all he got was a load of crap from liberals around the world accusing him of war-mongering, colonialism, interfering with other countries' matters, etc.

Unknown said...

The US is one of the richest countries in the world, thus it should be giving most. :)

'Take a lesson from history -- people in the Middle Ages often died of starvation or diseases caused by overcrowding and malnutrition. We now have many, many more people living in the world than lived back then. More efficient use of resources, better farming, etc., has all raised the standard of living along with the number of people. Why can it not happen again?'
It never happened in the first, place. Sure it did for some of us, but not all. People are still starving and dying of malnutrition.

Hitler was against abortion, just so you know. He forced women to have babies, with ss members, in order to breed a 'racially pure' nation. And gave out awards for having 4, 6 or 8 children. I am not denying the fact that he sterelized and gassed people.
And actually a better example of 'solving overpopulation' would have been china's one child policy, as that was its aim, Hitler's aim was to create what he felt was a superior race. I dont agree with either of these things by the way, its horrible.

Kathy said...

Philosophically, I agree with you that those who are most blessed should give back the most; but my problem is the attitude of so many people who act like people should not be in control of their own money -- for example, that *you* get to tell *me* how to spend *my* money. Again, I agree with the idea that those who have the most should give the most, but I also don't think it is my place to tell other people what they should or should not do with their money.

People are starving and dying from malnutrition not because enough food cannot be produced in the world to feed everyone, but that the food does not make it into their bellies -- as I mentioned it previously, warlords keep food from their starving subjects in order to keep them in subjection or just to kill them. I know this has happened in the past, and assume it is still happening -- the US government actually pays farmers not to grow as much food as they can. The idea behind it is to keep the price of food high enough that the farmers can make a living, because the laws of supply and demand dictate that if they produce too much, it will drive the price too low. We are not maximizing our full potential even now in producing food. I would prefer for our farmers to grow as much food as possible, and then any surplus be bought by the govt and shipped to people that need it -- in a perfect world, that's what would happen; but I know that many people live under governments that would keep back the food anyway, just because they're mean.

It is at least partly this reason why I say the problem is not overpopulation -- not only is there ample room for everyone on the planet and then some, but there is enough food for everyone. The problem isn't population, but getting the food to the people. Some areas are over-crowded, and others are over-populated; but again, it is just certain areas that are suffering from malnutrition and starvation -- just like Europe did in the Middle Ages. We might call it "local overpopulation" -- but the world is not overpopulated. Even if it were, killing people is not the way to relieve the problem.

I didn't say Hitler was pro-abortion -- I said he killed the weak, which is the same attitude that abortion advocates have. Hitler didn't need abortion, because he killed adults and children, and performed cruel experiments on pregnant women and babies. Certainly he wouldn't want "the master race" to use abortion -- only the "inferior" races were to be eliminated. He had no need for abortion, if it was legal to kill anyone he wanted. Still, I would be a bit surprised if he did not push abortion on the non-Aryans before he started gassing them.

One of my huge problems with a lot of people is hypocrisy -- people like Al Gore going around screaming about global warming, yet his house is huge and uses more electricity in a month than most people use in half a year; not to mention all the fossil fuel he burns up in driving and flying everywhere spreading his "gospel" of fear. And the people who claim the world has too many people, but they don't sterilize themselves, and instead give birth. I have much more respect for the people who live in accordance with their words -- even if I disagree with their words.

Kathy said...

Speaking of charitable giving, I read a few years ago that my state, which regularly ranks at or near the bottom of the 50 United States in just about every ranking (including income) is ranked #1 when it comes to charitable giving (either per capita, or as a percentage of income). While Massachusetts, which is a more wealthy state, has the lowest rate of giving. Weird, huh? The richest give the least while the poorest are the most charitable?

Also, I know I read a year or two ago that the citizens of the United States gave more (either annually, or to a specific cause, such as to the victims of the tsunami in 2005) than did many entire countries. That's on top of what our government gave, which way outranked any other government.

So, I tend to get a bit irritated when people imply that Americans don't do enough or don't give enough. We already do give more than everybody else, and people *still* aren't satisfied! And the people that tend not to be satisfied are also those who won't get off their wallets and give either. Which leads me back to a previous point of hypocrisy.