Factual Corrections

Saturday, August 2, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

The Hobby Lobby Angry Poodle says, “Four of the 20 contraceptives effectively prevent fertilized eggs from implanting themselves into the uterine wall, thus stopping an unintended pregnancy before it starts. Hobby Lobby — believing life begins at conception — regards this as murder to which it will not be an accomplice” and that it is a debatable point. It is not. It is absolutely untrue. IUDs interfere with sperm, not with embryo implantation, according to webmd.

The same is true for emergency contraception.

The products that Hobby Lobby decided to disapprove of after the Affordable Care Act was implemented (they were included in the company’s health plan prior to being approached by a Catholic group dedicated to taking down the ACA) do not cause abortions.

In a recent news story about the local buffer zone, you refer to a Florida gynecologist as an “abortionist.” Is this the 1950s? That term is outdated and ridiculous. Proctologists perform colonoscopies among other medical services, they are not called colonoscopists. Dentists are not root canalists. To define a doctor by one of the procedures they are trained to do or by one of the medicines they prescribe does not make sense grammatically and makes the medical provider sound like some sort of medieval executioner.

Abortion is something that, whatever you may think about it, can save women’s lives. Even the most ardent “pro-life” folks recognize this — they just want people to be forced to die for their ideology even if the fetus can’t be saved and the mother can. I was raised by these types of people (and here in Santa Barbara during the turbulent 1980s, as you detail in the article), so I know what I’m talking about!


Independent Discussion Guidelines

great correction, Ms. Vignocchi, facts are so helpful. Thank you for your letter. Your phrase is the one I'd give to Katie Short and her aggressive, law-suit-threatening, negative organization: "the most ardent “pro-life” folks recognize this [fact] — they just want people to be forced to die for their ideology even if the fetus can’t be saved and the mother can. "

DrDan (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ummm... whoops!

IUDs (just to pick one of the four) can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting because even though an IUD is *intended* to kill/block sperm, the device itself comes in contact with the uterine lining and can interfere with a human that is alive (that's what a fertilized egg is - since it is human DNA and not dead) from attaching.

Although WebMD is clearly the premier source of medical information (!!!) and everyone knows this (NOT), there are some other sources that clearly explain and confirm what I write above including the United Nations.

Even WebMD has an article explaining this and agreeing with is here:
SEE > "It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.1 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow."

Since a fertilized egg (human that is alive) may not attach to the uterus, a pregnancy may be prevented and thus the human that is alive dies.

None of this matters to the pro-choice crowd who celebrate a woman's right to kill a living human inside her at any time and for any reason she wishes and react to information above by either (1) ridiculing my concern for very young living humans and what should be their right to survive or (2) create long lists of reasons that it's not alive or not human (ie: seed, glob of cells, woman's body, same as sperm, etc.) or (3) most chillingly, list out that they agree it's a living human but that its simply good that they are killed since they might be poor or have a hard life, completely avoiding how that can translate to killing people for the same reasons who are already born (!) and/or avoiding the idea that it's not their right to decide if someone else will have a good future or not.

As for Ms. Vignocchi's wish to ban the description of doctors who perform abortions as doing something "medieval", please note this:
- After 12 weeks of pregnancy, an abortionist injects poison into the base of the skull, then uses surgical scissors to cut off each limb (arms and legs) and then either vacuum this dead human out through a tube or remove it with medical pliers. At the end of this, the woman bleeds and the bill is about $600 in the U.S.

There are apprx 180,000 abortions performed at week 12 or later each year in the U.S. so grab your pink cardboard and get down to Anacapa to whoop and cheer a woman's right to hire (mostly) men to kill their unborn living humans! (and don't forget to also bring your anti-death penalty signs with you - so you can have a consistent viewpoint).

realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The advocates of abortion have broken with thousands of years of history of the West in putting the highest value on procreation and protection of our offspring. Ancients were limited by a lack of scientific knowledge, not by a lack of moral rectitude.

As late as the nineteenth century "quickening" was recognized as the beginning of life and any interference with that life was judged to be criminal. Modern science has allowed us to see that a genetically-complete, genetically unique, self-directed, human individual is created when the 23 chromosomes of the sperm unite with the 23 chromosomes of the egg. Abortion advocates try every which way to wiggle out of that but science has already answered the question of when life begins and all advocates are left with is deciding when it is alright to kill it.

Logic creates new problems: If it is alright to kill a fetus with Down Sydrome shouldn't it be alright to kill a newborn or toddler with that defect? If it is alright to kill a fetus conceived in rape doesn't logic tell us that a woman should be able to kill the infant or child because he reminds her of the trauma?

As for the argument that abortion can save the life of a mother - no woman ever went to the "back alley" to save her own life.

Abortionists may be doctors, but their speciality will never lose its repellant character in the minds of decent people. Abortion and contraception are anti-woman.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now even contraception itself is "anti-woman"? Dewdly face it, you're anti-human.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

...and we dolphins are just waiting for him to dare to swim in our waters.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When the contraception burden is placed almost exclusively on the woman, contraception today indeed is anti-woman. In exchange for women carrying the virtual 100% female contraception burden, the contraception benefit accrues now virtually 100% to men. Contraception is anti-woman and pro-men. Ladies, this is your choice. Chose wisely.

JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Contraception is anti-woman because it reduces the woman to a "safe" sex partner. Women are designed to be mothers and treating them chemically or surgically to interfere with or destroy their natural function is depraved.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ladies, this is your choice. Chose wisely.
JarvisJarvis (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Chose Trojan, the first in durability, sensitivity- and prevention. Ribbed or classic, now available in 31 flavors!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)


You couldn't have done better at underscoring Jarvis' point - and mine. What disgusting contempt for women you just exhibited.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't see how the factual corrections would change the underlying argument that if Hobby Lobby doesn't think contraception is moral, it shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

I have no problem with these contraceptions, myself, I don't think life really begins at conception. I don't think it waits to begin until birth, either, but I don't think it begins at conception any more than sperm is alive right before conception.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think sex is a fun, healthy recreational activity for men and women whether they are attempting to procreate or not. In fact, studies have shown that lack of sex can cause health problems.

I think people should be encouraged to go

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

..about it responsibly.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yet women love me, go figure. Probably because I regard them as equals with equal human rights and not just baby-making machines.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Back to the main issue: There are "pro-life" people, and "pro-choice" people, and in this country one can choose where they work, and choose where they shop.

Having the government force a business to provide health care or dictate the terms is not "pro-choice".

As the amusing pro-choice adage goes: "Don't like abortions?...don't have one". If that applies all-around, then it can be said "don't like Hobby Lobby?...don't spend money there or work for them".

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Chose Trojan, the first in durability, sensitivity- and prevention. Ribbed or classic, now available in 31 flavors!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 6:17 p.m

I don't take ANY chances, even though Im typing at the keyboard, Im wearing a condom right now! I wear them to work, to school, anywhere.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)


A dentist who specializes in root canals is an endodontist. Because it is a specialty and requires additional training he prefers to be called an endodontist rather than dentist.

A specialty in abortion is different and you might ask yourself why such a specialty doesn't confer the respect of other specialties and why most OB/GYN's do not choose to specialize in a service so lucrative and in such high demand. And think of all the lives he could be saving.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And a blogger who specializes in doo doo posts is a dewdly.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 8:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Sperm is alive until it dies. It is a germ cell containing 1/2 the species-specific 46 chromosomes - the egg - which is also alive - contains the other 1/2. Biologically, the human being is genetically-complete at conception and has full instructions for its development. It has its own, unique, genetic identity which will remain with it even after death. It seeks out a place to implant itself, it alters the woman's chemistry and begins by arranging for its own nourishment. All that goes on for nine months without the mother doing anything. In the scientific age you have to be a life "denier" to pretend that life doesn't begin at conception.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 2, 2014 at 8:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ms. Vignocchi,

Instead of fussing over what employers, the courts, and the government will do about contraceptives and abortifacients why don't you bring it a little closer to home by listening to the men who are charged with the responsibility of raising daughters? If fathers thought contraceptives and abortifacients were good for the health and well-being of their daughters don't you think they would be the first to supply them? Like braces and vaccines wouldn't the loving father do his best to prepare his daughter for womanhood? At the very least he could hand out condoms to all young men who come a a callin'.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 4, 2014 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No matter what one's personal opinion on abortion or contraceptives...the fact is both sides of the political spectrum have it wrong. Truth is, if it's not your body, you have no right to tell another person how to live their life or how to make a choice that may or may not affect their future. Even if you don't like abortion, you should not be allowed to stop another person from lawfully and safely have an abortion.

Bluegrass805 (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2014 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)


The fetus isn't the woman's body. It is a distinct, living individual and she has no right to kill it any more than she has the right to kill it when it's six minutes, six months, or six years old. The logic of your argument can only mean that the woman who has made an uninformed choice to bear a child should be able to kill it when she discovers that it negatively affects her living arrangements and/or her future. It is irrational to blanch at suffocating a newborn while thinking nothing of killing a baby still in the womb.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2014 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

According to the Supreme Court, a woman does indeed have the right to an abortion. Your extremists examples are ridiculous as usual dewdly.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2014 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)


If the Supreme Court has the final say and they said their piece over forty years ago, why is it still an issue? Maybe the Democrats are having difficulty finding a few acceptable "women's issues" to capture and hold their female voting bloc.

The vast majority of women are now or will be mothers and their "issues" are their children. Unfortunately, they will find out too late that women's suffrage was a scheme to disenfranchise their families and ignore their real "issues".

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2014 at 5:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dewdly, maybe you're having difficulty moving into the 21st century. It's not the Dems attacking a woman's right to choose but thanks for showing your partisan hand.
Do you realize Women's Suffrage was the right for women to vote? Now you're against that? You really are in the wrong century if not planet.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2014 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)


The Supreme Court did not define the point at which life begins but made an arbitary judgment about when it is legal to kill it. In doing so they broke with thousands of years of moral tradition in the West of rejecting infanticide and efforts to kill the fetus after "quickening".

An arbitary point is floating, random, unanchored and creates a problem of logic. The only difference between the individual at conception and the newborn, the toddler, child, adolescent and adult is growth and development over time. Logic demands that if there is a valid reason allowing the mother to kill it in the womb there are equally valid - if not identical -, reasons for her or her agents to kill it any other time. Why should the woman in Utah who killed her five or six newborns be charged with murder while the woman with five or six abortions is not?

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2014 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Because the woman in Utah's children were obviously well past the zygote stage.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2014 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)


The zygote stage isn't the cut-off point. The baby at "quickening" is well-past the zygote stage.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2014 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)


An objective view of women's suffrage shows that it is primarily symbolic, rather than the source of practical improvements in women's lives. In that regard it is a lot like the "improvements" afforded to blacks by civil rights legislation - riding in the front of the bus, sitting at the Woolworth's lunch counter, going to school with whites - none of which have improved the lives of black people in the last fifty years.

Since the most important thing in a woman's life is her children - her family- and American families have been disintegrating since women got the vote it is impossible to see what or how having the vote has been an improvement.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2014 at 10:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thus, you believe women finally winning the vote in 1920 (suffrage) was NOT a practical improvement, eh dewdly-troll? since you wrote, "An objective view of women's suffrage shows that it is primarily symbolic, rather than the source of practical improvements in women's lives..." What a hell to be your sister or wife, if you're male.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 6, 2014 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think he said that women getting the vote did not make way for practical improvements in women's lives, not that getting the vote itself was not a improvement at least in terms of being viewed on more equal grounds. I think there could be some spirited debate on the topic of whether women's lives have seen practical improvement since suffrage. I would say there have been both improvements and setbacks and it would be difficult to judge on the whole whether women are better off.

For example, I don't think it should be illegal for a woman to have an abortion, but should it be society's goal to provide easy access to abortions for all women? I know some women who have had an abortion and it was very traumatizing and affected them for the rest of their lives. On the other hand, abortion can also help women have better control over their reproduction and they may be able to provide a much better life to the child(ren) they eventually have over the one(s) that were aborted (hopefully at a very early stage, I imagine women bond with the fetus at some level over time so that may be a factor I'm not sure).

dewdly raised a similar issue with African Americans. Obviously being able to ago sit at any lunch counter is an advantage in life, but are black people's lives as a whole better off since the civil rights act, or are they now even deeper into poverty and have even more social problems with broken families and such? In fact, some people have even suggested that many African Americans had better, more family oriented and less impoverished lives as slaves. That's really sad to think about, and I certainly don't support anybody being enslaved. And I myself don't think it has anything to do inherently with the fact that they are black, what I think is that people rely too much on government to mandate their freedom and prosperity when government is the antithesis of freedom and prosperity. You have to be short-sighted to believe otherwise. I am ok when government operates to help protect people's rights, person and property but beyond that all it does is create problems. That's why people should work hard to ensure that is all that government ever does, otherwise the government will say, "Oh ya, you want rights? We'll give you rights. We're the government, and we're here to help :) "

Next thing you know there's a war on drugs creating gang culture in black society (I think prohibition could arguably be attributable to women voting and beginning to affect change in government policy, although men are certainly not blameless in that regard so I will hold off and allow others to discuss if they wish).


loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at midnight (Suggest removal)


Then you have women being sold on being single and independent, which is certainly not a bad thing in all cases and I would always give women a fair opportunity to do what they want but unfortunately the mode of thinking that was pushed on them has taken over and helped destroy the family unit. Two incomes are now required to support a family instead of one. Then their kids go to government run youth daycare concentration camps while their mothers slave away at work from January to May just to pay their taxes...

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if women also are in part responsible (not that men aren't responsible as well, just less so) for voting for the welfare state that has created mass unhealthy government dependency among minorities. But hey, women I think also vote for less war, which is certainly a great thing. I'm definitely not saying women shouldn't be able to vote, I'm saying everybody should stop voting for more government and looking to government as the solution to everything.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 12:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

split hairs for troll-man all you want, loon, but dewdly wrote, please read carefully: "women's suffrage shows that it is primarily symbolic," -- it isn't primarily "symbolic"!! There are 20 US Senators now (not symbolic), the pay for women in equal work situations to men has risen to 80% of male salaries (NOT equal yet, but a PRACTICAL IMPROVEMENT). Wriggle all you want for your dewdly brother, it's ridiculous, admit it.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 12:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

wow, loon, please think a bit; you wrote, " some people have even suggested that many African Americans had better, more family oriented and less impoverished lives as slaves." Attempt to tell this to some of my or your (if you have 'em) black friends! Sheesh.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 12:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Great way to cherry pick my statement davy, you did it just like the media did to Cliven Bundy. Nothing that I said about abhoring slavery made it in there, nothing about blaming much of the unfortunate aspects of their overall condition on drug prohibition (also The Federal Reserve which I have not mentioned). .... And it was in fact the same statement that Cliven Bundy made, except that I was actually referring to him when I said, "some people have suggested". That means I don't know if I agree with the statement, but it can certainly be debated as there are legitimate arguments on both sides. People who believe more in families, Christian ethics and morals than having iphones and being able to walk around anywhere they want in their crime infested neighbor'hood' (you know, the poor area that they unfortunately often live) well many family oriented communities anyway may tend to at least lean in that direction in supporting some of the arguments.

I find it is an interesting discussion to have because I think we can learn a lot about how to improve society as a whole.

For example, the war on drugs has been ripping apart impoverished minority communities for decades. When is it going to end? Our own Sheriff's Dept. has been busy busting patient medical marijuana delivery services again when cannabis is supposed to be the lowest law enforcement priority and it is legal under state law.

At least a couple or so people who comment here don't think that drugs play a major role in gang activity. Let's take a look:

"The Justice Department’s National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) says criminal street gangs like the MS-13 are responsible for the majority of violent crimes in the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs."

US spending on illegal drugs each year is estimated at $100 billion.

You want to take away funding from gangs? You can take away tens of billions annually simply by legalizing illicit drugs.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 12:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"The pay for women in equal work situations to men has risen to 80% of male salaries"

Actually considering the fact that women get maternity leave and that they often have titles that exceed their responsibilities it comes out to about equal, but let's give you a point for that anyway.

I would also give a point to the statement that they are slaves now, they work full time in offices away from their family. They work from January until May, 5 whole months, just to pay taxes to the government!! That's slavery right there, I tell you. What the hell does the government give people that they actually want that is anywhere near worth that much?!?!!

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 12:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Cliven Bundy has now claimed "God" told him to fight a civil war against the United States, he is a traitor. If he wants another civil war I hope he's the first person killed in it.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 1:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No Ken, that would be WAY too easy a "punishment" for Bundy, I say, let's force him to sit through a County Bored (sic) of Supervisors meeting and have to take notes.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 3:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I prefer factual corrections to fictional ones every time.

Cliven Albert "Al" Bundy...never mind. (Writers block) Maybe I will comment on this later.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 4:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

loony writes to me: "you did it just like the media did to Cliven Bundy." ha ha ha ha!! and the more you write about blacks and slavery the more....hey, will you take over dolphinpod? we need some black humor here, some irony, some... ha ha ha, what a doofus!

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 8:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, davy, the irony is, and I'm sure any discerning readers will be picking up on it, that I am the only here who is really against slavery, besides maybe billc who is one of the few regulars here who actually 'gets' libertarianism. Most of the rest of you support it wholeheartedly. You support the slavery and tyranny being dished out by the US Govt. that is causing massive poverty, overseas bloodshed by providing most of the violent weapons used in global conflicts and a slow destruction of our most basic civil liberties here at home. Anybody who supports the actions of our government is a traitor to humanity.

Cliven Bundy is also anti-slavery, and you are pro-slavery, davy. You just won't go look up the definition of the word to realize that you were auctioned off a slave as soon as you got your social security number. Go ahead, try and leave the farm (the US) for any longer than a visit, see what happens.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh want such little liberty in everyone's every day life, don't you? So if a woman is on birthcontrol and it fails or if a condom breaks or if she's raped or if she just wasn't planning on having a child at whatever stage in her life, and she gets pregnant, you don't believe she should be able to have an abortion. That is YOUR moral attitude and it is morally wrong to impose your morals on another human being when it's concerning their body, NOT yours. And besides...when has a law EVER changed morality? Would you rather more people on welfare? More single mothers? Then again, you're probably the type that views birthcontrol as some form of abortion.

Bluegrass805 (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually Bluegrass805, if you consider the fetus a living being that should have a say in whether they are killed or not, your entire argument in support of abortion falls apart. You give the woman a choice about the child's life, why doesn't the child get the first say about whether they get to live or not?

I'm pro-choice because I don't like the idea of the state creating abortion police to investigate women's uterus' and miscarriages. I think pregnancy should be a private matter. But that doesn't mean that there are not valid arguments against abortion in support of the child's right to live.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at noon (Suggest removal)


I'llI wager most women don't know when women got the vote and many wouldn't know that they haven't always had it. They wouldn't know because there is no point at which they can see the effect of the female vote in improving women's lives.

Equal pay for equal work doesn't cut it because women were better off when they didn't have to work outside the home. Instead of the man making enough to support his family, pay is effectively divided into equal parts and two adults are put to work while the children are farmed out to others.

No, Davy, everything that is most important to women has been deteriorating since 1920. "Women's issues" have been reduced to two - abortion and contraception. Women are not supposed to want a nice home, and garden, a safe, secure, and healthy place to raise children. They aren't supposed to bear and raise children at regular intervals during the prime childbearing years, they aren't supposed to fall in love with the expectation of commitment, marriage, and family, but rather they are supposed to render themselves "safe" sex partners to satisfy the sexual appetites of irresponsible males until they find themselves thirty-five, unmarried, childless, and invisible to men interested in marriage.

You can say that none of that has anything to do with voting and it doesn't, but what does? The most recent effect of female suffrage has been to separate women from their men to create a voting bloc allied with blacks, sexual deviants, and immigrants - not their husbands and children. You end up casting a symbolic vote for a symbolic president while everything that matters is falling apart..

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am thankful I do not live in a country where women have no rights. I am also thankful that more people do not think like dewdly.

And yes, it is well-known among women that we did not always have the vote. It is well-known, because of direct experience, that women have always had to work harder than men, to be treated equally.

Funny, I would think that there are more safe, secure and healthy places to raise children today with more women working, because the crime rate has decreased significantly.

And dewdly's assumptions are based on one fragile premise only - that all married men can provide a safe, secure and healthy place to raise children. That is a huge fallacy.

It is essential that women be able to work and compete equally ---- because men divorce, men die, men abuse, and some women can never find or never want a husband.

The rest of the post is not worth addressing.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No, Bluegrass, following the logic of abortion leads to more liberty, not less. The logic of abortion is that the justifications for killing the fetus should apply equally to killing the newborn as well as babies and children that interfere with the mother's life or her plans. For example, why should a woman be prohibited from killing a newborn with Down Syndrome that she would have aborted if she had known? Obstetricians have testified about the dangers to the woman of late term abortions and suggest that allowing the baby to be delivered before killing it is safer for the woman. The logic of abortion requires approval of infanticide and the people of the West have a very long history of rejecting infanticide as denatured.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The following is from comedian Steve Martin's book "cruel shoes" and is titled "Women without bones".


-- Women Without Bones --

The Amazon sheltered many tribes of people from the civilized world. Among them were the primitive Brazilian river dwellers and the Chinese displaced Mud-standers. But perhaps the most frightening tribe known along the Amazon was the Women Without Bones. The Women Without Bones (Humanus De Filet) had been practically disregarded by ethnologists because of their poor posture: who wanted to spend three years studying a bunch of slouchers? But today their curious habits have attracted many American Nutty-Putty hobbyists into their mysterious wilderness. We can look forward to the day scientists will be able to study the Women Without Bones and answer such questions as "What time is it?" and "How come no bones?"

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dewdly, men should just quit having sex and leave women alone.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Don't you know that is heresy? Contraception has revealed women to be exactly like men in their desire for unfettered and abundant sexual pleasure - it was just the prospect of bearing children that made them appear less lustful and ready for sexual adventure. At least that is what I have been told by "liberated" women. They also throw in something about not wanting to be baby machines, but they never say that men should quit having sex - the new woman is hot to trot.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This brings back warm memories of the magazine New Woman where they would quote famous people in three categories: "Sounds like an old lady"; "Sound like a new woman"; and "A thump on the head to".

billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 6:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)


Women got the vote in 1920 and nothing happened, nothing changed. That is why virtually no one can tell you when it happened. I am guessing that you have voted in many elections, but have you ever cast a vote for abortion or contraception - the only two issues that are identfied as belonging to women today? Telling women what their "issues" are, and who their "enemies" are is to treat women like idiots and results in a voting bloc of hysterical harridans. It's not a pretty picture and a pathetic substitute for a voting bloc of mothers and fathers voting in their familie's interests.

dewdly (anonymous profile)
August 7, 2014 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@Realitycheck88 - here is a better link from the American College of Obs and Gyns:


When writing my email to the Angry Poodle, I went for something quick and non-partisan like WebMD!

joanv (anonymous profile)
August 10, 2014 at 6:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: