No abortions for women? Then no vasectomies for men, lawmakers say
February 22nd, 2012
10:15 AM ET

No abortions for women? Then no vasectomies for men, lawmakers say

As members of Georgia’s House of Representatives debate whether to prohibit abortions for women more than 20 weeks pregnant, House Democrats  planned to introduce their own reproductive rights plan: No more vasectomies that leave "thousands of children ... deprived of birth."

Rep. Yasmin Neal, a Democrat from the Atlanta suburb of Jonesboro, planned to introduce a bill Wednesday that would prevent men from vasectomies unless needed to avert serious injury or death.

“If we legislate women’s bodies, it’s only fair that we legislate men’s,” said Neal, who said she wanted to introduce a bill that would generate emotion and conversation the way anti-abortion bills do. “There are too many problems in the state. Why are you under the skirts of women? I’m sure there are other places to be."

Read the full story on This Just In
Post by:
Filed under: Men's Health • Pregnancy • Women's Health

soundoff (392 Responses)
  1. Ryan

    I somehow think they miss the point. A sperm has yet to fertilize an egg, thereby conceiving a child. Unless I slept through health, a child is not a single sperm. I'm not against a woman's right to choose. If she wants an abortion, she should be able to at least get the best help possible. But don't act like an idiot and say that vasectomies are the same as an abortion. I personally believe that life begins at conception. It is well on it's way to (hopefully) becoming a human being. A sperm in and of itself is not. I'm sorry that these Georgia Reps are acting like little school children.

    February 22, 2012 at 10:57 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Sorara22

      I think the point they are trying to make is that if you are going to regulate a woman's body, then it is only fair to regulate a males as well.

      February 22, 2012 at 12:03 | Report abuse |
    • Seriously

      These are politicans...gawd knows what their point actually is other then to hide the fact they don't actually amount to a hill of sperm...

      February 22, 2012 at 12:10 | Report abuse |
    • Laylla

      That is not the point, the point is that why is it only up to women? If abortions aren't morally correct in the eyes of god then neither is vasectomies which is against god's will too. Babies are suppose to be conceived naturally if you are against contraception and abortion then you should be against vasectomies, you can't have it all. If you are gong to say one thing to one group of people based on religious beliefs then you must follow it across the board for the same reasons. All medical intervention should be considered against God. The problem is cherry pikcing issues and hypocrisy.

      February 22, 2012 at 12:36 | Report abuse |
    • hiio

      I agree with you Ryan.

      Abortion singles out women because women are only capable of giving birth. Not men. And don't vasectomies give more birth control responsibility to men? Isn't that what women want? To not feel they are the only ones trying to prevent pregnancy in a relationship? I'm a woman, and it's nice knowing my husband has vasectomy as an option so I can choose not to have my "tubes tied" in the future.

      February 22, 2012 at 13:32 | Report abuse |
    • Laylla

      That is so not the point, if you don't the point is not really about vasectomies then maybe you should stop reading.

      February 22, 2012 at 17:10 | Report abuse |
    • Hiia

      If you know anything about how the reproductive system works then you would know that a sperm does not equal a fetus that is past 20 weeks in development, which is what the vasectomy law is trying to counter. Abortion deals with an egg fertilized by a sperm. And that's fine if you do not believe a life is formed at conception, or even implantation of the uterus, or if you are pro-choice and believe a woman has the right to do whatever to her body. I am pro-choice, but I believe comparing a vasectomy to an abortion is silly and will take away an effective use of birth control if a law like this is ever passed. I use my education to come up with my own opinions about things. Just because a lawmaker comes up with an idea, doesn't mean it's always a good idea. And by the way, I did read the article again, and I think it's really funny how they ended the first paragraph with "No more vasectomies that leave "thousands of children ... deprived of birth."' I really try to break that into a logical statement, but I just can't.

      February 22, 2012 at 22:10 | Report abuse |
    • megin

      Laylla its not hypocrisy your the one missing the point and so is this lawmaker. The reason we don't go past 20 weeks is for compromise if given the chance YES the church would want all that outlaw so don't give them any ideas. Our government and laws are such that everyone needs to live here. Going back to aborting after 20 weeks is going back to partial birth abortions. Are you really in support of convenience abortions up till 9 months ?

      February 23, 2012 at 00:12 | Report abuse |
    • Jackie

      It's not just abortion that's under attack right now – with the contraceptive debate in full swing, maybe this bill will prevent more oppressive regulations being proposed in that arena.

      February 23, 2012 at 00:52 | Report abuse |
    • Jill-IN

      The point is they need to stay out of any adults reproductive organs and choices altogether. If they feel such a strong need to regulate female choices, then we need to regulate male choices, and lets throw in no insurance coverage for Viagra or Cialis.

      February 23, 2012 at 13:57 | Report abuse |
    • hiio

      Jackie: Thank you for your response. I am starting to see the bigger picture here, how it's not solely about abortion. You did a great job of creating more insight without attacking. Nothing annoys me more than someone saying "You don't get the point, so stop reading this." A person should be encouraged to keep reading so they may come to an understanding. Again, thanks for your response, and Jill-IN I liked yours too : )

      February 23, 2012 at 14:01 | Report abuse |
    • Just a though


      You are missing the point. Women can use birth control and get their tubes tied and even have abortions before 20 weeks. They aren't regulating women's bodies. They are regulating whether a 20 week fetus is a child. If it is, the child has rights. Vasectomies are more like hysterectomies or getting tubes tied. There is no fetus, therefore, it's only about the one person's body.

      February 24, 2012 at 08:57 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Wrong. The point is that men are not subject to such infringements of their rights under the Const itution. Why should the state be able to force women to give up rights if men don't have to relinquish theirs? This isn't about a fetus being viable at 20 weeks. Fetuses don't survive outside the uterus at 20 weeks. This is purely about control.

      February 24, 2012 at 18:04 | Report abuse |
    • Jessica

      You are missing the point. Why should people be concerned with what other people do with their lives and bodies? If you don't want people telling you what to do with your private parts then don't tell us what to do with ours.

      February 24, 2012 at 18:57 | Report abuse |
    • whocares

      its a womens choise to have a kid or not.

      February 24, 2012 at 23:13 | Report abuse |
  2. megin

    Give me a break there is a big difference between ending a life and preventing life. Can they get anymore ignorant. Where are the rights for the unborn? Really this entire woman's right thing is getting tiresome. As a woman, no one is blocking me from buying condoms, getting fixed or taking birth control there is no excuse for abortion anymore none what so ever.

    February 22, 2012 at 11:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Sorara22

      really? not even rape or incest? I think that would be a pretty good reason for abortion.

      February 22, 2012 at 12:04 | Report abuse |
    • kd

      Getting fixed? Seriously? What is wrong with you?

      February 22, 2012 at 12:19 | Report abuse |
    • Laylla

      Again you are SOOOOOOOO missing the point maybe you better read- read- read again so you get it!

      February 22, 2012 at 12:42 | Report abuse |
    • Michelle

      Actually, genius, they ARE trying to prevent people from using birth control (because it actually prevents embryo implantation, not just ovulation. Women can still ovulate on birth control, so some groups consider birth control pills to be abortives.

      Additionally, do you know how freakin' IMPOSSIBLE it is to get surgically sterilized if you're a female under the age of 30? And typically, they won't do it even if you're 30+ unless you've had two kids. One of my friends had to wait until she was 35 to convince a doc to tie her tubes.

      So... no... it's not quite that easy.

      February 22, 2012 at 18:00 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Laylla - you might as well give up. They're not going to get it - these types never do. I've tried.... it doesn't think like "reading comprehension" is their strong suit.

      February 22, 2012 at 19:35 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Get this through your skull: a fetus's rights do not trump those of the woman who carries it. Get over it. If it's not in your uterus, it's none of your business.

      February 22, 2012 at 22:18 | Report abuse |
    • megin

      ""Additionally, do you know how freakin' IMPOSSIBLE it is to get surgically sterilized if you're a female under the age of 30? And typically, they won't do it even if you're 30+ unless you've had two kids. One of my friends had to wait until she was 35 to convince a doc to tie her tubes."""

      well then maybe you should be bringing change to that.

      February 22, 2012 at 23:13 | Report abuse |
    • megin

      I challenge each one of you to go to you tube and look at 3d 4d ultrasounds, then tell me that is just a thing after 20 weeks (in which she is calling for abortion after 20 weeks)))) in which to be thrown away. It is a baby get over your uterus bologna if you are so in love with it take care of it and use a condom! Go ahead try to justify it. Nothing but eugenics that's all it is.

      February 22, 2012 at 23:16 | Report abuse |
    • megin


      Get this through your skull: a fetus's rights do not trump those of the woman who carries it. Get over it. If it's not in your uterus, it's none of your business."""

      well it is once i pay healthcare and taxes for your UTerus

      February 22, 2012 at 23:22 | Report abuse |
    • megin


      Laylla – you might as well give up. They're not going to get it – these types never do. I've tried.... it doesn't think like "reading comprehension" is their strong suit.

      Ah, typical liberals, cant debate just have to go right to the name calling. Like a classic book. You know you are loosing when you resort to name calling.

      February 22, 2012 at 23:27 | Report abuse |
    • megin


      Actually, genius, they ARE trying to prevent people from using birth control (because it actually prevents embryo implantation, not just ovulation. Women can still ovulate on birth control, so some groups consider birth control pills to be abortives.

      No there not stop with the scare tactics as a woman its insulting. I can go to any drug store and buy plan B. Just don't expect me to pay for your no self control romp in the hay, pay for it yourself..

      February 22, 2012 at 23:36 | Report abuse |
    • megin


      really? not even rape or incest? I think that would be a pretty good reason for abortion

      If your that worried about being raped go on BC. Sorry, but this isn't 1900. We now have advanced medicine in reality abortion is not needed.

      February 22, 2012 at 23:49 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      @Megin - it's time to just get over it. Abortion is legal, and it has been for 39 years. If you personally don't believe in abortion, don't have one - nobody can force you. At the same time, you don't have the right to tell women who want/need an abortion that they can't have one - it's really as simple as that. It's time that conservatives/religious fanatics stop dragging this issue up every day. The Supreme Court decided it in 1973 - like it or not, that's the way it is.

      Move on. There are other more imporant issues facing the country.

      February 23, 2012 at 02:55 | Report abuse |
    • rick

      how about rape, megin? what if a woman gets pregnant as a result of the rape? should she be forced to bear the progeny of her attacker?

      February 23, 2012 at 07:48 | Report abuse |
    • rick

      "Ah, typical liberals, cant debate just have to go right to the name calling"

      The irony of that statement is deafening

      February 23, 2012 at 07:51 | Report abuse |
    • rick

      "well it is once i pay healthcare and taxes for your UTerus"

      if government is paying for health care, do we get to legislate what you put in your body?

      February 23, 2012 at 07:53 | Report abuse |
    • rick

      "If your that worried about being raped go on BC."

      Yeah, 'cause women can anticipate rape, right megin?

      February 23, 2012 at 07:56 | Report abuse |
    • Jsn1971

      Did you really just say "getting fixed"?? Holy cow, step out of the dark ages sweetheart, you aren't a dog or cat.

      February 23, 2012 at 11:34 | Report abuse |
    • Jsn1971

      @MICHELLE – Actually, it is not "freakin' impossible" to get your tubes tied before the age of 30 – I had mine done at the age of 24 (I am 40 now). You have a few counseling sessions to make sure that it is really what you want and bing bang boom, you have your tubes tied. Please do your research properly before you provide incorrect information to a large population.

      Your quote: "Additionally, do you know how freakin' IMPOSSIBLE it is to get surgically sterilized if you're a female under the age of 30? And typically, they won't do it even if you're 30+ unless you've had two kids. One of my friends had to wait until she was 35 to convince a doc to tie her tubes."

      February 23, 2012 at 11:40 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Nope, megadumb, it's still none of your business. Never was. Never will be.

      Get a clue, dumbazz.

      February 23, 2012 at 19:05 | Report abuse |
    • woodUshutup?

      If you think an ultrasound of a few weeks old fetus sucking its thumb is evidence of something, you're a delusional ninny. A fetus doesn't develop any pain receptors until very late in pregnancy. The thumb-sucking isn't a conscious act and it's no evidence of any intelligence or awareness. If it were, then you'd remember doing just that when YOU were a fetus.You don't recall any such thing. A fetus is unaware and not sentient.

      February 23, 2012 at 22:13 | Report abuse |
    • Katie K

      Your reply:

      "really? not even rape or incest? I think that would be a pretty good reason for abortion

      If your that worried about being raped go on BC. Sorry, but this isn't 1900. We now have advanced medicine in reality abortion is not needed."

      My reply:
      I'm a woman in a committed relationship and I want to have a child with my mate. Therefore, I am not on BC. I am raped. I become pregnant with my attacker's child. I have to carry the criminal's child to term?

      March 6, 2012 at 14:27 | Report abuse |
  3. JGN

    This ridiculous debate which has gone on far too long has just gotten even more ridiculous. Do you really think it's men who are fighting for the right to get a vasectomy? Women, who suffer from deleterious effects not excluding death from birth control pills, IUDs, invasive surgeries and other poor birth control methods are sometimes if they have sane and caring mates able to convince the men to have this simple reversible outpatient procedure. And yes it is better than abortions by far even if like myself you do not believe that a human egg is any more sacred than a chicken egg or a lizard egg. Vasectomies are simply easier and safer as minor surgeries.

    February 22, 2012 at 12:35 | Report abuse | Reply
  4. marie adams


    February 22, 2012 at 13:07 | Report abuse | Reply
  5. Ron B

    Hey everyone knows that women are the property of their male leaders...... no one knows what is best for a womans body than a bunch of men...... What a load of foolishness...... BRAVO to this lawmaker for putting mens balls on the chopping block. Snip, snip, snip!

    February 22, 2012 at 13:16 | Report abuse | Reply
  6. Joshua

    No one should make the decision to regulate any human beings body. The fact that the government is trying to ban both abortion and vasectomy because of some idiotic ideology is beyond me. If this law is enacted, well let's just say one idiotic law leads to another.

    February 22, 2012 at 13:21 | Report abuse | Reply
  7. Candace Smith, RN

    Besides the fact that the House, as well as many state legis. have spent 2yrs. introducing bills totake away not only the option of
    abortion but almost all forms of
    BC with 'Personhood Amnts.' to
    make a zygote = legally w/its
    mother, NO ONE has intro. 1 bill
    to add jobs to feed these extra
    people, except the POTUS who
    has been stonewalled @ every
    turn! And in 30 yrs as a Labor &
    Delivery nurse, I've delivered
    THOUSANDS of babies from BC
    that failed! Except for a BTL/surgical sterilization, the best BC is
    only 98-99% effective & if YOU
    are the 2:1000, your life is still
    100% SCREWED = as my daughr
    who was 1 & has 4y.o. twin boys
    would tell you. NO ONE is PRO-
    abortion; we're just anti-NO-fkg
    choice! Especially with no fkg
    jobs above min. wage!

    February 22, 2012 at 13:29 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kandace

      Nothing is certain, and birth control is among those uncertain things. BUT, killing a baby is just not the right response to failed BC. You sound very bitter about things in your life, children being among them. I don't have kids, I don't want kids and I am on BC. However, there have been times that I thought I was pregnant. I can say for sure that killing my own child was never part of the plan had I actually been pregnant. There are MANY good people/families waiting to adopt. There really is no *good* reason to kill a baby. There may be reasons, but none of them are good enough to outweigh the bad in the killing.

      February 22, 2012 at 15:22 | Report abuse |
    • Ken

      Yes, killing a child is never the answer. But a zygote is not a child. A sperm is not a child. A DNA base-pair is not a child. What you define as a child is something that you could not tell apart from a salamander embryo through 9 weeks. You are talking about potential - and when you define something's potential based upon what the Bible tells you to... and then you try to legislate by the Bible... problems arise.

      February 22, 2012 at 20:40 | Report abuse |
    • megin

      Ken, they are talking about past 20 weeks not before 9 weeks.

      As members of Georgia’s House of Representatives debate whether to prohibit abortions for women more than 20 weeks pregnant,

      February 22, 2012 at 23:55 | Report abuse |
    • ajlgbemr


      At least we can agree that killing a child is wrong. Where I differ from you is that I do think that a zygote is a child. Just because the casual observer cannot tell the difference between a human embryo and a salamander in the beginning is not science based. My logic is not based on the Bilble its simple science. You just need to ask two simple questions when deciding if something is a human life. First, is it alive? By every definition, a single cell embryo is alive. Secondly, is it human? If you gave a single cell to a team of scientists and asked them to define the species, they would come back and tell you that it was a human cell. Also just looking at it logically it would be defined as a human since it came from two humans (unless you believe that when two humans mate, they create a non-human life which at some point magically transforms into a human). So, its alive and its human... sounds like a human life to me.

      February 23, 2012 at 06:25 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Who said a zygote, embryo, or fetus was not "alive"?

      Doesn't matter if it's alive. Tumors are alive. Viruses are alive. They don't have rights that trump those of the humans whose bodies they inhabit.

      A fetus that is not viable outside a woman's body is alive. That does not give it the rights the woman has.

      You can be as horrified as you like by abortion, but the fact is that it's legal and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. If you don't approve, don't have one. Otherwise, your opinion is irrelevant.

      February 23, 2012 at 19:36 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      MaryLand, you completely miss the point that unlike viruses and tumors, a fetus is not just alive but it is also human.

      You show your lack of actual logic when you try to bully the discussion by saying somehow because I don't plan on getting an abortion I shouldn't have a say in the matter. That's akin to saying since I don't plan on killing an adult, I shouldn't have any opinion on the legality of murder.

      February 23, 2012 at 20:04 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      The only one here who's missing the point is you. A fetus does not have rights that trump those of the woman carrying it. The Consti tution and its amendments do NOT accord special or equal rights to fetuses. A measure that attempted to do so just failed to pass in Virginia today. That is because giving a fetus equal rights will automatically entail abrogating those of the woman who is pregnant.

      I suggest you think long and hard about this. Murder is a legal term. Murder infringes on rights. Fetuses don't have those rights, nor should they. In all the years abortion was illegal, it was STILL never considered murder under the law.

      Women have rights. You don't get to force them to do what you believe is "morally right", just because. That is not what our laws are designed to do. Our laws are made to preserve our individual freedoms, within the boundaries of the rights of others. A fetus does not, and has never had, rights equal to those of a born person.

      February 23, 2012 at 20:23 | Report abuse |
  8. amy

    maybe we should remember that church and state are supposed to be separate. lawmakers should not consider their religious beliefs in legislating birth control or a woman's choice to abort. the only consideration should the woman's safety. since this is 2012 not 1812, women should make their own decisions on moral issues.

    February 22, 2012 at 13:30 | Report abuse | Reply
    • ajlgbemr

      Abortion has nothing to do with religion, its about protecting the life of the unborn child. Just because religions say that abortions are wrong doesn't make it a religious issue. That would be like saying we can say murder is wrong because its in the ten commandments, which makes is religion based.

      February 22, 2012 at 21:24 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Murder isn't against the law because it's forbidden by the Bible, nitwit. It's against the law because people have a right to live. Murdering someone deprives him of his rights. A fetus is not a 'person' under the law and doesn't possess the same rights, equal rights, or special rights that are infringed upon by the termination of a pregnancy.

      This nation has laws which preserve the right of people to be left alone, to be free to do as they see fit, as long as they are not interfering with the rights of others. A fetus does not have those same rights under the law.

      February 22, 2012 at 22:22 | Report abuse |
    • ajlgbemr


      Here is a tip for you. If you are going to call someone a nitwit, you should probably not reiterate their point for them.

      As to your argument about a fetus not having the same legal rights you are correct, but that doesn't mean its right. The point of this discussion is that the pro-life side wants the legal status of a fetus to be the same as a person since the fetus is a human life.

      February 22, 2012 at 23:08 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Look, dear, the measure that attempted to do just that FAILED in Virginia today. That's because a fetus cannot have rights that are equal to those of the woman carrying it. Here's a little quiz for ya: Suppose a woman is pregnant. Her doctor finds that the fetus requires surgery before birth. The woman does not want to have said surgery. What would happen if the fetus had equal or special rights? The woman could then be FORCED to have a medical procedure against her will. This would be an infringement of HER rights under the law.

      Do you ever even THINK about the repercussions of such nonsense as what you propose?

      February 23, 2012 at 19:10 | Report abuse |
  9. CEW

    If her point is to show what it's like to have your body regulated, I think a better law to introduce, is to REQUIRE vasectomies after a man has fathered two children. The advantage to this, is that it would also cut down on the number of abortions, AND show what it's like to have the government take away your right to chose regarding your own body.

    February 22, 2012 at 14:22 | Report abuse | Reply
  10. Adar

    I read an ultrasound of a 14-week old fetus sucking it's thumb. I'm not the most religious person in the world by any stretch, but as a physician, I find it disturbing we allow abortions up to 24 weeks in all 50 states just because having a child is an inconvience.

    February 22, 2012 at 14:27 | Report abuse | Reply
    • CEW

      That vast majority of people who abort due to inconvenience do it LONG before 24 weeks, when it's obvious to everyone that the woman is preggers. People who abort in the 2nd trimester most often have it done for health reasons (something wrong with the mom, something wrong with the baby).

      February 22, 2012 at 14:35 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      A 'physician' who doesn't know how apostrophes should be used? Yeah, you're a doctor, all right. And I'm an astronaut. Wanna see my moon rock?

      February 22, 2012 at 22:23 | Report abuse |
    • ajlgbemr


      Whoop whoop, that's the sound of the grammar police. Since you brought it up, your first "sentence" is a fragment and you incorrectly used apostrophes instead of quotation marks around physician. Also, "wanna" is not a word.

      Due to these blatant grammar errors, am I to assume that you are actually a completely ignorant person and therefore all of your arguments worthless to this discussion?

      February 22, 2012 at 23:21 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Dr. Adar - your post is disappointing. I would expect better from a medical professional. Abortion is legal; if you are personally opposed to it, then don't get one. It may seem like I'm oversimplifying it, but I'm not. Neither you nor I nor the government have the right to tell a woman that she can't have an abortion. The Supreme Court awarded women that right nearly four decades ago.

      February 23, 2012 at 02:59 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Aji, how about you answer my post before you start your idiotic spew? You couldn't even correctly use an apostrophe yourself, so you're hardly qualified to pass judgment on anyone else's post. My point stands: the guy's a troll, not a doctor.

      February 23, 2012 at 19:13 | Report abuse |
  11. Maggie May

    It's only between Me and God what I wanna do with my body and no one else can decide what I wanna do to my body. As for men why not? Chopp it off...

    February 22, 2012 at 14:32 | Report abuse | Reply
    • ajlgbemr

      You should be able to do whatever you want with your body. Unfortunately abortion isn't really about your body, its about the other body that is growing inside of you.

      February 22, 2012 at 21:21 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      No, it is NOT about the body of a fetus. if the fetus resides in the body of another and cannot survive outside it, then it is within the purview of the person who is carrying the fetus to decide what to do with it.

      February 22, 2012 at 22:25 | Report abuse |
    • ajlgbemr


      We meet again! If that is the view that you hold, will you concede that abortions should be made illegal for those fetuses that are viable? The logical conclusion of course being that as science progresses, viability will continue to happen earlier and earlier.

      February 22, 2012 at 23:11 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      You are ignorant of the development of fetuses, dearie. That's hardly surprising, given the quality of your posts. The age at which a fetus becomes viable will not continue to drop past a certain point, because the development of its lungs will not occur at earlier and earlier points in gestation. A fetus of 20 weeks is extremely unlikely to survive outside the uterus.

      But don't let facts get in the way of your zealotry.

      February 23, 2012 at 19:16 | Report abuse |
  12. norabbits

    Your body is your own body that's correct. Humans have only one heart. If there's another heart beating in there, then it's reasonable to conclude that it's not your body. It means there's another body in the picture.

    On the other hand, if it's ok to terminate inconvenient people, the laws should be extended to allow for terminating other inconvenient people, e.g. the sick, the old, the stoopid who can't control their own organs.

    February 22, 2012 at 14:54 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Keeper

      Exactly! I am all for euthanasia. There is no reason to keep someone alive who is in incredible pain and who wants to end their life. There is no reason to keep someone alive who has zero brain function. If ever I was in either of these situations, I'd hope that someone would stockpile morphine for me and give me a fatal dose.

      Also, until a pregnancy is viable- 22+ weeks, then that pregnancy is essentially a virus. It is not capable of independent life and should not be treated as such. No woman should be forced to act as a life support system to an unwanted virus.

      February 22, 2012 at 18:53 | Report abuse |
    • ajlgbemr

      Keeper, your analogy is off when referring to a fetus as a virus until it is viable. I see what you are getting at since without you it would die, but that argument can be made for years after birth as well. Are you saying that since my 1 yr old depends on me for life that she is a virus and therefore I should have the right to abort her?

      More importantly, while I disagree with the viability argument for abortions I am willing to compromise with you and say that abortions should be legal until the point of viability. The catch of course being that as science progresses that age will continue to be reduced down to the point of conception at which point abortions would be illegal.

      February 22, 2012 at 21:17 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Good God, you're stupid. Your 1-year-old can survive without YOU. Someone else can feed him/her. Someone else can clothe him/her. A fetus in someone's uterus cannot be fed or cared for by a third party.

      February 23, 2012 at 19:24 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Take a biology course, aji. You are woefully uninformed about the development of the fetus.

      If you can figure out a way to harvest an embryo from the uterus of a woman who doesn't wish to be pregnant and transplant into your body, alert the media. I'll be all for it.

      As long as it's not in your body, you don't have a say what someone else does about her pregnancy.

      February 23, 2012 at 19:27 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Viability refers to a point in fetal development at which the fetus may survive outside the womb. The lower limit of viability is approximately five months gestational age, and usually later.[22]

      There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable.[23] According to data years 2003-2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[24] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 gm to survive.[23]
      When such babies are born, the main causes of perinatal mortality is that the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated.[23] If given expert postnatal care, some fetuses weighing less than 500 gm may survive, and are referred to as extremely low birth weight or immature infants.[23] Preterm birth is the most common cause of perinatal mortality, causing almost 30 percent of neonatal deaths.[25]

      February 23, 2012 at 19:46 | Report abuse |
  13. why

    Why is this called "reproductive" right ? Abortion does not result in reproduction. It's termination.

    Vasectomy is analogous to tubal ligation (for women); not abortion. Those lawmakers must have been borne out of inc est.

    Too much political infighting.

    February 22, 2012 at 15:34 | Report abuse | Reply
  14. Ed


    February 22, 2012 at 16:10 | Report abuse | Reply
  15. julia

    This doesn't make any sense. Is she pro or against abortion? either way you look at it, she's a hypocrite. If shes for abortion than she should also want people to be able to have a vasectomy, and if her values are that people should not have an abortion than she should also be for vasectomy. Am I right?

    February 22, 2012 at 20:34 | Report abuse | Reply
    • julia

      Her statement or "law" is in complete conflict with her values. These are the people we have in our legislation? God help us

      February 22, 2012 at 20:37 | Report abuse |
    • Jason

      If we legislate women’s bodies, it’s only fair that we legislate men’s,” said Neal, who said she wanted to introduce a bill that would generate emotion and conversation the way anti-abortion bills do. It seems reading comprehension wasn't your strong point in school.

      February 23, 2012 at 00:56 | Report abuse |
  16. ajlgbemr

    Ok, first of all I realize that the proposed bill is in jest and simply an attempt to reverse the situation to prove a point. That said, it is sad that this it the best analogy the Dems can come up with. Its not even comparing apples to oranges, its like comparing apples to cars. First of all, saying that abortion should be illegal has nothing to do with regulating women's bodies, its about protecting the life of another. A vasectomy affects only one person and therefore the govt should have no say in the matter just like a woman's decision to get her tubes tied. An abortion is one person deciding to end another's life and therefore the govt has every right (or should) to step in and protect the rights of the unborn person.

    February 22, 2012 at 21:09 | Report abuse | Reply
  17. Amy

    Lawmakers are complete idiots. A vasectomy for men is the equivalent of a woman having her tubes tied. It is about preventing pregnancy, not terminating it.

    February 22, 2012 at 21:26 | Report abuse | Reply
  18. AnonymousIV

    Outlawing vasectomies only compounds the problem. Exactly how many poor children does the state of Georgia want to take care of? (That's a little silly, since only responsible men have vasectomies, and responsible men do not generally contribute to social problems).

    Why not get more to the point? No birth control . . . no Viagra . . . no fertility drugs . . . no in-vitro fertilization . . . shucks, if you're going to play Mother Nature, why not let mothers die instead of C-sections, why keep preemies warm, why intervene at all? Why should doctors and legislators get to play God, anyway?

    February 22, 2012 at 21:59 | Report abuse | Reply
  19. Jay

    Just stupid, trying to compare a vasectomy to an abortion. Just ban all procedures for men and women and birth control. Maybe that will help women more in the long run. A vasectomy is comparable to a woman having her tubes tied or whatever, not an abortion. Not that it should be any dang one of our concerns what a woman chooses to do, but if a baby/fetus is after a certain length of time health, then I don't think she should abort. She can always choose to put the baby up for adoption, legally, and that is that. Also, if she chooses not to put the bably up for adoption, that is her choice also, however, I do believe that it should be the father's decision also. I don't believe in having welfare babies produce more welfare babies, it does us all no good.

    February 22, 2012 at 22:33 | Report abuse | Reply
  20. LeeYWhite

    Many existing laws and regulations apply specifically to pregnant women. Several provisions of the Affordable Care Act offer new benefits for expecting mothers. Search online for "Penny Health" if you need affordable insurance for yourself or your wife.

    February 23, 2012 at 01:10 | Report abuse | Reply
  21. Dr. Mama

    Wait ... doesn't that punish women as well? Talk about adding insult to injury!!

    February 23, 2012 at 09:07 | Report abuse | Reply
  22. Sean

    The lawmakers need to rethink their choices nobody should be trying to mandate what we can or cannot do with our bodies.

    February 23, 2012 at 09:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  23. Haas

    A vasectomy would be equal to getting tubes tied or another form of contraception. It's before conception. Abortion is equal to shooting an infant in the head at point blank range because you don't want to take responsiblity a life that you have irresponsibly created. It's beyond the boundaries of contraception. In an abortion, not only is the woman's body affected but the body of a concieved innocent boy or girl. Who know, they myhave grown up to become a politician or even the President.

    February 23, 2012 at 11:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MaryLand

      Oh, nonsense. An infant has rights under the law, you moron. A fetus does not have such rights. Get a friggin' clue.

      February 24, 2012 at 19:43 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      When you've sufficiently educated yourself as to the "i before e, except after c" thingie, genius, you can come back and attempt to tell an intelligent woman what to do with her body. Until then, go pound sand. You're too stupid to have a say in this.

      Abortion is legal. Get over it. You don't get to force others to do what you want just because you have a dick

      February 24, 2012 at 19:45 | Report abuse |
  24. Anna

    As usual, they're not getting it. The idea behind an abortion is to get rid of a child, whereas a vasectomy is a form of contraception. If their logic was correct, then women would be getting their tubes tied as well.

    February 23, 2012 at 12:13 | Report abuse | Reply
  25. Anna

    I don't understand why people can't spend 50 cents to buy a condom and prevent pregnancy in the first place. And if you can't afford a condom, then you obviously can't afford to have sex, so you should keep your legs shut/keep it in your pants, whichever refers to you.

    February 23, 2012 at 12:14 | Report abuse | Reply
  26. Unknown

    Again, why is the government up my skirt, in my bedroom and involved in my reproductive choice and my planned or unplanned parenting. If you don’t want children, do have them. If you don’t believe in abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t want to use contraceptives, don’t use them. But don’t expect the rest of us, to support you or your children (welfare, food stamps, etc.). Next they will be taking my right to vote away.

    February 23, 2012 at 12:31 | Report abuse | Reply
  27. hiio

    Jackie: Thank you for your response. I am starting to see the bigger picture here, how it's not solely about abortion. You did a great job of creating more insight without attacking. Nothing annoys me more than someone saying "You don't get the point, so stop reading this." A person should be encouraged to keep reading so they may come to an understanding. Again, thanks for your response : )

    February 23, 2012 at 13:55 | Report abuse | Reply
  28. starbright

    How stupid. I am completely pro-choice. But I also support never aborting a baby after 20 weeks. That's FIVE months. It's unnecessary. (I do acknowledge the need for allowing late abortions for health of mother. That's not the main point here.) A vasectomy and an abortion are not performing the same function. This is an illogical argument that discredits the pro-choice movement seeking to give women the right to make RESPONSIBLE decisions regarding abortions early on in their pregnancies.

    February 23, 2012 at 14:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  29. FREE WILL!!

    How do so many so called religious individuals still have a leg to stand on with this argument. Gods one main edict is I have rules you need to follow to enter my kingdom, but you have the free will to choose. Every one else but the families involved need to stay the f out of their business. And to appease you religious sheep, the person making the decision to abort will (according to your god) be judged and if it really is killing, they will be judged. Why doesnt the church carry this same argument over to war? Its ok to kill in the name of god and country? What about self defense? I could keep going but I know this sound argument will only go in one ear and out the other of a massively delusional religious population.

    February 23, 2012 at 16:18 | Report abuse | Reply
  30. lisa t

    My comment must have been flagged lol.

    February 23, 2012 at 18:40 | Report abuse | Reply
  31. ak

    abortions keep babies from going to hell!

    February 23, 2012 at 20:02 | Report abuse | Reply
  32. MaryLand

    Most of you miss the point entirely. If the government has the right to force women to continue a pregnancy against their will, then it should also force men to give up their own bodily autonomy and right to privacy. Men are not subject to laws governing their reproductive rights; if women are equal citizens under the law, then their rights should be preserved as well. This does not preclude limiting abortion. It precludes government interference in medical procedures that involve fetuses prior to viability. That age is NOT 20 weeks.

    Yapping that there is "no reason" for abortion at that stage is simply idiotic. There are indeed reasons for such abortions, and not one of them is anyone's business other than the woman who's pregnant.

    February 23, 2012 at 20:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mike

      I see that a lot of your posts revolve around viability and here is the big problem with that. Whether you spout out current medical statistics or not, the viable age has continued to fall as technology increases. I don't see any reason to think the trend will suddenly stop. So my question to you is this, do you really care about viability anyway? Do you concede that a woman should not be allowed to abort a full term fetus since it can be safely removed and survive on its own, or do you still consider it an issue of the woman's choice to do to her body what she choses?

      February 23, 2012 at 20:23 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Not the issue, honey, and trying to engage me in such a discussion is futile. This is not about viability. This is about control and the right to one's own bodily integrity.

      If you don't have the chops to argue that point, don't even bother to respond.

      February 23, 2012 at 20:26 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Oh, and I'm sure you DON'T see it, because you are completely ignorant of biology, science, medicine, and fetal development.

      February 23, 2012 at 20:30 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      So if viability is not the issue then why do you keep bringing it up?

      Also, since you seem to be a self-proclaimed expert in all things science and medicine, please enlighten me as to why the viability age has decreased throughout recent history, but yet all of the sudden is going to stop forever at 20 weeks?

      February 23, 2012 at 20:46 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      I didn't bring it up. You are apparently unable to read. I responded to another poster who brought it up.

      February 23, 2012 at 20:48 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      You want me to educate you on biology? Fetal development?

      Sorry, dearie. You need to go to school if you want to be educated. I'm not your mommy and I don't owe you the education you should have gotten before you started vomiting up your ignorance here.

      February 23, 2012 at 20:50 | Report abuse |
  33. MaryLand

    The folks here who insist that the limits of viability will continue to fall until a zygote is viable outside the uterus are simply not playing with a full deck. Although viability is NOT the issue here, anyone who thinks that the limits of viability will continue to fall ad infinitum is simply uninformed.

    February 23, 2012 at 20:28 | Report abuse | Reply
  34. Mike

    Secondly, I don't understand what equal rights has to do with anything. Contrary to popular belief, as a man I am not saying you shouldn't have abortions because of some gender war power play. I think you shouldn't have abortions because I view it as killing a human being. If it makes you feel better, I don't think men should have abortions either.

    Also, you seem to think that women are being singled out with regulations that would limit "bodily autonomy" but in reality there are other limits to your autonomy already in place. Are you allowed to put any substance you want into your body? No. Are you even legally allowed to terminate your own life? No.

    Maybe you don't agree with drugs and suicide being illegal either but don't act like limiting a woman's right to have a procedure that directly affects another life would be out of left field.

    February 23, 2012 at 20:40 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MaryLand

      Wrong yet again, Mikey. Suicide is not illegal in any state in this country.

      Want to try for a consolation prize? Go right ahead.

      February 23, 2012 at 20:45 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      And gee, how very condescending of you to assert that men 'shouldn't have abortions either'. You'll never have that decision to make, Mike. You will never have any clue what trauma and heartache any woman endures in making such a decision. So just shut up and butt out. You're completely clueless. Human a fetus may be. A person? Nope. Someone whose rights are greater or more important than mine? Not unless I agree. Let me know when you get pregnant, Mikey. Then you can have a say.

      February 23, 2012 at 20:47 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Ok, so suicide is not technically against the law but the gov't does try to stop you from accomplishing the act to include locking you up to prevent personal bodily harm. No answer to the drugs?

      February 23, 2012 at 20:50 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Suicide is not illegal. I see you managed to swallow that concession. Thanks for admitting your ignorance. As to drug use, illegal drug use harms others by increasing armed robbery, theft, and murder.

      Want to play some more?

      You're doing just so wonderfully.

      February 23, 2012 at 20:52 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Illegal drug use can increase the rate of other crimes and therefore may affect others. Abortions do affect another's life with 100% certainty.

      February 23, 2012 at 20:57 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Why don't you try answering the question I asked earlier, genius? Suppose a woman is pregnant. Her doctor tells her the fetus requires surgery. If the fetus has equal or special rights, then what? If the woman refuses the surgery, she would be abrogating the fetus's rights. If she can be forced to have the surgery, then her rights are being infringed upon.

      People in this country cannot be forced against their will to do so much as donate a drop of blood–even in a matter of life and death–against their will. Yet you would accord rights to a fetus that could very well infringe on a woman's rights and might even endanger her health. Under what circu mstances does any other citizen of this country suffer such a loss of the rights guaranteed to him or her by law?

      February 23, 2012 at 20:59 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Nope. Not a life that has the same rights as one of those already born. Too bad you are not quite intelligent enough to grasp the difference. Not surprising, though.

      February 23, 2012 at 21:00 | Report abuse |
  35. Mike

    "Human a fetus may be. A person? Nope." Seriously?! So now you are saying that some types of humans are not people. Do you realize how ridiculous statements like that make you sound?

    February 23, 2012 at 20:53 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MaryLand

      Only to you. And you don't count, as you're neither intelligent nor well-educated.

      February 23, 2012 at 21:01 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      I notice you've not yet managed to work out that niggling little problem I posed to you, Mikey. Get right on that, won't you?

      February 23, 2012 at 21:04 | Report abuse |
  36. MaryLand

    Mike simply doesn't get it. Abortion was legal when the Const itution was written. It has been legal for more years than it was ever illegal. Women cannot be forced to continue a pregnancy they do not want to continue. It has been ever thus.

    Men like Mikey will never get it, because they have not the slightest clue what pregnancy means to a woman.

    But it doesn't matter. Politicians will wave the abortion banana and monkeys like Mike will howl. And abortion will continue to remain legal as it has since 1973.

    February 23, 2012 at 21:08 | Report abuse | Reply
  37. Trisha

    Ok, but.... a vasectomy is not equal to an abortion. If we were saying no Hysterectomy's the yea sure then bring out the no vasectomy's . abortions kill pregnancies. not one part or the other. i think they are being ignorant.

    February 23, 2012 at 21:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MaryLand

      Duh. That whooshing sound is the point flying WAAAAAY over your head. And Mike's.

      February 23, 2012 at 21:42 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Sorry Trisha, I feel partially responsible for Mary's rude comment to you. Apparently I struck a nerve and now she's just lashing out at everyone.

      February 23, 2012 at 23:10 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      What a dweeb you are, Mikey. You seem to think you are the one who's got the biggest dick here, and that gives you some sort of power and might.

      What delusions of grandeur you have!

      February 24, 2012 at 18:06 | Report abuse |
  38. MaryLand

    Funny how silent Mikey is all of a sudden. Yet he had SO much to say earlier. I guess he doesn't have an answer to the question I posed. That's okay. No zealot ever does.

    I post it repeatedly and not a single anti-choice pea-brain can come up with a solution.

    That's because the issue was solved long ago and no one has improved upon that solution since. Women have a right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or to terminate it. Their rights trump those of the fetus and those of some third party like the government, the church, or some man who thinks he's God.

    February 23, 2012 at 21:54 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. MaryLand

    Mikey must be busy incubating a fetus...

    February 23, 2012 at 22:36 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mike

      Its amusing that you think you are so smart but are getting all bent out of shape over a simple thing like viability. Research is already ongoing to create completely artificial wombs and they have already had success with animals. I'm not saying its right around the corner, but clearly for someone as educated as you seem to think you this really isn't rocket science.

      February 23, 2012 at 23:21 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Bent out of shape? Me? Hardly, since abortion has been legal since 1973 even though witless wonders like you have been yammering about it ever since.

      I think the only one who's bent out of shape here is you, Mikey. Poor widdle fella.

      February 24, 2012 at 18:32 | Report abuse |
  40. Mike

    Good to see Mary that you've given up trying to make any points and now are just throwing insults around to anyone who disagrees with you.

    As to your big question that you have about the surgery scenario. There is no simple answer. You are right that either way you go you are infringing on one of the two parties rights. As the mother of the child in question, you would be the person to ultimately decide what course of action you would take. However, there are limits to your parental authority and at some point I believe that the gov't should be able to step in and override your decision just as they do in cases of abuse and/or neglect. I believe that deciding to terminate the life of a child is one of those instances where the gov't should have a say. I concede that in the process the woman carrying a child may sacrifice some rights during the pregnancy. However, just like you pointed out in the situation with illegal drugs, sometimes the impact to others outweighs your personal freedom.

    February 23, 2012 at 23:09 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MaryLand

      There is no 'child' in an abortion. There is a fetus, and the woman carrying it has rights that trump those of a fetus.

      Maybe you should volunteer to have an artificial uterus installed in your body, Mike. I'll be cheering you on.

      As for your contention that a woman's rights under the law should be abrogated because she is pregnant, I ask you: under what similar circu mstances does a man give up his rights?

      There aren't any. The "impact" on a fetus does not warrant such an infringement, since a fetus does not have rights that are equal to those of people already born.

      I haven't "given up making points", honey. I have already made more of them than you have and I don't have to be polite to people whose intent is to take away the rights women have because they worship fetuses.

      You might want to consider this, dearie: If we allow the government to dictate to women what they should do concerning their own pregnancies, what's to stop the government from deciding to force women to terminate a pregnancy it deems unworthy of the costs to society?

      Think it can't happen?

      The trouble with zealots like you is that you never even consider such questions as those I raised and you're incensed when someone challenges your holier-than-thou stance.

      I'll be waiting with bated breath for you to be the first male to give birth, honey. Alert the media when your due date is imminent.

      February 24, 2012 at 17:45 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      It's cracking me up to visualize Mikey being nine months pregnant.

      February 24, 2012 at 18:30 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Ok, so we are obviously not going to change each other's mind on this issue but here is what I don't understand about your arguments.

      First you were talking all about viability, that is until I pointed out that the viability age continues to decrease. I know that you would never admit that I am right on that point but I'm pretty sure you know it because instead of refuting my point now you are just attempting to make jokes about it and claiming that viability isn't an issue anyway.

      Your next big theme seems to be about protecting personal freedoms which doesn't really fly since there are plenty of examples of the gov't curbing your freedoms to protect others and you seem to have no issue with that.

      Another issue seems to be not so much about abridging freedoms but more specifically abridging the freedom of women and implying that I must be a male chauvinist pig by even talking about this. I'm sorry that women are the only ones who can carry children, but that's between you and whoever or whatever you think made you. Regardless, just because women are the only people who can have abortions doesn't mean that every male who thinks it should be illegal is somehow trying to oppress women. The bottom-line is that something is either right or wrong, and it doesn't matter if it applies to men, women or both.

      You also seem to have latched onto the concept that I am somehow a religious zealot. I can't remember ever referring to any religious belief as the basis for my opinion. In fact, if this was religious based I would be on your side since I fully agree that religion should not be used to set public policy.

      Now, as far as fetal rights (or lack thereof) go, I completely understand the current laws, I just feel that they should be changed. So you can stop saying that the mother's rights trump the fetus's rights. It's like me saying that I can't wait until it's Saturday and you retorting with "no, you idiot, it's only Friday."

      I guess my question is this, are you pro-choice because you don't want the gov't to tell you what to do, or is it because you don't think that the fetus is a human life? If it's the first, how do you accept gov't control over tons of other aspects of your life? If it's the latter, how do you rationalize that a living being or human origins is not a human life?

      Now I know that this last question is just a pipe-dream, but do you think that you can respond to this post without any name calling, judgements or thinly veiled power plays using words like "dearie, honey or Mikey?" I know that you think I'm uneducated and slow so it really just cheapens your argument that you feel the need to attempt to talk down to me.

      February 24, 2012 at 23:23 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      I just realized I didn't address your concern over the gov't getting too much control and one day deciding who gets to have a baby and who doesn't.

      Again, you assume that the intent of making abortions illegal is to get more control over someone when the actual intent is to protect another. If you feel that a fetus is not a person, then I understand your concern but from my point of view its no different than any other murder being illegal. The gov't telling me I can't kill someone abridges my freedom but its for a legitimate reason and therefore my loss of freedom is an acceptable compromise. I don't lay awake at night thinking that since I gave up my freedom to kill the gov't is going to start telling us who is allowed to live and who has to die.

      I guess that's the difference, you think in terms of power and control whereas I am more concerned with the morality of killing. It's a balancing act either way.

      February 25, 2012 at 00:36 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      You are simply incorrect, Mike. The fetus cannot and does not have equal rights under the law. If it did, that would automatically abrogate the full legal and Consti tutionally guaranteed rights women have. You don't lose any rights if you are prevented from murdering another person, simpleton. A woman does lose rights if she is not permitted the freedom to do with her body and its contents what she believes is right for her. Don't care if this is beyond your comprehension, as I'm certain it will be. You're not exactly the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

      Furthermore, I didn't bring up viability. I was responding to another poster. I don't care if you think a zygote is a person or if you believe that an embryo has rights or that the age of viability will continue to drop ad infinitum. You can believe there are alien bodies in Area 51 for all I care. You'll be wrong, but there's no law against that.

      There is, however, law that guarantees all people the right to privacy and the right to choose.

      Don't like it? Tough toenails. Don't get pregnant and don't impregnate anyone else. That is the extent of your say in the matter.

      February 25, 2012 at 12:04 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      You are making the usual mistake of the anti-choice zealots that laws prohibit actions that are "wrong". They do not. They protect individual freedoms and our rights. The reason murder is illegal killing is not because it's "morally wrong". It's because people have a right to live; murder deprives them of that right. A fetus has no such right before it's viable outside the body of the woman carrying it. She has sole discretion as to whether to continue a pregnancy or end it.

      You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the issue one of rights under our law and somehow are completely confused because I have more than one argument against the prohibition of abortion.

      I guess that's because you don't have any that have held water yet.

      February 25, 2012 at 12:11 | Report abuse |
  41. Ohio

    I for one, do not believe I have the right to decide anything for anyone else. If you want to place abortion squarely in the religious realm, then look to the middle east. Religion seems to be the government's decision maker. Golly, doesn't America have a problem with that type of government? I do. Let the government stay out of peoples lives. It is a personal choice, it is a personal choice and the individual must live with that choice.

    February 24, 2012 at 19:33 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MaryLand

      Maybe you can explain it to Mikey. He's pretty slow, so I have my doubt you'll be able to break it down for him.

      Don't sweat it too much, since the Mikeys of the world aren't terribly important when the law is at stake.

      Consti tutional scholars and the justices of the SCOTUS are the ones who matter and since R v W has stood since 1973, it's unlikely some dimwitted little boob like Mikey will have any impact whatsoever. So conserve your efforts and use them to elect someone who cares about women and children, rather than fetuses and embryos, and let little Mikey stew in his own juices.

      February 25, 2012 at 21:03 | Report abuse |
  42. Jabberwocky

    The idiotic argument posed by the brain-dead boob above that poses the possibility that a fetus aborted might have been the ONE PERSON who cures cancer is so stupid as to be laughable.

    The fetus might just as easily turn out to be a mass-muderere or another Hitler.

    February 24, 2012 at 19:47 | Report abuse | Reply
  43. MaryLand

    Mike is not terribly perceptive, yet is attempting to read minds. His train only seems to run on one track; there are many reasons people want the government to overturn Roe v. Wade. Yes, some people DO wish to control the lives of others. Some of them DO want to impose their morality or religious beliefs on others. Some of them DO want to punish women for having s3x outside of marriage or for having an unplanned pregnancy. Some of them DO want to 'protect' the fetus, though it's pretty strange that those same people don't care about protecting women or children who are already born.

    One would think Mike hasn't had much experience in the world if he sees things so narrowly.

    February 25, 2012 at 12:15 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mike

      You are right Mary, some pro-life proponents do unfortunately argue against abortion for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean that the argument itself is wrong.

      It's telling though that you felt the need to through in that last line about not caring about women or children once they are born. You seem to have a need to demonize and attack anyone who disagrees with you so that you can have an easier time dismissing anything they say even when they bring up logical points that would in anyway conflict with your opinion.

      February 25, 2012 at 15:00 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      It's "throw". Do notify me when you actually have a diploma from a high school.

      February 25, 2012 at 20:34 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Mikey, I wonder if you practice being stupid.

      Intent is irrelevant, except to you. What matters is law. The fact is that the SCOTUS thinks you're wrong. And guess what? It's correct. You are wrong. You can barf up all you want about what you 'feel' about your precious little fetuses, but it is not relevant to anything but you and your special little self. When you get pregnant, you can give birth. You don't get to dictate to others what they should do, anymore than anyone gets to tell you that you must have a vasectomy or be circu mcised.

      It is simply none of your business. None. You aren't in charge of anyone else's decisions.

      Don't like it? Who gives a ripe fuck? If it's not your fetus or your uterus or your body, it's none of your business.

      There's nothing more to it than that.

      But do continue to blather on about your feelings, honey. It's ever so touching, considering you'll never be pregnant.

      February 25, 2012 at 20:53 | Report abuse |
  44. MaryLand

    Furthermore, Mike isn't very good at reading comprehension. I never said the fetus or embryo wasn't alive, nor did I say it wasn't human. It is both. The issue is not when life begins, it is when rights do, and whose rights are foremost.

    When you figure it out, Mike, do let me know. I've explained it thoroughly and I doubt you'll ever catch on.

    February 25, 2012 at 12:17 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mike

      You are the one who seems to have a problem following fairly basic logic. You are the one who above stated that rights begin with viability but in the post just prior to that you say viability isn't an issue. Then you say that the whole argument is based around when rights begin so if that is how you truly feel, then viability is the number one issue for you.

      February 25, 2012 at 15:07 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Speaking of reading comprehension, you must have missed point I made earlier.

      Now, as far as fetal rights (or lack thereof) go, I completely understand the current laws, I just feel that they should be changed. So you can stop saying that the mother's rights trump the fetus's rights. It's like me saying that I can't wait until it's Sunday and you retorting with "no, you idiot, it's only Saturday."

      February 25, 2012 at 15:10 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Good God. Are you retarded? I said viability isn't the only issue, you moron. There are multiple arguments against your desire to prohibit abortion, as I have already stated. That you are too stupid too understand them isn't my problem. The SCOTUS understands them and that is what matters. Your opinion is irrelevant, twit. You aren't the one making the laws. You aren't the one who interprets the Consti tution. You are simply not important here.

      February 25, 2012 at 20:33 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      What you "feel" is beyond unimportant, Mikey, Your little "feewings" are not the basis for laws. The basis for law, as I have already attempted to explain to you, is the preservation of individual freedoms. The rights of people already born are enumerated in the Consti tution and its amendments. If you cannot comprehend the significance of that fact, I suggest you take some classes in law and history. Your 'feelings' are not important. They do not matter when the rights of others are concerned.

      Why in the world would you think your feelings about fetuses should be more important than the rights of women who are already here? What kind of special stupid are you?

      February 25, 2012 at 20:39 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Mikey, why don't you tell everyone why you think the 'rights' of a fetus should trump those of a woman? Go right ahead. I can hardly wait. You have brayed on and on about how you 'feel' about the law. Why don't you give us all a lesson on it and explain your legal argument for allowing the fetus to live regardless of the rights of those women already born who are guaranteed rights as people under our laws. Go ahead and make your argument.

      February 25, 2012 at 21:14 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Here's the legal argument that you asked for. The basis for all of our rights are based on the big three; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone (which since you already conceded that a fetus is a living human) is afforded these rights by law. It's also important to understand that the three aren't just listed arbitrarily but in order of importance (and thus order of legal protection).

      So in the case of murder, we accept an infringement of the murderer's liberty to preserve the victim's life. This balancing happens all over the place since anytime you are told you can't do something, you have lost some of your liberty.

      The disconnect with current legal rulings is that abortion is the only instance where one individual's liberty trumps another's right to life. It's not that the fetus is somehow more important than the mother, it's just that we value life over liberty when governing society.

      February 26, 2012 at 01:08 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      You seem to think that once a court rules on something the issue is closed forever. I'm sure you don't need me to go through all of the historical court decisions that were crap and were subsequently overturned by future courts. RvW isn't even universally liked in pro-choice circles since instead of ruling that abortion is legal it really only addresses a woman's right to privacy.

      February 26, 2012 at 01:13 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      You are too stupid to be believed. No one has a Consti tutional right to murder, you nincompoop. Murder is not a right. The right to privacy, the expectation that one will be left alone, is. Abortion has never, in the history of this nation, been considered "murder", even when it was illegal.

      You can threaten all you want that R v W will be overturned. Your sort have been doing so since 1973, and to no avail. Presidents of both parties have come and gone and abortion is still legal.

      I'm done with you, Mikey, because you can't even figure out when you've been beaten.

      February 26, 2012 at 18:01 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Mikey, for your edification, you might want to read Justice Scalia's opinion on abortion. Much as he is opposed to it, even HE can find NO reason to prohibit it based on the Consti tution. Even HE concedes that the founders did not mean to include fetuses as "people".

      I'll bet you didn't know that at the time the Consti tution was written, abortion was legal. It was publicly advertised. Look it up. If the founders did not see fit to outlaw it or to give fetuses rights, why? Because they knew, as you don't seem to, that it's a private matter because of the nature of pregnancy and is none of the business of any third party.

      You must be extremely young and apparently have a very limited education. It's pretty clear you don't see anything in terms of gray-just black and white.

      You have been unable to bring yourself to admit you were wrong about a number of things, including the nature of our laws and the fact that they're not based on morality, the fact that no one has a "right" to murder another, and therefore laws against murder do not infringe on one's rights, the fact that suicide is not illegal, the fact that abortion is not and never was considered murder, the fact that fetuses have never been guaranteed rights under the law until they are viable.

      Your arrogance knows no bounds. You can't even admit you are mistaken on any of these points, and seem to think your beliefs are facts. They are not. You don't have the right to force others to live according to your morals. You don't have the right to demand that women give up their rights when they're pregnant, anymore than men give up their rights to decide whether to have a vasectomy or not. Can I force you to have one? I surely wish I could for the sake of the gene pool, but I can't.

      February 26, 2012 at 18:18 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      Almost forgot. Where in God's name did you get the notion that 'we value life over liberty'? If that were so, we'd never have fought a single war, dim bulb. There is absolutely no basis in fact for your assertion that those values are arranged in that order because one is more important than another. You seem to think you can make such statements without citing a single source as proof. You can do so, but it just makes you look even dumber.

      February 26, 2012 at 18:42 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      I'm posing the question again for any sentient beings that are reading this: since no person in this country can be forced to do so much as donate a drop of blood, even in a case of life and death, how can anyone give a legal argument for forcing women to continue a pregnancy against their will? If that argument can be made, then men could just as easily be forced to have vasectomies or even prevented from having them, regardless of their wishes and in disregard for their right to privacy.

      Mikey can't quite grasp this premise. Oh, well. The stupid and ignorant aren't in charge for good reason.

      February 26, 2012 at 19:00 | Report abuse |
  45. Mike

    Mary, do you even read my posts before going off on your rants? I understand that laws are based on rights and not morality, I completely agree with you on that point! I never said that we have a right to murder anyone. Nowhere did I say that. I said that when the govt tells you that you are not allowed to do something, you lose a degree of liberty (which is your whole point on abortion so even you should be able to understand that).

    Yes, our rights are protected using a hierarchy of importance. Maybe I should have spelled it out more clearly for our slower audience members. While we don't necessarily think life is more important that liberty on a personal level, we do offer more protection when life is threatened.

    The easiest example is murder (again, not saying anyone has a right to murder). If we had a 100% free society with unabridged liberty, I could shoot someone because I want to. I can't because the other person has rights too. Now, here's where it might get tricky for you. The fact that I can't shoot someone isn't because his rights are more important legally than mine (like you suppose) but because the his right to life is legally more important than my right to complete liberty.

    February 26, 2012 at 19:37 | Report abuse | Reply
    • MaryLand

      Mike, you have yet to land a single point. You are too dumb to bother with. Go argue with an aardvark, honey. You'll at least be close to being on the same level of intelligence.

      February 26, 2012 at 20:35 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      Wait a minute. I've been following this argument, and Mike, you're lying, flat out. You most certainly did claim that laws were based on morality.

      it's truly dishonest of you to pretend you said anything other than just that. Go back and look at your own posts.

      February 26, 2012 at 20:43 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      Where did anyone claim that we lived in a "100%free society"? I don't recall anyone claiming that at all. The fact is that we don't, and no one ever said otherwise. Care to set up another straw man so I can knock that one down, too?

      February 26, 2012 at 20:55 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      "Because his right to life is more important than my right to liberty." Umm, no. His right is more important because he isn't a fetus, he's a born person, and you have no 'right' to murder anyone.

      February 26, 2012 at 20:58 | Report abuse |
    • I call BS

      Our laws are not based on the words of the Declaration of Independence, Mike. That's where "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" come from. I think you need to head off to a civics class. Unless you'd like to pretend you could take that argument to the Justices of the Scotus-I'll bet it would give them a big laugh.

      February 27, 2012 at 09:07 | Report abuse |
  46. I call BS

    Right here it is, Mike: You said:The bottom-line is that something is either right or wrong, and it doesn't matter if it applies to men, women or both.

    Are you now denying your own words?

    February 26, 2012 at 20:45 | Report abuse | Reply
  47. svscnn

    Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    February 27, 2012 at 16:03 | Report abuse | Reply
  48. Mike

    My post isn't posting!

    February 27, 2012 at 16:57 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mike

      Of course that one worked 🙂

      February 27, 2012 at 16:57 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Oh well, guess I'll have to try again later. If I type much more than a line it won't post.

      February 27, 2012 at 17:06 | Report abuse |
    • Jabberwocky

      That's what happens when CNN finds out you're an idiot.

      February 27, 2012 at 17:12 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Oh snap! You sure got me Jabs. If only I could be as clever as you.

      February 27, 2012 at 17:38 | Report abuse |
    • Jabberwocky

      You've already shown you're less clever than my cat. And he's retarded.

      February 27, 2012 at 17:45 | Report abuse |
  49. Mike

    As open-minded as you guys are supposed to be, not one person has been able to disagree with my opinions without resorting to insults and intolerance. There is a reason when the SCOTUS makes a ruling the judges author opinions. It's ironic you guys cling so vehemently to an opinion that was reached nearly 40 years ago, by a bunch of old white guys, and based on even older medical science yet you call yourselves progressive.

    February 27, 2012 at 18:04 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Jabberwocky

      Why should anyone avoid calling a spade a spade? As far as I can see looking back over the posts, you've been outpaced at every turn. If someone is calling you names, maybe it's because you earned them.

      February 27, 2012 at 18:23 | Report abuse |
  50. Mike

    BS, real quick, right and wrong do not equal a moral dictate. Something can be right or wrong based on legal grounds (aka rights). You think I am wrong, so does that mean you are basing your arguments on morals?

    February 27, 2012 at 18:11 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Jabberwocky

      Don't know about BS. I don't think abortion is morally wrong. Why should your opinion hold sway?

      February 27, 2012 at 18:21 | Report abuse |
    • Mike

      Maybe you came in late to the conversation, I was responding to BS's accusation that earlier I said that laws are based on morals and then flipped flopped to say they are based on the protection of rights. He latched onto a quote where I used the terms right and wrong but I don't think abortion should be illegal because of morals. I think abortion should be illegal based on the protection of the fetus's right to life. I realize that they currently do not currently hold any legal status and therefore do not have a right to life but that's where I think the courts messed up. Its just an opinion but in the last 40 years there has remarkable progress in medical science and with that science comes new understanding about the development of a fetus. Again, my opinion only but I think that knowing what we know today it is hard to argue that a fetus is not a human being and if that is the case they deserve the same rights as you or I. Those rights don't trump the mother's but legal precedent tells us that one person's right to life is legally more protected than another's liberty (which is where privacy is derived).

      Thats the crux of it. I just think all human life should be afforded the same rights instead of picking and choosing based on age. You obviously disagree on that but that I don't think you are an idiot for having a different opinion on when a fetus obtains legal standing.

      February 27, 2012 at 18:44 | Report abuse |
    • MaryLand

      That's because you don't think women should have rights at all. They should just be vessels to carry a fetus. Too bad for you. You'll just have to get over that until the day you can have a fetus implanted in your body, honey. You don't get to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want. That's all there is to it.

      The fact that you don't agree with it or don't think it's right or find it morally objectionable is just your tough luck. It's not your body, it's not your fetus, and it's not your life.

      It IS the woman's life, it IS her body, and it IS her fetus until such time as it can survive without her incubating it.

      If you don't get it, I don't know what to tell you. Get a tutor, I guess. Your inability to comprehend the law or the Const itution, or the rights of people over those of fetuses is really not my problem. It's yours. Get an education and figure out how to create a uterus that you can call your own, dear. You don't own mine or any other woman's.

      February 27, 2012 at 18:55 | Report abuse |
    • Jabberwocky

      "I just think". No, you don't. You don't think at all, Mike. You pretend to. You wish you could. But you're nothing more than a high school kid who hasn't got a clue what to think about.

      Stay in school. Don't do drugs.

      February 27, 2012 at 19:08 | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply to Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.