Woman Live-Tweets Her Abortion 160
27-year-old Angie Jackson has decided that it isn't inappropriate or in any way distasteful to live-tweet about her experience taking RU-486, also known as the abortion pill. According to Jackson nothing is off-limits on Twitter. "I don't feel like I'm doing anything different from what I do every day," said Jackson. "But now I have people calling me a killer; it's surreal."
every day? (Score:3, Funny)
She has abortions every day? Wow, someone needs to teach that girl how to close her legs....or swallow.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The most efficient contraception is this: an aspirin.
the trick is to use it this way:
place between the knees
press very hard
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Or to lie on her front.
RU-486 (Score:5, Funny)
Ask your doctor if RU-486 is right for you.*
*Side effects may include freaky, hoochy mamma eyelid discoloration.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
I'm waiting for RU-586 to come out. It will apparently work twice as fast, but every once in a while there will be a rounding error: 5% of the brain will be left and your baby will come out as a teabagger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RU-486 abort those moles on her face, too (Score:1)
Everyday? (Score:2)
You take RU-486 every day?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Her clientele isn't into using condoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Still think reaction "beats the hell out of" prevention?
That's a man, baby! a man! (Score:2)
Not quite an abortion (Score:3, Insightful)
While RU-486 terminates a pregnancy, it only does so during the early weeks, before the embryo becomes implanted in the uterus. At that time of gestation, the spontaneous abortion rate (i.e. miscarriage) is 33% to 50% -- we don't really know the number exactly because that early in a pregnancy many women don't realize they are pregnant.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Jesus aborts the baby Hitler/Antichrists. Turns out there are a lot of them, and if you miss just one or two in an entire century he never hears the end of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is murder only if you are a living breathing person, or were at one time. And to say otherwise is horrible twisted logic.
Ok--living and breathing. Got it. This [hyscience.com] child was only in his mothers womb for 3 months--and he survived. So would his abortion at 2.9 months been 'ok' in your book?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok--living and breathing. Got it. This [hyscience.com] child was only in his mothers womb for 3 months--and he survived. So would his abortion at 2.9 months been 'ok' in your book?
The child survived? Or was the child kept alive by medical science basically fulfilling all his bodily functions for him in an incubator?
The reality is that we could grow a child outside the womb already, it is just illegal to engage in this sort of research. Does this mean that every time a sperm reaches an egg a new life instantly spring into existence?
Is it murder to turn off a life support machine to someone who is clinically brain dead?
We can already take people to hospital and provide all the function
Re: (Score:2)
The child survived? Or was the child kept alive by medical science basically fulfilling all his bodily functions for him in an incubator?
Yes, doctors kept him alive and he survived.
Maybe we should use the same argument if you have a heart attack at 35 and have to be zapped--or maybe your child has an asthma attack and needs abuterol/atrovent so they can breathe...did they survive? Or were they kept alive by medical science? Are you arguing we *could* have let them die since it was only medical science that kept them alive?
The reality is that we could grow a child outside the womb already, it is just illegal to engage in this sort of research.
Really? Where is it illegal? Maybe the US, Canada, Europe. How about Russia, China, or durkastan? Remember when
So how about... (Score:1)
when the baby is just born but still not breathing? Doctors usualy spank them to make their lungs work but, following your logic (not sure if twisted) it would not be murder to slam the baby against the floor as long as he didn't breath once? May I ask you how did you came about this conclusion?
Sick (Score:1)
sick
her abortion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If she really tweeted her child's abortion I would be very impressed, but I suspect that you are using the word abortion in a manner inconsistent with its definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:her abortion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, you are comparing the two words as though they were both equivalent in terms of being scientific terms for the stages of human gestation. "Child" is not a member of the development sequence that would go something like zygote to embryo to fetus. It is a term that designates a relationship to the mother. In that sense, a child could be considered a child of someone from the day it is conceived to the day it dies.
You could argue the point where the relationship begins from (ie. not real until it is born), but there is nothing in the definition that implies that this must be the case. Therefore, you can't improve on his pedantry with your statement because your assertion is debatable.
It's also wrong, because it's not a fetus at that stage, but that's not as much fun to type.
Emaotional kiddy roller coaster! (Score:1)
Just imagine... (Score:1, Insightful)
once she starts having kids, and one of her kids looks up his/her mommie's old tweet threads.
"So you're saying I could have had an older brother??"
Re: (Score:1)
And she can reply about how it's irresponsible to try to raise a child (or even go through a pregnancy) when you are not prepared for it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
RTFA. She already HAS a kid, almost died delivering him, was told another pregnancy would kill her, and had an IUD, which failed, resulting in the pregnancy she just terminated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the consequences of her giving birth are that serious, it makes me wonder why she didn't elect to have a tubal ligation, instead of relying on a less perfect form of birth control.
The Marina IUD is actually 0.3% more effective then a tubal ligation, the Paraguard on the other hand is 0.1% less. Really about the same though.
As fun as it is to blame women for getting pregnant, the fact is there are always going to be a non-trivial number of women who get pregnant through no fault of their own. Even if every woman in the country got a tubal ligation and didn't have willingly have sex, we'd still see about 450 pregnancies from the 92,000 rapes that happen each year combined with the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Why's it so important that she survives? She is already past her expected lifetime for a woman with childbirth complications."
Self preservation instinct trumps logic. She could have saved us all the trouble of discussing this by not allowing her ( going by her makeup/hair choices) trashy boyfriends ride her bareback. I have great disdain for people who's entire contribution to this world is showing how absolutely worthless they are. While she was getting her pill, and all these tests, perhaps she should
Re: (Score:1)
She clearly stated that she aborted her late pregnancy because it was dangerous to her, and that she already has a boy. This means she won't have any more.
So, the only thing that could happen is him asking her if he could have had a younger brother.
Anyway, he probably won't be as bitchy about abortion as some other people around these days.
Re: (Score:1)
Coming Soon (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If those jackass Women's Libbers had just sat on their hands, the political process would have worked though, a consensus would have been reached, and the Republicans wouldn't have had such an effective wedge issue for 20 years.
Same with Gay Marriage. By forcing the issue via the courts, idiot activists created a rallying cry against "activist judges" and The Gay Agenda, 30 states wouldn't have passed anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think that "colored folk" (to use a term from that era) shouldn't have used the courts to fight against "separate but equal" and equal rights in general? Perhaps they should have just sat quietly and waiting patiently for white men to decide that it should be changed.
When you see something you perceive as unjust, you shouldn't just sit back and wait for it to correct itself. You take action to get it corrected. And if correcting it generates push back from groups that what to perpetuate the injust
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps they should have just sat quietly and waiting patiently for white men to decide that it should be changed.
Excellent rhetoric, but invalid logic. Negros (to use another term of the era), had no political power whatsoever, and so needed a suit like Brown to kick-start things. The forced-bussing lawsuit, though, was just a B-A-D idea.
By 1973, though, women were gaining more rights through the legislative process, as were gays before Goodridge in 2004.
When you see something you perceive as unjust, you
Sit back and wait... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Power concedes nothing without demand" - Frederick Douglass
Nothing in my previous post contradicts Douglass' assertion. The difference is the time-line, branch of government and unintended consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
If those jackass Women's Libbers had just sat on their hands, the political process would have worked though, a consensus would have been reached, and the Republicans wouldn't have had such an effective wedge issue for 20 years.
What? What makes you think that would work?
Plausibility FAIL.
Re: (Score:2)
idiot activists created a rallying cry against "activist judges" and The Gay Agenda, 30 states wouldn't have passed anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments.
...Yeah, and the anti-gay-marriage status quo would have continued in those 30 states, without anyone ever feeling the need to codify their bigotry into constitutional law. Who, exactly, would be helped by that?
Those amendments are the frightened flailings of people who are losing their influence.
Re: (Score:2)
and the anti-gay-marriage status quo would have continued in those 30 states
Somehow women won the vote without a court case, and -- last I checked -- the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is, well, it's an Act not a SCOTUS decision.
Those amendments are the frightened flailings
My point exactly. They wouldn't have become frightened if the legislative process had been followed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because things magically workout for the best when you just sit down and shut up. Maybe someone should have told Mrs. Parks that.
Actually, I'm pretty sure she did sit down and shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nor do people have to say "Have a blessed day". Same thing.
What a piece of detritus she is for including that little "gem."
Thank you for proving the point that religious people aren't as peaceful as they claim to be.
God knows she needs it.
If God doesn't exist, how can it know what she needs?
Re: That ignorant insensitive bitch.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nor do people have to say "Have a blessed day". Same thing.
Nowhere close. You can bless others by your conduct or you can be an ass. Nothing in the word “blessed” demands that you believe in God.
The opposite of saying “have a blessed day” is saying “here’s hoping life treats you like shit today”.
Similarly, when I say “merry Christmas”, I’m not ordering you to be happy because Jesus was born on this day (he wasn’t, as I’m sure we’re all aware). I’m wishing you to be happy, because the alternative is to be an angry, irritable, insensitive clod, and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. You can, of course, feel free to be that as long as you aren’t doing it on my lawn.
Re: (Score:1)
Similarly, when I say “merry Christmas”, I’m not ordering you to be happy because Jesus was born on this day (he wasn’t, as I’m sure we’re all aware). I’m wishing you to be happy
Sorry man, but telling me to have a merry christmas (Christ's Mass) has a little more meaning than "I wish you to be happy." It sort of feels like shit when people tell you to have a happy religious day that you don't celebrate because of cultural and religious differences. Happy holidays is more than enough. Telling people to enjoy the celebration that YOU are having is disrespectful. Sorry man. People who complain about how there are policies to not be holiday specific when wishing a good day during Decem
Re: (Score:2)
you hate the experience of mixed culture
Quit assuming things about me. You’re welcome to wish me pleasantries on any day of the year that is meaningful to you.
Telling them to have a merry Christmas makes them feel disrespected in a varying amount depending on the person and how serious they take their own beliefs.
Depending on how shallow and precarious their own beliefs are, you mean. Seriously, being offended when someone wishes you a merry anything... just goes to show that your religion isn’t tolerant of mine, not vice versa.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor do people have to say "Have a blessed day". Same thing.
Nowhere close. You can bless others by your conduct or you can be an ass. Nothing in the word “blessed” demands that you believe in God.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on that one. The word "blessed" is as closely tied to Christianity as "holocaust" is to the Nazis. Sure we can use it in other contexts, "I was blessed with extra chicken on my burrito by the hot server at Chipotle". Or: "The Haitian earthquake was a real holocaust". But both of those sentences cause you to think of the main meaning of the words and the sentences are really awkward.
Sheldon
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we can use it in other contexts, "I was blessed with extra chicken on my burrito by the hot server at Chipotle".
Well, of course it’s awkward. You’re using a word that means divine kindness to refer to somebody throwing an extra few chunks of meat in your burrito.
If somebody just spent 8 hours helping you move, or brought you meals while you were laid up and unable to cook for yourself, it would be appropriate and not awkward at all to describe that as a huge blessing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Her poor son! Someday he's going to ask "Hey mommy what are you famous for?" What's she going to answer? "Well son, I was the first** (that we know of) to have an abortion on youtube!"
**she's not really having an abortion on youtube, she's just taking a pill, and since we can't verify her taking the pill we really don't even know if she's done that.
This is all one big publicity stunt. She has a book com
Re: (Score:1)
I hope for the sake of her son that she finds some compassion and spiritual enlightenment.
She has. You just disagree.
God knows she needs it.
How do you know that? Is it possible in your worldview for your God to disagree with you?
"ought" != "is"
Re: (Score:1)
Did it have a name? Date of birth? Did it even have eyes, or a brain to feel with?
If you want to be anti-choice, that's fine. But until cells start to differentiate, it's not a human, not a baby, not even a fetus; it's a parasite that feeds off of its host. For all we know it might not even be viable.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong. From the first cell it's a new being with distinct DNA which determines all of its characteristics visible after birth. It's obviously alive and human. So abortion is killing human life. It doesn't mean if human can experience it being robbed of life.
To call a baby a parasite is sick ugly idea that bunch of murderous women gathered with the same unholy goal thought of.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Some humans have multiple distinct DNA types in their body. Ever heard of a chimera [wikipedia.org]? If someone kills a chimera, can they be charged with two counts of murder?
As far as I'm concerned, if it can't exist outside of the womb, it's a parasite that requires a host body to survive. I don't care if the negative connotation of parasite insults your senses, because it doesn't change the fact that the cellular mass is incapable of surviving without the host from which it obtains nourishment. Once it can survive o
Re: (Score:1)
Is the elimination of chimera result in the being being killed? Because a murder of a first cell will. And your comparison is as empty as your "machines" argument. See human kids are notorious for not being able to function on their own for several months *after* they are born. That, or being unconscious (comma, sleeping) makes a person no less human. Parasite by definition or not, calling a baby that is being disgusting and inappropriate. You're a parasite on the world's resources, and I'm not voting to re
Re: (Score:2)
Is the elimination of chimera result in the being being killed?
I don't get how this is relevant. There are human beings with two distinct sets of DNA. If your qualification for "human being" is "distinct set of DNA", then chimeras are two people, and killing a chimera (or a mosaic) would result in two charges of murder.
You chose "distinct DNA" in an attempt to justify your position, without having carefully thought it out. That's not my fault. Come up with a better way of defining how a pack of undiffer
Re: (Score:1)
>then chimeras are two people
I insist the comparison is flawed because removing chimera is not killing a whole being, whereas killing a zygote clearly is.
>Come up with a better way of defining how a pack of undifferentiated cells is a human.
No, I don't. Why would I want to argue an obvious thing like that? That's as preposterous as if I asked you to prove that removing cells from your body is murder. You don't need a cell here or there, but eventually you'll die regardless.
>Can you prove beyond a r
Re: (Score:2)
I insist the comparison is flawed because removing chimera is not killing a whole being, whereas killing a zygote clearly is.
Careful about your terms. A pack of cells is only a zygote for the first few days. Then it's a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a fetus, then finally a baby.
You don't know that removing the chimera/mosaic nature of a being wouldn't kill it. The heart could be all descended from one cell line and the brain from another. You were the one who suggested the "distinct DNA" criteria, no
Re: (Score:1)
>How can you murder something that could never have become a human being?
If the DNA isn't human, it's not a human. If it is, it is. There's developing stages, but it's all human. Reaching a stage or not is irrelevant for that fact.
>If I am a parasite, what organism is my host?
Farmers. *shrugs*
>See, the funny thing is, if you actually had a logical and rational argument that was supported with scientific facts, I would believe it in a heartbeat. Instead, you have nothing but your anger.
Yeah, hilario
Re: (Score:2)
If the DNA isn't human, it's not a human. If it is, it is. There's developing stages, but it's all human. Reaching a stage or not is irrelevant for that fact.
I'm talking about the ability to reach a stage, not whether it actually reaches that stage or not. I find it hard to believe that an embryo with massive chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with human life could still be considered "human".
Farmers. *shrugs*
It's obvious your line of reasoning is absurd, or you wouldn't have shrugged, or ignored the o
Re: (Score:1)
>it's not a human being until it can survive without a placenta. Humans have more in common with my pet cat than a blastocyst.
I give up. There's no helping you.
Re: (Score:2)
No helping me? You would put someone away for "murdering" a clump of cells which lacks even the potential to become a human being. You're willing to ruin people's lives because you've formed an immutable opinion before fully considering the complexity of the situations that can occur. You'd also end up banning in-vitro fertilization, because they do throw away lots of embryos.
You're the fundamentalist idealogue with his fingers in his ears screaming wrong at me while I take your definitions and show you
Re: (Score:1)
>You'd also end up banning in-vitro fertilization, because they do throw away lots of embryos.
Of course I would. It should be banned.
>You're the fundamentalist idealogue with his fingers in his ears screaming wrong at me while I take your definitions and show you how short-sighted they are.
You take stuff from me. Then you take stuff from thin air, add some of your own dirt and mix it all together. Few presumptions and you're ready to fire. I feel proven wrong already.
EVERYONE defines zygote as human l
Re: (Score:2)
I do not. Right there, that proved that you lie. Science does not. Ever read an embryology book? That is more proof that your statement is positively false and you are a liar.
Re:Murderer (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe, but conception is a fairly instantaneous, well-defined event (nth countable cell division might suffice, too). If you can't define a clear, definable and measurable event, then you're relying on "statistical personhood" which means that wherever you draw the line there is a chance that what you terminate isn't not-a-person. That chance goes up when you're performing the procedure a lot of times, until it's almost certain that you'll have murdered at least one person.
A case where the very life of the mother is in danger though is a grey area. Self-defense principles come into play and complicate things, but it wouldn't mean that you're not talking about a person, only that killing a person in self defense of mortal danger is not a murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Birth is also a fairly clear, definable, and measurable event. Arguably more definable than conception, since it is what goes on the legal certificates.
When dealing with the legal system, we must remember that criminal convictions require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. First-trimester abortions would have quite a lot of reasonable doubt as to whether it could constitute a human (and, indeed, if you wish to try those folks for murder, you should add every IVF doctor and/or patient to your indictment a
Re: (Score:2)
Abortion is the killing of a pre-birth human. Whether we call this "murder" is a moral and legal question. For instance, war is also killing, but when it is "just" (i.e., "justified"), it is not legally considered "mur
Re: (Score:1)
conception is [...] fairly instantaneous
Could this be why you're having trouble keeping a girlfriend?
If you can't define a clear, definable and measurable event, then you're relying on "statistical personhood"
Shifting to serious answers, one would be to err on the side of caution.
Another would be: the potential abortee starts out as a fertilised egg with perhaps zero rights and ends as a human being with full rights. You seem to be assuming that there's a moment in-between where it quantum jumps from one to the other but it probably makes more sense to assume it's continuous. In which case somewhere in-between it has the rights of, for instance, a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
A date of birth does not define humanity. Consider a woman two weeks past due. Her baby is fully developed, feeling, thinking, dreaming, moving. The fact that that baby has not yet been physically separated from its mother is irrelevant to its humanity.
Some human beings are born without eyes.
You argue that having a brain to feel with is a requisite
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What is surreal is that people still feel the need to have children in this day and age. Overpopulation is the world's most serious economic crisis; every other economic problem is simply a symptom of overpopulation. We should be encouraging citizens to sterilize themselves and perform as many abortions as possible so that the human race as a whole may have a higher quality of life.
Re: (Score:1)
There are many people who think overpopulation is a myth (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM [youtube.com]). Western countries are compromised by demographic death (I know mine is), and becoming overtaken by immigrants from eastern countries who have a lot of children (not mine, but see perhaps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a60A3mw2XgQ [youtube.com]).
So, not that I condone your thinking (I severely oppose it), but people already succeed in it by other means. Only third world countries and some others are resisting the tre
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
There are many starving and homeless people right now who would suggest that overpopulation isn't a myth. Even if we can hypothetically sustain infinitely large populations with proper advances in technology, that doesn't change the fact that the cost of things like food, housing, education, cars, and so on increases every time more babies are born and more people start demanding those things. Imagine the utopia we would live in if the earth only sustained 25% of the population it does today.
Yeah, if third-
Re: (Score:1)
>There are many starving and homeless people right now who would suggest that overpopulation isn't a myth.
Wrong, these are proof of evil, and heartlessness of the rich Western nations.
>Yeah, if third-worlders living in poverty were better educated and had more resources to things like condoms, birth control pills and abortion procedures, they probably wouldn't breed so much. However, the reality is that they aren't and they don't, and we've got to deal with it in the present.
Maybe you should join the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There's no reason for us to kill our offspring either. It's not birth control (not that IT is somehow dependent on "education" so that those two broad terms must be coupled together).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's still faulty logic. Stage of human development has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
See now? That's why I said eugenics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It may not be eugenics per se, but it's still wrong. You look at children at developing countries as mere resource wasters.
Re: (Score:1)
We did have laws against abortion once, it just pushed abortion "underground" where their was no counseling, no safety. We were killing the mothers, and the kid without any chance to tell of other options (like birth+adoption.) I realize you may think it is OK to kill the woman having a abortion as retribution for her acts. But the majority of people do not agree, and thus we have the more humane law (again in the eyes of most people) allowing them.
Re: (Score:1)
>We did have laws against abortion once, it just pushed abortion "underground"
All criminal acts tend to go "underground" once they are outlawed.
>We were killing the mothers, and the kid without any chance to tell of other options (like birth+adoption.)
Those were always options. Catholic church had nun run orphanages for ages. Having a legal murder has to do with adoption.
>I realize you may think it is OK to kill the woman having a abortion as retribution for her acts.
That's not retribution. If a po
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Really, you can do way better than that.
Try again; if you think of a real argument, I'll address it with an actual answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No logic. All (intentional) abortions are killing innocent life. You still lack arguments.
Re:Murderer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So what about when you naturally fall off a cliff? Is that murder too? The outcome is the same as if I had pushed you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)