• Wed, Sep 3 - 3:48 pm ET

Jill Duggar Sneaks In A Pro-Life Statement While Explaining Why She Announced Her Pregnancy So Early

Jill Duggar and Derick Dillard in TLC promotional photo for 19 Kids and CountingHey! You there! Are you wondering why Jill Duggar announced her pregnancy so early on? I bet you are, and I bet you’re also hoping that Jill sneaks a pro-life reference into her explanation.

And if so, you’re in luck! She did both of those things, as if by magic! As if she heard your little brain just hoping and hoping for an answer + a reminder that life begins at conception. As you may recall, this whole hullabaloo got started because Jill and her new-husband Derick Dillard got married on June 21st, and announced that Jill was pregnant just shy of eight weeks later, on August 20th. DAMN GIRL. With a normal couple, I’d guess they’d gotten busy prior to the wedding, but I of all people know that Jill and Derick saved their first kiss for their wedding day, so what was the point of announcing before Jill had even cleared the higher-risk first trimester?

I’ll let Jill tell you, because she explained it to Page Six:

“Understanding that the majority of miscarriages happen within the first trimester, and believing that every life is precious no matter how young, we decided to share our joyful news as soon as we could.”

You catch that? She acknowledges that she’s still at risk for miscarriages, but just wants to issue us a helpful reminder that every life is precious. So it’s basically an anti-abortion message concealed within her explanation for announcing her pregnancy at the first sign of a missed period. I see what you did there, Dillards. You cleared your name as far as the immaculate-conception via overly-enthusiastic hand-holding, and I have an inexplicable urge to fight Roe v. Wade until my dying day. How have you managed it???

(Photo: TLC)

Share This Post:
  • Maria

    I understand that you are expressing your opinion but so are they and I think that if someone is pro-life then they should be allowed to say so just like you are allowed to say you are pro-abortion.

    • CMJ

      Where did Alexis say she wasn’t allowed to express her opinion? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

    • rockmonster

      Another name thief? Piss off.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      That’s right, I’m pro-abortion! I think everyone should get one! No excuses! Those pro-choice conservatives don’t go nearly far enough!

    • M_G

      EVERYONE LOOK UNDER YOUR SEATS!!

    • Samantha Escobar

      I WAS JUST ABOUT TO POST THIS<3

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      Hahaha!

    • Myndee

      They really should make punch cards too, after x amount of abortions you get one free, or a 55 inch tv, or both!

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      Sometimes I do two in one day!!!!!!!!

    • NYCNanny

      This is a really immature, snarky thread. C’mon, girls. Just because you’re pro-choice (I am, too, and I’ve had an abortion), doesn’t mean you should become obnoxious about it.
      I’m also willing to bet you’ve never HAD an abortion…they aren’t fun and games. They aren’t joyous affairs to joke about using oprah gifs. Grow up.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      Why would you be willing to bet that I haven’t had one? One in three women will in their lifetime, so what is it about my personality (that you’ve gleaned from my writing) that makes you think I haven’t?

    • NYCNanny

      The immaturity and smarminess of your last few comments. Seriously…?

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      I believe that satire can be applied to any situation; I don’t think I need to tell you that I don’t actually advocate for every woman on the face of the earth to get an abortion or that I myself sometimes get two in one day.

      If you’ve had an abortion, you know that in most cases, they’re a simple medical procedure, and that there’s absolutely nothing to be ashamed of having had one. For that reason, it’s a topic that I don’t feel the need to be precious about.

    • NYCNanny

      You think it’s satire. I think it’s snarky.
      Not really sure why you say abortions are “simple medicine procedures”…I’m not sure what you mean by “simple”… They CAN be very stressful and painful. There can be complications.
      If, by “simple”, you mean an abortion is similar to a wisdom tooth removal or a check-up, you are mistaken. While I’m sure there are a few people who view their abortion like this, most don’t.
      No, women shouldn’t be ashamed about their abortions (I’m not), but that doesn’t make it ok to use snarky, stupid gifs and say ridiculous things. Not mature.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      I mean that in many cases, particularly if it’s early on in the pregnancy, the procedure takes less than fifteen minutes. Which is actually less time than a wisdom tooth extraction, since you brought it up.

      That says nothing about the emotional ramifications, but as a surgery, the weight of it really comes from the context, not the procedure itself. I believe the right to choose also extends to choosing how to feel about it on a personal basis.

      If you don’t want to use ‘snarky’ comments or GIFs to process yours, that’s fine, but others are entitled to feel and behave differently. I’m not telling you how to act.

    • NYCNanny

      Process…?

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      I don’t understand your response.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      Hi! Curious why you’re responding to other posters and not me — I genuinely stand behind my position here, and I’d love to know what you think.

    • FemelleChevalier

      I think the term “pro-abortion” by the OP started the “snarky” thread and not as a mockery of the procedure itself. That’s why, by definition of satire, Alexis is accurate in calling her comment—and most similar comments—as one.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      Yup, absolutely agreed. That’s why the thread took the turn it did.

    • M_G

      This thread was in response to Maria’s claim that people who are pro-choice are therefore pro-abortion, which is as ridiculous as it is insulting. Nobody here is downplaying what a difficult choice it is. Rather, we are calling out the ignorance of the original comment.

    • NYCNanny

      And if you scan your eyes down about an inch, you can see she apologized for song that phrase and she knows better.

      I’m sticking to my guns. Alexis is always snarky…not satirical. Being overly obnoxious about abortions and using oprah’s positive “everyone gets cars!” Gif is stupid and immature. That’s the last comment I’ll post on that.

      Again, grow up.

    • M_G

      *scans down an inch* Yeahhh….not seeing this alleged apology, but it really doesn’t matter. And I understand you don’t find it funny, but technically speaking, yes, these comments are satire.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      What did I apologize for and where?

    • NYCNanny

      Why is “pro abortion” insulting? Shouldn’t be. We ARE pro abortion (if the woman wants it.).

    • M_G

      Because generally, when pro-lifers say “pro-abortion”, they mean “pro-murder”, which is not the case (though I suppose this goes back to the debate on when life begins, etc.).

    • NYCNanny

      And actually, Alexis IS downplaying how difficult an abortion can be…by saying things like “I get two in one day!”

      Look, I get that you’re all pro choice. Great. I am, too. My abortion was actually a really pretty positive event and I have no shame about it. But abortions are NOT to be taken lightly. I get that you want to fly your liberal flag high, but dog be an asshole about it. The end.

    • M_G

      No, she’s not. AGAIN, this has to do with the pro-abortion comment. And she has responded to you ad nauseam explaining herself. Nobody is taking abortions lightly. At all. You’re assuming that because the comments are being funny (or attempting to be….you clearly don’t think it is) that we’re brushing it off. But inclusion in humor doesn’t mean a topic is being brushed off as unimportant. You’re within your right to say we’re being assholes if you find it offensive, but truly, that was not the intent (at least not for me, though I feel confident saying that about Alexis et. al., too), and I will not apologize for it.

    • Nerdy Lucy

      Pro -abortion?!

      I just laughed out loud at the absurdity.

    • M_G

      Uhh…being pro-choice is not the same thing as being pro-abortion. But hey, it’s nice to know how YOU feel on the subject.

  • Cassandra Hough

    Does the same rule of thumb apply to food babies? Because I’ve got one brewing and I need to know if it’s okay to send out announcements yet.

    • Jen TheTit Whipper

      Absolutely.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      I usually send them out while I’m still in the Chipotle.

  • Aurora01

    Those dark, puffy circles under hubby’s eyes look awful.

  • guest

    So what?

    • M_G

      Deep.

  • Pingback: Duggar family’s unique take on announcing a pregnancy early | Baby Montgomery

  • Jay

    He looks like Aaron Roders’ deformed little brother

  • MerlePerle

    I’m as pro-choice as they come, but I get what she’s saying. Even if she were to miscarry, it was still worth announcing because it already feels like a person to her. She also must be insanely proud to have conceived immediately, as that is her main role in life now….

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      Very true.

  • Samantha Escobar

    Ugh.

  • Pingback: Duggar family’s unique take on announcing a pregnancy early | MACOM News

  • Kate

    OH PLEASE the timing of this announcement has nothing to do with her desire to “share joyful news”. It had everything – EVERYTHING – to do with the fact that their season premiere was on Tuesday. I SEE YOU JILLARD. I SEE YOU.

  • Shay Maray

    I’m glad that large families make you laugh. Laughing is a good work-out for the stomach muscles. But is the mockery actually a cover-up for fear? Are you scared that the Duggars are going to influence more people to CHOOSE large families and view their children as alive from the moment of conception? Are you scared that pro-lifers are going to outnumber pro-choicers since we tend to produce more life-minded children? Or is all of this breeding really no skin off your nose… just something to joke about? If so, laugh it up because I’m strongly considering a larger family someday. I’d be doing you a favor by adding to your entertainment, right? And it’s my CHOICE, correct? Everyone wins! God bless the babies, born and unborn! Life is precious!

    • MDugger92014

      That is something I never understood from pro-choice/abortion people. I understand that that is their choice to have those opinions, but when someone wants to have kids/is pregnant/has a large family they get lashed out for it! My mother was lashed out by a hilly billy hick working at Walmart for having 3 of her 9 kids with her. That is her CHOICE. Fun fact for the day: did you know the use of birth contract all abortions have been linked it to breast cancer?

    • Shay Maray

      Are you one of the Duggars or do you just happen to have the same name? I’m a huge fan of the Duggars!

    • M_G

      First of all, pro-choice is not the same thing as pro-abortion. Second of all, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone has a right to express it. However, having a right to your opinion does not exclude you from being criticized for it. For every article on here where the Duggars are “attacked”, I can point out just as many right-wing websites with inflammatory stories about how “only sluts need abortions!” and “abortions are just an easy way out of responsibilities!”, etc. Third of all, birth control does NOT cause breast cancer, and there is a wide speculation over whether or not it even elevates the risk of cancer at all, so please take your pseudo-scientific argument elsewhere.

    • FemelleChevalier

      Hey there. I’m from a huge family, too. And I grew up in a hybrid of Catholic/Christian household and my family is pretty much traditional.

      Saying that, I dislike the Duggars and how they manage their children’s lives. Growing up, I was never hindered by my family when it comes to education and making my own decisions for what’s best for me. Yes, they say things and what they say should be taken into account because family, right? But for them to control your very existence? Sorry, but no. That’s why I don’t like the Duggars.

      I have other reasons as well and these are the common things people dislike about them. First, they employ corporeal punishment even before the children can walk and talk. Second, they treat homosexuality as a sin and something that can be “fixed”. Third, they think that transgender folks are synonymous to pedophiles and sexual predators. Fourth, they didn’t give their female children choices when it comes to education and what they want for their own life. Fifth, parents chose the suitors without much input from their child (I’m familiar with asking parental/familial consent in some marriages, but theirs is too far in my opinion). Sixth, they’re perpetuating the idea that women are born to serve men (Being a good wife is something I can understand, but no, I’m not a servant).

      If the Duggars gave their children freedom and choices in the first place, then it’s all cool, right? Sure, I guess I can let the bigotry slide. Freedom of “religious” expression, I guess. *Shrug* But choices? Sorry, I don’t see it.

    • Shay Maray

      Jill does not look oppressed or hesitant to carry on her family’s values to me. She looks happy, bright, beautiful, and eager to be a woman of God. She is an adult and has made her choices. I couldn’t be happier for her. *Shrug* But hinderances? Sorry, I don’t see them. Maybe I need glasses ;).

    • FemelleChevalier

      It’s a television show. Of course they have to have smiles on their faces. And I think you and I both know the effect of familial influences on any individual, especially on traditional families. It’s primarily familial obligation more than anything else. If one grew up in that environment, agreeing with the family is always the right thing. Guilt is a consequence that will follow if the family’s will isn’t taken into account. I’m pretty familiar with all of these.

      So now, it is the responsibility of the parents and elders to wield this familial influence in a more freeing manner, thereby letting the children have the freedom and choices in life that they deserve. In my eyes, the Duggars have turned this influence into control: controlling their education, their future, their marriage, and their day-to-day activities.

      Discipline is good, but control is inherently oppressive. Guidance is imperative, but commanding one’s life without so much to chose from is oppressive. Good for Jill if she’s happy. But until the Duggars have the right balance of discipline/familial obligations and freedom to chose, then they will always be the worst representation of any large families.

    • M_G

      If a large family is something you want, go for it! And you are 100% correct that that is your choice to make. As to the rest of your comment: this is a celebrity gossip website. Alexis’ opinion and her blog will in no way influence the Duggar family or prevent them from adding more children to their ever-expanding family. This is in direct contrast to, say, pro-life lobbyists who try to block the availability of programs like Planned Parenthood, because sadly, they believe that their choice is the only correct one. I am pro-choice. My choice is to be pro-life. But I recognize that choice is the right one FOR ME. I would never try to impose it on others.

    • Shay Maray

      Are you unaware that there are abortion advocates who try to block availability to crisis pregnancy resources? If you are not okay with imposing your beliefs on others, I suppose you would agree that it’s not okay to try to force a Christian minister to perform a gay wedding ceremony?

      Also, in response to your claim that there is not a correct choice… I take it you are implying that there are multiple truths correct? Let me ask you a question. Are there multiple truths on the issue of rape? If I say I choose not to rape people, but the choice to rape may be valid to another person. In this hypothetical scenario (I do not actually believe this, I am just giving an example), I am claiming that there is no one truth and that rape, the violation of another person’s body, may in some cases be acceptable. If I were ignorant enough to make such a claim, what would you say to me? Be careful how you answer because if you prove to be inconsistent in your beliefs, your credibility springs a leak. Is everything a matter of choice or should some actions not be allowed to be a choice when they deny someone else’s rights?

    • FemelleChevalier

      Are there multiple truths on the issue of rape?

      Are you insinuating that rape—which is inherently bad in all aspect and all circumstances—is comparable to abortion—which is a medical procedure that can, whether or not you support its legalization, be done to save a woman’s life? Unless you account the rapist’s pleasure as a good thing (and I hope you’re not), then your hypothetical scenario can’t be used as an accurate parallel to abortion.

      If you’re insisting and advocating for your religious belief, then at least make sure that your analogy is correct. It makes your whole argument pretty much void and unsubstantiated.

    • Shay Maray

      Oh. My. Gosh. You clearly did not read what I posted thoroughly so I’m not going to even bother answering. I was talking to M_G, and would like to give a sincere thank you to him/her for being more reasonable. Good heavens!

    • FemelleChevalier

      I did read it. A couple of times just to be sure.

      M_G’s stance is that pro-choice calls not for pro-abortion, but for having choices whether you agree with having an abortion or not. Your argument is that since M_G’s stance calls for a premise that consist of multiple truths and reality in a scenario, which is abortion in this one, then your analogy is that if we change abortion to rape, then abortion is as bad as rape since ignorance towards rape is considered morally wrong.

      …the violation of another person’s body, may in some cases be acceptable.

      This is your supporting argument in the analogy that if a person considers abortion as a viable option as a pro-choice advocate, then it is parallel to the idea above if rape is concerned. Which is reprehensible, in my opinion.

      Did I miss anything?

    • M_G

      Nope! You’re right on the money (as usual).

    • FemelleChevalier

      Yay! Now you go and continue to be a more reasonable commenter! :D

    • M_G

      Oh geez….okay, let’s take this point by point:

      1) “There are abortion activist who try to block availability of crisis pregnancy resources?” Actually, no, I was not aware. Do you have links to proof about this?

      2) “If you are not okay with imposing your beliefs on others, I suppose you would agree that it’s not okay to try to force a Christian minister to perform a gay wedding ceremony?” Yes, if the Christian minister is not comfortable performing the ceremony, I agree he/she (can women be ministers?) should not be forced to.

      3) “Also, in response to your claim that there is not a correct choice… I take it you are implying that there are multiple truths correct?” In the instance of whether or not to get an abortion, I think it boils down to an individual choice, yes. What is right for me may not be right for someone else.

      I am not even going to bother justifying the rape question with a response because a) it’s ridiculous that you’re trying to draw a comparison between the two, b) your logic is flawed and insulting, and c) FemelleChevalier has already beautifully rebuffed your point.

      4) “…if you prove to be inconsistent in your beliefs, your credibility springs a leak.” The idea that you need to have uniform beliefs on subjects that are in no way related to one another is a pathetic attempt to back me into a corner. The only thing springing a leak is your ability to make a valid argument.

      5) “Is everything a matter of choice or should some actions not be allowed to be a choice when they deny someone else’s rights?” It is never okay to violate someone else’s rights. That is exactly why nobody should block someone’s access to abortion if that’s what they choose for themselves. Is there some other point your referring to that I am missing? (entirely possible that I misunderstood what your point was here)

    • Shay Maray

      I’m glad we agree on the first two points. However, an unborn child is a separate entity, a separate person, a separate body. Scientists and biologists agree that there is a separate being that is alive at the time of conception. The child has separate DNA, separate fingerprints, separate organs and half the time, a separate gender/sex than the mother. He or she is not the same as the cells that exist in the mother’s body before conception. He or she is not simply a tumor or an overgrowth. He or she is not a parasite, because although they depend on nutrients and shelter from the mother for the duration of a pregnancy, unlike parasites they do not take all of the nutrients for themselves. They only take what they need to continue growing. They also give back to the mother (http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-body/changing/benefits-of-pregnancy).

      Read the constitution. Notice how the right to life is written before the rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness? That’s because life overrides the other two. Yes, you have the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness, but not when your doing so denies another person the right to life. Your rights end where another person’s begins. That is why rape is wrong. That is why abortion is wrong. During a rape, a person is being violated against their will. During abortion, a person is being violated against their will. Oh, and rape was just one example I was using. If you are uncomfortable using the word “rape”, I will gladly use something else.

      Your argument is basically, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”
      Let’s take out abortion and put in murder. “Don’t like murder? Don’t murder.”
      How about slavery? “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own a slave.”
      Abuse. “Don’t like abuse? Don’t abuse someone.”
      Drunk driving. “Don’t like drunk driving? Don’t drive drunk.”
      All of these scenarios are wrong because they violate or endanger other people. At the point where a mother is facing imminent death and the baby cannot be delivered with a chance of survival, I believe it is then between her and God.

      Contrary to the belief that most abortions are done to save the mother’s life, though, only about 3% of legal, reported abortions are done for this purpose according to the Guttmacher Institute. And only 1% are for reasons of rape and incest (I personally do not support the rape exception, but since that is often an excuse given, it’s important to recognize that that reason, too, is not characteristic of the majority. Even Jane Roe from Roe v. Wade, who claimed she was raped, admitted that no such thing happened to her. She lied.) So no, it is not simply a preventative procedure. In 96% of cases, abortion deprives at least one person of their rights for convenience, gratification, power, and/or personal gain. Much like rape, murder, and slavery. I am sorry if this offends you, but the fact that abortion advocates devalue and dehumanize the unborn and that abortionists cash in on a woman’s vulnerable emotions during pregnancy is equally offensive.

      Abortion advocates try to eliminate CPCs because they do not provide abortion referrals or prescribe birth control. (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/fact-sheets/abortion-cpcs.pdf). The reason we exist is to help women so that they do not have to choose abortion, so it should be obvious why we don’t refer for them. As for birth control, that is up to the woman to seek out. Many pro-lifers do not agree with birth control and others like myself approve of SOME forms of birth control, all of which are available at your local drug store without a prescription and without needing to ask a pharmacist to give it to you. You can grab them off the shelf and pay for them at the cash register.

      Abortion advocates say that what goes on in your bedroom should not be our business. We agree! That’s why we think you should pay for whatever is used in your bedroom yourself. My birth control method is, like Jill Duggar’s, complete abstinence until marriage. If it costed money to practice that, I would not expect taxpayers or my employers to pay for that. That would be my responsibility. And when I do get married, my main form of bc will be natural family planning. I will not expect anyone other than my husband and I to pay for the BBT thermometers, the ovulation tests, or any barrier method contraceptives that we may use as back-up during my fertile phases.

      PP and NARAL call CPCs misleading, but there have been documented cases of PP misinforming and even exploiting their patients while throwing tantrums when we pass laws to require them to give women more detailed information about the abortion procedure and show them pictures of their “product of conception”. By the way, if it is not a baby yet and just a clump of cells, why is it unfair to show an ultrasound of her non-living mass to her? If it is only a tumor or parasite, what is the problem with showing a person an x-ray or ultrasound of them to confirm their presence in the body? No one gets an emotional attachment to their tumor or parasite or endures depression upon its removal.

    • FemelleChevalier

      Oh, don’t mind me. I’ll just comment on a few of your points because they’re too rhetoric for my taste with added misleading statements to appeal to an emotional feedback. It’s my pet peeve when talking about science.

      However, an unborn child is a separate entity, a separate person, a separate body.

      That is too philosophical in thinking. An offspring is both from a paternal and maternal source and a mixture of their DNA sequence, possibly gaining several dominant, recessive gene and genetic imprint (acquired through environmental exposure). This, is turn, makes an offspring not a “separate” entity, but a dependent entity with its genetics influenced by its heredity.

      Even as an individual grows up, his/her heredity determines his/her genetic make-up that ascertain whether or not he/she is medically sound or if there’s a predisposition to disease susceptibility. That is why family history is an important medical record.

      Scientists and biologists agree that there is a separate being that is alive at the time of conception.

      It is, in a sense, if the definitive state of “seperation” lays on individuality and developmental growth. Anyone with a brain can conclude that. So yes, a scientist and a biologist will also conclude that. But if you refer from above, rhetoric reasoning is not apt and very much useless for science.

      The child has separate DNA, separate fingerprints, separate organs and half the time, a separate gender/sex than the mother.

      The child has no separate DNA, but has a culmination of DNA from both paternal and maternal source. Your idea of separation is just a repetition of general facts from common knowledge. If you’re involving science, that simplification is not enough of a source.

      Scientists deal with genetic distinction when it comes to DNA. It entails that two different and unrelated set of DNA sequence (preferably from two different races) will have probably have a completely different set of DNA. The distinction will be stronger if one subject came from a gene pool of a homogenous culture.

      Any scientist and geneticist worth their degree will tell you these.

      He or she is not the same as the cells that exist in the mother’s body before conception.

      Again, a general truth said in rhetoric form. The fact is that an offspring will have a acquisition of both dominant and recessive traits (also genetic imprint) that defines its biology and DNA. So your idea of “separation” lays on individuality, but science has a more expounded definition.

      He or she is not simply a tumor or an overgrowth.

      Anyone who says so without expounded on it is, for me, a sociopath and an idiot.

      He or she is not a parasite, because although they depend on nutrients and shelter from the mother for the duration of a pregnancy, unlike parasites they do not take all of the nutrients forthemselves.

      Again, another simplification of general truth for rhetoric. I already said that I don’t agree with the comparison, but parasitic biology in broad definition entails that a parasite is dependent to the host for survival. And in addition, no, not all parasites take more than they can get. It depends on what type it is.

      They only take what they need to continue growing.

      Truth for the sake of rhetoric reasoning.

      They also give back to the mother.

      What? Do you mean joy and happiness or something else unrelated to science?

      …what is the problem with showing a person an x-ray or ultrasound of them to confirm their presence in the body?

      Nope. Medical protocol states that any diagnostic and/or ancillary procedures with risk is done with caution and is dependent on the patient’s existing and/or predisposing condition. An x-ray has risk—no matter how minimal it is—and should only be done not for the sake of recording, but for suspected condition related to pregnancy and even any possible complication that will affect one’s pregnancy. I hope you’re not preaching x-ray for the sake of recording.

      Okay then. Carry on.

    • Shay Maray

      When I said he/she is a separate entity, I meant that the conceived child is no longer part of the mother. In other words, he/she is not simply a part of the mother’s body. He/she is now a separate living being. Meaning all the DNA and blueprints for that human being to grow for the rest of their life is there at conception. And by giving back to the mother, I do not mean just happiness. I mean that giving birth lowers the risk for certain cancers like breast and ovarian and can also help reduce pain during menstruation during periods after giving birth – http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/my-body/changing/benefits-of-pregnancy/ .

      And what I was asking about x-rays and ultrasounds was a comparison of the ultrasound of an unborn child and an ultrasound, x-ray, or whatever of a tumor or parasite. Abortion clinics do not like laws requiring that they show the ultrasound screen to the would-be abortion patient. My question is that if the product of conception shown on the ultrasound screen really is just a useless clump of cells and not a person, what is wrong with showing it to the woman? It has no value to abortion advocates, correct? Then why are they scared of showing their ultrasounds to women?

      And I have no idea what you are talking about in your second response. I did not say that an unborn child gets no genetics from the parents. My point, as I said above, is that unlike, say a blood cell in the human body, the unborn child has his/her own DNA sequence different from the mother and is a separate being. Not separate as in being outside of the body if that’s what you thought I was saying. And I did not say that the unborn child is not dependent on the mother. I said the child IS dependent on the mother for nutrients and shelter (until he or she is born, of course).

    • FemelleChevalier

      When I said he/she is a separate entity, I meant that the conceived child is no longer part of the mother. In other words, he/she is not simply a part of the mother’s body.

      Biology dictates that human females conceive. Whether they chose to or not, it is human’s—and similar organism’s—nature to reproduce sexually. So until a child is outside the mother’s body, it is a part of female biology when she’s conceiving, since the female anatomy and physiology is adapting to the changes.

      And no, I don’t want to get into a debate of when life starts as I acknowledge that there’s still a blurring in the timeframe (and pregnancy is not really my forte nor my interest). I’m just pointing out some facts here.

      I mean that giving birth lowers the risk for certain cancers like breast and ovarian and can also help reduce pain during menstruation during periods after giving birth.

      It’s not “helping” as much as it is a probable biological consequence of pregnancy. Helping entails that you’re lending a hand when incapacity to function is present, which the child is incapable of. The female body is very capable because of our biological make-up.

      Case-to-case basis exist, too, when the body is incapable of adapting to a biological function (e.g. pregnancy). This is why, in some individual cases, infertility and difficulty in pregnancy arises. Difficulty in pregnancy will be present if the mother is predisposed to such complication, so the presence and absence of a child won’t “help” at all in something like that.

      There are also case-to-case basis of higher parity and gravidity count which will influence the possible complication that might arise in consequent pregnancy.

      My question is that if the product of conception shown on the ultrasound screen really is just a useless clump of cells and not a person, what is wrong with showing it to the woman?

      I have no idea, so I cannot, in good faith, answer that.

      My point, as I said above, is that unlike, say a blood cell in the human body, the unborn child has his/her own DNA sequence different from the mother and is a separate being.

      See, that’s very misleading, so I have a problem with it. No, a child technically doesn’t have a distinctly different set of DNA from the genetic source, but, like I said, an accumulation of several DNA strains from both paternal and maternal source. A child is, in layman’s term, a mixture of genetics, not a separate entity in scientific perspective.

      A child without similarities in genetic make-up will, automatically, be assumed to have a different genetic source (i.e. not the actual child). And yes, genetic make-up commands human cell organization and blood cell formation. In blood typing, you can factor that dominant and recessive (in heredity) plays a huge factor in subsequent blood type of an offspring. Which, guess what, comes from paternal and maternal source. Which is why, through blood typing analysis alone, you can the determine paternity and maternity (there were instances that the Rh factor in blood typing necessitates the maternity test).

      My point is, your scientific arguments about “separation” due to genetics is false and outright misleading. And only apt for rhetoric reasoning. And the rest (the sensible ones at least) is pretty much common sense and common knowledge. So again, avoid too much rhetoric when presenting scientific-based reasonings.

    • FemelleChevalier

      And I have no idea what you are talking about in your second response.

      All I’m saying is that some of your logic, if applied in scientific perspective, is flawed and ironically contradictory.

    • FemelleChevalier

      P.S. Oh yeah, I just realized this. If your stance is that an offspring is, in your words, a thoroughly “separate” entity (which I do not agree with for reasons I stated above because science, you know?), then logically, it can be (crudely) compared to a parasite just for biology alone. Which is, ironically, supporting the ideals of some people you’re vehemently opposing, you know? No offense, but it’s kinda funny to me.

      You see, a parasite is a completely different and separate organism that exist outside another organism’s physiology or anatomy. So according to your reasoning alone, an offspring is a “separate” entity that has no reason to be dependent because its a “foreign” organism that is distinct and “separate” from its genetic source. So yes, you’re actually solidifying the notion of its “parasitic” nature.

      So from your very own logic, you’re contradicting yourself. Think about that for a second before you go preaching your reasoning to other people because it’s completely contradictory, confusing, and illogical.

      So again, if you’re trying to advocate and support something at least be consistent and logically sound. And if you’re using science, try to avoid too much rhetoric.

    • M_G

      The issue here isn’t about life. Yes, science proves that life begins at conception….the life of a cell, not of a person. The law does not recognize the cell as a person (in fact, a fetus isn’t legally a person unless and until it takes breathe outside of the womb). To suggest otherwise is based on your belief system, not biology and certainly not the law. And again, I AGREE with you in that regard. But the reason why comparing abortion to all the other things you listed (rape,murder, slavery, etc.) is logically incorrect is because these things are recognized attacks against other people (“people” here referring to legally recognized human beings and, therefore entitled to the inalienable rights you referenced earlier). So, I’m sorry, but from a scientific and legal standpoint (at least how the law currently reads), any argument you make wherein the unborn child is a considered a person is not valid. The mother is the legal person, and it is her rights that must be considered.

      Also, while we’re on the subject of “legally recognized person”, what happens to that child after he or she is born? Pro-life advocates generally seem like they’re more concerned with making sure the baby is born than the fate of the baby afterwards. What if the parents are financially unable to take care of the child? Oh well then, guess they shouldn’t have had sex, right? But hey, can’t we just get that kid enrolled in the foster care system? Or what if the child is born with a debilitating condition like Tay-Sachs and has a short life of excruciating pain and misery to look forward to? Ah, well, God works in mysterious ways, right? Not to mention the list you’ve already described and dismissed (rape, mother’s life in danger, etc.). The reason why a woman might choose to get an abortion is, again, not relevant to the discussion at hand. And furthermore, studies have shown that the frequency of abortions is actually LESS in areas where abortion procedures and other Planned Parenthood-type services are easily available.

      In my opinion, it boils down to this: if you were pregnant, would you want someone to tell you you had to have an abortion? Of course not! What business is it of anyone else what you chose to do with your body? So then, why would you want to turn around and do the same to someone else? I recognize that your personal belief system puts you between a rock and a hard place on this issue, and I am sure an abortion is not something you would ever consider for yourself. But that’s as far as it should go, because not everyone is going to share your beliefs or feel the same way you do on the subject. And I am by no means trying to change your mind, because I know I can’t (in the same way I hope you realize you cannot change mine).

    • Shay Maray

      Slaves weren’t always recognized as legal persons either. Neither were Jews during the Nazi regime or Native Americans when Europeans came to America. At one time, no harm done to those people were recognized as attacks. Just saying. We are currently pushing a personhood amendment. If that went through, and recognized the unborn legally as persons, I somehow doubt you’d be defending the law at that point.

      I do believe abortion is my business because I have a responsibility to help fellow humans in need. If you were drowning in a lake, it is not simply a choice to me whether I want to help you or not. It’s my responsibility to show love to others. No matter who you are and whether I agree with you on everything or nothing at all, you are a person of worth and value to me. I will get in that water and do what I can to save you, even if it means I give my life for yours. I have a genuine love and concern for others. In the same way, I will do what I can to let God use me to save the weakest of humans.

      “Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, ‘But we knew nothing about this,’ does not He who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not He who guards your heart know it? Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?”

      This obligates me to at least try to help. I don’t remain silent. He has already used me as a tool to save one child, who is now 2 years old and the apple of his mother’s eye as well as everyone else’s.

      I am not a heartless person. I see pain and struggle. I have endured those myself. I don’t turn a blind eye to crisis pregnancies. They exist. But I’d rather help both mother and baby whenever possible. I can’t speak for all pro-life people, but I do care about what happens to people who are born as well. The difference between you and me is that I don’t consider born people to be higher in worth than the unborn… I see them as equal. I am poor, but I do give whenever and wherever possible to others in need. Perhaps you have heard of Samaritan’s Purse? They have an Operation Christmas Child program that I participate in every year. I donate blood when I can (because of thyroid disease, I can’t always donate if my thyroid hormones are not in balance, but I can when I know they are under control). I one day plan to open a service shelter for homeless and near-homeless people with my future intended.

      You aren’t intimidating me by trying to paint me as a person who only cares about the unborn and no one else. I have known people who grew up in foster care or adoptive homes. No, those systems are not always perfect, but neither are homes where children and parents are biological. I grew up with my biological parents and was abused as a child by one of them. Although my conception was unplanned, I WAS wanted by both parents. One of my siblings, though, was not as lucky to be wanted as I was. And my mother was blackmailed into being brought across state lines to have him slaughtered. I lend my voice to him and to others like him. Yes, I understand I’m not convincing you. But just because what I post isn’t getting through to you does not mean others who are reading this are not paying attention to what I say. For the sake of this particular argument though, I think I’m going to back out now. I do appreciate the time you took to answer my questions and respond to me. God bless you.

    • M_G

      “Slaves weren’t always recognized as legal persons either. Neither were Jews during the Nazi regime or Native Americans when Europeans came to America. At one time, no harm done to those people were recognized as attacks.” Sadly, very true. But while they weren’t legally recognized as people, I don’t think there was ever a question as to whether they were fully-formed human beings or not. I just don’t see that the same logic can be applied to an unborn fetus.

      “If [a personhood amendment] went through, and recognized the unborn legally as persons, I somehow doubt you’d be defending the law at that point.” I am not so much defending the law as I am stating what the law is and then using that as a basis for my argument. True, the law as it stands supports a pro-choice viewpoint, but if that changed, I wouldn’t then ignore the law or pretend like it didn’t change. Again, I just don’t know how you can apply personhood to a fetus. If “chickenhood” were a thing, you couldn’t apply it to a fertilized egg. it’s not a chick yet; it’s a developing embryo. Same thing with an unborn fetus (again, at least from a scientific perspective).

      “I do believe abortion is my business because I have a responsibility to help fellow humans in need.” Aaaand we’re circling the “are fetuses people” argument again. We’ve both said our piece on this, so no need to rehash.

      “If you were drowning in a lake, it is not simply a choice to me whether I want to help you or not. It’s my responsibility to show love to others. No matter who you are and whether I agree with you on everything or nothing at all, you are a person of worth and value to me. I will get in that water and do what I can to save you, even if it means I give my life for yours.” For what it’s worth, I’d jump in to save you, too! :-)

      “I am not a heartless person.” And I hope nothing I’ve said has made you think I fee that way about you.

      “The difference between you and me is that I don’t consider born people to be higher in worth than the unborn… I see them as equal.” It’s actually not so cut and dry. Again, if it were me, I absolutely agree and put equal weight on the unborn child as the born child. I think the difference between us is I recognize and accept that other people don’t agree with me. I think you do recognize that, but you have a hard time accepting it (if you do at all). Because if you believe that a person is a person from the moment of conception, then surely abortion is tantamount to murder. But that is also the main reason why now, in the year 2014, there is such a varied opinion still. Because while all born people are undisputed in their claim to personhood, the idea of personhood in utero is still largely tied to religious/personal convictions, and I realize that other people feel as strongly in their own belief system as I do in mine.

      “Perhaps you have heard of Samaritan’s Purse?” I have not, but from the quick Google search, it sounds like a very worthwhile organization. And again, please let me emphasize that I was never calling your character into question, so I hope you didn’t feel the need to defend yourself.

      “You aren’t intimidating me by trying to paint me as a person who only cares about the unborn and no one else.” Uggh. Okay, I thought I had been clear, but I was not saying you personally felt this way, only that I feel it’s a major theme among the pro-life movement as a whole. And it’s a real sticking point for me that so often care post-birth is never addressed, as the sole focus is the criminalization of abortion.

      “But just because what I post isn’t getting through to you does not mean others who are reading this are not paying attention to what I say.” Ditto.

    • FemelleChevalier

      You seem like a good person.

      My problem with pro-lifers is, mostly, how they try to spout pseudo-scientific reasoning that doesn’t make sense most of the time just to justify their beliefs. And they’re prone to rhetoric, which, as someone who grew up in a religious and traditional environment, I can see through.

      My point is, I think the reasoning “I’m against something because of my religious belief” is a perfectly sensible stance. Anyone who replies “then you’re a bigot” is bigoted themselves. We all have rights to not practice nor adhere to something not within our faith. BUT, like some of the priests and pastors I’m related to or I’ve encountered said so, if your belief endangers a fellow human being’s general welfare, then it is only humane to reconsider your stance.

      Humanity trumps any religious advocacy. And by law and biology, a fetus’ life is less than a human’s since it is not fully formed and fully functional. So, in medical practice, the life of a mother is the main priority when faced with a fatal situation. It’s one scenario.

      It all depends on the situation, though, and there are perfectly good reasons to do the procedure. To undermine that is, for me, inhumane by default. To control one’s fate and decision with religious justification is, for me, a troubling reality in any religious faith and not exactly a viable solution to a life-altering decision.

      But hey, I have a problem with abortion advocates, too! I find that, yes, some of them has taken their apathy too far. I do believe that a presence of a child warrants and should warrant a semblance of empathy from the mother, unless it’s a result of a deeply traumatizing scenario.

      Most of all, my problem with some who advocates abortion is the “I’m better than you because I did a smart thing and you’re ignorant because your religion is backwards” mentality, the “it’s a parasite so I shouldn’t care about it because feminism” mentality, and the “my body, my life, so why should I care about my family’s feelings?” mentality.

      These are, mostly, my feelings surfacing due to overly callous mentality. If it was satire, then I’m fine with it. But no, I’ve encountered people like these who are really serious. And it kinda irks me because, yes, I’m influenced by my faith, traditional upbringing, and traumatic experience of a neurotic mother who maliciously told her similarly neurotic 8-year old that I was to be aborted so I should be thankful that she didn’t. These are my perspective, and it’s troubling how some can call a person (me) “ignorant” just for having a different experience and belief than them.

      So here, we have two groups of people under two different perspectives with some subscribers who equally—though differently—suck. There’s an impasse here due to the continuous influx of cyclic arguments that hinge mostly on personal experiences and beliefs. But between the two, the better solution to please everyone is PRO-CHOICE, isn’t it? For me, it’s the perfect middle-ground for people with varying experiences and perspective.

    • M_G

      Also, do you really think “ProChoiceAmerica.org” is the best source to provide unbiased support of your argument?

    • Shay Maray

      Yes I do because that source is from your side of the fence, written by people who agree with your stance on abortion. It is not from mine.

    • M_G

      Exactly. The fact that this was written by any source with an agenda other than fact-based research makes it a poor choice as an example. I have tried not to include any such sources (even the ones I personally agree with) for that reason.

    • Shay Maray

      Oh, and another question on your claim that you do not impose choices. If a person opposes Planned Parenthood, should they be able to opt out of paying taxes for that organization? I believe people should have the CHOICE to determine where their taxes go if they are required to pay them. I don’t believe anyone should be forced to fund anything they oppose. I believe churches (including my own) and non-profit organizations (like Planned Parenthood) are capable of being funded by their supporters voluntarily and do not require forced taxes. Would you be okay with that choice?

    • M_G

      Actually, I DO wish we had a viable system in which people could chose where there tax dollars went in general. I realize that would probably be chaotic, but yes, in the broad sense, I think it would be ideal if people had that choice.

  • MDugger92014

    I’m from a large family myself and I am 100% pro-life. I understand where Jill is coming from, and I can under stand too that you have the right to say what ever you want about the situation. But what ever happened to being happy for someone? She’s excited to be having a baby and getting her life as a married woman and a mother started. Though I personally plan on waiting myself after I get married to have kids, I am truly happy for her. Fun fact for the day: did you know that Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe from Roe v. Wade) after she was permitted the abortion has since regretted it and is actually a pro-life activist?

    • M_G

      It’s unfortunate that she lives with that regret, but that doesn’t negate the importance of Roe v. Wade. I myself am pro-life, but I recognize that is the right choice for me. So publicly, I am pro-choice (which, incidentally, is not the same thing as being pro-abortion), because every person has the right to choose what to do with their own lives/bodies.

    • MissProLife

      Pro-choice is pro-abortion, stop lying to yourself. You’re also not pro-life.

    • M_G

      No it’s not. Please feel free to read my other comments on this post to see why. Also, don’t ever presume to know what my opinion is if you can’t bother to even read my responses in their entirety. Isn’t their a Bible you should be thumping somewhere?

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      Hello troll. How are you?

  • Maria

    I regret saying pro-abortion and not pro-choice because I know better.

    • Alexis Rhiannon

      Thank you Maria! I appreciate this.

  • Gwen Siert Wrich

    Good for her. I think that if one would lose a baby before 3 months, that burden of grief is meant to be shared. Loving people help others. Not sure why this author has to view her announcement and life choices with such oozing contempt and intolerance. Can’t they be happy?

  • mdoll

    to Alexis Rhiannon: its totally jill’s business of when she wants to announce her pregnancy & her right to believe that life begins at conception! respect it! that’s what makes this a free country. stop the hate & the criticism & focus on your own life.

  • tomonthebay

    Good for Jill. I applaud her decision and her position on abortion.