“Men should have veto power over abortions; Women should be held criminally liable if they refuse”

Put on your rage hats, folks. This one’s a doozy.
Keith Ablow – psychiatrist, psychological thriller author, and Fox News personality – thinks that not only should men have veto power over abortions, but women who ignore said veto should be held criminally responsible. Why? Take it away, Keith.

I have limited the scope of my argument intentionally, in order to focus on what I consider to be a question that puts fairness front and center: If a man has participated in creating a new life and is fully willing to parent his child (independently, if necessary), why should he not have any control over whether that life is ended?

Because I man doesn’t have to carry said child for nine months. When we achieve the technology to remove a fetus and put it in a mechanical womb chamber, then we can have the discussion on paternal input.

We are ignoring the quiet message that current abortion policy conveys to every American male: You have no voice in, and, therefore, no responsibility for, the pregnancies which you help to create. Your descendants are disposable, at the whim of the women you choose to be intimate with.


Or maybe you should know if a woman is pro-choice or not before you stick your penis in her, and if it’s so goddamn important to you, then don’t stick your penis in her. A mindblowing proposal, I know.

Giving would-be fathers a lack of veto power over abortions is connected psychologically to the epidemic of absentee fathers in this country. We can’t, on the one hand, be credible in bemoaning the number of single mothers raising their children, while, on the other hand, giving men the clear message that bringing new lives to the planet is the exclusive domain, and under the exclusive control, of women.


Whether stated or not, the underlying message of withholding from men their proper rights to father the children they create is that they are not proper custodians, nor properly responsible, for their children.


The notion that there is no emotional injury done men by depriving them of decision-making power as to whether the children they father are aborted is naïve.


Just in my own practice of psychiatry, I have listened to dozens of men express lingering, sometimes intense, pain over abortions that proceeded either without their consent, or without them having spoken up about their desires to bring their children to term and parent them.


Should we really continue to give men the clear message that that they should deny, and that we have no regard for, their feelings about the unrealized lives of their potential sons and daughters?

Isn’t it interesting that we don’t generally even ask fathers how they are feeling in the days leading to abortions, nor in their aftermath? We don’t even ask how they are feeling in the aftermath of abortions of fetuses who have reached the second trimester, even if they have been seen by their fathers during ultrasound imaging. Aren’t we at risk of suggesting that we don’t much care how they feel?

Men haven’t been taught that they should consider the lives they help create as their responsibility from conception (other than providing financially for the child if born), but I believe those lives are their responsibility. And I believe that with that responsibility ought come certain rights.

Citation needed.

I understand that adopting social policy that gives fathers the right to veto abortions would lead to presently unknown psychological consequences for women forced to carry babies to term. But I don’t know that those consequences are greater than those suffered by men forced to end the lives of their unborn children.



Um, actually, the consequences aren’t unknown, because we have data from thousands of years of women not being able to have abortions. We’ve historically been nothing more than baby incubators, and that’s exactly what you want to return to. And you know what happens when women are forced to carry babies to term? They still try to get back alley abortions, and women die.


Adult humans dying. Kind of more important than emotional consequences or the abortion of some cells that don’t have feelings or memories or dreams.

And I am absolutely certain that no woman needs to become pregnant who wishes not to become pregnant. Women taking full responsibility for their sexual activity and their bodies would mean that no woman would face the prospect of being compelled to bring a child to term.


But men can’t take responsibility for their sexual activity by choosing to have sex with someone who’s anti-choice. Because that would restrict men’s ability to have sex freely, when this issue is really about punishing women who have sex.


Seriously, if this paragraph doesn’t illustrate that mindset, I don’t know what will. In what world do we live in that we force people to suffer through all negative consequences instead of trying to alleviate them when possible? If you go skiing, you know there’s a chance you might break your leg. If it happens do we scream “WELL YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE GONE SKIING, SUFFER THROUGH IT!”?


No, we let you go to the fucking doctor.

It’s time to give men their due as fathers—from the moment of conception. Allow men who want to be fathers, and who could be good parents, to compel the women they impregnate to bring their children to term.


Because a man’s feelings are more important than control over your own body. Hear that, ladies?

Look, I do think open communication is important in relationships, and that serious issues like abortion should at least be discussed before making a decision. That’s assuming a healthy relationship, and not cases of rape, incest, abuse, etc where the woman’s disclosure may put her at risk. But we can’t ignore the fact that there’s a biological difference here – women carry children, men do not. That’s why the final decision ultimately lands in the hands of the woman, even if it does cause some distress to men. There’s absolutely no reason to give a man veto power other than the patriarchal idea that men deserve control over women.

I wish I didn’t have to explain this, but anti-choice and anti-women sentiments are rapidly growing in the US. A fact more terrifying than any of this guy’s novels.

This is post 26 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Skepticism & fiction

A reader asks,

How can you be ok with all the shiny-afterlife-awaits-you and stuff in Harry Potter?

…Because it’s fiction? Seriously, it’s a fantasy novel that’s full of magic, dragons, unicorns, giants, goblins, ghosts, elves, pixies, potions, charms, hexes, teleportation, and soul splitting… and you’re worried about the concept of the afterlife? You could suspend disbelief for all of that, but not one vaguely religious concept?

Dude. Come on.

Sorry, but it’s a pet peeve of mine when skeptics are so skeptical that they can’t even enjoy fiction. Okay, maybe you just don’t like fiction. But how do you not understand that lots and lots of people do enjoy fiction without eliminating their skepticism? We can watch a movie while still knowing it’s just actors and special effects. Humans love telling and hearing stories – that doesn’t mean we have to literally believe everything within them.

And I wouldn’t talk about this if it was a one off question. I hear this view quite frequently. Heck, at TAM8 Richard Dawkins spent a good portion of his interview talking about how he didn’t like fiction because he thought reading fantasy novels as a child contributed to irrational thinking.

Bah humbug. In my case, it was the complete opposite. I knew that The Witches, or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, or the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, or Harry Potter, or Greek mythology were all just stories. That’s exactly why when I heard about the Bible, I immediately recognized it as just another story. Fiction doesn’t erode at skepticism – it can enforce it!

So, boo hiss. Let me enjoy Harry Potter in peace without overanalyzing the religious aspects. I don’t give a damn if they celebrate Christmas when people are able to magically turn into cats.

This is post 25 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

What makes men gay?

The final top donor request (the rest didn’t request a topic):

“blog about this

Since this is from a friend and not a stranger, I can safely say this: I hate you for making me read a scientific paper and review it during Blogathon. Hate. So much hate.

But you have my word, so I’ll do it. Onto the science!

A lot of people like to ask the question “What makes men gay?” It’s pretty clear it’s not a willy-nilly lifestyle choice, but scientists still aren’t really sure what the biology behind homosexuality actually is. Is it genetic? Hormonal?

Research on the latter is what a recent review article in the journal Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology summarized. You probably heard about the starting premise, since it received a lot of attention in the media. A study in 1996 found that gay men had a greater number of older brothers than heterosexual men. This is known as the “fraternal birth order” (FBO) effect, and has been replicated in many studies. It’s independent of potentially confounding variables like year of birth, age, socioeconomic status, and parental age. Non-biological siblings had no effect on sexual orientation.

The main hypothesis for why you see this pattern is known as the maternal immune hypothesis. Just like your body mounts an immune response against bacteria or ill-matched transplants, moms may develop an immune reaction against a male specific protein that’s present during development. Those proteins are normal for a male fetus, but a mother’s body still recognizes them as foreign. The immune response may then alter parts of the brain associated with male specific proteins like the anterior hypothalamus, which has also been linked to sexual orientation.

Recent research is finding more and more support for this hypothesis. One study showed that mothers of boys do develop an immune response to H-Y antigen, which is a protein expressed in the brain that is important in male fetal development. This immune response becomes stronger and stronger with each son a mother has.

This isn’t a totally crazy hypothesis. This exact thing happens in terms of blood type:

A medical model for a maternal immune response underlying the FBO effect is Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn (HDN). When a mother does not have the Rh factor in her blood (i.e., a mother is Rh negative), after gestating and giving birth to an Rh positive (Rh +) fetus, she may mount an immune response against the Rh factor. This immune response may affect subsequent Rh + fetuses, potentially attacking their red blood cells and causing anemia. The likelihood of an immune response becomes increasingly likely with each Rh + fetus a mother gestates.

There’s a problem though. H-Y antigen isn’t just produced in the brain – it’s also expressed in the gonads. Homosexual and heterosexual men don’t have any major difference in terms of gonads or fertility. Is there a way that the immune response would only effect H-Y proteins in the brain, but not in the gonads?

Possibly. Mice testes can develop without H-Y. And male gonads don’t reach maturity until puberty, so maybe a maternal immune response wouldn’t affect sperm too much.

The most compelling point is that there are three different forms of H-Y protein. It’s possible that the different forms are localized in different tissues, with only the one in the brain being targeted by the maternal immune response. However, there’s currently no information on where different forms of H-Y protein are localized.

Despite all of this evidence, this still doesn’t provide an actual mechanism. There’s a big gap between “increased immune response” to “homosexual behavior.” What are all of the steps in between? And is H-Y the only male specific protein that a maternal immune response targets? Probably not, but more research still needs to be done.

So do we definitively know what’s going on yet? Not quite. But feel free to slap homophobes with some science the next time you hear “lifestyle choice.”

And there goes all of the Blogathoon buffer time I had built up. Curses!

This is post 24 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Harry Potter and the end of my childhood

I haven’t squeed about the final Harry Potter movie yet, so…why not.

(Obviously, spoilers below)
Typing “final” is odd for me. The end of Harry Potter oddly marks the end of my childhood. Well, maybe not so oddly. I read my first Harry Potter book when I was in 6th grade. I was Harry’s age – 11. After that, every time I read a new book, I was the age of Harry. It slipped a bit at the end when Rowling took more time to write the later books (I was 19 when Harry was 17), but it oddly marked my own childhood.

So seeing the last movie was bittersweet. I grew up having escapist fantasies about Hogwarts, like many kids in my generation. And the books do end on a more adult note, what with everyone dying and Harry finally stopping to be a whiny emo kid.

But the “sweet” part of bittersweet was so worth it. I saw the final movie at midnight in Vegas sitting next to Greta Christina – how does it get any better than that? And we saw it in 3D, complete with my Ravenclaw shirt and Harry Potter shaped 3D glasses:As for the movie itself, I have one thing to say:

Omfg Snape.

Snape has always been one of my favorite characters. I was defending him from the beginning – I knew he wasn’t simply evil, it was too simple. And Alan Rickman was one of my favorite actors long before he became Snape. So to finally let Rickman show his full acting potential – holy crap. Seeing Snape do the tiny smile as he’s dying? Who was cutting onion in the movie theater?!

Seriously, I cried like a baby every time Snape was on the screen. The flashback?! Waterfalls. Do you know how hard it is to surreptitiously wipe your eyes while wearing 3D glasses? I don’t even know why I was trying to be surreptitious, people were obviously crying in the theater.

…Of course, there could be a movie of Alan Rickman reading the phone book and it would still be awesome, so…

The other highlight of the movie had to be Neville being a fucking badass. I have to give kudos to the movie for making you think he might not get his moment – they made you think someone else was going to kill Nagini a bunch of times. I would have raged if the most badass part of the 7th book didn’t make it to the screen, but thankfully it did. Props to Matthew Lewis for the superb acting.

Speaking of Neville…forgive me, but when did Matthew Lewis suddenly get super, super hot?…yet another sign we’re all growing up.

Though it was oddly appropriate ending my childhood in Vegas. After the credits I turned to Greta and said, “Alright, time for the hookers and blow.”

Goodbye, Harry Potter!

This is post 23 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Q&A Quickfire!

Blogathon is pretty much the one time a year I check my ancient formspring.me account. So here’s a quickfire answering some random questions from the last 12 months:

Have you ever played any Pen and Paper RPG’s if so, which?

I’ve played Dungeons & Dragons twice after my friends guilted me to no end. The first time was mainly spent drawing up character sheets for 4 hours. The second time two of the guys in the group spent the whole time trying to have their characters rape mine. IT WAS A BLAST!

Now you know why I only played D&D twice.

How do you sleep?


Actually, quite crappily. It usually takes me a long time to fall asleep, and I’ll wake up a couple of times every night. I used to sleep walk when I was a little kid, so maybe that has something to do with it.

How do you play on clue Plum, White, Green, Peacock, Scarlet, Mustard


Pfft, Scarlet, no question. Professor Plum if she’s taken. Yes, it totally matters.

Would you rather have sex with Ronald McDonald or the Kool-Aid man?


Oh god, terrifying clown or someone obnoxiously yelling “Oh yeeeaaaah” the whole time? ..Ronald McDonald. I can close my eyes; it’s harder to close my ears.

Custard cream or bourbon biscuit?

I don’t even know what either of these things are. Is this British? Is this like spotted dick? Heh heh heh, spotted dick.

finish this sentence “kids these days…”

…will in ten years be complaining about kids these days.

If you have any additional random mindless questions, feel free to leave them in the comments so I have something to blog about at 3am, haha.

This is post 22 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

A new religious type of RNA discovered?

The backstory, from reader Arctic Ape, a Finnish graduate student:

Adjacent pic is from a whiteboard in a student clubroom at the University of Helsinki, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry (or, as we call it, “Wood & Weed Science”). Someone had drawn a crude chart of plant floral induction pathway and another(?) person had made some additions, including labeling “mRNA” as “missionary RNA”. I thought your readers might want to explain in comments what exactly is “missionary RNA” :)

Missionary RNA…I wonder what it does? Maybe this is the mechanism behind gene conversion *ba dum ching* (For the non-biologists, the correct label is “messenger RNA”)


I loved Arctic Ape’s PS:

(By the way, almost all our student clubs are curriculum-related, but we’re still mostly not huge nerds. For example, the rest of the whiteboard featured a poop joke in Finnish.)

Poop jokes: A universal staple in graduate student humor.

This is post 21 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

An intro to the neutral theory of evolution

From a top donor:

“I’d like you to write a blog entry (primer) about neutral theory aimed at the layperson.”

Okay, I’m not going to lie. I’ve been secretly hoping someone would bump this question out of the top ten, mainly because neutral theory is kind of boring and vaguely confusing and hard enough to explain while using biology buzzwords. It’s even harder to explain when you only have 30 minutes to write about it and it’s supposed to be targeting non-biologists. When I shared this question with some fellow genetics grad students, the general response was “Ewwwww.”

But I will try my best!

When most people think about evolution, they think of adaptations. Something in the environment puts selective pressure on a certain trait, and organisms with that trait are more “fit” (reproduce more). For example, rabbits that live in snowy climates are more likely to survive (and reproduce) if they have white fur that helps them blend into the snow. If a mutation randomly arises that make their fur white, or just lighter, that rabbit has an advantage over the other rabbits – the dark brown ones are going to be the first ones that are eaten.

There are lots of examples of adaptive evolution through natural selection, and people know them more because they make good stories. The most famous example of evolution, Darwin’s finches, is a case of adaptive evolution.

But not all evolution takes place because of natural selection. Evolution is at its simplest defined as the change in allele frequencies over time. That’s where neutral theory comes in. Neutral theory states that most evolutionary changes are the result of random drift of neutral mutants.

Buzzwords buzzwords, I know. So let’s take it one step at a time and pretend that we’re looking at a population of unicorns (if we’re pretending, might as well pretend all the way).

Alleles are just two different forms of a gene. Genes are usually hundreds or thousands of basepairs long, but let’s pretend we’re zooming in on three bases in a gene for fur color. If you have the sequence AAA, your fur is white. But if you have AAG, your fur is pink. AAA and AAG are different alleles.

Now let’s say all of the unicorns start as AAA, and then from mutation you get a unicorn who’s AAG. Being pink has no effect on the unicorn. He’s not more likely to get eaten, he doesn’t live longer, he doesn’t have more luck with lady unicorns. It’s a “neutral” mutation because it doesn’t change the unicorn’s fitness.

That’s where random drift comes in. Drift simply refers to the frequency of one allele changing due to random chance. That is, nothing is selecting for pinkness. Maybe that unicorn just happened to have more offspring. Maybe the population underwent a bottleneck and was reduced to just a few unicorns, the pink one happened to survive, and now his pinkness will make up a larger percentage of the population. Maybe a couple of unicorns, including the pink one, happened to get isolated on one side of a river, so that side eventually had a lot of pink unicorns, while the other has a lot of white ones. Through random chance alone, a neutral mutation can grow to high frequency or even reach 100% (what biologists call “becoming fixed in a population.”)

When you get into the mathematics, you assume that random neutral mutations occur at the same rates across individuals. This is how biologists get things like “molecular clocks” where they can tell when two species diverged from each other.

…And I have no idea if that made any sense, but I’m out of time. You have all now been exposed to (a shoddy summary of) evolutionary theory, congratulations. If anyone would like to explain further or correct me in the comments, please do so!
This is post 20 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

My blogging persona

From the mailbag:

“We all act a little differently online, as opposed to RL. Are you meaner, nicer, wittier, sillier, or more verbose in RL than in online venues?”

I certainly do have a blogging persona. I don’t craft something on purpose – communicating via written word to a general audience simply has a different effect than talking in person with an individual. I think this is true of a lot of bloggers. The most popular example is how vicious, rude, scathing PZ Myers is actually a soft spoken teddy bear in person (don’t deny it PZ!).

So there are definitely ways that act differently. I’m actually an introvert, which a lot of people have a hard time believing. I think that’s partially because most people don’t know what introversion means. It doesn’t mean I’m shy – it means being around people drains me, and I need time to myself to recharge. I love conferences, but by the end I usually need to sporadically hide in my room and avoid talking to people. It’s challenging being “on” all the time.

I think that’s probably the biggest misconception – that I’m always “on.” I’m not witty and insightful 100% of the time. Hell, that’s not even true here. But at least my blog has a certain level of curation. Shockingly, I don’t generally post my stupid ideas or unfunny jokes. But in person there’s a lot less time to think up something profound, so I think I’m disappointingly derpy a lot of the time.

I’m also a lot less confrontational in person, which is probably true of most people. The internet gives people courage, often the courage to say a lot of stupid crap they would never say to someone’s face. But I balk at saying even some of the non-stupid stuff. I hate getting into verbal debates – not to avoid pissing people off, but because I suck at them. Again, I’m much more intelligent when writing. You don’t want to invite me to debate someone because I’ll get tongue tied.

Other than that…many people have told me I was a lot taller than they expected, haha. I TOWER ABOVE YOU PUNY ATHEISTS! Or something.

If you’ve met me in person, are there any other things that are different between “in person” Jen and “blogger” Jen?

This is post 19 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.

Coopting the Norweigan terrorist attacks for Islamophobia

I’m still having a hard time wrapping my mind around how much of a tragedy the Norway terrorist attacks are. 92 people are confirmed dead, 85 of which are youth ages mostly between the ages of 16 and 22. They were at a camp trained to foster future leaders of Norway. Many jumped into the water in an attempt to escape the shooter’s indiscriminate bullets, many to no avail.

What human being does something like that?

But instead of mourning this tragedy, the American media is already falling all over itself to blame Those Evil Muslims. Unsurprisingly, Fox News was one of the first to claim that the horrifying terrorist attacks in Norway were by Muslim extremists. This is despite the fact that the main suspect that’s in custody is a right wing extremist, fundamentalist Christian, and Islamophobe.

And if that’s not enough? The O’Reilly Factor directly juxtaposed the Norwegian attacks with the legal victory of the Park 51 New York City Islamic Center.

Wow, how subtle.

It’s despicable how the media turns a tragedy into an exercise in irrational finger pointing. There are plenty of rational, fact-based reasons to criticize Islam – fabricating connections to every terrorist attacks is not one of them.

But the other annoying point? When it’s an Islamic extremist, the attacker is a religious terrorists. When we find out it’s really a Christian extremist, he’s suddenly a madmen who doesn’t represent other members of that faith.

Double standard much?

My thoughts go out to all of the people of Norway. If I have any Norweigan readers, I hope you and your families and friends are safe.

This is post 17 of 49 of Blogathon. Pledge a donation to the Secular Student Alliance here.