Kansas and Brazil Punish Women for Abortion


What does Kansas have in common with the southern Brazilian state of Mato Grosso de Sul? No, not samba, tropical drinks, or a tropical rain forest.

These two distant lands are united in their desire to intimidate and harass women who have had abortions.

In Mato Grosso de Sul, a police raid of a clinic suspected of providing abortions resulted in the interrogation of nearly 10,000 women, whose records were found there, on suspicion of having abortions in 1999-2001. At this time, 36 women have been prosecuted; an additional 2,215 records have yet to be fully reviewed, but it is anticipated that approximately 1,000 women will ultimately be prosecuted and convicted. The official penalty for a woman who has willingly induced an abortion in Brazil is up to one to three years in prison. But the punishment meted out to the 36 women by the judge that ordered the investigation is community service at a local orphanage – just the kind of humiliation that should serve to shame them further.

This might seem unsurprising in a country where abortion is highly restricted, but a similar case has taken place in our own country. In Kansas, Women’s Health Care Services, where Dr. George Tiller is a late term abortion provider, was ordered to turn over clinic records of about 2,000 women to police to determine if an illegal abortion procedure had occurred. Despite the considerable efforts of Kansans for Life and the invoking of a 19th century law, the clinic was able to block the subpoena and the grand jury refused to indict Dr. Tiller.

There is a key difference in the two situations: In Brazil, abortion is a criminal offense and is only permitted in cases of rape or to save the life of a woman whereas in the United States abortion is legal, though states have imposed restrictions. The criminalization of this very common procedure (1.3 million abortions take place in Brazil), results in the hospitalization of 250,000 Brazilian women with complications from unsafe abortion every year. In the United States the incidence of abortion is almost the same (in 2005, there were 1.2 million abortions in the United States), but complications and hospitalizations are extremely rare, largely because abortion is legal. But if opponents of women’s rights have their way, how much longer will American women stay safe?

The harassment of abortion providers and the seizure of clinic records is simply another tactic to punish women for exercising their right to choose when and whether to be pregnant. Anyone who helps them on this path will be harassed and exposed.

It’s clear from both of these cases that opponents of abortion are not simply concerned with a few restrictions here and there. They want to be sure that women and doctors alike are hauled into the public square and condemned openly for ensuring that women have control over their reproductive destinies. But research in Brazil, and elsewhere, shows that legal restrictions will not keep women from ending unwanted pregnancies. They will risk their lives to do it if safe, legal, respectful, high-quality care is not available. We know this. We also know that the easiest way to prevent deaths and injuries is to ensure that this care is available.

In Brazil, Ipas has created a campaign to get Brazilians thinking about the consequences of criminalized abortion, called "Think about it" ("Vai pensando aí," in Portuguese).

Perhaps we need to start a similar campaign in the United States. After all, what would the consequences for women be if those who drove the campaign to "out" women in the courts in Kansas were successful around the country? What if women knew that their doctor might be forced to hand over their private medical records to the courts for inspection, second guessing their medical judgment? We already have a situation where an abortion procedure is the only medical procedure ever to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Are we willing to imprison women and their providers for abortion? Think about it.

Related Posts:

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • invalid-0

    Shouldn’t those who break the law be put in jail? Shouldn’t the government be ensuring that our women receieve good and legal health care procedures by evaluating health records to make sure all procedures were done in accordance with restrictions and codes? The alternative is that health care providers would have the freedom to break the law…something that is dangerous to the health of American citizens in all areas of health care, not just reproductive health. I, for one, would like my doctors to be held accountable for their procedures and to be prosecuted for ANY deviance from or non-compliance with codes or restrictions. Your goal should be to change restrictions, not encourage deviance from them. Evaluating health care documents is not harrassment; it is only ensuring that we receieve legal care. Just because we do not LIKE a law does not give us the freedom to break it.

    • invalid-0

      I’ve been thinking these past couple of days, and I think that it is no longer productive for us to talk about this issue on this blog—we obviously do not agree, and I don’t think either one of us is going to change our mind based on what the other one says, no matter how many times we keep repeating ourselves. I do want you to know, however, that no matter what you may think of me, I do love women and my stance on abortion is not a tactic I am using to try to supress women’s rights, or anything of the sort. The only reason I feel so strongly about this issue is to save the lives of children who are being “terminated” every day in America. I encourage you to go to the link I am providing below. It is a pamphlet that methodically sets out the pro-life stance on abortion, and articulates it better than I ever could. It speaks to many of the objections you have raised to my arguments on this blog. I just ask you to please consider everything I have said, as I am considering what you have said. Sometimes hearing opposite viewpoints makes us even more sure of our position, but we also need to be open to the idea that we could be wrong. Again I will say that I am deeply saddened for what has happened to you, and as I said before, I hope whoever was responsible was held accountable to the utmost of the law. Although I don’t know you personally and although we disagree, I just want you to know that I wish you the best and I hope that you have a friend, family member, or counselor that you can talk to about what has happened to you. Thank you for being so open with me about your beliefs, and please read this pamphlet. It won’t take long.
      http://www.ncln.ca/content/pdf/Right%20to%20Know.pdf

  • http://atheistweb.org/posts invalid-0

    “Shouldn’t those who break the law be put in jail?”

    I think you missed the point of the article. The people who are trying to uphold the law are being selective. They are doing it for the sole purpose of harassing abortion providers and their women clients.

    Why aren’t they pursuing cosmetic surgeons for legal compliance if there concern is for the law?

  • invalid-0

    Those practices should be regulated as well, and they are being regulated. I did a simple search on cosmetic surgery centers, and all the ones I found had a similar statement to this, stating reasons why private medical information may need to be disclosed without consent:

    We may use and disclose PHI about you for health care operations to assure that you receive quality care. Example: We may use medical information to review our treatment and services and evaluate the performance of those involved with your care. We may also provide your PHI to our attorneys, accountants, and other consultants to make sure we are complying with the laws that affect us.

    . As required or permitted by law, such as law enforcement officials, court officials, correctional institutions or government agencies, when required to do so by law.
    . For public health activities to help prevent or control disease, injury, or disability. As required by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
    . For health oversight activities we may disclose your PHI to authorities and agencies authorized by law, including audits, investigations, inspections, licensure, disciplinary actions or legal proceedings

    Abortion must be treated with the same scrutiny as any other out-patient procedure. We must ensure that our women are safe, and this kind of regulation aims at that goal. I don’t understand why so many who claim to be pro-choice and for women’s rights would not want them to be protected as much as possible by the law. I would think the goal would be to strive to make abortion the safest medical procedure possible through restrictions and checks of medical records that are required for other procedures. Why should abortion not be held to the same standard as other outpatient surgeries?

  • scott-swenson

    Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the people pursuing these issues so vigorously are not doing it from a place of respect for women’s reproductive health, but as a way to stigmatize women, and the medical professionals that work with them. Phil Kline in Kansas has no interest whatsoever in making sure women have a safe environment to seek out a full range of reproductive health services. He only pursues these issues as one more way to try to prevent women from having these health care options.


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Why am I not surprised? The anti-abortion lobby and its anti-choice allies in Congress have done a bang-up job of confusing and distracting Americans with their doublespeak and “redefiniation” of abortion and contraception.
    If you really believe this is about “protecting” women, then you swallowed the lie hook,line and sinker. The truth behind the “truth” is the anti-abortion lobby believes women are too stupid to be trusted with a decision about an unwanted pregnancy, and not morally competant enough to make said decision.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t believe that this debate is actually about protecting women. I said that is what pro-choice advocates SAY the debate is about. As a woman, I understand that to have an unwanted pregnancy would be an incredibly tough situation, and that there could be seemingly insurmountable circumstances that would seem to dictate that termination of the pregnancy is the only viable option. It comes down to this question: Is it possible that there can be circumstances in a person’s life that are so bad that an innocent person must die in order to take them away? Again, I understand how hard it would be to be pregnant in certain circumstances. What I don’t believe is that it is my right to decide when an innocent person that was created because of my choices(except in cases of rape)can live or die. I don’t want to live in a society where others can decide for me when I live or die. This does not take away the rough situation of women facing unwanted pregnancy, and I believe there should be financial and other types of assistance for these women, and that contraception (that occurs before conception) should be available to these women to stop abortion from being an issue at all. That is a goal that pro-life and pro-choice supporters can work towards together.

    • invalid-0

      It MOST CERTAINLY IS about protecting women. The pro-choice side just wants us ladies and our doctors to have the freedom to make ANY decision necessary to keep our lives and health intact. Nobody is “taking and innocent life” because the bundle of cells isn’t a viable life form at the stage MOST women abort.

      The right-wing position is adding more, unnecesary, regulation of a woman’s health and wellness than it needs too. Right-wingers seem content to let corporations police themselves, and the military police itself, and the FBI and CIA police themselves, hech, even the vice president polices himself. But doctors, some of the most educated and respectable people in the country , can’t? Women and doctor’s can’t be trusted to make good health decisions, but Guantanamo can torture, and that’s okay. WTF?

      Also, it’s not just about unwanted pregnancy. For many women who choose to abort late-term, it’s because their baby isn’t going to live, and they can’t handle a stillbirth. Believe me, as the miracle child (mom was 36!) after several miscarriages and stillbirths, giving birth to a dead baby takes a huge mental toll. My mother will never be the same after grieving over so many potential lives.

      POTENTIAL being the key word. They weren’t alive yet, just had potential to live until God or health risks mandated otherwise.

      People in that situation deserve the choice of abortion over stillbirth. What about that? That is definitely about protecting women. I would love to have been able to protect my mother from all her misery. But it wasn’t legal then. So even if I were there, I couldn’t have helped her. Do you understand what that’s like?!? What my parents went through because of over-regulation like you seem to think is okay?!?

      In the end, the point is this: no other health procedure is regulated, fought about, challenged, and lied about as abortion. Abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. Why aren’t we fighting about hysterectomy? Well, that just doesn’t sound as good. But each hysterectomy deprives our world and our Lord of way more potential lives than each abortion. And doctors recommend that all the time, when it’s not even necessary.
      Also, if you don’t want to look like a troll, give your name. God knows I’m not afraid too do so.

    • mellankelly1

      It comes down to this question: Is it possible that there can be circumstances in a person’s life that are so bad that an innocent person must die in order to take them away?

      That isn’t actually the question because the only "innocent person" involved with an unwanted pregnancy is the pregnant woman… and under no circumstances could you or I determine how "bad" things are for her or what course her pregnancy should take.

      Again, I understand how hard it would be to be pregnant in certain circumstances.

      You couldn’t possibly understand how difficult an unwanted pregnancy could be under certain circumstances unless you yourself were in that circumstance.  Having faced an unwanted pregnancy under horrific circumstances I can assure you that terminating my pregnancy was the best possible option for me and my family; and I’d do it again under those same circumstances.

      What I don’t believe is that it is my right to decide when an innocent person that was created because of my choices(except in cases of rape)can live or die.

      Oh.  So it’s not actually about the fetus ("innocent person"), it’s more about the circumstances surrounding the intercourse.  Tell me, how is it that the fertilized egg that was the result of rape is different than the fertilized egg that was the result of consensual sex?  I’m just curious as to how it could be said that one is "innocent" and apparently the other is not.

      I don’t want to live in a society where others can decide for me when I live or die

      Last I checked others cannot legally decide when you live or die (unless you are given the death penalty for a crime you’ve committed or if you happen to be enlisted and fighting in a war).

      This does not take away the rough situation of women facing unwanted pregnancy, and I believe there should be financial and other types of assistance for these women

      I agree that there should be assistance for women who need it… however, if those women still wish to terminate their pregnancies they have every right to do so and I will fight for those rights until the day that I die.  No woman should have to lose her legal rights upon becoming pregnant.

      and that contraception (that occurs before conception) should be available to these women to stop abortion from being an issue at all.

      Wait, at what point did you decide that you have the right to dictate which birth control methods should be available to these women?

  • invalid-0

    1) I’m definitely not afraid to give my name, just hadn’t thought it was a big deal to do so.
    2) According to you, when does a “bundle of cells” become a human? The term “viable life form” is a vague and unhelpful term. Technology is increasing every day and is allowing babies who are increasingly premature to live outside the womb. Does this mean that being a person is dependent upon the technology available? Obviously that cannot be the case. Would that mean that in countries where this technology is not available today, these late-term fetuses are not people because they could not survive outside the womb, while in the United States where we have the technology to handle extrememly premature babies, they are?
    3) I don’t claim to agree with the right-wing about any issue besides abortion, so I agree with you about corporations and others being able to police themselves. I think there are many problems associated with that, but I would rather stick to the issue at hand.
    4) As to the stillbirth issue, I stick to my original question— Are there circumstances in a person’s life that are so bad that an innocent person must die to take them away? Of course there is no question that a stillbirth is an extremely emotionally scarring incident that I would not want to happen to any woman. However, I do not believe that an innocent person should be allowed to be killed in order to stop this scarring from happening.
    5) So I guess our main disagreement comes in that I believe the fetus is a person from conception. The reason I believe this is that any other point in time is arbitrary. I have alreay explained why the point at which the fetus is viable is an arbitrary point. How can you justify that point as the point at which life begins? And could you please pinpoint that time to the very moment for me—-children’s lives depend upon it. Do you see my point? We have to have a very clear, well-defined point of when a fetus is a human, because condoning the killing of innocent people would be an atrocity for our country, so we need a definite moment when it happens, in order to ensure we aren’t allowing people to be killed. You must at least agree with me that we, as a country, must ensure the government is not allowing the killing of innocents, so we must be sure that these fetuses are NOT people if we are going to abort them. This would also mean that you personally should always be against abortion after the “point of viability” you believe is the point of life, because after that point, the fetus would even according to your definition be a person, and I would hope you would not be for aborting people.

    6)It is a weighty decision to have an abortion–no one can dispute that. If we are even slightly unsure of the fetus’s personhood….wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of life, instead of the side of death?

  • invalid-0

    KathleenPope,
    that was a great comment and a great argument! A lot of the people on here are, I guess the word is, vicious. They’re going to attack you because of your stance. So stay strong! You know that what you’re saying is very true.

  • invalid-0

    Kathleen, you’re right. I completely disagree. I think live birth is when it is a person. That’s it. That’s the only time we can be sure of personhood: when there’s a living person staring you in the face. Otherwise the health of the woman, who IS DEFINITELY a person, is paramount. I don’t believe conception is a baby. If it’s a teensey little bundle of cells, it’s not as important as an actual woman. There is no killing of innocents, because there is no killing, because there is nothing to be killed, because it’s not a baby yet. My problem with the anti-abortion crew is that you’re not doing anything for the children that are already alive. All the time we spend debating abortion should be spent on helping the kids that are already here. The unloved ones, whose parents had them and don’t want them, who are being treated badly, abused, even tortured by parents who just don’t want them. These actual people are completely neglected while we debate the possibility of people. Become involved in social work, be a teacher, volunteer at an after-school program. Pay more attention to the children that have already been born than the ones that may or may not ever be born. You could miscarry and not even know in the early stages. And how exactly are we defining conception? Fertilization or implantation? Because fertilization doesn’t guarantee implantation. Tons of fertilized possible babies are flushed out each month when women bleed, and we don’t even know or notice. How can those same unnoticeable, unidentifiable lumps of cells have more rights than me or my mother or other living, breathing women?
    As to your stillbirth issue, once you know the baby is dead or has an incurable, unsurvivable disease, there is no “innocent person” involved except the poor woman who has to bear the brunt of the trauma. Why can’t we deliver her of her dead baby early instead of forcing months carrying it? Why put her through that pain? And it is a big deal to identify yourself as someone, because people come on these sites all the time with inaccurate information and outright lies, not the simple difference of opinion we are having. It’s hard to tell the difference between the people who really want to talk about the issues and the people who just want to spew venom.

  • invalid-0

    I think live birth is when it is a person. That’s it. That’s the only time we can be sure of personhood: when there’s a living person staring you in the face. Otherwise the health of the woman, who IS DEFINITELY a person, is paramount. I don’t believe conception is a baby. If it’s a teensey little bundle of cells, it’s not as important as an actual woman. There is no of s, because there is no , because there is nothing to be killed, because it’s not a baby yet.
    *********
    http://www.arizonarighttolife.org/userfiles/File/what_is_a_person_I.pdf
    http://www.arizonarighttolife.org/userfiles/File/what_is_a_person_II.pdf

  • invalid-0

    I’m glad to finally whittle down the issue to our actual disagreement—personhood. If you believe that a fetus becomes a person at birth, are you saying that someone’s personhood is dependent upon their location? To me it seems completely arbitrary that because I am in one place (my mother’s womb) I am not a person, but if I am somewhere else (NOT in my mother’s womb) I am a person, even if I am less developed than a fetus who is still in utero (if I am a pre-mature baby). Is location really what we want to base our personhood decision on? You see how ridiculous this could get—if I am in Cleveland I am a person, but if I am in Richmond, I am not. Not that I am saying you would agree with that statement, but what is the difference in principle between that distinction and the womb distinction?

    You also said it isn’t a person until it is a “living person staring you in the face.” With our current technology, you can see a baby in utero with a 3-D sonogram that is unreal–it’s actually amazing how fabulous of a picture we can get these days of a baby’s face and other features. So a baby can “stare me in the face” while still in the mother’s womb. But the idea that someone must be able to be seen to be a person is ridiculous as well. So if a person is in captivity, and no one knows they are alive or can see them, they are not a person?

    As to the fertilization versus implantation, I actually do not know where I stand on that issue. But that debate is pointless until we can at least agree that abortion is murder after implantation. I would be ecstatic if we could as a country recognize abortion after implantation as murder and outlaw that. We can work on the fertilization versus implantation problem as a next step…basically, we can cross that bridge when it comes.

    The problem of unwanted and unloved children should not be blamed on pro-lifers. That is a tragedy that all Americans own and pro-choice AND pro-life supporters should work towards assisting these children and putting them into adoptive loving homes. I know MANY pro-lifers who have adopted children themselves, and who support agencies who help that to happen. I personally love children and have gone overseas to Mexico and to Peru during two summers to assist poor or unwanted children there through donations of gifts for these children for christmas, after and during school programs (many of these children do not have the opportunity to go to school), etc. The company I currently work for donates literally tons of meat products to local food banks to assist with afterschool and during the summer food programs for disadvantaged children, and I am involved in these donation programs at my company. Needless to say, I love children. I support needy children, and I know MANY MANY pro-lifers who feel the same way I do. We are all equally guilty in this issue—not just pro-lifers.

    If the baby has already died, of course the body of the child can be removed (as to the stillbirth issue). However, I would not support the killing of a child with a fatal birth defect. We are all going to die… If we are going to kill a fatally ill child, we might as well kill all of us, because we all have a fatal disease called being human. What is the difference in killing a child who will die within 1 month, or killing an elderly man who will die within 3 years, or killing a middle-aged woman who will die in 45 years? I don’t see one.

  • invalid-0

    Hey, I wasn’t trying to say you don’t do anything to help people. I just think we should focus ALL of our attention and energy on that and not abortion. Protesting at an abortion clinic, for instance, helps nobody and hurts the women going in, who are going in regardeless of what happened outside. Those people should volunteer to give out contraception in low income neighborhoods and to drug addicts. Maybe if they could afford and were educated about prevention, they wouldn’t have abortions.
    But my biggest point still hasn’t been addressed. Who should have more rights? The POSSIBLE human, or the ACTUAL human, who just happens to be a pregnant woman? I think the woman has rights and the fetus doesn’t, especially in the first 3 or 4 months, when there isn’t much development. I am actually against late-term abortion unless there is a very good health reason, because I see the similarity between preemies and late-term fetuses. If early-term abortion was readily available, elective late-term abortion would probably not ever happen.
    You know, if we were going to fully fund all children’s health care, fully fund all women’s pre- and post-natal health care, and fully fund every child to have a nice, middle-class life, I wouldn’t care so much. If we were going to give every woman paid medical leave, I wouldn’t care so much. But if we make abortion illegal, none of that will happen. Women will just keep getting poorer, and having bigger and bigger families with or without a mate, and many women will die or become sterile as a result of back-alley abortions. Simply making abortion illegal won’t stop the conditions that cause all the abortions in the first place. Women don’t have abortions lightly, contrary to popular belief, and we don’t use abortion as birth control. Usually there is a very good reason.
    As I am totally in favor of assisted suicide at the end of a terminal illness, I am also in favor of sparing a child several painful hours of life before they die of a birth defect. I believe that quality of life matters. If someone were being tortured until they died it would be less cruel to just kill them outright. And that’s what I compare a terminal illness or severe birth defect to. I feel that it is actually the more humane thing to just end it. That’s what I would want for myself.
    Also, I just don’t think an abortion ban addresses the issues that cause abortion. I think that everyone wants less abortions. I think we could achieve that goal if we taught better, more comprehensive sex ed, covered contraception by insurance, and funded that pre- and post-birth needs of both woman and child, we wouldn’t have any abortions. I think we have to treat the root causes that abortion is a symptom of in order to really eliminate abortions. And I think that if we make abortion illegal it won’t treat those causes, it’ll make them worse. So both sides should work together to change those conditions that encourage abortion and see what happens before we outlaw a procedure alltogether when there are physical and mental health reasons why it should happen occasionally.

  • invalid-0

    No, you did not address MY main point, which speaks to yours. A fetus is not a “possible” person, it is an “actual” person, just as much as you or me or its mother. That is why I was questioning you about the point at which a fetus is a person— That is the essence of the entire debate. If it is a person, then we are committing a murder every time an abortion is performed. A woman’s right to choose if she is pregnant does not outweigh a person’s right to not be killed. I go back to my orginal question in this debate—Can there be circumstances in a person’s life that are so bad that an innocent person must die to make them go away?

    You are not being consistent—just one post ago you said that birth was the point when a fetus became a person. Now you are saying you are against late-term abortions because late-term fetuses are the same as premies. Which is it? Like I said, what we decide is a life or death issue for these children, so it is the question of utmost importance.

    Many people in America are poor, and have lives much worse than these unborn children would probably have. Should we just kill them to put them out of their misery too? Who gets to decide if my life is worth living? I would hope the answer to that question would always only be myself, because I don’t believe anyone else has the right to decide that for me.

    Protests outside abortion clinics do help someone. They are pleading for the lives of the unborn. Do you not see that if fetuses are people, we have murdered over 41 million people legally in the United States? Do you not think that is worth protesting?

    Of course we should rally for better conditions for children. We should rally for all kinds of change in our country and in our world. But I have limited resources and time. I am pleading for the cause of the most desperation—the children must be alive before I can plead for them to have good homes.

  • mellankelly1

    4) As to the stillbirth issue, I stick to my original question— Are there circumstances in a person’s life that are so bad that an innocent person must die to take them away? Of course there is no question that a stillbirth is an extremely emotionally scarring incident that I would not want to happen to any woman. However, I do not believe that an innocent person should be allowed to be killed in order to stop this scarring from happening.

    I am totally confused… a stillbirth is the birth of a dead fetus.  So why now, should this woman not be able to have a D&E (although IDX would be safer except that we are allowing legislatures to make medical decisions for women and as a result that procedure is no longer an option – but I digress).  Please explain to me (if you can) why you would be more qualified to determine what a woman should do once she has experienced fetal demise rather than allowing the pregnant woman and her doctor to make that decision.

    So I guess our main disagreement comes in that I believe the fetus is a person from conception. The reason I believe this is that any other point in time is arbitrary. I have alreay explained why the point at which the fetus is viable is an arbitrary point. How can you justify that point as the point at which life begins?

    You completely contradict yourself above.  How can you justify conception as the point at which one becomes a person?  For crying out loud, there is no consensus among scientists, philosophers, theologians (not to mention the general population) as to what even defines personhood.  For you to claim that you, personally, know not only exactly what defines personhood but at what point each of us becomes a person is ludicrous… to argue for the criminalization of abortion based on your definition of personhood is a fallacy.  Your belief that a person is present at conception is absolutely no different than my belief that a person is present upon birth.  The difference appears to be that I am not attempting to force my views upon you; if you become pregnant and decide that your embryo is a person I would just have to accept that.  If I get pregnant and decide my embryo is my embryo you will just have to accept that… you don’t get to decide what pregnancy means to another woman.

    We have to have a very clear, well-defined point of when a fetus is a human,

    Was there ever any question of whether or not the fertilized egg is human?  How could it be anything else if the sperm and egg are human?  I think you’re trying to say that there needs to be a clear, well-defined point of when a fetus is a person and if so… good luck with that.  People would have to put aside their individual belief systems in order to come to a consensus on that matter… are you willing to put aside yours because I’m not.

    because condoning the killing of innocent people would be an atrocity for our country,

    I agree… but we’re killing innocent people in Iraq right now… where is the outrage?

    as a country, must ensure the government is not allowing the killing of innocents,

    As a country, the government must ensure the rights of it’s citizens, including pregnant women regardless of whether or not their pregnancies are wanted.

    would also mean that you personally should always be against abortion after the "point of viability" you believe is the point of life, because after that point, the fetus would even according to your definition be a person, and I would hope you would not be for aborting people

    Okay, first… you can’t "abort" people (look it up).  I believe that a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy prior to viability for whatever reason she wants and post-viability for her life/health.  Although, I do not believe that a viable fetus is a person any more than I believe that a fertilized egg is a person.

    It is a weighty decision to have an abortion–no one can dispute that. If we are even slightly unsure of the fetus’s personhood….wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of life, instead of the side of death?

    It’s a weighty decision to get pregnant and have a child – no one can dispute that.  I am not "unsure" about the personhood of the fetus, I just happen to disagree with you.  I always err on the side of life… the life of the pregnant woman (there’s no questioning her personhood, is there?).

  • invalid-0

    You need to read what I wrote again. I did address your point. Birth is when the life of a fetus is worth as much as it’s mother’s. That was my point, and still is. Until the kid is born, mama’s life is worth more to me.
    I didn’t say that preemies are the SAME as fetuses, I say I see the SIMILARITIES. I see the SIMILARITIES between people and monkeys too, which is why I’m against animal testing. I also said I am FOR late-term abortion if there is a serious health risk, because until the baby is born, the life of the mother is worth more, and should be of paramount importance in the situation.
    As for the question of when it is a person, we already divide the pregnancy into trimesters, and it’s generally accepted that first trimester isn’t a viable life outside of the mother, so first trimester abortion is fine with me. Glob of cells does not equal person in my mind. I’m not sure about the exact details of what happens during the second trimester of pregnancy, but in the third trimester, the fetus is probably a viable life outside the mother, with medical intervention, and is more heavily regulated, which makes sense to me. There’s no way to figure out the exact second in the third trimester when the fetus becomes a person, which is why I’m only for late-term abortion in emergency situations. Many people feel this way and are still pro-choice. I’m not contradicting myself at all, I just happen to see this issue as shades of gray, rather than black and white, right and wrong.
    As for clinic protests, they don’t work, so why bother? Find an effective way of lowering the abortion rate, like focusing on prevention. Prevent the unwanted pregnancy and you prevent the abortion. Yelling at women as they go to make one of the biggest decisions in their life is not effective, but it is cruel.
    I also think it’s sad that you think fetuses are the most urgent cause around. There are people starving, children being abused. Here’s a hypothetical: a married African woman (who has no choice about how or when she has sex) with four starving children at home, gets pregnant again. What is more important, the four children who need her and her resources and food to survive, or the clump of cells that has only existed for 8 weeks? Do we force her to have the baby, who will starve along with her brothers and sisters, or do we allow early-term abortion, saving the slim resources for her already living children?
    And now I did address all of your points, but you didn’t address mine. Why are we not treating the root causes of abortion? Abortion is a symptom of bigger problems. Solve them, abortion rates plummet. Why can’t we just agree to do that, which has a result we both want, instead of fighting over something that we’ll never agree on?
    You took a couple of statements that I made, completely misinterpreted them, and then completely ignored all the rest of what I said. I’ve been honestly trying to address all of the points you made in your posts. If you can’t do me the same courtesy, I’m through having this conversation. I mean, you took four paragraphs of good points and focused on two sentences, which you misquoted.

  • invalid-0
  • mellankelly1

    http://www.jyi.org/features/ft.php?id=479

     

    A brief excerpt:

    "There is something about being a person, in addition to the vulnerable but dynamic organism that we call a human being, that is undeniably unique in this world — whether it is a scientific, philosophical, or spiritual phenomenon, or a result of a multitude of other possibilities, we cannot yet conclude. Whatever our origins, stage in evolutionary continuum, cultural values, or religious roots, we know of no single truth; what we do know is that it is all quite personal."

     

  • invalid-0

    Let me say first what I agree with you about, so that we can realize that we do in fact have some common ground. I completely agree that we need to focus on stopping unwatned pregnancy through education, some forms of contraception, etc. I am all for stopping teen pregnancy, just as you are. I am also for taking a stand against starvation, child abuse, and for other humanitarian causes—I think they are all incredibly important to stand for and work to improve. I understand that abortion is not the sole issue of our times. However, I do think that it is an issue of supreme importance, because if you consider the possibility that fetuses are people from conception(even if you don’t agree, if you just imagine for a moment that it is true), we in the United States have legally killed 41 million people. So yes, I think that is one of the most desperate issues in our country.

    You said that when the baby is born is when it’s life becomes worth as much as the mother’s. I do not disagree with you that in cases where the mother’s life is in critical danger, abortion might need to be considered—because at that point you are simply choosing between a life or another life, so I believe the choices are equally bad, but yet one must unfortunately be made. However, most abortions are not done for the life of the mother. And I do NOT believe that a woman’s comfort or lifestyle are worth more than a fetus’s life.

    Also, just because people have differing opinions does not mean that a decision does not have to be made. Even in the creation of this country, the founding fathers had incredibly different ideas which they were equally passionate about of what should be included in the constitution, what form of government we should have, etc. A decision STILL needed to be made. This issue must be addressed. We cannot allow citizens to make up their own minds about when their children become people. Do you see what bad consequences that would have? I could decide that my child isn’t a person until they are 5 years old, and therefore I could decide that killing them at 2 is not murder, but just termination of unwanted cells. Of course I do not hold that view, but under your system of allowing a woman to decide for herself, what would be the difference between deciding that my child is a person at birth, and deciding my child is a person at 5 years old?

    As to your example of the woman in Africa with starving children, of course that is a horrible situation that I would not wish upon anyone, and I think we as Americans do not do enough to help needy people in third world countries. However, as I have said multiple times, I do not believe that there are circumstances in a person’s life that are so bad that they justify the killing of an innocent person to rectify them. Just as with a child with a teminal illness, I do not believe that we have the right to kill the child prematurely. As I have said before, we all have a terminal illness called being human–what is the difference between killing someone a few hours early, a few months early, a few years early, or many years early? We all will have the same end—I do not think we have the right to decide for someone else if that end will come early or not.

    As to the situation in Iraq—that is a completely different situation than abortion and I don’t really see how it is relevant. We are in a WAR with Iraq, we are not fighting against the unborn, and those two situations call for extermely different actions. I do not want to get into a discussion of the justification of the war in Iraq, mostly because I’m not sure which side of the debate I fall on, but also because I would like to stick to the issue at hand.

    I think we can agree to work towards ending unwanted pregnancy. But for me, that is not enough. You have to understand that from my point of view, I am fighting to stop the legal murder of millions—I’m not going to stop at trying to stop those unwanted children from being created, I am going to fight for all of them, because I believe their lives are worth fighting for.

  • invalid-0

    There is another innocent person involved, the unborn child.

    Just because I have not been in a situation does not mean that I cannot imagine what it would be like to be in that situation. Of course it is different if you have gone through it, and I am by no means undermining how hard it must have been for you in your situation, but I standby my statement that there are no circumstances that are so bad that they warrant the death of an innocent person.

    I agree with you that an embryo created because of rape or incest is just as innocent as one created by choice, and so I am against abortion in those cases as well. I put that clause in my statement because I knew the response to my comment would be that not all sex is consentual, so I wanted to address that and talk about abortions NOT due to rape or incest, because I knew that the moment I said I am against it in cases of rape as well, those 1% of cases would take over the debate, when I would rather talk about the 99% of cases that are due to a choice. Does that make sense? Sorry if that is confusing.

    Others CAN decide when I live or die if I am an unborn child.

    A woman only loses the right to kill another human when abortion is illegal. Last I checked, killing another human was not a “legal” right.

  • invalid-0

    I just reread your comment—and disregard what I said about Iraq–I confused your comment with an earlier one and just realized that it was not you who brought up that issue. So please disregard that statement.

  • mellankelly1

    There is another innocent person involved, the unborn child.

    No, there is not.  The only person "involved" is the pregnant woman (although I would say that her loved ones and any children she has are also "involved" considering that women do take into consideration their current family obligations when facing an unwanted pregnancy).

    Just because I have not been in a situation does not mean that I cannot imagine what it would be like to be in that situation.

    You’re right, you can imagine what it’s like… but you could never "understand how hard it could be" (your quote) if you haven’t actually experienced it.  Your statement reflects how many anti-abortion women felt until they experienced an unwanted pregnancy of their own.  See The only moral abortion is my abortion.  A quick excerpt:

    "I’ve had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, ‘You’re not going to tell them, are you!?’ When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn’t want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)

    Granted, there have only been a few studies done on the subject but if you’d care to research you will find that somewhere around 25% of all women who had abortions considered the procedure to be "morally wrong."

    it is different if you have gone through it, and I am by no means undermining how hard it must have been for you in your situation, but I standby my statement that there are no circumstances that are so bad that they warrant the death of an innocent person.

    And luckily, no "innocent person" was killed in my situation.  And yes, you are attempting to undermine my experience when you make the statement that you did not want to include cases of rape in this discussion.

    I agree with you that an embryo created because of rape or incest is just as innocent as one created by choice, and so I am against abortion in those cases as well. I put that clause in my statement because I knew the response to my comment would be that not all sex is consentual, so I wanted to address that and talk about abortions NOT due to rape or incest, because I knew that the moment I said I am against it in cases of rape as well, those 1% of cases would take over the debate, when I would rather talk about the 99% of cases that are due to a choice. Does that make sense? Sorry if that is confusing.

    You cannot separate unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape from this debate because it does happen (and more often than the 1% reported – I can personally attest to that).   According to the U.S. Department of Justice, somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes.  The sheer number of rapes that go unreported (the F.B.I estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police, the Justice Department stats are even lower with only 26% of all rapes being reported to law enforcement ) is a travesty. The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%. This information, in conjunction with estimates based on the U.S. Census, suggest that there may be 32,101 annual  rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.   Please don’t make statements that imply that the number of unwanted pregnancies as a result of non-consensual sex are insignificant because  I assure they are significant to the women whose lives are affected by them.

    Others CAN decide when I live or die if I am an unborn child.

    Wha?  You are not an "unborn" child… please prove to me how at any one point during gestation (or conception, if that’s your belief) you became the person you are now. Take away your adjectives (effectively changing the meaning of the noun) and your statement is untrue… others cannot decide whether a child lives or dies and certainly others cannot decide whether you live or die.

  • invalid-0

    So…when does a fetus become a person with rights that should be protected?

    That’s what this debate really boils down to.

  • mellankelly1

    So…when does a fetus become a person with rights that should be protected?

    Well, we know that once born in the U.S., every child is entitled to their full rights under the law.  A pregnant woman (regardless of whether or not her pregnancy is wanted) is protected by the Constitution - The constitution guarantee’s us that our bodies (and our pregnancies) are a private matter that affect us alone.   It would be unconstitutional to  enact a law that would give the responsibility over our bodies to some form of government. The question of "personhood" is not one that the government could (or should) have to answer. 

    That’s what this debate really boils down to.

    No, it’s not… what this boils down to is whether or not a pregnant woman is entitled to her full legal rights.  Should a woman who becomes pregnant be forced to give up her personal liberties because you wish to impose your personal beliefs (be they religious or philosophical)?

  • invalid-0

    I agree that women should have their full legal rights. Killing another person is not one of those rights. That is why it boils down to the question of when a fetus becomes a person. You must agree that it is not within my right to kill my baby once it is born…what is the difference between killing it then, and killing it one moment before birth? And what is the difference between killing it one moment before birth, and 1 month before birth? 2 months? 5 months? 9 months?

    if a fetus is a person, abortion is the killing of a person, and therefore is not within the legal rights of a woman to do.

  • invalid-0

    Perhaps you don’t understand. A decision has already been made. First trimester abortion is perfectly legal, and the fetus isn’t considered a person, whereas a five-year-old is a person, so no, you can’t kill them. Late-term abortions are heavily legislated, from what I understand only legal if the life or health of the mother is in jeopardy. It’s already law. It’s a decision we already made, just like the founding fathers made tons of decisions. The problem you seem to be having is recognizing that the decision has already been made.
    Also, as to the Africa scenario, I think choosing to starve an entire family rather than allow for early-term abortion, where there’s virtually no development, is cruel and wrong. I would always preserve children that are already born over children that aren’t. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices, and I’d sacrifice an embryo any day over a live child.
    I understand your argument about “what if personhood begins at conception?” However, it isn’t a what if to me. It’s a “definitely not.” You are entitled to keep all of your embryos alive if you want to. But I don’t choose to do that. And you can’t force me to, because as I’ve already stated, personhood officially begins at birth. Already law. And most scientists (who know a lot more that either of us do about the situation) have decided that they agree.
    I too have a “what if” scenario. What if I am Hindu, and believe that cows are sacred? I certainly couldn’t force that view on somebody, because it’s purely suppositional and not based on science. Personhood at conception isn’t based on science either. I can’t legislate something that is scientifically proven to be false, or isn’t at least recognized by science to be true. If you’ve ever seen the glop that is an early miscarraige or abortion, you can’t deny the srtiking difference between that and a person. That’s why late-term abortion is different. Because you actually can see a baby, have a viable life form if it’s delivered of the mother. I believe science supports that position, and nobody’s religious beliefs can trump that. Just because you’re horrified by it doesn’t make it wrong. The Hindus in America are horrified by veal and eating hamburgers. You’re not going to be able to use that to close MacDonalds or ban veal from the menu at Mario’s Italian Restaurant.
    I respect your beliefs and devotion to the sanctity of life, but I think you’re misguided. I think you could be using your time and energy on a cause that keeps alive already born humans instead. But the beauty of this country is that you don’t have to listen to me. You can make your own choice.

  • mellankelly1

    I agree that women should have their full legal rights.

    I don’t believe that you do… if that were the case you would not be in support of taking those rights away (from pregnant women).  Is it that you believe pregnant women should "lose" their personhood status upon becoming pregnant?  For someone who purports to be all about defending people you’ll have to convince me why a pregnant person should not be worthy of your defense.

    Killing another person is not one of those rights

    Nobody has the right to kill another person (with the exception of the death penalty and in the instance of war). 

    That is why it boils down to the question of when a fetus becomes a person

    No, you want it to be about the personhood of the fetus…there is no questioning the personhood of a pregnant woman. 

    You must agree that it is not within my right to kill my baby once it is born…what is the difference between killing it then, and killing it one moment before birth? And what is the difference between killing it one moment before birth, and 1 month before birth? 2 months? 5 months? 9 months?

    It is really quite simple actually… Anyone born or naturalized in the US is entitled to their full rights under the law… murder is against the law.  Correct me if I’m wrong but did you not claim that abortion would only be justifiable in the case of maternal life (imminent death of the pregnant woman)?  In what other situation would there be an exception for maternal life… no woman can kill her child to save herself from natural death or natural bodily harm.  Why the distinction?  Because most people are capable of reasoning that a pregnant woman (and a her child) are more important than an embryo or a fetus.  Asking one to articulate why this is the case gets tricky… because it is a question of personhood and therefore based on ones personal belief system.  What you are asking is for all other people who do not agree with your notion of personhood to set aside their personal belief systems in order to conform to yours.  Sorry, not gonna happen.

    if a fetus is a person, abortion is the killing of a person, and therefore is not within the legal rights of a woman to do.

    A fetus isn’t a person… a pregnant woman is.  You simply cannot deny the life of the pregnant woman; neither can you disregard the rights of the pregnant woman (which include the right to decide the course of her own pregnancy).

  • invalid-0

    The statement that the decision has been made about the personhood of the fetus is not true. Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court are extremely divided on the issue. You should look into a law passed in 2004 called the Unborn Victims Violence Act, which states that in a federal charge, the killing of a pregnant woman should be counted as 2 separate losses of life, anytime from conception to birth. This means that the government, at least in these cases, is recognizing the fetus as a separate person from the mother starting at conception—not just during late-term gestation.
    Also, if you want to say that since something is a law, the issue is over, then slavery would be okay, and women would not have the right to vote. Laws can be incredibly wrong, and it is the duty of the American citizen to fight to change them when they are.
    My point is that we need to define when a fetus is a person, because we need to protect the rights of all persons in our society, including the rights of the pregnant mother, but also including the rights of the unborn child. I am not anti-woman, but I am also not anti-child. When one of their lives is in danger, I will always fight to protect it.
    You are right that you could not force the “Cows are sacred” view on someone else. However, this is different. We as a society already believe that human life is sacred, and I am only standing for that sanctity of human life. Humans are different from cows, and our society believes they have rights. Stopping abortion is only trying to uphold the right to life of all humans that we all already profess.
    As I have said, just because something doesn’t look like a person, doesn’t mean it isn’t one. Someone burned beyond recognition does not usually look like a person, but they are one. Someone with a horrible birth defect may not look like a person, but they are one. A severely mentally-handicapped person may not have the mental capacity or the functionality of a regular person, but they are one. Someone with a severe brain injury may lose all form of communication and personality, but they are still a person.
    I do not believe that either one of us is going to change the other’s mind. But I do ask you to consider what I have said, as I will consider what you have said. Please consider that because someone is pro-life does not mean they are anti-woman. Being a woman, I want the most rights possible for women, and the least suffering possible for the needy. But I think that sometimes pro-choice advocates lose sight of the fact that this issue is not solely about woman’s rights. There is another factor that deserves our attention–and that is when the fetus becomes a person. If it is at conception, we are murdering millions. If it is at viability, it’s personhood depends on available technology. If it is at birth, its personhood depends on its location. As much as I would love to allow us women the choice of abortion so that those who have made poor choices could have a normal life, I see no logical alternative to the idea that a fetus becomes a person at conception. Every other point is just simply arbitrary, and is only justified so that we can rationalize the behavior we wish to be acceptable. If you have any other point at which you can logically support the personhood of a fetus, I am all ears.

  • invalid-0

    You still did not answer the question—When does a fetus become a person? I can’t answer your objections until I have that answer from you.

  • mellankelly1

    2004 called the Unborn Victims Violence Act,

    This law actually supports the rights of the pregnant woman.  Not only because there are exceptions for a woman terminating her pregnancy and the doctors who perform these procedures; but it enforces the notion that the pregnant woman alone gets to decide the course of her pregnancy.  If someone murders a pregnant woman who is attempting to bring her pregnancy to term and her fetus dies as a result why wouldn’t we charge that person to the highest measure of the law? 

    Also, if you want to say that since something is a law, the issue is over, then slavery would be okay, and women would not have the right to vote.

    What an insanely misleading statement to make.  Here you are comparing slaves and women (born in the US) to a thousandth of an ounce second old fertilized egg.  That is completely insulting at best and racist/sexist at it’s worst – slaves and women have always been self aware, thinking, active members of society (comparing them to fertilized eggs is just awful).

    My point is that we need to define when a fetus is a person

    But you simply will not address how we could possibly do that… who will be forced to put aside their personal belief systems in order to establish at which point in time a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person?  I understand why you haven’t addressed this point… because you wish everyone to conform to your idea’s about personhood…  you will not accept any other point at which personhood is established (as if a consensus would ever be possible)

    Someone burned beyond recognition does not usually look like a person, but they are one. Someone with a horrible birth defect may not look like a person, but they are one. A severely mentally-handicapped person may not have the mental capacity or the functionality of a regular person, but they are one. Someone with a severe brain injury may lose all form of communication and personality, but they are still a person.

    Unless these people are currently residing in a woman’s uterus you are talking about two separate issues – defending the rights of any of those people is exactly the same as defending the rights of pregnant women.

    If it is at birth, its personhood depends on its location. 

    It is a lie to pretend that "birth" is solely about location… have you never given birth?  You can attempt to simplify a complex idea but you’ve been unsuccessful thus far.  If scientists, theologians and  philosophers alike cannot come to a consensus what makes you the authority on when one becomes a person?

  • mellankelly1

    You still did not answer the question—When does a fetus become a person? I can’t answer your objections until I have that answer from you.

    That is a cop-out and I’m pretty sure you’re aware of it.  Almost every statement I’ve made speaks to the nature of personhood and the lack of a possible consensus on the matter.  There must be some other reason for you to be unable to answer to the points that I’ve made… think real hard.  Certainly being unclear where I stand on the concept of personhood would not prevent you from answering the questions and/or objections that I’ve asked and/or made:

    • If scientists, theologians and  philosophers alike cannot come to a consensus what makes you the authority on when one becomes a person?
    • who will be forced to put aside their personal belief systems in order to establish at which point in time a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person?  Would you be willing to?
    • I always err on the side of life… the life of the pregnant woman (there’s no questioning her personhood, is there?).
    • As a country, the government must ensure the rights of it’s citizens, including pregnant women regardless of whether or not their pregnancies are wanted.

    • I think you’re trying to say that there needs to be a clear, well-defined point of when a fetus is a person and if so… good luck with that.  People would have to put aside their individual belief systems in order to come to a consensus on that matter… are you willing to put aside yours because I’m not.

    • For you to claim that you, personally, know not only exactly what defines personhood but at what point each of us becomes a person is ludicrous… to argue for the criminalization of abortion based on your definition of personhood is a fallacy.

    • You simply cannot deny the life of the pregnant woman; neither can you disregard the rights of the pregnant woman (which include the right to decide the course of her own pregnancy).

    • It is really quite simple actually… Anyone born or naturalized in the US is entitled to their full rights under the law

    • Correct me if I’m wrong but did you not claim that abortion would only be justifiable in the case of maternal life (imminent death of the pregnant woman)?  In what other situation would there be an exception for maternal life… no woman can kill her child to save herself from natural death or natural bodily harm.  Why the distinction? 

    • For someone who purports to be all about defending people you’ll have to convince me why a pregnant person should not be worthy of your defense

    • No, you want it to be about the personhood of the fetus…there is no questioning the personhood of a pregnant woman. 

    • Should a woman who becomes pregnant be forced to give up her personal liberties because you wish to impose your personal beliefs (be they religious or philosophical) on her?

    • The constitution guarantee’s us that our bodies (and our pregnancies) are a private matter that affect us alone.   It would be unconstitutional to  enact a law that would give the responsibility over our bodies to some form of government. The question of "personhood" is not one that the government could (or should) have to answer. 

    • please prove to me how at any one point during gestation (or conception, if that’s your belief) you became the person you are now. Take away your adjectives (effectively changing the meaning of the noun) and your statement is untrue… others cannot decide whether a child lives or dies and certainly others cannot decide whether you live or die. 
  • invalid-0

    1) I have never said I was an authority on the subject of personhood.
    2) As I have said, of course I am for supporting the legal rights of pregnant women. As I have said multiple times, it is not the legal right of a woman to kill another person. Therefore, if the fetus is a person, abortion is murder. If it is not, it is not murder, and should be the personal choice of the pregnant woman. Therefore, as I have said multiple times, that IS the main issue in this debate.
    3) People must put aside their personal belief systems ALL the time in order for the government to protect others. What law is there that had a complete consensus when it was passed? There are vitually none. We do however agree on certain principles to order our country around, and the belief that all PEOPLE deserve the right to life is one of them. Therefore, if the fetus is the person, it shares this right just as much as you or I, and our laws should reflect that.
    4) How is it an insult to compare a developing person to a grown woman? Are they some kind of second-class citizen because they are not as developed as you or I? How far will we go with that mentality? Is it an insult to compare you to a mentally-handicapped person? A physically-handicapped person? An economically disadvantaged person? An ugly person? If the fetus is a person, it deserves the same level of respect as all the rest of us, and its life should be just as valued.
    5) Of course the UVVA law protects the rights of pregnant women to have abortion because in the United States, first trimester abortion is legal in virtually all cases. The US would not pass a law contradicting its own law. My point was that the law recognizes CONCEPTION as the point at which the fetus is a separate being from the mother, not just a piece of her “tissue.” And my point about raising the issues of women’s right to vote and slavery was simply to point out that laws are not perfect, and they need to be changed when they are found to endanger the life of people.
    6) As far as coming to a consensus on personhood, as I have said it would never need to be a 100% consensus. We vote based on a majority, or actually usually on a plurality. All I asked you was what was YOUR stance on when the fetus becomes a person, and even in all your rants, you have never answered that question. I need to know where you are coming from in order to address the other issues. All other discussion is irrelevant if we cannot discuss that issue. The pregnant woman has most rights to her OWN body, but NOT the right to kill another person. Therefore, as I have said over and over, we must talk about personhood before we can talk about where the rights of the pregnant woman should start and end.

    • invalid-0

      Nope, fetuses are not “second-class citizens.” They’re not citizens at all. We establish citizen status as any person BORN on U.S. soil. Until a baby is born, we don’t even know if they have rights, because they’re technically not citizens yet. Not until they’re born.
      You are right about one thing: people do have to “put aside their personal belief systems ALL the time.” And you may have to put yours aside so that we can protect the rights of women who are legally citizens, and legally have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
      As to the personhood question, I really thought I answered that several times. Nobody can know the exact second it happens. Definitely not a person in the first trimester, definitely a person by the last trimester. So someplace in the second trimester this bundle of cells develops enough to be called a person. I can’t say exactly when, and I don’t think anyone else can either. But it’s definitely NOT a person in the first trimester.
      Having established that, logically first-trimester abortion isn’t killing another person, but third-trimester is. So first-trimester abortion should be legal, and third-trimester abortion should only be legal to save the life/health of the mother, or in the case of a stillbirth or fatal birth defect. As for the second-trimester issue, I’m okay with saying that it should be left up to a woman and her doctor, as it is such a gray area.
      Having established that first-trimester abortion is not killing a viable human life, we should be making them as available as possible. That way nobody would need the second-trimester abortion. With knowledge of prevention methods, readily available first-trimester abortions, and free pre- and post-natal care, we could basically eliminate elective second-term abortion. Then we don’t need to know the exact second in the second trimester when the fetus becomes a person, which is convenient, since NOBODY CAN KNOW THAT. If there weren’t second- and third-trimester abortions except for health reasons, we wouldn’t need to have this argument anymore. Women could have their rights AND we could prevent unnecessary fetal deaths.
      You can certainly disagree with this point of view, but the law seems to reflect my point of view rather than yours. And when that law was made, there was a majority decision to make it. We’ve already had a majority decision on the issue, and not that long ago. We don’t have any reason to revisit that issue unless a majority of Americans are clamoring for it. That just isn’t the case. There’s a very vocal yet fairly small portion of the population that is very much against abortion. But most people I know aren’t. They are okay with a woman and her doctor making this decision in private, without the input of a bunch of right-wing activists who think they should be able to stick their noses in other people’s health decisions. And I agree with them.

  • invalid-0

    See my comment below—but I will answer your objections one by one anyway, even though the answers are irrelevant without knowing how you feel about the personhood of a fetus:

    1) See comment below
    2) See comment below
    3) No one is advotcating that the pregnant mother should die, so we are all for the life of the mother. You ARE erring on the side of death for the unborn fetus, and you cannot deny that fact.
    4) I am for pregnant women possessing all legal rights, which do NOT include the right to kill a person. So we are back to the personhood question.
    5) See comment below
    6) It is NOT ludicrious to define when someone becomes a person. It is necessary, and in my opinion, not even hard. All other points besides conception are arbitrary, and if you would speak to where you stood on the issue, I could explain further why I believe that, and I can, I believe, prove to you that I am right.
    7) I have never denied the life of the pregnant mother. And I have never denied any of her rights, except for the right to kill another person–we get back to the personhood question yet again.
    8) I agree that any US citizen is entitled to their full legal rights.
    9) I don’t quite understand your objection but I will try to respond to what I believe you are saying—the distinction comes because the right to life of the person inside the mother trumps the right to a certain lifestyle or choice of the mother. This is where my question of—are there circumstances so bad that an innocent person must die to take them away?—is relevant.
    10) A pregnant woman is always worthy of defense, until she wants to take the life of an innocent person.
    11) As I have shown over and over, the debate IS about personhood, and I have never questioned the personhood of the mother.
    12) I am not “imposing my personal beliefs” on anyone. I am upholding one of the most basic and primary social laws our country is based upon—that its people deserve the right to life. It is not the personal liberty of a pregnant woman to kill another person–again back to the personhood debate.
    13) That is simply not true. If our bodies are our own personal matter, why can I not sell my kidney for money? It’s my tissue, right? No. There are laws against that. Also, the government does regulate pregnancies after the second trimester, so it is not a private matter, and thirdly…it does not affect you alone. It affects the person inside you. The government DOES have to answer this question because it aims to protect its PEOPLE, and how can it do that without knowing who its people are?
    14) The only logical point of personhood is conception. When I know your view, I will discuss why I believe so. If the fetus is a person, than under our current system of law, women and abortion providers are murdering millions each year, so yes, they CAN decide when a person lives or dies.

    • invalid-0

      I can’t see any answer to the question as to whether a woman can kill her fetus to save herself from natural death.

  • mellankelly1

    See my comment below—but I will answer your objections one by one anyway, even though the answers are irrelevant without knowing how you feel about the personhood of a fetus:

    This is the second time that you’ve made the statement that you are unable and/or unwilling to prove that a fertilized egg is a person without knowing my personal opinion on the matter.  I have never once made the statement that you (or anyone else) should be required to adhere to my personal belief systems – I am not advocating taking rights away from pregnant women based solely on my opinion.  Besides, there are too many people with too many religious and/or philosophical opinions and/or beliefs about personhood.  I am merely stating the truth of the matter… there will never be a consensus regarding "personhood" – there is not one person who has been able to prove the point at which each of us becomes a person (and you’ve certainly not provided any compelling evidence that the fertilized egg is a person.) 

    3) No one is advotcating that the pregnant mother should die, so we are all for the life of the mother. You ARE erring on the side of death for the unborn fetus, and you cannot deny that fact.

    This is your opinion… the fact of the matter is that I always err on the side of life when I make the statement that we must ensure the rights of every person in this country – including pregnant women.  If a woman decides that it is in her best interest that her pregnancy be terminated I will always fully support that right.  Unlike some, I do not believe that some third party with no stake in the outcome should make life altering (and potentially life threatening) decisions for pregnant women.

    ) I am for pregnant women possessing all legal rights, which do NOT include the right to kill a person. So we are back to the personhood question.

    And why is it okay for you to totally and completely disregard the pregnant person?  In what other situation is a persons bodily integrity forcibly violated for another "person"?

    It is NOT ludicrious to define when someone becomes a person. It is necessary, and in my opinion, not even hard. All other points besides conception are arbitrary, and if you would speak to where you stood on the issue, I could explain further why I believe that, and I can, I believe, prove to you that I am right.

    and

    The only logical point of personhood is conception. When I know your view, I will discuss why I believe so. If the fetus is a person, than under our current system of law, women and abortion providers are murdering millions each year, so yes, they CAN decide when a person lives or dies.

    How is conception any less arbitrary?  Are you saying that a person is nothing more than DNA?  To make that statement one would be completely discounting the things that are consider to be the very nature of personhood – things like our thoughts, our emotions, consciousness, our sense of being an individual, our ability to feel a connection to others, our personal relationships and our experiences?  Despite your delusions of grandeur, you could never, ever prove that there is a person established at conception – scholars, theologians, and scientists have been able to prove or even come to a consensus on the matter so you’d better get crackin’.  Since you will never be able to establish the personhood of the fertilized egg without using your personal opinions and belief systems, using this as an argument to criminalize abortion is a fallacy.

     8) I agree that any US citizen is entitled to their full legal rights.

    No, you don’t.  You wish to discriminate against pregnant women and that is unconstitutional.  You are asking that the government put the rights of a fertilized egg over those of a pregnant woman.

    9) I don’t quite understand your objection but I will try to respond to what I believe you are saying—the distinction comes because the right to life of the person inside the mother trumps the right to a certain lifestyle or choice of the mother. This is where my question of—are there circumstances so bad that an innocent person must die to take them away?—is relevant.

    Your question is only relevant when a person actually dies… in the case of abortion a pregnancy is being terminated.  Period.  Despite your desperate attempts to prove otherwise.  What "lifestyle" are you referring to because that is a seriously generalized statement – do you know what lifestyle means or do you just prefer to throw anti-abortion buzzwords around this debate in lieu of an actual argument?

    12) I am not "imposing my personal beliefs" on anyone. I am upholding one of the most basic and primary social laws our country is based upon—that its people deserve the right to life. It is not the personal liberty of a pregnant woman to kill another person–again back to the personhood debate.

     And now you’ve made a great argument for abortion rights considering that every person in our country (including pregnant women) has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness – unless you wish to define what each of those statements should mean for the general population.

    13) That is simply not true. If our bodies are our own personal matter, why can I not sell my kidney for money? It’s my tissue, right? No. There are laws against that. Also, the government does regulate pregnancies after the second trimester, so it is not a private matter, and thirdly…it does not affect you alone. It affects the person inside you. The government DOES have to answer this question because it aims to protect its PEOPLE, and how can it do that without knowing who its people are?

    If it is not true that the constitution guarantee’s us the right to privacy (including self sovereignty and bodily integrity) then cases like Winston v. Lee (in which the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant’s compelled surgery to remove a bullet to be used as evidence in his prosecution violated his constitutionally protected rights to bodily integrity.) would be unconstitutional.  Both common law and statutory law have long upheld the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity.  For crying out loud, a child cannot even force it’s parents to undergo any form of bodily invasion (including a blood test) without their consent.  The government allows for instances post-viability where a woman can legally terminate her pregnancy for maternal life/health – apparently the government is capable of understanding that a woman’s life (and the lives of her family, including any children she has) is more important than a fetus.  The government could not (under any circumstances) define personhood – the governments job is to protect it’s citizens (including the pregnant ones).

    • invalid-0

      1) You ARE advocating that we all adhere to your personal beliefs. Your belief is that a woman should be able to choose to kill her unborn child, and you want us all to adhere to that. As I have said before, I have never said that there will be a 100% consensus on the subject. And as I have also said before, the only right I would be taking away from a pregnant woman would be the right to take the life of another human being. We all agree that a fetus is a human (because if it is not homo sapien, than what is it?)…so is it okay to take the life of a human for the comfort of another?
      2) I never said I was unable to talk about personhood without your opinion, but it is pointless to. It’s pointless for me to argue a point when I don’t know what I am arguing against.
      3) It is not simply my opinion that before an abortion a fetus is alive, and after an abortion it is dead. That is a fact, not an opinion.
      4) A “third party” makes decisions all the time that alter our lives. They are protecting the rights of other people through upholding laws such as the law that murder is illegal. That might go against my “personal beliefs” but it doesn’t matter. It infringes on the right of others to life, and so therefore is illegal. Abortion would just be an extension of this law to protect the rights of people.
      5) As I have said multiple times, I have never supported disregarding the pregnant woman. Ever. THe only thing I have supported is to protect the life of the child. I have said I am completely supportive of giving aid to these women to assist in their pregnancy financially and through counseling support, or any other need they have, providing good adoption services to help these children find loving wonderful homes if they are “unwanted” by their parents, etc. I am not against women, I AM a woman. Obviously I want us to have rights, be respected, and have successful lives. But I also want that for the unborn women (and men) whose lives have been stolen because of abortion.
      6) Answering the objection about the “arbitrary” point of conception, as I have said, requires you to provide an alternative definition of when personhood happens. If all those things you mentioned… “thoughts, our emotions, consciousness, our sense of being an individual, our ability to feel a connection to others, our personal relationships and our experiences” are required for being a person, what about adult human beings who do not have those characteristics? Can we “terminate” them too? For example, severely brain damaged individuals commonly lose the ability to feel emotion, to be conscious, to feel a connection to others, to haver personal relationships, etc. Can we terminate these individuals?
      I will respond to other objections, but let’s deal with these first. I am not intending to attack you personally, and I understand–through inference from comments you have said here—that you have been wronged in the worst way, and felt that an aobrtion was the best way to get out of that situation. I am so sorry for what happened to you, and I don’t mean that in a fake or insincere way. I am extremely sorry for what was done to you, and I can only imagine how hurtful and horrible it must have been for you. My argument against abortion is by no means a justification in any way for what happened to you. It was horrible and wrong, and I sincerely hope that whoever hurt you has been punished to the full extent of the law. I hope that you have family and friends who show you everyday how special you are to them and how much they love you. I know it doesn’t make the situation any easier, but it is important to know that you are loved and that people are outraged at what happened to you and what happens to girls like us everday in our own country. It is one of the biggest shames of our country, and we should fight with everything we can against people like the one who hurt you.

  • mellankelly1

    It is apparent from your contradictions that you are unsure about your feelings towards the fertilized egg.  It is clear, however, that you abhor abortion (particularly considering your stance on rape related pregnancy) and appear to be jumping on the anti-choice bandwagon (so to speak) which, for the time being, appears to be the "personhood" of the fertilized egg.  Why would you make a statement like this:

    It is NOT ludicrious to define when someone becomes a person. It is necessary, and in my opinion, not even hard. All other points besides conception are arbitrary, and if you would speak to where you stood on the issue, I could explain further why I believe that, and I can, I believe, prove to you that I am right.

    and follow it up with this statement:

    I have never said I was an authority on the subject of personhood.

    Either you do not feel that your personal belief system should dictate the law or you acknowledge that you cannot, in fact, prove when one becomes a person.

    How is it an insult to compare a developing person to a grown woman? Are they some kind of second-class citizen because they are not as developed as you or I?

    Second class citizen?  Really?  Apparently I didn’t get the memo which states that my fertilized eggs are citizens and as such, entitled to their full rights under the constitution.  Why is it that I wasn’t able to claim these "citizens" as my dependents until I gave birth to them?  Why is my youngest not a Canadian citizen (since that is where she was conceived)?  Please, we’re not fourth graders here… we all know that a fertilized egg is in no way, shape or form a citizen of the United States (or any other country, for that matter).  Do I really need to explain why it was offensive for you to compare women and slaves (notably missing from your comparison were white males) to a thousandth of an ounce, second old fertilized egg?  So the fact that women and slaves have always been self aware, thinking, active members of society eluded you?  When was the last time you saw a zygote pickup a paycheck… or volunteer to help the poor or raise a family or fall in love or contribute to our economy?  Are you implying that women and slaves do/did none of those things? 

    My point was that the law recognizes CONCEPTION as the point at which the fetus is a separate being from the mother, not just a piece of her "tissue."

    It most certainly does not… please quote the portion of the law which states that the zygote/embryo/fetus is separate from the mother.  What this law does is validate the fact that the interest of the fetus and the pregnant woman are unitary.  As a matter of fact, the only time the fetal and maternal interests conflict is in regard to abortion… the only reason why they conflict is because those vehemently opposed to abortion (due to their personal belief system) do not believe that the pregnant woman is in the best position to make decisions regarding her pregnancy.

     As far as coming to a consensus on personhood, as I have said it would never need to be a 100% consensus. We vote based on a majority, or actually usually on a plurality

    I’ll tell you what… in the country that I live in, people need a more compelling reason then "we’re not sure, but we believe that a fertilized egg is a person… but we’re not experts on personhood" to take rights away from it’s citizens.  Sorry… no proof (or even a hint of proof) no dice.  We can talk about personhood until we mute ourselves and we will still never come to a consensus (that means: general agreement).

    • invalid-0

      So………….
      If life begins at conception (or implantation) and personhood too then I want to rights to my second personhood if I was really two fertilized eggs that later combined together. I want my two votes to reflect my two persons! Oh, also some twinning is the case where each twin is only really ½ a person, due to embryo division after fertilization. One of these twins is taking mine or someone elses vote!

    • invalid-0

      I thought Webster in Missouri during the 80s was the first such law ever passed? Interestingly thing about Missouri is that it was upheld without bringing down a womans right to terminate her pregnancy and Missouri subsequently voted to protect embryonic stem cell research.

  • invalid-0

    There is no federal or constitutional law that recognizes this – never has been.

  • mellankelly1

    I wasn’t sure if this response was directed to me…

    I can’t see any answer to the question as to whether a woman can kill her fetus to save herself from natural death

    If it was, would you mind referencing what it was in response to… I think it means that there was never any indication as to whether or not Ms. Pope supports a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy if her life is threatened.  If so, you’re correct… I couldn’t find anything regarding her stance on the life of the pregnant woman.  I suppose she could be in favor of letting the woman die if there is a chance that the fetus may survive but I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt (that she would support the life of the pregnant woman).

  • invalid-0

    Of course I am for supporting the life of the pregnant mother, and cases would have to be taken on a case by case basis–I don’t think it’s practical or wise to make a blanket statement, but of course if the mother’s life was in danger abortion would be at least considered.

  • mellankelly1

    I get that it is extremely difficult (if not virtually impossible) to defend a position that wishes to give fertilized eggs more rights than pregnant women, okay?  I get that in order to dodge a direct question or provide compelling reasons for your beliefs you like to take the debate into little circles but please understand that changing the subject and/or talking around the issues does not effect the validity of the questions asked or the statements made.  Point in case: I make the following statement:

    I am not advocating taking rights away from pregnant women based solely on my opinion.  Besides, there are too many people with too many religious and/or philosophical opinions and/or beliefs about personhood.  I am merely stating the truth of the matter… there will never be a consensus regarding "personhood" – there is not one person who has been able to prove the point at which each of us becomes a person (and you’ve certainly not provided any compelling evidence that the fertilized egg is a person.) 

    And your response was:

    You ARE advocating that we all adhere to your personal beliefs. Your belief is that a woman should be able to choose to kill her unborn child, and you want us all to adhere to that. As I have said before, I have never said that there will be a 100% consensus on the subject. And as I have also said before, the only right I would be taking away from a pregnant woman would be the right to take the life of another human being. We all agree that a fetus is a human (because if it is not homo sapien, than what is it?)…so is it okay to take the life of a human for the comfort of another?

    First and foremost… I’ve never asked that you (or anyone else) believe anything about the personhood of the fetus – I find it to be an inane concept.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, so please don’t make this about me trying to force you to "adhere" (means: give support to) to my opinions.  I’ve consistently made the statement that there are many differing points of view regarding personhood and pregnancy (including yours) and that there is no compelling evidence to support any particular time during a pregnancy that one receives personhood… and to criminalize abortion based on one person (or one groups) personal belief system would, in fact, be erroneous.  And what the heck kind of a concept is "100% consensus"?  When I made the very factual statement that there is no consensus regarding personhood, I meant there is no general agreement (never did I even imply that there could or should be 100% agreement on the matter).  And please stop pretending that women do not take into consideration their current family obligations (including any children she may already have) and her economic situation when deciding to whether or not to continue her pregnancy.  When you make statements that women terminate their pregnancy for their "comfort" or "lifestyle" you are attempting to demonize women and paint a picture of women who terminate their pregnancies as uncaring, selfish women who become pregnant and abort on a whim; studies done have proven this anti-woman rhetoric to be untrue.

     I never said I was unable to talk about personhood without your opinion, but it is pointless to. It’s pointless for me to argue a point when I don’t know what I am arguing against.

    I am perfectly capable of arguing the point that the central issue of the abortion debate is most certainly not the "personhood" of a fertilized egg without being aware of any particular persons personal belief system.  I know that anti-abortion advocates would love to take the focus off of women but considering that a fertilized requires the sacrifice of a woman in order to survive (which is not applicable to any other situation) this is an impossibility, to be sure.  What you are "arguing against" is any other person who does not have the same belief system as you.  I can assure you that this is not about me or you (kind of the point I’ve been making) - I am attempting to bring up facts and issues that are relevant to everyone.  I think you and I arguing our personal belief systems would be ineffectual… we must step back and take a look at the big picture.  Who is most qualified to make decisions regarding her pregnancy?  The pregnant woman or some third party with absolutely no stake in the outcome?  Do you seriously wish to take women out of the picture when discussing unwanted pregnancy… because, frankly, that is exactly what you do when you argue the point of view of the fertilized egg.

  • invalid-0

    1) I am not giving a fetus more rights than a pregnant woman. I am only giving the fetus the right to life, which all humans share.
    2) I am not taking the argument in “little circles”. The only argument I have ever made is that the fetus is a person. That is my one point and one argument and everything I say stems from that one argument, which you have not yet refuted, but have only virtually said “We can’t know that.” As I have said, if we can’t know if it is a person or not, we should err on the side of caution and life of the fetus, for fear that we may be wrong and we may be murdering 41 million children. Does that idea scare you at all? It scares me–what if we as a country are wrong and conception is when personhood begins. Then we have allowed 41 children to be murdered LEGALLY in our country. Until a viable alternative point for personhood to conception is suggested, that is the point at which a human is created, so that is the earliest point at which it is possible and logical that a person is created, and therefore the most logical and cautious point for personhood to begin.
    3) You ARE asking me to believe something about the personhood of a fetus. If it were a person, abortion would be murder. Since you are advocating that abortion isn’t murder, by default you are advocating that a fetus is NOT a person.
    4) As I have said over and over, “personal belief systems” are imposed on you every single day. Using the same example as before, the belief that murder is wrong is a “personal belief system.” If you cannot impose that personal belief system on me, then I should be free to murder whomever I choose, because I should be free–according to you— from adhering to anyone else’s (or any group’s) personal belief system.
    5) I have never said pregnant women do not take into consideration their life situations, other children, families, etc. But it doesn’t matter what they take into consideration—murder is wrong. If abortion is murder, it cannot be allowed. If it is not, it is a personal choice that should be left up to the woman.
    6) Pro-life supporters are not anti-woman, and are not trying to disregard or degrade pregnant women in any way. A good portion of them ARE women. They are pro-woman AND pro-child. Abortion is either murder, or it isn’t. If it is, we cannot allow it. If it isn’t, it is a personal choice of the mother.

  • mellankelly1

    It is not simply my opinion that before an abortion a fetus is alive, and after an abortion it is dead. That is a fact, not an opinion.

    Okay… I never said it was.  It is, however, your opinion that a person is killed when a pregnancy is terminated… and that is certainly not a fact.

    A "third party" makes decisions all the time that alter our lives. They are protecting the rights of other people through upholding laws such as the law that murder is illegal. That might go against my "personal beliefs" but it doesn’t matter. It infringes on the right of others to life, and so therefore is illegal. Abortion would just be an extension of this law to protect the rights of people.

    What are you talking about?  You are incorrect, my dear (or grossly misinformed)… when is it legal for some third party, with no stake what-so-ever in the outcome, to make medical decisions for you?  Pretending that laws which ensure our safety is the same thing as making laws that deny our personal liberties is dishonest.

    I have said I am completely supportive of giving aid to these women to assist in their pregnancy financially and through counseling support, or any other need they have, providing good adoption services to help these children find loving wonderful homes if they are "unwanted" by their parents, etc.

    And what if "aid" isn’t enough to justify a woman gestate a pregnancy?  Studies done have shown that women site a minimum of four reasons why they opted to terminate their pregnancies. Should a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and to give her child to another person simply because you do not like the alternative?  How very pro-woman of you.  By the way, terminating an unwanted pregnancy avoids there being an unwanted child.

    Answering the objection about the "arbitrary" point of conception, as I have said, requires you to provide an alternative definition of when personhood happens.

    No, it does not.  If it’s true that a person is present at conception you should have no problem proving this point regardless of what another persons viewpoint may be.  You can’t do it (or have been unable thus far), simple as that.

    If all those things you mentioned… "thoughts, our emotions, consciousness, our sense of being an individual, our ability to feel a connection to others, our personal relationships and our experiences" are required for being a person, what about adult human beings who do not have those characteristics?

    Oh please… what adult human being has never experienced one or more of those characteristics?  Who is this adult person that has not had a connection to others in their lifetime (no parents or loved ones?) or had life experiences (unable to hear, smell, see, think, feel since birth?)  I love the smell of red herring in the afternoon.

    For example, severely brain damaged individuals commonly lose the ability to feel emotion, to be conscious, to feel a connection to others, to haver personal relationships, etc. Can we terminate these individuals?

    Oh yes, lets pretend that these people have never experienced thoughts, emotions, consciousness, the sense of being an individual, any life experience or a connection to another person.  That is the weakest justification for "fetal personhood" that I’ve heard to date.  Who in the world would make a statement that personhood is something that can be taken away or that would disappear upon some tragedy?  That’s insane.

    that you have been wronged in the worst way and felt that an aobrtion was the best way to get out of that situation

    I apologize if I implied that I "felt an abortion was the best" thing for me… Lets be clear here, I assure you, there is no doubt about it.  Abortion was, without question, the only option for me.  Not only that, I am positive that I’d do it again under those same circumstances. 

     It is one of the biggest shames of our country, and we should fight with everything we can against people like the one who hurt you

    I agree with you and sincerely appreciate the sentiment.

  • invalid-0

    1) It is a fact, however, that the fetus either is a person, or isn’t. And that is a fact that we NEED to discover. Just because people disagree about something doesn’t mean the issue is irrelevant, or that truth about it does not exist, or can’t be discovered.
    2) You have made my point. If the fetus is a person, banning abortion would be a law that would ensure the safety of the unborn child, and would fall under the umbrella of “laws that ensure our safety” as you put it.
    3) It doesn’t matter how many reasons you cite for killing someone, it is still murder. The same logic applies to abortion, if the fetus is a person. It doesn’t matter how many reasons you cite, if the fetus is a person, it is killing a person.
    4) The issue of dealing with unwanted children is completely separate. The solution to stopping children from being unwanted is not to kill them before they are born. Which is a better fate? The possibility of being unwanted, or immediate death? I think I would choose the possibility, if I were the child.
    5) I did prove that conception is the best point for saying personhood begins. That is the point where the being becomes a human, and since I believe that all humans are people, that is the point when a fetus becomes a person. I can go into further detail on this issue if you wish.
    6) So let’s see–if a human has just one of the characteristics you mentioned, they are a person? Or do they have to have half of them? All of them? Because a fetus surely has parents, can feel at least pain (I realize it cannot feel pain at conception, but it can at some arguable point during the pregnancy), hear (again at some point during pregnancy), etc. So it would seem that if that list you mentioned is what it takes to be a person, a fetus at least has some of the qualifications. And if you are saying a human must have all of them to be a person, then there are MANY adults who do not qualify. It was not meant to be a justification specifically for fetal personhood, but just what qualifies a person in general, and then we can apply that standard to fetuses and see if they have the necessary characterisitcs. The only logical distinction is that all humans are people. Since a fetus is a human, it is a person. Since a mentally-hanicapped person is a human, they are a person. No matter how damaged or not damaged, undeveloped or developed, psychologically stable or unstable, a human is a person.

  • http://inowrite.blogspot.com/ invalid-0

    I am not giving a fetus more rights than a pregnant woman. I am only giving the fetus the right to life, which all humans share

    Okay… lets walk through this… a child (or any other person) cannot force it’s parents (or any other person) to undergo any form of bodily invasion (including a blood test) without that persons consent.  You wish for the fertilized egg to be able to force the woman to sustain it (even at the risk of serious bodily or psychological harm to the woman) without her consent.  Why is it okay for a fertilized egg (which, contrary to your beliefs is most certainly not "a person") to have rights which no person has?  Even if you consider a thousandth of an ounce second old fertilized egg to be a person, you would be, in essence, giving the fertilized egg "superior person" status which is unconstitutional.  You wish to deny a woman (whose rights are protected by our constitution) her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness based on what?  Your idea’s of personhood?  Sorry… there are no circumstances wherein a fertilized egg should have more (or any)rights than a pregnant woman.

    The only argument I have ever made is that the fetus is a person

    But it is not… unless you have some compelling reason for believing this that you have yet to share, it is merely your opinion that a fertilized egg or a fetus is a person.  Your opinion is in no way different then any other persons opinion of personhood regardless of at which point they believe "personhood" to have been established.  And when you continue to bring the discussion back to your feelings about what a "person" is without any evidence or supporting information each time a counter-argument is presented, you are, in fact, talking in circles.

    That is my one point and one argument and everything I say stems from that one argument, which you have not yet refuted, but have only virtually said "We can’t know that."

    and

     Until a viable alternative point for personhood to conception is suggested, that is the point at which a human is created, so that is the earliest point at which it is possible and logical that a person is created, and therefore the most logical and cautious point for personhood to begin

    Listen, I do not need to define personhood in order to refute your argument.  I have successfully denied the accuracy of your proclamations – it is not truthful or accurate to say that a fertilized egg is a person.  The onus is on you to prove your assertion (it’s called Burden of Proof) - it is not necessary for me to prove a negative.  You are attempting to prove something which cannot be proven.  My statements that woman are U.S. citizens, and undeniably "people", and are therefor entitled to their full rights is a fact which is easily proven.  Your attempts to prove that a fertilized egg is a person merely because it has DNA is a fallacy because personhood is not and never has been defined by having DNA.

    You ARE asking me to believe something about the personhood of a fetus. If it were a person, abortion would be murder. Since you are advocating that abortion isn’t murder, by default you are advocating that a fetus is NOT a person.

    Hey… know what?  Abortion isn’t murder regardless of my opinion regarding personhood - I’m advocating for the rights of all people (including pregnant woman) as evidenced in our Constitution.  You’re advocating to change the legal definition of murder, I am most certainly not.  Know what else?  A fetus is not a person.

    As I have said over and over, "personal belief systems" are imposed on you every single day. Using the same example as before, the belief that murder is wrong is a "personal belief system." If you cannot impose that personal belief system on me, then I should be free to murder whomever I choose, because I should be free–according to you— from adhering to anyone else’s (or any group’s) personal belief system.

    Just as I suspected, you cannot give me one example of when some third party (with no stake in the outcome) is legally able to make personal medical decisions for someone else.  At least we’ve established that.  It is very telling that you had no retort for my original comment/question:

    What are you talking about?  You are incorrect, my dear (or grossly misinformed)… when is it legal for some third party, with no stake what-so-ever in the outcome, to make medical decisions for you?  Pretending that laws which ensure our safety is the same thing as making laws that deny our personal liberties is dishonest.

    I have never said pregnant women do not take into consideration their life situations, other children, families, etc.

    So when you made the blanket statement that women terminate pregnancies because of their "lifestyle" or for their "comfort" you meant that these women were very thoughtful in their considerations including (but not limited to) their current family situation, the children that they have, their economic situations and the state of their health before deciding what course their pregnancies should take? 

    Relevant facts in a nutshell:

    • A fetus is not a person. (DNA does not equal personhood)
    • The pregnant woman is the best person to be making decisions regarding her pregnancy (as the relationship is unitary).
    • Abortion is not murder (nor has it ever been considered murder, even when it was illegal – a zygote/embryo/fetus has never been considered a person)
    • Every person born or naturalized in the US is entitled to his or her full citizenship rights.
    • Both common law and statutory law have long upheld the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity.
    • The government (and the Courts) are capable of recognizing that a woman’s life (and the lives of her family, including any children she has) is more important than a zygote/embryo/fetus – thus exceptions for maternal life/health.
    • There exists NO SITUATION where some third party (with no stake in the outcome) can make personal medical decisions for another person.

     

     

  • mellankelly1

     It is a fact, however, that the fetus either is a person, or isn’t. And that is a fact that we NEED to discover. Just because people disagree about something doesn’t mean the issue is irrelevant, or that truth about it does not exist, or can’t be discovered.

    The fetus isn’t a person… the question of fertilized eggs-as-persons is a relatively recent attempt by those who are virulently anti-abortion to criminalize abortion.  Every other tactic has failed because these people have been unable to get around the fact that a pregnant woman is a person and as such is entitled to her full citizenship rights (so logically they thought… "hey, if fertilized eggs were persons maybe we could win this thing").  Flawed thinking (to say the least) to think that a fertilized egg could ever be seen as a person entitled to those same rights is a logical fallacy.  Two people cannot "share" citizenship rights.  A fertilized egg cannot be given more rights than a person.  If you believe that a  fertilized egg is a person you would still be unable to give that "person" more rights than another person… a person is not allowed to force another to sustain their life without their permission.  Period.  No way to get around that.

     You have made my point. If the fetus is a person, banning abortion would be a law that would ensure the safety of the unborn child, and would fall under the umbrella of "laws that ensure our safety" as you put it

    What the… that is insane.  Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES could a "person" force another person to sustain their life.  What if I wanted someone to sustain my life by giving me one of their kidneys (they could get along fine with the other one)?  Well, what if this person didn’t want to take the risks required in order to sustain my life?  By your logic (used loosely) that person would have to give me the kidney so that I can live… it isn’t fair that they get to consider their family obligations or their current economic situation when my life is on the line (how selfish).  You dance around the law and the precedent set… you can do that when discussing this matter on this blog and in your personal life.  Fortunately our legislatures and the Courts cannot (and thankfully they will not).  Maybe you don’t understand why claiming that a fertilized egg and a fetus and should have more rights than a pregnant woman is a logical fallacy, and that’s understandable.  However, it doesn’t change that fact.

    The issue of dealing with unwanted children is completely separate.

    Agreed, but you brought it up.

     The possibility of being unwanted, or immediate death?

    There is no child prior to birth.  Prove to me how immediate death of a zygote/embryo/fetus is worse than creating an unwanted child.

    I did prove that conception is the best point for saying personhood begins. That is the point where the being becomes a human, and since I believe that all humans are people, that is the point when a fetus becomes a person. I can go into further detail on this issue if you wish.

    Um yah… that’s not proof.  That is not convincing evidence that compels acceptance.  Geez… you keep stating that you could go in further detail and as of this second you have not.  You think a fertilized egg is a person because you believe all humans are people – so what?  You think you’ve been able to crack the question of personhood?  If you do, please share your findings with the many scholars, theologians and philosophers who have been attempting to do this for much longer than you or I have.  Your "proof" sounds like post hoc, ergo propter hoc to me.

    So let’s see–if a human has just one of the characteristics you mentioned, they are a person? Or do they have to have half of them? All of them?

    I don’t know – what do you think?  What makes you a person? Your DNA?  You don’t believe that there is more to being a person then the physical dynamics of the human organism within the world?  Your logic is flawed… you can’t prove that a fertilized egg is a person and you can’t prove that the attributes that I listed do not make a person.  I can’t prove that a person is more than DNA (although it makes perfect sense to me) because articulating (or writing) about what specific attribute, qualification, or perspective defines personhood isn’t easy – unless you attempt to over-simplify a complicated concept down to "it has DNA."

    The only logical distinction is that all humans are people. Since a fetus is a human, it is a person. Since a mentally-hanicapped person is a human, they are a person. No matter how damaged or not damaged, undeveloped or developed, psychologically stable or unstable, a human is a person.

    Ah… now that’s post hoc ergo propter hoc.

  • invalid-0

    You’re correct, Mellankelly1, I thought you asked the question here….


    Correct me if I’m wrong but did you not claim that abortion would only be justifiable in the case of maternal life (imminent death of the pregnant woman)? In what other situation would there be an exception for maternal life… no woman can kill her child to save herself from natural death or natural bodily harm. Why the distinction?

    so was just interested in the response that came back.

    I support the life of the woman as I’m pro-choice and don’t believe right to life extends over another persons body so the fetus has no right to the womans body in the first place.

    But I wonder why so many pro-lifers can make this exception to killing an ‘innocent person’ to save the woman from natural death. Even when there are two patients that are going to die, we don’t kill one patient to save the other. Also in the case of pregnancy, using the prolifer frame, the woman is the one that needs to accept the consequences of sex. The consequences of sex include her death as part of the continuum of the full range of pregnancy outcomes (in short – healthy and both alive, minor problems for either, medium problems for either, major problems for either, death for either).

    The woman chose to have sex and take the risks. The fetus is totally innocent yet it gets the death penalty for her change of mind on a consequence she doesn’t want to accept. We don’t allow a parent to risk their own life and then kill their child instead to save themselves from the consequences –these prolifers that allow this exception end up treating a fetus with less value than a child.

  • mellankelly1

     But I wonder why so many pro-lifers can make this exception to killing an ‘innocent person’ to save the woman from natural death. Even when there are two patients that are going to die, we don’t kill one patient to save the other. Also in the case of pregnancy, using the prolifer frame, the woman is the one that needs to accept the consequences of sex. The consequences of sex include her death as part of the continuum of the full range of pregnancy outcomes (in short – healthy and both alive, minor problems for either, medium problems for either, major problems for either, death for either).

    You and me both… I’m always a little puzzled by this response… why would someone allow for fetal death so that the woman can live if they believe the fetus to be a "person"?  Particularly considering that most people would opt to save a child over an adult in the same circumstances?  It seems inconsistent, to say the least.  But what logic do you expect from the viewpoint of one who would force a rape victim to gestate (and put her life on the line) and give birth to her rapists child?   Which is okay because she can simply give the child to some other person for adoption.

    The woman chose to have sex and take the risks. The fetus is totally innocent yet it gets the death penalty for her change of mind on a consequence she doesn’t want to accept. We don’t allow a parent to risk their own life and then kill their child instead to save themselves from the consequences –these prolifers that allow this exception end up treating a fetus with less value than a child.

    On top of that, they wish to give a fertilized egg more rights than a child (or any other person) prior to birth… I suppose upon birth they will be treated as any other person would be (unable to force another person to sustain their life).  It’s all very confusing.

  • invalid-0

    1) It certainly is not a recent attempt–people have had this belief for many many years, it just didn’t need to be discussed until Roe vs. Wade was passed, because until that point, abortion had been illegal.
    2) Why would I, as a woman, WANT to restrict the rights of women? I am not trying to make up arguments so that we will lose the right to have an abortion. That is ridiculous. I am not debating this simply to prove that I am right or to “win this thing.” I am only trying to stop the unborn from being murdered, and in order to do so, am asking women to accept the consequences of their action (of course, talking about consentual sex here), and not to kill their children that were created because of their actions. That is my one and only motive in having this conversation, and in taking a stand against abortion. It is extremely insulting that you believe I would pass laws saying that rape victims must carry their pregnancy to term without believing that it would actually preserve the life of an innocent person. How selfish would that make me? These are not just “tactics” I am trying to use to ruin women’s lives. I am fighting for the truth, and for life..not for my own ego.
    3) That is not insane and it happens all the time. Parents are forced to sustain the lives of their children. If they don’t sustain them, they get charged with child neglect or child abuse depending on severity. The law forces them to sustain the life of their child every single day, no matter how much of an inconvenience it is to them.
    4) As I have said many times, I am not advocating that the fetus have more rights than the mother, I am only advocating that it have the right to life, which is a right that the mother has as well.
    5) It’s a good thing we didn’t “dance around the law and the prescedent set” when we were debating abolishing slavery or granting women’s suffrage, because “under no circumstances” can the lawmakers or Congress do that. Oh wait, yeah—they did. The law isn’t perfect. Actually, many times it’s completely wrong, as in the case of slavery. The 3/5 Compromise? That was a great idea. Just because something is a law doesn’t mean that it is good, or even tolerable. In those cases, we need to fight for change.
    6) I told you what I think makes you a person. Being a human being. That is the only logical criteria I have ever heard or read anywhere. Everything else would either be too lenient or too strict. Under your list of characteristics, most animals would qualify as persons. They hear, think, feel, see, have emotions, connect with others, have a sense of being an individual, etc. And like I said, many adults do not fit that criteria. Being a human is the only criteria that makes sense. I can prove that the attributes you listed do not make a person—animals have them, and some adults don’t. Therefore, there must be some other criteria because that criteria clearly does not work. I don’t think this is over-simplification. It just really is that simple. Either you are a human or you’re not, which means either you are a person or you’re not. What alternative is there? That there is a magical feeling or “perspective” that makes you a person? No. You either are a human, or you aren’t. Why is that defintion not satisfactory?

  • invalid-0

    My response to that question was that it would be taken on a case-by-case basis. I said that abortion would at least be considered…I never said that it would be the right choice in every case. There are many cases in which if the mother dies, the fetus will die too because it cannot survive outside of her until it is more developed. Obviously in those cases, to save one is better than losing both. That is why I wanted to avoid making blanket statements about that issue.

  • invalid-0


    There are many cases in which if the mother dies, the fetus will die too because it cannot survive outside of her until it is more developed. Obviously in those cases, to save one is better than losing both.

    The is the two patients that I wrote about in my comment – actively killing one in order to save the other from natural death versus letting them both die naturally. We don’t do this.

  • invalid-0


    1) It certainly is not a recent attempt–people have had this belief for many many years, it just didn’t need to be discussed until Roe vs. Wade was passed, because until that point, abortion had been illegal.

    There were no anti-abortion laws in the US until the mid-1800s. Abortion/contraception was made illegal for the first time in the 1800s and only at a state by state level. Some states overturned their laws prior to Roe being decided.

  • invalid-0

    Yes we do. We do it with conjoined twins. If both are going to die, we have the option to kill one to save the other.

  • invalid-0


    3) That is not insane and it happens all the time. Parents are forced to sustain the lives of their children. If they don’t sustain them, they get charged with child neglect or child abuse depending on severity. The law forces them to sustain the life of their child every single day, no matter how much of an inconvenience it is to them.

    The law doesn’t force them to do so by violating their bodily integrity even for a newborn who might need the same exact resources in the womans body that it had as a fetus. She doesn’t get charged for failing to sustain it in this manner.

  • invalid-0


    Yes we do. We do it with conjoined twins. If both are going to die, we have the option to kill one to save the other.

    But in the case of the woman and pregnancy, she took the risk. Not the fetus. In conjoined twins neither one can be said to have taken a risk, both are innocent, they were born that way. The woman is not innocent. You want her to take the consequences of sex and pregnancy but not on this is one. You can’t risk your own life and then decide to kill your child to save yourself, even if you will both die as a result.

    By the way we also disconnect conjoined twins after birth even if one is not going to die – so this doesn’t help your argument in general on abortion either.

  • invalid-0

    I didn’t complete my sentence here.


    By the way we also disconnect conjoined twins after birth even if one is not going to die – so this doesn’t help your argument in general on abortion either.

    should indicate that we disconnect conjoined twins even though neither was going to die, but knowing that the disconnection will kill one of them and it ends up doing so. We have done this surgery in the US intentionally sacrificing a conjoined twin after birth even though there was no threat to the life of either.

  • invalid-0

    Thats why it doesn’t help your argument on abortion in general.

  • invalid-0

    Add to that ‘fetus in fetu’ and parasitic twins…they are removed even when there was no previous threat to the life of either twin, the removal results in the death of the less developed twin. There isn’t even any attempt to put the less developed twin on a heart/lung machine to maintain its life where that is possible.

  • invalid-0

    Also interested if you consider conjoined twins one or two people anyway, given the case of one fertilized egg that split post conception.

  • invalid-0

    Okay. Obviously we have some disagreements on cases in which abortion is performed to save the life of the mother, or in cases of conjoined twins, both of which are a vast minority of cases. Let’s get back to talking about the vast majority of cases in which it is a normal pregnancy where the mother’s life is not in danger. Once we can come to an agreement on normal cases, we can start to disagree about exceptions. I feel I have made extremely strong arguments and I would like to talk about the normal cases before we start talking about exceptions to the rule.

  • invalid-0

    Cop out.

    You don’t have an response. I’ll talk about any cases as, although they might be less common, they are no less important to the people involved.

  • invalid-0

    And your same arguments don’t hold up in these cases…you want to treat them to differing criteria based upon your preferences.

  • invalid-0

    This is a pamphlet from Canada that portrays my position extremely well. Everything I say here is just a reiteration of what this pamphlet says better, and more condensed than I can articulate it. Please take the time to read the whole thing, even if you don’t believe you feel the same way. Its arguments are convincing.

    http://www.ncln.ca/content/pdf/Right%20to%20Know.pdf

  • invalid-0

    Of particular note are these quotations found at the end of the pamphlet:

    “In the eyes of the law…
    the slave is not a person.”
    Virginia Supreme Court decision, 1858
    “An Indian is not a person
    within the meaning of the Constitution.”
    George Canfield
    American Law Review, 1881
    “The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these
    circumstances include women.”
    British Voting Rights case, 1909
    “The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews…
    as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.”
    German Supreme Court decision, 1936
    “The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn
    child as a legal person possessing rights.”
    Canadian Supreme Court
    Winnipeg Child and Family Services Case, 1997

  • invalid-0

    None of these arguments hold up to the cases I’ve brought up. You’re trying to re-direct away from these cases because you don’t have a response to them. You want to kill a fetus to save a woman from natural death, a risk she took, based upon your personal preferences. Other people have personal preferences too that are no more/less important than yours.

  • invalid-0

    This document doesn’t address any of the cases I’ve brought up that go contrary to your own arguments. In fact it says that life begins at conception – therefore twins would often be one person in the case that they were one conception.

  • invalid-0

    This document doesn’t address any of the cases I’ve brought up that go contrary to your own arguments. In fact it says that life begins at conception – therefore twins would often be one person in the case that they were one conception.

  • invalid-0

    Then can we at least agree that abortion is murder since the fetus is a person? I don’t feel it is necessary to get bogged down trying to come up with a solution to this extreme and impossible example where there are no good choices. No matter what I say you will say it is wrong and disregard my entire argument because of it. As I said, we can at least come to a consensus about the vast majority of cases in which this is NOT the case. Then we can talk about the extremely hard exceptions.

  • invalid-0

    Also, you’re arguments have been used to make abortion illegal in all cases, including the life of the woman, in Nicaragua. Note too the consistent stance of the Catholic Church.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t believe the fetus is a person. I’m using your frame to criticize your own beliefs.


    there are no good choices….hard exceptions

    On the contrary, natural death is always a good choice when juxtaposed against killing your child to save oneself from a risk you took. We don’t allow this as hard exceptions, yet you think the fetus is a person but want to also give this exception.

    No we will not come to a consensus as you insist on using your preference for one circumstance but want to override others who have differing preferences for a different circumstance.

  • invalid-0

    Okay…. I believe that abortion is never allowed under any circumstance. Now let’s get back to the main debate.

  • invalid-0

    Okay, I see I gave you an easy out to just claim this …but for the record it is completely contrary to your multiple and very recent posts defending it.

    Based upon everything you’ve said…I doubt I will see you protesting fetus in fetu removal, parasitic twin removal, IVF, trying to put Nicaraguas total ban in here, upholding laws for genetic testing to see if one ‘person’ was two fertilized eggs, and to remove rights from a twin who was part of one fertilized egg. After all your passion for all children should be equal.

  • mellankelly1

    Why would I, as a woman, WANT to restrict the rights of women?

    For the life of me I cannot understand why you wish to take rights away from any woman who becomes pregnant… sadism?  I honstly do not know.

     I am only trying to stop the unborn from being murdered, and in order to do so, am asking women to accept the consequences of their action (of course, talking about consentual sex here), and not to kill their children that were created because of their actions. That is my one and only motive in having this conversation, and in taking a stand against abortion. It is extremely insulting that you believe I would pass laws saying that rape victims must carry their pregnancy to term without believing that it would actually preserve the life of an innocent person. How selfish would that make me?

    I understand that you feel this way and that is why you should never, ever terminate a pregnancy (as you would feel you were murdering your child) but in no way should how you feel about a fertilized egg dictate whether or not I gestate a pregnancy.  It is extremely insulting (and that is putting it as nicely as possible) that you would force a victim of rape to carry her pregnancy to term based on your personal opinions about what a pregnancy should mean.  It is nothing short of evil that you could even suggest such cruel treatment of a victim of rape… asking a woman to risk her psychological well-being, serious bodily injury or even death in order to satisfy your personal agenda (criminalizing abortion) is abhorrent even to those who are morally opposed to abortion.  Shame on you.

  • invalid-0

    And by the way I was only ever involved in this part of the debate, you chose to respond to me with multiple attempts to defend an exception for the womans life.

  • mellankelly1

    There were no anti-abortion laws in the US until the mid-1800s. Abortion/contraception was made illegal for the first time in the 1800s and only at a state by state level. Some states overturned their laws prior to Roe being decided.

    And when anti-abortion laws were passed, there was never any hint that an abortion was murder because a fertilized egg is a person.  It is dishonest to pretend that personhood of the fertilized egg has ever been an issue… it is anti-abortion malarkey.

  • mellankelly1

    The law doesn’t force them to do so by violating their bodily integrity even for a newborn who might need the same exact resources in the womans body that it had as a fetus. She doesn’t get charged for failing to sustain it in this manner.

    That is true… because anyone can take care of an infant (without violating his or her bodily integrity) but only the pregnant woman can sustain a fertilized egg (whereby risking her life and health).  Only the pregnant woman can decide the course of her pregnancy because only she will suffer any consequences from the pregnancy.   Some third party is not allowed to risk another persons life without their consent.

  • mellankelly1

    Yes we do. We do it with conjoined twins. If both are going to die, we have the option to kill one to save the other.

    Do we allow the government (or some other third party) to make the decision of which one lives and which one dies?  Or do we allow the person (or people) whose lives will be directly effected make this decision?  Why is it okay to allow parents (and their doctors) to make the decision in situations regarding children but not in the case of a pregnancy (where no children are affected)?  Inconsistent much?  It is all very confusing.

  • mellankelly1

    I feel I have made extremely strong arguments and I would like to talk about the normal cases before we start talking about exceptions to the rule

    Your arguments do not hold up… thus far, your agruments have been a logical fallacy.  Do you have anything more to add?

  • invalid-0


    On top of that, they wish to give a fertilized egg more rights than a child (or any other person) prior to birth… I suppose upon birth they will be treated as any other person would be (unable to force another person to sustain their life). It’s all very confusing.

    Well said, I wonder what the newborn is guilty of that it doesn’t deserve equal protection over the womans body when needed? Death is what naturally occurs if someone doesn’t act to provide food or shelter to the newborn, yet refusing to act to provide these is infanticide if the baby dies. However, the woman has the right to decide to withhold the same bodily resources immediately after birth that it previously had and she doesn’t get charged with anything even if it dies as a result of suddenly being deprived them. Guess its not innocent enough to deserve this level of protection once its born.

  • mellankelly1

     

    “In the eyes of the law…
    the slave is not a person.”
    Virginia Supreme Court decision, 1858
    “An Indian is not a person
    within the meaning of the Constitution.”
    George Canfield
    American Law Review, 1881
    “The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these
    circumstances include women.”
    British Voting Rights case, 1909
    “The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews…
    as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.”
    German Supreme Court decision, 1936

    One problem… all of those people were born and as such entitled to their full rights.  Which brings us to your dilemma…

    The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn
    child as a legal person possessing rights.”
    Canadian Supreme Court
    Winnipeg Child and Family Services Case, 1997

    Hellooooooo… "unborn child" – take away your cute little adjectives and you effectively change the word.  A child is a legal person possessing rights.  A fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, fetus is not.  If you will not accept the distinction there is nothing that I or anyone else can do for you.  The law recognizes that a woman is entitled to her full rights and a fertilized egg is not; and no matter how many times we go around in circles, this will still be the case (and the law).

  • invalid-0

    Agree with Mellankelly:
    -
    “For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn… For a society, which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concept of jurisprudence… Such would raise the specter of the swastika and the inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends.”

    - McFall v. Shimp, 1978
    -
    This was a case of a man with leukemia who wanted to force his cousin to donate bone marrow. Basically, the court said, “Yeah, your cousin’s an asshole, but we can’t force him.” There’s no issue of personhood v. non-personhood. Basically, one individual cannot be forced to give up bodily integrity for another individual.
    -
    I’m aware that this puts the interests of the mother ahead of the interests of the fetus (such that they are). The bottom line is that, until we have an artificial womb, it’s always going to boil down to this. Society/the government may claim an interest, but in the end the only person to decide should be the pregnant woman. After all, she’s the person “with the teeth in their jugular or neck.”

  • invalid-0

    “Snowflake” embryos are available now!!!

    Put your body where you’re convictions are and take an action on your own body to uphold the right to life…not just trying to do so when its some other womans body.

  • invalid-0

    But I wonder why so many pro-lifers can make this exception to killing an ‘innocent person’ to save the woman from natural death. Even when there are two patients that are going to die, we don’t kill one patient to save the other.
    -
    It’s called self-defense.

  • mellankelly1

    It’s a good thing we didn’t "dance around the law and the prescedent set" when we were debating abolishing slavery or granting women’s suffrage, because "under no circumstances" can the lawmakers or Congress do that. Oh wait, yeah—they did. The law isn’t perfect. Actually, many times it’s completely wrong, as in the case of slavery. The 3/5 Compromise? That was a great idea. Just because something is a law doesn’t mean that it is good, or even tolerable. In those cases, we need to fight for change.

    We didn’t have to dance… those people were born in the US and thus entitled to their full rights under out laws.  Nobody had to put cute little adjectives or qualifiers in front of them to be considered people.  Please explain to me why one must be born in this country in order to have full citizenship and all the rights of the Constitution.  Please explain to me why I could not claim dependents upon conception.  Please explain to me why my youngest daughter is not a Canadian citizen as that is where she was conceived.  I’m most interested in your answering how these fertilized-egg-as-persons are not given the same rights as any person in our country.

    Being human is the only criteria that makes sense

    And I have explained that your reasoning a logical fallacy.  Let’s see if I’ve got this straight… if it’s human it is a person, ergo… 

    a fertilized egg is human, human = a person, ergo a fertilized egg is a person.

    sperm is human, human = a person, ergo, sperm is a person

    my eyelash is human, human = a person, ergo my eyelash is a person

    my unfertilized egg is human, human = a person – ergo, my unfertilized egg is a person.

    And this is your proofReally?  And you find it odd that I believe that being a person is more than just having human DNA.

  • mellankelly1

    My response to that question was that it would be taken on a case-by-case basis.

     

    Fantastic, and while you’re deciding whether or not this woman can terminate her pregnancy, both she and her fetus have died.  How lovely for you that a life threatening pregnancy wasn’t terminated.

  • mellankelly1

    It’s called self-defense.

    That could be true of any abortion… any person is allowed to defend his or herself from the threat of bodily harm.

  • mellankelly1

    McFall v. Shimp, 1978

    I appreciate the information.  It would seem that the personhood of the fertilized egg would be a moot point if one person is not allowed to force another to give up his or her bodily integrity.   So I wonder why the big push in the anti-abortion camp? 

  • mellankelly1

    Okay…. I believe that abortion is never allowed under any circumstance. Now let’s get back to the main debate.

    There is no debating that point of view and I thank God that the majority of people are good, kind, loving, caring, people who are capable of empathy, posses some degree of humility and exhibit a general interest in the well-being of others.  Most people in possession of these characteristics are able to respect the lives of women and their families – a person who gives no consideration to a woman and her family and would allow said woman to die because of his or her personal belief system most certainly exhibits narcissistic tendencies (which are just a hop away from a full out sociopath).

  • invalid-0

    1) Not true. Those people were not citizens according to the law, just as the unborn are not, and therefore were not entitled to any rights under the law at the time.
    2) Okay, take away my adjective. Let’s talk about what defines a child then. …..We’re back to the personhood question.
    3) You are correct that the current law says a pregnant woman has the right to kill a fetus in the first trimester, because it is not viewed as a person. My point is that the law is wrong, just as it was wrong in the past when dealing with African-Americans and women, and needs to be changed to include all persons.

  • invalid-0

    1) Sadism? Seriously? I have said that my only concern is to protect the right to life of all people, and in this case, in order to protect the right to life of the fetus (which is a person), women are forced to give up their right to “bodily integrity”—whatever that means. The only right I am taking away from women is the right to kill a person.
    2) Do you not see that it is not a question of personal opinion? It isn’t just that “I feel” it is murder. It either is murder, or it isn’t. We can’t live in a world of moral relativism.

  • invalid-0

    1) As I said before, these people were not citizens under the law of the time. They were entitled to no rights whatsoever under our laws. I haven’t used “cute little adjectives.” The only reason I say unborn child is to distinguish between the ones in the womb and the ones out of the womb. I can simply say children to describe both locations if you wish, but I just thought I was making it easier to say unborn children. I can’t explain to you why these children do not have citizenship under our current law. Explain to me why African-Americans didn’t have citizenship for so many years under American law.
    2) Your eyelash is not a separate human being. It is not contested scientifically that the human life begins at conception. At that point, the being is individual (distinct from mother, father, and all other living things, with a distinct genetic fingerprint), living (has a metabloism, growth, reaction to stimuli), human (has homo sapien DNA), and an individual being (has everything necessary to proceed through he full series of human development, if provided with the proper environment). THe only disagreement comes when pro-choice advocates say that being a “person” is separate from being a “human,” which is a ridiculous distinction. Anytime throughout history that those lines have been separated, there has been genocide and other tragic conosequences.

  • invalid-0

    1)The situations are not quite the same. In this case, it was a passive action (and therefore a lack of action) that allowed his cousin to die. In the case of abortion, it is an active action on the part of the mother to kill the fetus. I believe this constitutes a difference in what the outcome should be.
    2) The push for the anti-abortion movement for you to recognize the fetus as a child is that even if the court did decide they could not force a woman to go through with a pregnancy (as it has currently decided), I think most women would feel differently about having an abortion knowing that they were killing a child, instead of a “bundle of cells” like the pro-choice movement wants them to believe.
    3) As a side note, in the case above, you said the cousin was “an ass-hole” for not giving the bone marrow. Does that mean I can call any women who gets an abortion “an ass-hole”?

  • invalid-0

    If you read the comments leading up to that, I only said that comment so that we could get back to the main issue of the debate instead of focusing on exceptions that only happen a small minority of the time. I have expressed before that I believe in the case of the life of the mother, I believe it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. I am not anti-woman or anti-family, and this comment was only said to quiet the objection of “Anonymous.”

  • invalid-0

    In order for it to be labeled self-defense, the fetus would first have to attack you. …Last I checked fetuses don’t go around attacking other people very often. They are usually formed because of consentual sex, and are a consequence that the women knew was a possibility when she agreed to sleep with someone. If you don’t want to be “attacked” by a fetus, abstain. That is the best method of “self-defense.”

    (As a disclaimer, of course the 1% of abortions that occur because of rape cannot be included in this argument).

  • invalid-0

    Yes, but the bottom line is bodily integrity is sacred. It says nothing about whether the action is active or passive; just that we cannot force one person to violate bodily integrity for another.
    -
    As for the a-hole comment, you’re entitled to call someone whatever you want. Indeed, we know people are going to have different opinions on abortion. What the court said is that, no matter what you believe personally, you can’t force someone to do what they don’t want to do.

  • invalid-0

    But you do agree with me that the cases are different? That means the court may come to a completely different conclusion given that the action is active. That means that we need to push for the recognition that the fetus is a person. You also did not respond to my second point about why it is so important to anti-abortionists that the fetus is recognized as a person.
    The a-hole comment was just a commentary on the fact that we have become so politically correct about this issue—people would be up in arms if someone called a women who had gotten an abortion an a-hole, but as for this man’s cousin (who according to you, is doing the same thing), it is okay. That is why I don’t mind being called anti-abortion instead of pro-life. Use all the euphamisms or different words you want, it all boils down to the same thing. All of that is just an aside though, and not relevant to our debate. Just something I find amusing.

  • invalid-0

    Self-defense does not have to be in response to an attack. Self-defense comes into play whenever a person perceives their life or health to be in danger. Otherwise, how could states like Florida pass laws that eliminate the duty to retreat? (This means that if someone is threatening you, you don’t have to try to retreat first and then attack back. You can take a positive action to defend yourself right away.)
    -
    Your second point sounds awfully like what they used to say about rape: “She was ‘asking for it’, so she deserved what she got.” If, for instance, a woman’s health was endangered by a pregnancy, you can’t say that she was “asking for it” when she agreed to have sex.

  • invalid-0

    According to medical case law, if someone is terminally ill and wants to avoid “heroic measures,” stopping a therapy is legally and ethically equivalent to never starting it. As an example, it’s okay to not start dialysis on someone (passive). It’s also okay to stop dialysis on someone who had already started it (active). The law is that bodily integrity is a right, no matter what the situation is.

  • invalid-0
  • mellankelly1

     The situations are not quite the same. In this case, it was a passive action (and therefore a lack of action) that allowed his cousin to die. In the case of abortion, it is an active action on the part of the mother to kill the fetus. I believe this constitutes a difference in what the outcome should be.

    Quite frankly, what you believe doesn’t mean diddly.  I honestly do not think that you have even the slightest idea of how our legal system works.  Both common law and statutory law have long upheld the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity.  A few cases have been cited here but you are more than capable of researching this for yourself.  Simply because you hate abortion doesn’t mean that you get to redefine our legal system (or the definitions of certain words).  You absolutely will never get around these two facts: (1)A pregnant woman (regardless of whether or not that pregnancy is wanted) is entitled to her full citizenship rights and as such (2)she has the right to refuse to allow others to invade her bodily integrity.  

     The push for the anti-abortion movement for you to recognize the fetus as a child is that even if the court did decide they could not force a woman to go through with a pregnancy (as it has currently decided), I think most women would feel differently about having an abortion knowing that they were killing a child, instead of a "bundle of cells" like the pro-choice movement wants them to believe.

    Oh for crying out loud… women know full well that if they gestate a pregnancy and provided a healthy pregnancy/labor/birth process that they would have a baby.  Why else would they terminate their pregnancies?  I hate it when anti-abortion advocates perpetuate the lie that women are unaware of human reproduction.

    As a side note, in the case above, you said the cousin was "an ass-hole" for not giving the bone marrow. Does that mean I can call any women who gets an abortion "an ass-hole"?

    Well, if we’ve learned anything from your posts it is that what one chooses to call something does not alter what that thing actually is, so… have at it Oh Lover Of Women.

  • mellankelly1

    Use all the euphamisms or different words you want, it all boils down to the same thing

    Yep, kind of like when one refers to a fertilized egg as an "unborn child" or a person… it’s still just a fertilized egg.

  • mellankelly1

    That the National Right to Life Movement believes our Constitution should not cover women (specifically pregnant women) is not at all surprising.  To use their rhetoric as "proof" that a woman should not have the same rights that every other person born or naturalized in the US has is a fallacy.  They are not only biased but have been blatantly dishonest and cruel.

  • mellankelly1

    Sadism? Seriously?

    So, it is not within the realm of possibility that a person who would force a victim of rape to risk her psychological well-being and risk serious bodily injury or even death in order to satisfy this other persons agenda is a sadist (delights in cruelty)?  Well, let’s just say it’s not a stretch.  Let’s see… you feel like if something can be described as human that all people should consider a fertilized egg to be a person (well, superior person with rights which exceed all others) and that women who are pregnant as a result of rape should be forced to endure the pregnancy regardless of the woman’s psychological status or her physical well-being and that a woman who dies from complications is secondary if the fetus can be saved… that’s kind of sick.  All of this based on what you feel without any factual information to back it up.

     It either is murder, or it isn’t

    Listen… it isn’t murder, it never was murder (look it up) and it never will be murder.  And no… just because you feel like something should be murder doesn’t make it so.  Period.  Both of those statements are factual regardless of how you or I feel about them.

  • invalid-0

    Does this mean that you would otherwise be willing to just let the mother die?

  • mellankelly1

    As I said before, these people were not citizens under the law of the time.

    That is second point you’ve been stumped by… the first being that both common law and statutory law have long upheld the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity;  and the fact that all of the people in your little scenarios were born (or naturalized) in the US and therefor, the way our rights are written, they should have been (and were given) full citizenship rights under our Constitution. 

    The only reason I say unborn child is to distinguish between the ones in the womb and the ones out of the womb.

    They are not children… and without your adjectives you cannot call them children (well, you can and probably will but it will be inaccurate).  It’s okay for you to use inaccurate terms to describe human reproduction… I mean, without them you wouldn’t have any argument at all. 

    At least you’re consistent in that you wish all people adhere to your personal belief systems regarding personhood, your interpretation of medical terminology, your understanding of the judicial system, your opinion as to whether or not a pregnancy is life-threatening to a woman, your definition of murder and your limited views about what the term "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" should mean.  It’s good to know where your heads at.

  • invalid-0

    Oops. What I meant to say was:
    -
    My response to that question was that it would be taken on a case-by-case basis. I said that abortion would at least be considered…I never said that it would be the right choice in every case. There are many cases in which if the mother dies, the fetus will die too because it cannot survive outside of her until it is more developed. Obviously in those cases, to save one is better than losing both.
    -
    Does this mean that you would otherwise be willing to just let the mother die?

  • mellankelly1

    Your eyelash is not a separate human being

    Neither is a fertilized egg.  My eyelash is every bit as human as a fertilized egg.

    It is not contested scientifically that the human life begins at conception

    Yes, the fertilized egg is an organism with the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction (life).  And it is human.  What does that have to do with whether or not a fertilized egg is a person… I’ve never heard that the capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction was what defined personhood.  That would be news to me.

    that point, the being is individual

    No, it is not existing as a distinct (separate) entity.

    human (has homo sapien DNA),

    That’s not what human means… and in your case you are using the term "human" to describe the fertilized egg.  Again, my eyelash is every bit as human as a fertilized (or unfertilized) egg.  And you’re not seriously claiming that personhood is defined by having DNA… are you?

    (has everything necessary to proceed through he full series of human development, if provided with the proper environment).

    That whole bodily integrity thing again.

    "person" is separate from being a "human,"

    What are you talking about… there is simply no questioning whether or not someone born in the US is a Citizen.  And once again… personhood was not an issue in this debate until those anti-abortion advocates decided to make it one (those crazies and their ever-changing tactics).

     

    And F.Y.I. – regardless of the lengths you seem to be willing to go to (stretching truths, changing meanings of words, discounting scientific truths and legal precedent) your opinion is not, in fact, the truth.  I’m not kidding when I tell you that I thank God (daily) that extremists are not allowed to make my personal decisions (medical or otherwise) for me.

  • mellankelly1

    If you read the comments leading up to that

    Do you mean comments like rape victims should carry their pregnancies to term (regardless of mental or physical well-being), women with unwanted pregnancies should gestate and just give their children to someone else for adoption or that when women’s lives are threatened we should first debate whether or not she should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy in order to save her life (case by case basis).  Those comments were awful and complete lacking any empathy towards the pregnant woman… I find that incomprehensible (obviously this is merely my opinion – and I meant it when I said it the first time).

  • mellankelly1

    In order for it to be labeled self-defense, the fetus would first have to attack you.

    What freakin’ law-book are you reading?  That is simply not true… the fertilized egg simply being in a woman’s uterus is a threat.  There is a threat of bodily harm and even the threat of death when gestating a pregnancy (again, researching these subjects would be most helpful). 

  • invalid-0

    Women need to be “protected” from abortion for two reasons:
    1) Women are too stupid to realize what they are doing
    2) Women lack the moral competance to make such a decision for themselves.

  • http://inowrite.blogspot.com/ invalid-0

    It just really is that simple. Either you are a human or you’re not, which means either you are a person or you’re not. What alternative is there?

     

    Okay… well, we need to be forthcoming about what "a human" (noun) is, right?  A fertilized egg could not be characterized as being "a human" (noun: a two footed primate mammal of the genus Homo) as limb "buds" do not begin to form until after the fifth week.  So, by your very words "You either are a human or not" you have disproved your premise that a fertilized egg is "a human".  Granted, a fertilized egg is human, but so is my eyelash.  

     

    There are many other reasons why making a blanket statement about personhood beginning at conception would be incorrect.  Others have mentioned twinning (and various forms of twinning), other attributes which are considered the very nature of a person (our thoughts, our emotions, consciousness, our sense of being an individual, our ability to feel a connection to others, our personal relationships and our experiences) and the fact that our law provides that anyone born or naturalized in the US is entitled to their full rights under the law.

     

    Again…who is most qualified to make decisions regarding a woman’s pregnancy? You think you should be able to make these life-altering (and potentially life threatening) decisions based on your opinions… I can assure you, no court in this land would agree with you.

  • invalid-0


    I only said that comment so that we could get back to the main issue of the debate instead of focusing on exceptions that only happen a small minority of the time.

    You’ve always had the option of going back to what you refer to as the main debate. You voluntarily went down this route…you had an option to say nothing at all to my posts. The history of personhood isn’t part of the main debate either but you post on it – there are different forums for that. Yet I can see where the author actually mentions Dr. Tiller who performed abortion to save the life of the woman and was investigated for them.

  • invalid-0

    1) I never said women are too stupid to realize anything. I just want what is a person to be labeled as such instead of being wrongly labeled as a “bundle of cells” by the pro-choice movement. If you believe women are smart enough to know that they are killing a human life, then why talk about it as if it is just a “bundle of cells”? Women deserve the truth, because they are smart, and we shouldn’t insult them by giving them anything less.
    2) We do not allow people in this country to make the decision whether or not to murder someone. We make that moral decision for them. Since abortion kills a human being, it is murder. Therefore we cannot allow the decision to be up to the individual—unless you want all people to have the right to choose to murder someone, whether born or unborn.

  • invalid-0

    By the same token, just because you feel that it isn’t murder, doesn’t mean it actually is not. Why do you have the authority to say that it isn’t, but I don’t have the authority to say that it is?
    I will say it again…If the fetus is a human, it is a person. If it is a person, when you willfully kill it, it is murder. Anytime a distinction between being a “human” and being a “person” has been made in history, genocide ensued. You keep saying that the difference is that those people were born and naturalized citizens, but at the time it occurred, they were not citizens at all, and more than that, not even considered people. Isn’t it possible that our law is still wrong, and needs to include unborn humans, just as it needed to include women, Jews, African-Americans, etc? I’m not saying fetuses need to be considered American citizens, I’m just saying that they need to be considered people, because they are humans—just like all of us.

  • invalid-0

    1) Yes, your eyelash is human in the sense that it is part of a human being. It is not a separate human being, however, it is only a part of you. A fetus is not a part of its mother. It has cells from the father and from the mother which unite to create a new and unique genetic code that are distinct from either parent. The human embryo, if placed in the mother’s womb, will develop into a larger, more developed human being. A cell from your eyelash, kidney, etc. would not because it is not a separate, distinct being, it is a piece of you, and contains your genetic code, because it is a part of YOU.
    2) As I have said, being human is what defines being a person. If it was ” metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction” than any living cell, animal, or being would be considered a person. So no, that is not the definition of personhood that I suggest.
    3) I have never questioned that someone born in the US is a citizen. I have only said that in the past, whenever the distinction has been made between being a “human” and being a “person,” genocide ensued. I am not saying that the unborn should even be considered citizens—that is a separate conversation entirely. My point is that they should be considered people, because they are human. Under the laws of their time, women, Jews, Indians, and African-Americans were not only denied citizenship, they were denied personhood. Isn’t it possible that the unborn is just the next group of people we have excluded from our law? Yes, we have (rightly) modified our law to include the personhood of these other groups, but are we so arrogant to think that we are immune from making another mistake in our definition of personhood? Time and time again in history, when the definition of personhood excluded some who were human, it has been a tragedy for our country and the world.

  • invalid-0

    1) Okay, so a human is a “two-footed primate mammal of the genus Homo”……….so what about people with one leg amputated? Are they no longer people? I know that sounds ridiculous, but according to your definition, since the “limb buds” of a fetus do not qualify it, neither to the “limb buds” left from an amputation qualify an adult.
    2) As for the eyelash comment, see my comment above in response to your last post.
    3) The twinning cases we can talk about once we have agreement that a single fetus is a person. As I have said, if you use “thoughts, emotions, consciousness sense of being an individual, ability to feel connection to others, personal relationships” etc. to define a person, then there are many animals that qualify and many adults who do not. Those definitions do not make sense, and do not logically hold.
    4) The law IS justified in defining that a fetus is or is not a person. We can discuss the “body integrity” issue and whether or not the mother has the right to kill that person inside of her once we agree on the fact that it is a PERSON that is inside her. As I have said multiple times, there is a right and a wrong here as to if the fetus is a person–it is a fact, not an opinion. We just need to figure out what that right and wrong are.

  • invalid-0

    The only “person” is the abortion debate is the pregnant woman. PERIOD! The zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT A PERSON, it certainly has the potential to become a person, but until it is born, it is not a person! Forcing a pregnant woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is nothing more than slavery. PERIOD. Prehaps we should force you to donate blood every few weeks or donate bone marrow to cancer patients or be an organ donor as those events can help other people? No, we don’t because to force you to do so would infringe on the rights guaranteed to you in our constitution. And any medical person will tell you that carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth has great chances of harming or killing a pregnant woman–far greater than her having an abortion. So to be pregnant puts one’s life at danger-to end the pregnancy ends that danger. Every woman has the right to protect her own life.

  • invalid-0

    You have provided no proof that a fetus is not a person…you have just said over and over that it isn’t. “Period”. It is certainly a human, that we all agree on, and my stance is that every human is a person, and I have never heard a logically sound argument to the contrary. Read the rest of this discussion if you wish to read detail about that idea. Perhaps we should allow you to be killed whenever someone has a risk of injury/death because of your existance.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, it is SADISTIC to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will! There is no moral relativism. A pregnant woman is a person, not the pregnancy. The pregnancy is technically a parasite, sucking away the health and life of the pregnant woman. She has the right to protect her health and life! She also has the right to risk her health and life and remain pregnant if she so chooses. Obviously you have never been pregnant, if you have, you are so brainwashed that you probably don’t even think that all of the PAIN and SUFFERING that goes with pregnancy and birth was such, as you think you have the right to force such attrocities on another person. A pregnant woman is a REAL person, the fetus only has the potential to be a person. To say abortion is murder is like the centuries-old archaic religious idea that masturbabtion is murder since the sperm are wasted. It’s people like you with your religious ideas that are killing us all. If it were up to people like you, we would all have been long dead as the world would have been so incredibly overpopulated long ago that the planet could not sustain us. Trying to give rights to someone who does not even exisit! You can’t trample on the rights of one person for “someone else”, and the “someone else” you are advocating for is not even a person!

  • mellankelly1

    And any medical person will tell you that carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth has great chances of harming or killing a pregnant woman–far greater than her having an abortion. So to be pregnant puts one’s life at danger-to end the pregnancy ends that danger. Every woman has the right to protect her own life.

    Bravo!  However, if you read the statements made by this particular poster you will find that the life and/or health (physical and mental) of the pregnant woman is secondary to her concern for the "unborn".  When one abhors abortion to such a degree that the rights and life of women aren’t a concern – she has gone to a place where rational people simply cannot follow.  The desperate attempts to prove that her priority is with all life (pregnant woman and fertilized eggs) is easy enough to debunk by her own words – giving her "unborn" superior person status (including the right invade a persons bodily integrity and the ability to kill or cause serious harm to a person without allowing that person the right to defend herself) makes it quite clear that her main objective is to criminalize a medical procedure that she despises.

  • invalid-0

    How many times can I say that this is not my motive? The only thing I have ever stiven for is an acknowledgement of the fact that a fetus is a person. I said that we can discuss the bodily integrity issue once we all agree that the fetus is a person. I have never said that “the rights and life of a woman are not a concern,” and I have never implied it. The only thing I am asking for in this debate is an answer to the question of…What is the unborn child?

  • invalid-0

    …Sorry..I forgot I am not allowed to use the phrase “unborn child.” Exchange that for the word fetus.

  • invalid-0

    For Heavens sake, you obviously wanted KathleenPope to read those insults and personal attacks: Why don’t you just address it to her?

  • invalid-0

    Thanks new Anonymous. Well put.

  • mellankelly1

     I never said women are too stupid to realize anything

    Oh… where ever would one get the impression that you think women are stupid?  You don’t see how when you perpetuate the lie that women are unaware of basic human reproduction you are, at the very least, claiming that they’re lacking intelligence and/or reason?  For crying out loud, this is something that I learned in middle school.  Not to mention, the majority of women who terminate their pregnancies have already gestated and given birth before… are you honestly attempting to claim that these women do not understand human reproduction?  For crying out loud, I had a child at the time that I terminated a pregnancy… I was certainly familiar with the development of my pregnancy.

    I just want what is a person to be labeled as such instead of being wrongly labeled as a "bundle of cells" by the pro-choice movement

    No, you want to use your personal belief system to force your ideas about personhood and/or pregnancy onto the general population.  It’s silly, really… and it’s never going to happen.   You can call a fertilized egg whatever you want… women will still end their pregnancies.

    Women deserve the truth, because they are smart, and we shouldn’t insult them by giving them anything less.

    Ah… that is downright comical coming from someone who insults women regularly in her posts with claims such as: women are unable to comprehend basic human reproduction or be trusted to make their own reproductive choices.  You’re funny.

    We do not allow people in this country to make the decision whether or not to murder someone. We make that moral decision for them. Since abortion kills a human being, it is murder

    I’m wondering if perhaps you believe that if you just keep writing this it will suddenly become true.  The truth of the matter is that fertilized eggs aren’t people (and there is no logical way that they could be considered such) and an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy… it is not and has never been murder.  It’s kind of nice to have an argument based in logic and not opinion and/or personal belief systems… makes more sense when one doesn’t have to make up words or change meanings of words or distort human reproduction in an attempt to prove one’s points… I simply stick to the facts.

  • invalid-0

    In the absence of testing for it, you can’t give an answer whether a single fetus was two fertlized eggs that combined post conception.

  • invalid-0

    1) Again, I have never said that women are too stupid to realize anything. My point was simply that since we all agree that a fetus is not simply a “bundle of cells” as skin cells or any other type of bodily cells are, why are we using those words to describe them? Even you yourself say that fetuses are different because they at least have the “potential” to be a person, so why don’t you call them “potential people” instead of a “bundle of cells?” If you continue to call them that, your argument is certainly not based on fact.
    2) I don’t think you are even reading what I say. Apparently I cannot say enough times that this is not a matter of opinion, either the fetus is a person, or it isn’t. We can differ on our opinions of what that truth is, but we need to recognize that there IS a truth, and there IS an answer. We are just trying to discover what it is. So I am not “imposing my personal belief system,” I am simply striving for the truth, and once found, our laws should reflect it. If we find the truth is that a fetus is not a person, than we should keep laws as they are–or perhaps change them to be less restrictive on abortion. If we discover that a fetus is a person, we need to change them to recognize that fact. Therefore, that is why we need to discuss what defines personhood, which I have logically defined as being a human, and you (or anyone else’s arguemnts I have heard or read) have not yet had a logically sound argument against.
    3) You are putting words into my mouth—I have never said that “women are unable to comprehend basic human reproduction.”–See point 1. I have also never said that “women are unable to be trusted to make their own reproductive choices.” The only thing I have said is that if a fetus is a person, women to not have the right to choose to put that person to death.
    4) It will not become true—it IS true that we do not allow people to make their own choices about killing others.

  • mellankelly1

    By the same token, just because you feel that it isn’t murder, doesn’t mean it actually is not

    These proclamations are getting crazier and crazier… I’ve never said that my opinion about something being murder makes any difference whatsoever (that is crazy-talk).  Do you honestly think that abortion is not murder only because I don’t think it is?  I think you do.  Wow.  Abortion is not murder regardless of how anyone "feels" about it.  By that token… I could make taxes illegal by believing that they aren’t legal.

    I will say it again…If the fetus is a human, it is a person

    So, you DO think that making a statement over and over again will make it a fact.  Trust me, redundancy is not a virtue.  A fertilized is not "a human"… it can be described as being human if the egg and sperm are human – but you cannot claim that being human makes something a person or you’re forever going to need to refer to my eyelashes as people.

    genocide ensued

    Anti-abortion buzzwords… gotta love ‘em!

    You keep saying that the difference is that those people were born and naturalized citizens, but at the time it occurred, they were not citizens at all

    Good Lord, I had no idea that these people weren’t born… well, that clears that up then.

    Isn’t it possible that our law is still wrong

    Isn’t it possible that you’re wrong?  Anything is possible… but certainly it is not probable that our Constitution is wrong.

  • invalid-0

    Thank you behe….it’s nice to know someone else saw that.

  • mellankelly1

    so what about people with one leg amputated?

    The irony of discounting any pregnancy as a result of rape/incest or the life/health of the pregnant woman because of your perceived low instances of such and yet attempting to use the instance of a one-legged person as an example that the definition of "human (as a noun)" as a bipedal primate is incorrect should just be considered par for the course, huh?  Well, you’d better call Webster!  Tee-hee.

    PS. You never proved how my eyelash wasn’t a person (since it’s human and all) hmphf. 

    The twinning cases we can talk about once we have agreement that a single fetus is a person

    Well, that doesn’t even make sense considering that your claim is that it is a person upon conception and at that point twinning hasn’t occurred.   Let’s be honest here… you can’t address the twinning issue because it debunks the argument that a fertilized egg is "a person".  "Dance, Dance Revolution" doesn’t have as many moves as this argument does.

    The law IS justified in defining that a fetus is or is not a person.

    Exactly!  And abortion is not murder and a fertilized egg is not a person.  

    We can discuss the "body integrity" issue and whether or not the mother has the right to kill that person inside of her once we agree on the fact that it is a PERSON that is inside her

    We can discuss bodily integrity regardless of whether or not a fertilized egg (or fetus) is a person… it’s "personhood" is moot.  Of course, you don’t want to discuss it, because it is a valid argument for a woman to terminate her pregnancy (and you don’t appear to understand the law).

    We just need to figure out what that right and wrong are.

    "We" already know that… it is right for each person to make his or her own medical decisions… it is wrong for some third party to make potentially life-threatening medical decisions for another person.  Well, there you have it.

  • mellankelly1

    Not true. Those people were not citizens according to the law, just as the unborn are not, and therefore were not entitled to any rights under the law at the time.

    It is undeniably true that those people were born… according to our law, anyone born or naturalized in the US is entitled to their rights under the constitution (it was unconstitutional to deny a person born or naturalized in the US their rights).  You’re grasping at straws here… and being redundant is not amusing. 

    Okay, take away my adjective. Let’s talk about what defines a child then. …..We’re back to the personhood question.

    No we’re not… I swear to God that I do not understand the reasoning behind anti-abortion extremists (probably never will).  My childhood would be described as the time between birth and adulthood – and my personhood could not be disputed.

    My point is that the law is wrong

    No honey… Your OPINION is that the law is wrong.  However, your opinion doesn’t change the fact that a fertilzed egg is not a person and abortion is legal (and not murder).

  • invalid-0

    1) Restating the same point I made in an earlier comment because obviously it was not understood or not read—yes, your eyelash is human in the sense that it is part of a human being. It is not a separate human being, however, it is only a part of you. A fetus is not a part of its mother. It has cells from the father and from the mother which unite to create a new and unique genetic code that are distinct from either parent. The human embryo, if placed in the mother’s womb, will develop into a larger, more developed human being. A cell from your eyelash, kidney, etc. would not because it is not a separate, distinct being, it is a piece of you, and contains your genetic code, because it is a part of YOU. Since a fetus is a separate human being, it is a person.
    2) So…because that word is used commonly in abortion discussions means that the point I was making doesn’t need to be addressed? I could do the same to you….”women’s rights” “bodily integrity” “right to choose” ….I never use the fact that those words are commonly used to discredit the points they are used to make. You should do me the same courteousy.
    3) I did not say these people weren’t born…I have no idea where you got that. All I said was that at the time, those people were not considered citizens, and more than that, they were not considered people. “Certainly it is not probable that our Constitution is wrong.” —That is exactly my point!!! In all the cases I mentioned, the Constitution WAS wrong, so in actuality it is probable that it could be wrong again.

  • mellankelly1

    How many times can I say that this is not my motive?

    Saying it and meaning it are two different things.  Talk the talk, walk the walk.  Say what you mean and mean what you say.  Basically, you can say that criminalizing abortion is not your objective and that you do not wish to give fertilized eggs "superior person" status by giving them the right to invade a persons bodily integrity and the ability to kill or cause serious harm to a person without allowing that person the right to defend herself, but your insistance that the government do just that reveals the truth.  It is a blatant lie to insist that your words do not belie your willingness to dismiss the life and health of a pregnant woman (particularly considering you would force a victim of rape to risk her life and health in order to give birth to her rapists child and your lack of concern when a pregnant woman’s life is in imminent danger).  It is clear enough when reading your words that your main objective is to criminalize abortion and the effects on pregnant women are a secondary concern.  I’m certainly not making this stuff up… you wrote it.

  • invalid-0

    1) Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    Notice that amendment was not passed until 1868. That means that until that point, these people were not considered citizens. Couldn’t it be true that our Constitution is wrong now, just as it was before July 1868?
    2) Yes—we are back to personhood. We need to define when a human is a person. You yourself said it happens before birth, but after conception. That is completely arbitrary without evidence. I have given evidence over and over that a human should be considered a person.
    3) The law was certainly wrong before 1868, and it could be wrong now. I don’t understand how you can’t see that it all comes down to when personhood begins.

  • mellankelly1

    You have provided no proof that a fetus is not a person

    Our DNA does not make us "people" (you would describe personhood as "having DNA"?).  Being described as "human" doesn’t make us people (you would consider my eyelash a person?).  I don’t understand why factual information is so difficult for you to understand.  We have no idea at what point "personhood" could be established and no person is going to put aside his or her personal belief system in order to come to a consensus. 

    If you (or any other woman) believes that a fertilized egg is a person (or "a human") then you are perfectly free not to have an abortion – it is battschitz insane to proclaim that because you believe in eggs-as-persons, everybody else should be forced to accept your belief.  We’re not children here… I would hope that we are all adults capable of coming to our own conclusions regarding personhood (even if it takes some of us longer to accept it).

    It is certainly a human, that we all agree on

    It would behoove you to learn the difference between a noun and an adjective.

    Perhaps we should allow you to be killed whenever someone has a risk of injury/death because of your existence.

    The law already does… it’s called "self defense".  Honestly… pay attention.

  • mellankelly1

    What is the unborn child?

    …Sorry..I forgot I am not allowed to use the phrase "unborn child." Exchange that for the word fetus.

    A fetus is a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth (note: "developing human"… not "a human").  And clearly, nobody could prohibit you from using descriptive words to describe a fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo or a fetus – it’s just always good to be honest about why you must do it.

  • mellankelly1

    … but KathleenPope is certainly not the first (and certainly will not be the last) person on this blog to proclaim such absurd notions… I like to include everyone willing to deny the value of a pregnant woman’s life and/or health in this discussion.  Why, on earth, would this be an issue?  Why should I single out KathleenPope as the only person to hold such extremist views?  I believe that would be unfair to her… silly me, eh?

  • mellankelly1

    Restating the same point I made in an earlier comment because obviously it was not understood or not read—yes, your eyelash is human in the sense that it is part of a human being. It is not a separate human being, however, it is only a part of you.

    If you pull my eyelash out it’s separate and it’s human (is it a person?).  A fertilized egg is not separate from the pregnant woman… embryo’s that fail to implant will die.  In order for the embryo to continue to develop it must first complete the process of attachment to the maternal uterine wall.

     It has cells from the father and from the mother which unite to create a new and unique genetic code that are distinct from either parent

    I don’t believe that the presence of DNA makes something a person – I believe that the nature of personhood is too complex an idea for us to declare that DNA = personhood.

    The human embryo, if placed in the mother’s womb, will develop into a larger, more developed human being.

    True… but, according to the NIH nearly 1/3 of all embryo’s fail so it would be more accurate to state that the human embryo, if placed in a woman’s uterus, might (or could) continue to develop.

    So…because that word is used commonly in abortion discussions means that the point I was making doesn’t need to be addressed? I could do the same to you…."women’s rights" "bodily integrity" "right to choose" ….I never use the fact that those words are commonly used to discredit the points they are used to make. You should do me the same courteousy.

    I believe we may have passed "courteous" when you proclaimed that pregnancy as a result of rape shouldn’t be brought into the discussion because it’s so rare – right about the time you shared your opinion that a victim of rape (myself included) should be forced to gestate a pregnancy regardless of her mental or physical well-being… Those statements reflect a lack of respect for and consideration of others (rape victims, in this case) which I found to be rather rude.  So no, I don’t believe that I "owe" you anything.

  • mellankelly1

    and please… let us know when you’ve got that whole thing taken care of, okay?  Meanwhile, you cannot pretend that a pregnant woman is not the most qualified person to make her own private medical decisions.  You cannot pretend that you are better qualified (or within your rights) to make medical decisions for some other person.  You cannot pretend that laws do not exist which give people the right to refuse bodily invasion.  You cannot pretend that your opinions regarding what a fertilized egg is should have any bearing whatsoever on any other person.  You cannot pretend that a fertilized egg is a separate human being… it would die if it were separated.

    So, but, good luck with all that.  I am sure that the scholars,  the theologians and the philosophers will be very happy to hear from you.

  • invalid-0

    Wasn’t ‘born’ already referenced in the Constitution – section 1, article 2?

  • mellankelly1

    My point was simply that since we all agree that a fetus is not simply a "bundle of cells" as skin cells or any other type of bodily cells are, why are we using those words to describe them?

    You’re claim is that a person is present at conception.  When an egg is fertilized it is a bundle of (human) cells… that is certainly not dishonest.  So, now you want us to pretend that a fertilized egg (during the Carnegie Stage) is, in fact, not experiencing cell division (i.e. a "bundle of cells")? O-kay.  Medical science uses those words to describe the fertilized eggs… we just repeat them.  Please stop trying to change science!

    Even you yourself say that fetuses are different because they at least have the "potential" to be a person, so why don’t you call them "potential people" instead of a "bundle of cells?"

    Forgive me if I’m off-mark here… but if this was directed at me I must point out that I’ve not made any of those statements (including referring to "a fetus" as a "bundle of cells".  A fetus does statistically have way less of a chance of being spontaneously aborted (I think it is less than 5% but I could be wrong - I can’t remember where I read that).  I think it is inane to mark a point during pregnancy that personhood could be established.  I don’t recall referring to a fetus as anything other than a fetus. 

    I don’t think you are even reading what I say. Apparently I cannot say enough times that this is not a matter of opinion, either the fetus is a person, or it isn’t

    You know what… I think I may have misunderstood your point about when personhood is established.  Not that I could agree with any point during pregnancy, so perhaps it’s moot.  In reading your comments it appears as if you continue to talk about the personhood of the fetus and not the fertilized egg.  Am I wrong in believing that you wanted to give fertilized eggs personhood status?  Why do you continually say "fetus".  Do you believe that most people terminate at that point and thus would be a more apt description of the subject (if so, that is incorrect)?  Regardless, of course, I believe its arbitrary to assign personhood as occuring any time during a pregnancy.

    Therefore, that is why we need to discuss what defines personhood, which I have logically defined as being a human, and you (or anyone else’s arguemnts I have heard or read) have not yet had a logically sound argument against

    It is every bit as logical as a person who believes that personhood is established at any other time during pregnancy or upon birth.  I guess it’s all a matter of perspective… I don’t believe that there can be a Universal Truth when it comes to personhood… it is a purely subjective concept.  If you believe that our government should define personhood then what is to say that based on that precedent that they cannot define freedom, liberty, happiness, or love?  A person is more than DNA – it is more than human (as demonstrated by the fact that my eyelash is human and certainly not a person) so how would the government define a concept?

  • invalid-0


    “No person except a natural born Citizen…”

    from Section 1, Article 2 as ratified in 1788. The definition of ‘born Citizen’ pre-existed the 14th amendment.

  • invalid-0

    Why would someone allow for fetal death so that the woman can live if they believe the fetus to be a “person”? Particularly considering that most people would opt to save a child over an adult in the same circumstances? It seems inconsistent, to say the least.

    Hmm… so much for “women and children first”! Is one “firster” than the other? I personally favor the life of the pregnant woman, but it scares me to know that there are people who would arbitrarily sacrifice the life of the mother for the life of the fetus without a second thought.

  • mellankelly1

    Hmm… so much for "women and children first"! Is one "firster" than the other? I personally favor the life of the pregnant woman, but it scares me to know that there are people who would arbitrarily sacrifice the life of the mother for the life of the fetus without a second thought.

    Honestly, I’m a little bit surprised to read that.  Trust me, I certainly did not imply that a person would opt to save the life of a person (at the risk of another) without a "second thought" (but it would be based on individual preference and not necessity, i.e. "arbitrarily")  Kind of like the "women and children first" statement… why not "men and children first" or "men and women first"?  Ah well… perhaps my retort was a bit flippant, that being said, I do believe that if it were only possible to save one, most people would opt for a child (maybe I’m wrong). 

     

  • invalid-0

    Admittedly, mine was a bit flippant as well! :-)
    -
    I do believe, however, that there are people who would sacrifice a pregnant woman to save her fetus “without a second thought.” Are you familiar with the case of Angela Carder? She was a young woman with a history of really aggressive cancer. She thought she had finally licked it, so she decided to become pregnant. Midway through the pregnancy, the cancer recurred. She wanted to abort the fetus so that she could start chemotherapy. The hospital where she was staying (George Washington Univ) went to court to force her to have a c-section instead (AND they appointed a separate “guardian” for the fetus).
    -
    Carder herself did not want the C-section. Neither did her family. The hospital attorney actually argued that it was “APPROPRIATE” to sacrifice Angela for her fetus since, what the heck, Angela was gonna die anyway. Never mind that she’d die in agony. That didn’t matter.
    -
    The court found for the hospital, the C-section was performed, and both mother and baby died. Eventually the decision was overturned by the D.C. Court of Appeals (the case was In Re Angela Carder), but there are still people who think that way.
    -
    (Including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, who was one of only two groups to object to the overturning.)

  • invalid-0

    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”
    …I am certainly not saying that a fetus should be eligible for the office of President, so this is not applicable.

  • mellankelly1

    I do remember reading (National Advocates of Pregnant Women) about how the case of Angela Carder protects the rights of pregnant patients to make their own health care decisions (seems like stating the obvious to me but whatever).  A quick excerpt:

     

    The Court of Appeals in In Re A.C. tackled two profoundly important questions concerning the treatment of pregnant women. First, who has the right to decide the course of medical treatment for a pregnant patient and, second, how is that decision to be made for a pregnant woman who is incapable of making it herself. The Court of Appeals held that "in virtually all cases the question of what is to be done is to be decided by the patient – the pregnant woman – on behalf of herself and the fetus."16

     

    The court went on to hold that a pregnant woman who is unable to give an informed consent, like other patients, has the right to have her decision ascertained through the procedure known as substituted judgment and then carried out.17 In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals expressly rejected the rationale that women may be compelled to undergo surgery simply because they chose to become pregnant, stating unequivocally that "a fetus cannot have rights in this respect superior to those of a person who has already been born."18 Neither the viability of the fetus nor the potential harm to it are factors that can be used to justify overiding the woman’s wishes.

     

    I trust that their are people who believe that a fetus (or even a fertilized egg) has more value than a woman (and should have more rights than a person) - I’ve even read statements that support this mindset on this blog and I find it stupefying. 

  • invalid-0

    I never said women are too stupid to realize anything.

    I never said you did, did I? This is just what the latest anti abortion laws assume.

    I just want what is a person to be labeled as such instead of being wrongly labeled as a “bundle of cells” by the pro-choice movement.

    Oh really? But the anti abortion lobby can label the fetus a person? Since you aren’t up on biology, I’ll clue you in. We are ALL “bundles of cells”, our skin is “bundles of cells” even.

    If you believe women are smart enough to know that they are killing a human life, then why talk about it as if it is just a “bundle of cells”? Women deserve the truth, because they are smart, and we shouldn’t insult them by giving them anything less.

    Except anti-abortion laws like this already insult women in the ways I mentioned in a prior post. Are you aware of the true size of the fetus in early term abortions?

    2) We do not allow people in this country to make the decision whether or not to murder someone. We make that moral decision for them.

    Abortion isn’t murder.

    Since abortion kills a human being, it is murder.

    No,it is not. With bells on.

    Therefore we cannot allow the decision to be up to the individual—unless you want all people to have the right to choose to murder someone, whether born or unborn.

    Yes, you must treat women like stupid children because the anti abortion lobby sees them as second class breeding machines. Allowing abortion does NOT equal murder of born people, I can’t believe you’d make such a silly generalization. But hey, *shrugs* if that is all that you have…

  • invalid-0

    turn off the blasted italics?

  • invalid-0

    It shouldn’t come as a surprise that I disagree with you. :-)

    But well-said, anyway.

  • invalid-0

    You’re right that it isn’t a surprise. I just want MellanKelly to know that I don’t disrespect her as a person. Please do take the time to read that pamphlet. It is an honest accurate summation of the pro-life view. Many think that the pro-life stance is only to disregard the rights of women, but it is not at all…and this pamphlet explains a little better what the pro-life position IS about.

  • mellankelly1

    I’ve been thinking these past couple of days, and I think that it is no longer productive for us to talk about this issue on this blog—we obviously do not agree, and I don’t think either one of us is going to change our mind based on what the other one says, no matter how many times we keep repeating ourselves

    In all honesty… I wasn’t attempting to change your mind about anything.  My intent was to be sure that anyone reading misinformation or getting half truths from a comment on this blog was given more complete information including a first hand account on the subject of abortion and why it must remain a safe and legal option for those facing an unwanted pregnancy. 

     I do want you to know, however, that no matter what you may think of me, I do love women and my stance on abortion is not a tactic I am using to try to supress women’s rights, or anything of the sort. The only reason I feel so strongly about this issue is to save the lives of children who are being "terminated" every day in America.

    I’ve been speaking with people about abortion and my experience with abortion for over ten years now and I’ve found that most people aren’t sure exactly where they stand; being given the proper information and resources regarding the law and science help tremendously.  Not only that, but I’ve found that most people have never spoken with a woman who chose to terminate her pregnancy and they are surprised and moved when they hear an individuals story.  Most people come to realize that abortion is not a back/white subject… it is filled with every shade of grey.

    I encourage you to go to the link I am providing below. It is a pamphlet that methodically sets out the pro-life stance on abortion, and articulates it better than I ever could.

    In short, the comments you’ve made on this blog are regurgitated from that pamphlet.  Nothing in that pamphlet is compelling enough for us to criminalize abortion whereby forcing women to risk their lives and/or health.  Nothing. 

     

  • mellankelly1

    Many think that the pro-life stance is only to disregard the rights of women, but it is not at all

    Actually, many people simply point out the fact that the stance of those opposed to abortion due to their own personal belief systems ends up disregarding the rights of many women, regardless of whether or not this is their goal.

  • invalid-0

    OMFG. The simplest way to determine personhood is quite easy. When the placenta detaches from the wall of the uterus or the umbilical cord is cut. Because then the fetus is a completely seperate and thus no longer in a parasitic realtionship with the woman.
    Like melankelly said the debate over personhood has been going on for a very long time but for me the most logical and obvious is what i stated above. I’d like to hear what my fellow pro-choicers think about this though so please feel free to answer me.