The Real Rick Warren


Rick Warren understands politics.

It was announced today that Warren would be giving the invocation at President Elect Obama’s inauguration. It’s shocking, to say the least, but a little less surprising considering Warren’s Saddleback Forum, a campaign season event in which Warren questioned Senator Obama and Senator McCain about faith and politics – two issues Warren feels very comfortable merging. The Saddleback Forum, however, was no more an opportunity to discuss faith than it was an opportunity to discuss science. It was an opportunity for Rick Warren to "catch" the candidates in what he deemed inappropriate positions.

WARREN: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let’s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?

It is beyond me how Warren feels that a perspective that so few Americans hold (reflected this election by the sound defeat of three anti-choice measures, the victory of pro-choice Democrats in Congress and, well, Obama’s win), is a viable basis for a question for our presidential candidates? Luckily, Obama understands what most Americans do – it’s about prevention and education, not religious extremism, and he responded:

OBAMA: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.

But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

Rick Warren is also the man behind these (recent) statements on abortion:

“But to me it is kind of a charade in that people say ‘We believe abortions should be safe and rare,’” he added.

“Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’” Warren said. “I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”

Now we unveil the story of a religious leader who is adamantly against prevention; in favor of reducing abortion by stripping women of their rights; a leader who compares embryos in utero and mothers who make the best, most loving choices they can when faced with an unintended pregnancy or medical condition, to a murderous movement of anti-Semites who brutally slaughtered Jewish women, men and children. 

We do not have a religious leader here who agrees, in any way shape or form, with what Obama and the emerging common ground movement members believe – that to ensure women’s optimal health and lives, elevate women’s status in society and safeguard public health, we need to focus on comprehensive sex education and prevention measures like family planning and contraception access — not more of the same extremist elements of the anti-choice movement.

There are so many religious and spiritual leaders who understand the above. They understand that justice in the form of equal access to health care and respect for women’s health, decisions and privacy are critical components of any health measure – including one to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and ensure women have the tools to plan for the families they want now or in the future. In The American Prospect, Sarah Posner discusses the Religious Declaration on Sexuality Morality, Justice and Healing,

…which advocates comprehensive sex education and "a faith-based commitment to sexual and reproductive rights, including access to voluntary contraception, abortion, and HIV/STD prevention and treatment." The Religious Institute on Sexuality, Justice, and Healing, which authored the declaration, has also called on Obama to adopt an approach focused on preventing unintended pregnancies.

RH Reality Check has featured the voices of Rev. Debra Haffner, Rev. Carlton Veazy and so many others who advocate for a faith-based approach to sexual and reproductive health and rights, one that aligns so well with President Elect Obama’s vision.

And, yet, it’s Pastor Rick Warren who will join President Elect Obama on stage when he is inaugurated. Warren who advocates strongly for the abstinence-only based ideological restrictions in our Global AIDS Plan – PEPFAR. It’s Warren who has advocated to retain these restrictions which clash wholeheartedly with Obama’s plan to strip them away. 

Warren awarded President Bush the first ever "Medal of P.E.A.C.E." for his work on HIV/AIDS, as Lindsay Beyerstein reported for RH Reality Check. However, as Beyerstein writes, 

For all the mutual good will on display,
Warren’s agenda may well clash with Obama’s plans to reshape American
AIDS policy.  

It is hard to imagine Obama and Warren’s agendas for any sexual or reproductive health issues aligning at this point, making it all the more puzzling why Obama chose Warren for this role. In an expose on Religion Dispatches, Tom Davis writes of Warren’s die-hard positions on social issues all while taking more "moderate" stances on issues of global warming, poverty, war and AIDS (though, as I note above, supporting the imposition of religious restrictions on global AIDS policy is not moderate). Davis writes of Warren,

On the eve of the 2004 presidential election, he sent a letter to his congregation telling them that there were five non-negotiable issues that should determine their vote—abortion, stem-cell research, cloning, homosexual marriage, and euthanasia. In fact, these five issues are barely mentioned in the Bible; Jesus never spoke about them, nor did the prophets.

Curiously, however, Warren made no mention of those issus that he had claimed to care deeply about as a "new evangelical" – global warming, poverty, and war. Warren seems to have empathy for some and not for others – and this is where Davis identified Warren’s weakness:

As far as empathy is concerned, there seems to be scant evidence that Rick Warren and many other evangelical writers have tried to put themselves in the woman’s position, or that they can imagine what it would be like to have to make that decision.  

Rick Warren is not a man that symbolizes common ground. Warren has positioned himself as a key player in what in words has been called a new evangelism but in practice is nothing more than shining up some old shoes. As soon as the announcement was made that Warren would provide the invocation, protests sprung up on Facebook and elsewhere. We’ll see if Warren really does have such a front and center role at the inauguration after all. As a religious leader, he is a brilliant politician. 

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

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    I wrote both Rick Warren and Obama transition blog
    As an openly gay donor to Obama campaign the news of Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inaugeral ,is election night deja vu, all over again. Gays and Lesbians were celebrationg with all the rest of America the Obama victory, then at 11pm we get a shiv shoved in our back with prop 8. Rick Warren and the LDS elders were the MAIN SUPPORTERS which attacked LGBT families in CA, making us the ONE minority not covered by the equal protection clause.
    I hope EVERY queer and our friends attending the Inaugeral, TURNS THEIR BACK to Rick Warren, a salute of a single finger wouldn’t hurt …either.
    I am so disappointed the president to Bring America TOGETHER, chooses to tear us apart at his FIRST oppurtunity

  • invalid-0

    Ok, Rick Warren may not be the perfect example of common ground if he does indeed oppose safe sex measures in the AIDS crisis, but making abortion “safe, legal, and rare” is no common ground either, because the pro-life movement’s goal is not just to stop abortion, it’s to stop our society from condoning it. But what really drew my ire about this article was you claims of victory of the pro-choice movement as evidenced by various measures going down and Obama’s victory. Do your research, please. First, polls repeatedly show a fairly even split on this issue among Americans, often with a slight majority coming up on the pro-life side. Obama’s election had NOTHING to do with abortion. That issue came up ONE other time beyond that Saddleback Forum. People weren’t thinking about it when they went to the polls–they were panicking that we were headed for another Great Depression. And another thing, those “anti-choice” measures that went down didn’t go down for the reasons you think they did. Actually, I don’t know what the third one was, but the first two were Colorado and South Dakota. The South Dakota one failed because its rape exception was considered too ambiguous and thought to put too high of a burden on rape victims that included DNA testing and identification of the rapist. The last time that bill came up in South Dakota, it was rejected for lack of the rape exception, and if it had included one without so much red tape for the victims, it would have passed by a 60-40 margin. And the Colorado one went down because its language allowed for the possibility of also banning birth control. So don’t count your chickens here, you do NOT have a safe pro-choice majority here, and you never will, because it’s the pro-lifers who are ahead of their time and eventually others will catch up. It took a while with slavery too.

    • invalid-0

      The pro-life position is not ahead of its time, at all. It is a blindly pursued obsession, which completely disregards the consequences of its dictates. If you force every single fertilized egg to be incubated by a female host body (because surely at this point, she’s no longer a woman who has a right to make decisions about how her body is used), think about what you’ll end up with. Have you even thought about that?

      A) How in the world will we ever feed all these people, or ensure them adequate health care?
      B) How will you ensure all these people will receive responsible parenting?
      C) Since you can’t ensure A or B, then you will end up with multiple generations of lost souls, degenerates, criminals, people with chronic physical and mental ailments and the total disintegration of society as we know it.

      Happy now?

  • http://www.debrahaffner.blogspot.com invalid-0

    Thanks, Annie, for the support. I, frankly, am still speechless. There are thousands of religious leaders that could have been invited to do this; I can’t decide if it’s a signal to the evangelical Christian community that he is seeking to involve everyone, or a signal to the progressives that we shouldn’t take anything for granted. I have just read that Rev. Joseph Lowery will do the benediction. At least, he didn’t bookend with another person who opposes sexual justice issues. I blogged about this earlier as well.

    Rev. Debra W. Haffner

  • sayna

    You do realize that the only alternative to legal abortion is forced pregnancy and childbirth, right? It gives a whole new meaning to “forced labor”. How can you not call that slavery? How dare you tell half the population that we don’t own our bodies? And how dare you trivialize the suffering of millions of sentient human beings like that?

    You speak of rape exceptions, and I’d be interested to hear your justification for that. How is a fetus conceived by rape any less important than one conceived by consensual sex? If you believe abortion truly is murder, how do you say that it should be allowed for rape victims? I’d like to know how much time you think awoman should spend in jail if she attempts to self-induce an abortion.

    http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2005/polls.asp
    The majority of Americans are pro-choice. While we all wish that all pregnancies can be planned, wanted, and the joyful addition of new life, that’s just not how it works. The world is not a perfect place, and most people understand that. Most people have sympathy and understanding towards women who have abortions. Most of us understand that a gift coerced is not a gift. And many of us remember that in the days when abortion was illegal it was nowhere near gone, it was just unsafe.

    Quality of life counts more than quantity. It’s irresponsible to bring a child into the world that you cannot care for. It’s nothing short of cruelty to force a woman to have a child when she knows it’s not right for her.

  • invalid-0

    Ok, starting from the top, no I do not realize that the only alternative to legal abortion is “forced pregnancy and childbirth.” No one is “forcing” a woman to get pregnant. There are numerous way of avoiding it. Yes, abstinence is one, but so are birth control, condom use, planning of sexual encounters during times of the month when one cannot get pregnant, the list goes on and on. Pregnancies are avoidable and sex is a responsibility. If one isn’t ready to accept consequences of an action, they aren’t ready for the action. Period. And that goes for men AND women. I would have no problem, for example, with making a law that says when a woman gets pregnant unplanned, the man becomes responsible for all her medical expenses related to her pregnancy. But once again, nobody is “forcing” anyone to get pregnant. And the pro-life movement including myself are not telling anyone that they “don’t own their bodies” we’re telling them that the don’t own the unique human being inside their bodies once that being is formed. I fail to see how I am trivializing anyone’s suffering.

    As to the rape question, I personally don’t take a position on that exception, I was merely pointing out that many people who consider themselves strongly pro-life are still in favor of rape exceptions, and the reason this could be justifiable is that the arguments against abortion are based on a series of facts, not just one, and one of those facts is that pregnancy is preventable. Rape is the one case where this is not necessarily the case. As to jail time, that’s not up to me, but I would say any penalty for the women seeking abortions would need to be phased in over a long period of time to allow social norms to catch up. At first it should only be doctors performing them who are prosecuted.

    You can cite one poll, I’ll cite another–my point was it’s a pretty even split for every one you cite that says the majority are pro-choice, I’ll cite one that says the majority are pro-life. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/01/20030701-115636-9509r/ There are several other too, but I didn’t even cite these because some of them are mentioned on sites that you could argue have biased sources. (Even though your poll has a biased source as well.)

    Believing abortion should be outlawed doesn’t mean we don’t have any sympathy for these women. I also have sympathy for a woman who gives birth, panics, and leaves the baby in a dumpster or a mall bathroom, but that doesn’t mean that what she did wasn’t wrong. We’re not trying to force anyone to take care of that baby, we’re only trying to mandate that it be allowed to live. If its biological mother can’t take care of it, there are plenty of people who can and will. That’s what adoption is for. Once again, no one is forcing anyone to get pregnant, just once she is the baby has a right to its life.

    Finally, before abortion was legal, yes, it still existed, but far less than it does now, and more importantly it was not sanctioned by this society. The unsafe part is not the government’s problem. Name me one other area in which the government is charged with protecting people from the natural consequences of their own actions. (I’ll give you a hint, there are none. If this were the government’s role, cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food would not be available, and extreme sports would be outlawed.)

  • invalid-0

    Cost and imposition are often the primary reasons one elects to have an abortion; it’s unfortunate that our society places so much weight on these two variables. Not to minimize either… but when an abortion happens, a decision is made based on some analysis. If these were scales, one could say that the unfortunate person making this decision has to weigh the cost of having the baby versus the cost of not having one and I think that our society has, over time, placed a greater value on our comfort over our responsibility. It seems that our society does not value the young, or the old – and more frequently we send them both away because of cost and imposition. If we cannot change this crucial flaw in our society, then when we grow old – we too will be at the mercy of these scales.

  • invalid-0

    Pregnancy is preventable?! Apparently the writer is not aware that EVERY form of birth control has a failure rate greater than 0. That’s right–you can do everything possible to prevent it and still end up pregnant. And then there are the pregnancies resulting from incest–also preventable, right? but not by the “woman”–and coercion by older men and also the ones due to sheer ignorance because birth control is not taught or available in our schools. So a young woman who does not really understand how easy it is to get pregnant and who has no money to buy birth control, incest survivors, coerced children, and anyone whose birth control failed, should be “punished” by being forced to bear her unintended pregnancy to term? How is that not forced pregnancy and childbearing?

    Over and over, I find that those who are “pro-life” are really unaware of, as well as unsympathetic to, the tragedy of how easy it is to get pregnant without intention.

    It appears that your position is that all fetuses should be carried to term and supported once living until adulthood or else given away by the parents who begot them. Do you have any iea of the agony that birth mothers who give up babies for adoption go through? Do you not see that also as coercion?

    There is coercion in every aspect of the pro-life stance.

    It is about making judgments about women’s lives from the outside rather than permitting women to make judgments from inside their lives and circumstances.

    Judgmentalism, pure and simple. Not with my tax dollars, you don’t!

  • invalid-0

    Yes indeed, pregnancy IS preventable. I am aware that birth control and condom use have failure rates of greater than 0, but abstinence does not, and neither does timing sexual encounters to the times of the month where one can’t get pregnant. I’ll emphasize, I am NOT advocating abstinence only sex education–I have NO problem whatsoever with teaching about birth control, women should be informed about all those options (not including abortion). But when all’s said and done, if a person is truly at a stage in their life where they cannot be pregnant, it is possible to avoid it. Sex is a choice and it has natural consequences, and where human life is involved, the government is under no obligation to give a way out of natural consequences of a person’s chosen actions. That’s not punishment.

    And yes, it is my position that once what is inside there will be born alive if left alone, it has the right to live, and if a person cannot endure the agony of giving up babies for adoption, they either should keep the baby or ensure that they do not get pregnant in the first place. Nobody’s rights extend to the point where the infringe on the rights of another. This is not a question of WHOSE rights are more important, it’s a question of WHAT rights are more important. And life trumps all other rights. The pro-life stance (and no quotation marks necessary or acceptable, there are plenty of other names we could break out for the pro-choicers if you insist on labeling us as something other than pro-life, but I personally have enough respect not to, so I ask you to do the same) is not about making any “judgements” it is about protecting innocent life. I’ll end the way you did. Taking human lives, pure and simple. Not with MY tax dollars, you don’t!

  • invalid-0

    Amen Sayna

  • emma

    Alex A-L, you seem to be suggesting that forcing women with unwanted pregnancies isn’t forced pregnancy and forced birth. I’m with Sayna; how dare you suggest that women who are pregnant should be forced to stay pregnant, and then try to claim that’s not coercion. At least be honest; you believe that women’s bodies should be the property of the state. Are you aware that women can become pregnant if they miss one contraceptive pill at the wrong time of the month? Are you seriously suggesting that missing ONE PILL is a sign that a woman is dreadfully, horribly irresponsible and should be punished? No one is so perfect that they never, ever, ever forget to take a pill once every now and then. Some of us can’t use IUDs without extreme, ongoing pain. No contraceptive method is foolproof. Presumably, if a woman experiences contraceptive failure, it’s her fault for being ‘irresponsible’.

     

    You’re also deluding yourself if you believe that illegalising abortion prevents or even reduces abortion. There is no evidence that countries in which abortion is illegal have lower abortion rates. Do you know why the number of reported abortions were lower prior to decriminalisation? Because women knew they could be punished for having them, so they didn’t report having them illegally.

     

    The policies you’re advocating won’t reduce abortion; they’ll just kill more women. But apparently, you consider that perfectly acceptable; it’s more important to make a political point that women’s lives are worth less than foetal lives. Who cares if women die, right? We’re just irresponsible sl*ts who brought it on ourselves. Are you really unable to comprehend why some of us find that objectionable?

     

    Oh, and you guys lost regarding your propositions in the recent elections. The majority of people voted against said propositions because they don’t agree with them. Stop making excuses. You failed, the majority of people disagree with you, and you lost. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

  • emma

    In other words, if you’re poor and can’t afford a child, you shouldn’t have sex. So, your belief is that only people with money should have sex. Poor people should be abstinent for life, yes?

     

    And it’s so much more important to ‘send a message’ that society won’t sanction abortion than to deal with reality and, oh…dead women? Instead, society should sanction the idea that women are walking, talking incubators whose sole purpose in life is to produce children. It’s worth making women property of the state in order to protect the foetuses of the world. Once criminal penalties for women who have abortions are ‘phased in slowly’, what would you suggest they should be? Are you ok with 40% or so of the female population being imprisoned?

     

    Also, those who support withholding family planning funds from developing countries are cultural imperialists who haven’t a clue about the lives and struggles of people living in abject poverty. To insist that abortion should be the greatest concern of people struggling every day to feed their families, dealing with HIV/AIDS epidemics, massive risk of rape (the DRC, for example) and so on is grotesquely paternalistic, imperialistic, insensitive, misogynistic and outright clueless.

  • invalid-0

    You are becoming quite tedious. No, it is not “forced pregnancy” or “forced childbirth” because IT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IN ONE OF SEVERAL WAYS, a couple of which are not fool-proof, but a couple of others of which are. THIS is where women have every choice in the world–BEFORE there is a living human being inside them. And so, yes, it’s the state’s job to protect that living human being. This does NOT make a woman’s body “property of the state”–THIS IS NOT ABOUT JUST HER BODY, IT’S ABOUT WHAT’S INSIDE THAT BODY!

    Furthermore, you will not acknowledge that there is a difference between a “punishment” and a natural biological consequence. I’m not making a value judgement on a person’s level of responsibility, nor am I calling ANYONE a “slut”–I’m saying that where a human life is involved, the government is not obliged to provide a way out of a natural, biological consequence of an action over which, yes, indeed the woman DID have a choice about.

    And you, ma’am are deluding YOURSELF if you claim that not ONE person who would get an abortion as long as it’s legal might think twice about it if it were illegal. If it prevents ANY abortions it’s worth it, more importantly, it would take the blood off this society’s hands from condoning the practice. And you can’t compare our abortion rates to rates in countries where it’s illegal–you’re comparing apples to tuna–totally different cultural environments that have much larger impacts on these rates than its legality or illegality.

    Again, this is not about who’s lives are worth–women’s lives or fetal lives. When this situation is truly the case, it is the woman’s life–I’m not opposed to abortions performed to save the life of the mother, nor are most of the pro-life movement. But in cases where a woman dies from an illegal abortion, she could have avoided this by not having the abortion. The baby killed in an abortion did not have any means of avoidance. I challenge you again to name one other situation in which it is the government’s job to protect a person from the consequences of their own actions. Because this is what you claim its role is when you advocate for legal abortion out of concern for women who would die from illegal ones. By the way, you might want to look up the name Dr. Bernard Nathanson–he’s the Planned Parenthood source of a lot of those stats on deaths from illegal abortions. He later admitted that those numbers were complete and utter fabrications.

    Finally, I’m not making “excuses” I’m reading the poll numbers. The South Dakota ban went down because of the ambiguity of its rape exception, and the Colorado one went down because its language could easily have allowed for the banning of birth control. Even I would have voted against that one. You’re the one pretending here, because for every poll you can point to showing a pro-choice majority in this country, I can point to one showing the opposite. Check the link in my above post. It’s from an unbiased source, unlike the link I was refuting.

  • invalid-0

    No, I’m saying that if you’re responsible enough to have sex, you’re responsible enough to deal with its natural consequences in a manner that does not involve taking a life. If a woman can’t afford a baby, that’s what adoption is for, and again, if it’s about the cost of a pregnancy, pass a law making the man responsible for her pregnancy-related medical costs (or even his parents if he’s under 18). I have no problem with trying to distribute the responsibility as evenly as is humanly possible here (and by the way, if I were a woman, or if men could get pregnant, I would hold the same view on this issue as I do now, because this about nothing other than the scientific, biological definition of human life, and I have no more patience with the religious rhetoric used against it as I do with people like you).

    Once again, this has nothing to do with making women incubators or saying anything about what their primary purpose is or is not. It’s about saying they have every right to make all of these choices, but the choice regarding childbirth must be made BEFORE there is a living, breathing, unique human being growing inside of them. And I HIGHLY doubt that 40% of the female population would get abortions if it were illegal, and frankly, assuming this did happen, the justice department would get so bogged down with prosecutions that it would probably expedite the more practical measures being put in place to reduce unplanned pregnancy that your types want to suffice while our society still has the blood on its hands. Again, these practical measures absolutely should be taken alongside illegalization.

    I’m fine with giving back the family planning funding to the developing nations as long as we stipulate that the money they get from us cannot be used to fund abortions. And I do agree that this shouldn’t be the most important issue–I’ve voted for pro-choice candidates for despite my disgust with their position on that.

  • invalid-0

    Any use of medical treatments overrides the natural consequences. Once you introduce prenatal medical treatments you are no longer dealing with the natural consequences.

  • invalid-0

    Death of a woman from pregnancy is a natural consequence of pregnancy. Women can’t kill their children in order to save themselves from natural death. The woman was in the position to prevent this pregnancy according to your own arguments and therefore, any perceived need to kill an innocent baby to save herself from natural death could have been prevented entirely by her but she chose not too.

    If Patient A and Patient B are both dying, we don’t kill Patient A to save Patient B. Add to it that Patient A is dying to no fault of their own but Patient B could have prevented their condition.

  • invalid-0

    And Emma,

    Its not just the cases of induced abortion, where the woman completes it through intent by herself or effectively hires a hitman such as a doctor or other person, but the percentage also needs to include the additional cases of involuntary manslaughter that also carry criminal penalties.

  • invalid-0

    Here I’ll defend the other side though. For one thing, the argument of preventing the situation doesn’t apply here, because in many cases where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, she was not diagnosed with whatever condition is causing the situation until after she was already pregnant. Additionally, the exception for the life of the mother is justified along the lines of self-defense. If B will kill A if A does not kill B, then the killing of B is justified. This legal standard is as old as time. (As long as it’s adhered to literally and the standard is strictly held to one’s very bodily life being at stake–you can’t say “this person is driving me crazy, so I’ll kill them” or even “this person is costing me money and plans, so I’ll kill them” in any other life situation, and so shouldn’t anyone be allow to do this here)

  • emma

    ‘…I have no more patience with the religious rhetoric used against it as I do with people like you…’

     

    People like me? So in other words, you have no interest in the perspectives of women such as me, who could potentially be badly affected by illegalised abortion. 

     

    No time to debate right now. Vet emergency with my cat today. Need sleep ASAP. In addition to that, reading Alex’s comments causes my blood pressure to spike

  • invalid-0

    Agreed that the right to self defense applies…. but to the fetus to prevent the woman from killing it. According to your own definition of force, consent and natural consequences the woman is not being forced – therefore she has no right to claim self defense against the fetus as its not forcing her to die anymore than its forcing her to a minor health consequence. No pregnancy can be accurately predicted and diagnosed for a specific woman fully at the time of conception, this is true whether the woman can die, have major health consequences or minor health consequences…and lack of absolute prediction does not automatically turn something into a positive self defense claim and you don’t make exceptions for the other cases of non-predicted health issues in pregnancy that are diagnosed later. However if she attempts to kill the fetus to save herself from dying naturally then yes she is killing and the fetuses right to self defense would necessitate protecting it from being attacked.

  • invalid-0

    Alex says, “Yes indeed, pregnancy IS preventable. I am aware that birth control and condom use have failure rates of greater than 0, but abstinence does not, and neither does timing sexual encounters to the times of the month where one can’t get pregnant.”

    Are you TRULY that UNEDUCATED!?!?! Okay, for the record, in case someone might believe you and rely on “timing”…

    The ‘Rhythm Method’ (aka Alex’s “timing sexual encounters to the times of the month”) has a failure rate of 31%, according to the CDC. I’ve seen a variety of statistics (lower and higher), but I’m thinking the CDC is a reasonable source to quote. So…

    ** THIRTY-ONE PERCENT **

    From a U.S. Government Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report:

    “In the most recent study, the failure rates—the average probability of having an unintended pregnancy in a year of using a particular method—were as follows: the pill, 7%; the condom, 16%; the diaphragm, 22%; periodic abstinence (calendar and temperature rhythm methods as well as natural family planning), 31%; and spermicides, 30%.”

    I’ll quote my source: http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Products&Pubs/DatatoAction/pdf/rhow1.pdf

    Please quote yours. Random un-verified statements like that cause increases in the unintended pregnancy statistics. IF you actually CARE about reducing unwanted pregnancies, DON’T MAKE UP CRAP.

  • invalid-0

    “the percentage also needs to include the additional cases of involuntary manslaughter that also carry criminal penalties”

    So you would charge women who have miscarriages with involuntary manslaughter?
    Would you charge women who use IUDs or birth control pills with involuntary manslaughter?
    If so, what penalty would you recommend if these women are convicted?

  • invalid-0

    “if it’s about the cost of a pregnancy, pass a law making the man responsible for her pregnancy-related medical costs (or even his parents if he’s under 18)l”

    The male would not bear any responsibiity beyond the medical costs? No responsibility for raising and providing for the progeny he is at least 50% responsible for and the woman or girl he impregnated? The medical costs?

    Social conservatives are such contemptible assholes.

  • sayna

    Adding insult to injury here is the fact that on top of wanting to control female bodies and sexuality, you don’t even seem to know or care about basic facts about our anatomy or how pregnancy/conception work. It’s not quite so bad as the young man whose duty was to inform us ignorant ladies that we urinate through our vaginas, but it’s still concerning. As another poster has said, the rhythm method is not a reliable form of contraception. It’s failure rate is nowhere near zero and it’s signifigantly less effective than oral contraception, condoms, and other methods.

    This is worrisome. Were you being intentionally misleading? Do you think that you know more about female bodies than we women do? You seem quick to tell us what’s best for us, and desperate to impose your own personal morality on us. It’s absolutely insulting.

    You can try to claim the moral high ground all you want, but the fact of the matter is that many women choose to terminate their pregnancies for what can only be considered moral reasons. They believe that it is wrong to bring a human being into this world when they cannot care for it. They believe it’s better to stop a life from developing into a thinking, feeling human being than to allow it to grow without any concern at all for its future. And we, their supporters believe it absolutely more immoral to force women to give birth than to allow the end of a life that doesn’t even have consciousness.

    While you try to deny it, what you advocate is forced pregnancy. Conception and implantation are biologically involuntary actions. Clearly no woman who intends to end her pregnancy wanted to start that pregnancy in the first place! Can you honesly look a woman in the eye and tell her that pregnancy was her fault even though she tried everything humanly possible to prevent it? Would you deny cancer treatment to a smoker or medical treatment to a reckless driver? Come, on, it’s their fault, isn’t it?!

    The fact of the matter is that by not allowing a woman to terminate her pregnancy, you are forcing her to remain pregnant and give birth. It’s tragic to me that anyone could treat motherhood like a punishment rather than a choice. A gift coerced is not a gift. It shows an insistence on recklessly pushing for quantity of life rather than quality of life. When a humn being cannot control what happens to their body–including the right to end unwanted use by any means necessary–they are not free. My body is all that I own and if the government can force something on my body against my will, it is an absolute violation of my body, of my very being.

  • invalid-0

    Oh get off your indignant high horse. I was talking about cases where the woman is not going to keep the baby and claims that she “has to” have an abortion because she can’t even afford the medical cost of the pregnancy. If she keeps the baby, then of course the man should bear 50% of the financial responsibility for the child’s upbringing. I just wasn’t talking about cases like that–only about cases where she has already decided that she is not going to raise the child. I’m all for insisting on responsibility on both sides of this issue.

  • invalid-0

    I’ve heard the perspectives of women such as you, and it always neglects the fact that you have ways to avoid being badly affected by illegalized abortion, while the human beings you wish to deny their most fundamental right to life have no such ways.

  • invalid-0

    “Oh get off your indignant high horse.”

    I’ll stop being indignant as you stop sounding as if you’re an authoritarian, ignorant and abusive fundie with the social skills of a wharf rat.

    “If she keeps the baby, then of course the man should bear 50% of the financial responsibility for the child’s upbringing.”

    First, there was (again characteristically) no mention at all of the males role outside of paying medical costs for the pregnancy so getting all huffy and saying “of course” tends to blame me for your abundant inadequacies .

    Second, if you believe that a paltry 50% of the child’s financial needs is evidence of your being all about male responsibility you should probably rethink your position because anyone who has raised a child knows that that this does not BEGIN to be an equal allocation of responsibility.

    Finally, the vast majority of children born in the US OOW have no court ordered child support and no contact with their ‘father’. Perhaps if guys like you started demanding responsibility from yourselves, your friends and your sons that would be a good place to start reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies and fatherless children and do something that is actually useful for once.
    I understand that conveying your dislike and contempt for women as you do here is something you find emotionally satisfying and is one of the rewards of being a Christian male but it’s not real useful.

  • invalid-0

    What about a case where the woman is diagnosed with cancer during her pregnancy, and the treatment, particularly any chemotherapy, would kill the unborn child? I know someone who this was the case with his wife. She actually chose to delay her treatment until after the baby was born, and it cost her her own life. When it actually is a question of life versus life, the woman’s life must take precedent. This is one case where we probably can use the consciousness argument. If one or the other will definitely die, then the one to die should be the one that isn’t fully cognisant of what’s happening to them.

  • invalid-0

    You’re calling my words authoritarian, ignorant, and abusive because you read into them only what you want to. DON’T TELL ME WHAT I’M THINKING!!! I may have misspoken in my anger at your assumptions, at least in my language about what the man’s responsibility should be, but I was talking about the legal rules. You can’t legally require a person to give their time, in the same way that you can’t force a woman to raise the baby once it’s born, so the same goes for men, but you could pass a law garnishing the man’s wages to cover medical and support expenses. If the woman plans to keep the baby, the man should be an equal partner in every way, ok? I believe that, I would do it myself, and I would expect any friend or relative of mine to do the same. I was only speaking in LEGAL terms. So indeed I find it a disgrace that OOW children do not have court ordered child support, and I’m more than willing to advocate and fight for this ALONGSIDE the outlawing of abortion. But STOP TELLING ME THAT I HAVE DISLIKE OR CONTEMPT FOR WOMENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN PROTECTING INNOCENT LIFE!!!! Oh, and by the way, I’m not Christian, nor am I using any religious rhetoric to back up my views on this, I’m using logic, reason, and biology.

  • invalid-0

    You can’t kill an unconscious patient to save another conscious patients life. If both are going to die then its not better to kill one to save the other. A woman can not give a deadly medicine to her child without the child having the medical need for it – in the absence of medical need its called homicide – and chemotherapy in this case is an induced killer. Cancer is natural. And once again you’ve offered nothing that overturns the fetus right to self defense to prevent itself from being killed.

  • invalid-0

    Except the woman’s right to self defense to prevent herself from being killed. This isn’t a case of both are going to die, it’s a case of one or the other will die. By any legal code, a person has the right to take any action necessary to preserve their own life. Ok, so if the unborn child could physically defend itself, fine, you’ve got a case. It can defend itself, and so can the woman. I suppose you could say in this case the stronger one prevails, but I don’t quite see the point of the natural vs. unnatural part of this debate. This is not made an issue of in courts. (I love it, I’m lighting both ends of the candle here, and at least you’re making me look like the moderate I truly am on this issue–fighting people like you on one end, and radical, blind feminism (the key point here being BLIND, not feminism, for all you others on here, before you tell me I’m using the F word as a perjorative) on the other. LOL!

  • invalid-0

    These figures refer to the real statisics based on how many use them versus how many work. They say nothing about whether these women are using these methods properly. For example, the pill is 99% effective if used properly, but these 6.9% were not using them properly. But all of this is beside the point. The bottom line is that sex is still ultimately a choice, and thus, pregnancy can be avoided if it is truly absolutely necessary that a person not get pregnant at a given time in her life.

  • invalid-0

    The woman can’t kill another to save herself from natural death. I’ve never heard of a court giving any leniency to a conscious patient attacking an unconscious one, the latter of whom is wholly innocent and can never be said by any stretch of the imagination to have done anything to provoke the attack or have caused any sort of ‘killing’. Yet the woman is simply dying a natural death. Instead as soon as the woman starts to attack or hires someone to attack she is guilty of killing.

    I don’t know why you fail to understand the natural bit as you brought up natural biological consequences in your own arguments…and death is no less a consequence of pregnancy as other complications.

    You’re not a moderate on the overall issue of abortion.

  • emma

    Yeah, I guess if I get pregnant as a result of rape, it’s all my fault.

     

    Do you know what I lack patience for? Men like you, who want to impose restrictions on women’s lives that will never affect you. It’s easy to say that *other* people should be more responsible, should be forced to stay pregnant against their will, and so on. It’s always easier when it’s someone else who’ll be affected by being required to do what you want by force of law. This is about control. It’s about men who can’t bear the idea of women having control over our own reproductive systems; men who want to maintain their male privilege. 

     

    Born people have rights *and* responsibilities. What you’re suggesting is that foetuses should have more rights than everyone else, but not be subject to the same legal responsibilities as everyone else. If you want foetuses to be treated like born people, then they should have the same responsibilities. Thus unwanted foetuses should be able to be charged with trespassing, deprivation of liberty, endangering someone else’s (the mother’s) life, and such foetuses should be subject to imprisonment at birth.

     

    And Alex, women *are* still going to have abortions if abortion were to become illegal. Look at statistics for  Romania under Ceacescu. Why do you think it is that maternal mortality rates are higher in countries in which abortion is illegal? In fact, in countries in which abortion is illegal, what do you think is the most common cause of maternal death? Yeah, abortion. You cannot seriously believe that where abortion is illegal, women suddenly become saintly and abstinent. You can’t seriously believe that women who cannot have or do not want a child will suddenly desperately want or be able to have a child. Women have always had abortions. It’s a part of women’s reproductive lives, and that’s not going to change because you and the government think it should. I don’t think you understand the lengths to which women will go to protect themselves and their families where a(nother) child will be harmful to them. Remember here that the majority of women who have abortions already have kids, so I think it’s a bit much to be lecturing them on ‘taking responsibility’ for the consequences of their actions, and so on. They already are.

     

    A woman’s life is worth more than a foetus’s life. Existing children’s lives are worth more than a foetus’s life. That is the reality for the majority of people, whether you like it or not.

  • emma

    Absolutely agree, Sayna.

     

    Is anyone else getting the impression that Alex A-L really doesn’t like having the womenfolk argue with him? Naturally, the womenfolk should be nice and submissive and agree that the menfolk must be correct, because we’re just silly, irrational, emotional women who are getting unreasonably upset about the idea of being forced to be pregnant against our will.

     

    Alex A-L, you may not be a religious fundie, but you are a fundie (who’s happened to align yourself with the religious fundies). You are right, we are wrong, you ‘have no patience for women like [us]‘. You refuse to listen to people who, unlike you, would be the ones affected by an abortion ban. And that is a fundie perspective.

  • invalid-0

    STOP TELLING ME WHAT I WANT TO “CONTROL.” I WANT TO PROTECT INNOCENT LIFE!! PERIOD!! I can be civil in debates, but not when people try to reinterpret my thoughts for me!!!! Yet again, this is not about us wanting to decide what’s “best” for anyone–it is about insisting that this decision be made BEFORE another human life comes into the picture. Oh, and by the way, people in the 1840’s and 50’s, particularly Northerners, who had the audacity to suggest that African-Americans might actually be human beings too were also attacked for “imposing their personal morality on others.”

    Your “moral” reasons for abortion would fly if it weren’t for the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people waiting to be parents who WILL and CAN care for that child, in fact would give their right arms to do so. There’s no need to be concerned for the future of any “unwanted” child, because there are none. EVERY newborn put up for adoption would be given a home, there are more than enough adoptive parents waiting in the wings.

    You don’t want to go down the consciousness road with me (even though I earlier defended this argument being used in cases where one or the other will definitely die). But it’s different here–we’re not dealing with choosing one person to die if one death is inevitable. Comatose patients also don’t have consciousness, that doesn’t allow us to decide to end their lives when it becomes inconvenient to care for them (especially if the coma is known to be a temporary condition, as pregnancy is). For all the other biological arguments you can try, I’ll shoot you down with other examples of types of people who also would logically have no protection if we follow your recipe.

    ANd one more time, NO, IT IS NOT “FORCED” PREGNANCY! It’s a natural consequence of a VOLUNTARY action. We are not obliged as a society to ensure sex with no biological consequences. And this is not a moral argument against premarital sex. It’s saying if you’re responsible enough to have sex, you’re responsible enough to deal with the consequences, however involuntary they may be, of an action that was extremely voluntary, in a manner that doesn’t involve taking a life. I’ll repeat one more time that this is not about assessing “blame”–it’s about taking responsibility when life is involved. So no, I wouldn’t deny treatment to a smoker or a reckless driver–because it doesn’t cause the death of another innocent person. Hypothetically, though, let’s say a drunk driver and his victim were taken to the same hospital with equally life-threating injuries, and there was only enough medical staff on duty to treat one of them at a time. (Yes, I know this is an unlikely scenario, but assume for the sake of argument). In this case, I would UNEQUIVOCALLY say treat the victim first, and if you’re intellectually honest you’d say the same thing, and if you were even more intellectually honest, you’d acknowledge that this is the same situation here. Or another example, let’s say there’s a donor liver that becomes available, and there are two people in equally urgent need of a transplant: one is a child with a congenital defect, the other is an adult with cirrhosis of the liver from years of heavy drinking. Point being, when it’s a zero sum game, you have to give the edge to the most innocent.

    I’m not forcing motherhood on anyone, nor insisting anyone see it as a gift–just that that child be allowed to live. It’s not a matter of WHAT choices a woman has, it’s a matter of WHEN these choices must be made.

  • invalid-0

    Ok, on the rape issue, I’m not putting that into the category of a preventable pregnancy. I won’t fight rape exceptions.

    But yes, it does effect me to be living in a society that condones the taking of innocent life for the sake of another’s convenience, or even another’s financial stability. Every person who stands by without a fight in a society like this has blood on their hands. The same way it affected everyone when they were living in a nation that allowed a human being to be owned by another human being, even if they would “never understand what it was like to be dependent on their slave labor for their family’s sustenence and wanted to impose restrictions on the slaveowners’ lives that will never effect them.” I’ll say again what I’ve said before to others, STOP TRYING TO READ MY MIND!! STOP TELLING ME WHAT THIS IS ABOUT FOR ME!!! IT IS NOT ABOUT CONTROL, IT IS NOT ABOUT MALE PRIVILEGE, IT IS NOT ABOUT “NOT BEING ABLE TO BEAR WOMEN CONTROLLING THEIR REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEMS” IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING INNOCENT LIFE AND I WOULD SAY THE SAME THINGS IF IT WERE MEN WHO GOT PREGNANT!!!!! My civility ends when you try to explain my beliefs for me. I don’t explain your for you, I don’t say that “what this is really about is you hating babies and wanting to kill them”, so GIVE ME THE SAME COURTESY, PLEASE!!!!!

    Your logic about rights vs. responsibilites is ridiculous. All these crimes you claim the fetus could then be charged with if it were given legal rights all require the element of intent, and no child under 8 or 9 could ever be charged with crimes like this–we don’t hold children to the same legal standard–by your standards, we could also use this logic when a born child becomes a nuisance. We still give them the same basic right to life, even before they have all the responsibilities of adults.

    For yet another time, since this point is clearly going in one side of your head and out the other, I don’t want the unborn to have more rights than the born, I want them to have THE SAME rights, the most basic one being the right to life. I didn’t deny that born LIVES are worth more than unborn ones, I said, when it’s truly a matter of life versus life, the born life takes precedent. But not life versus convenience or even life versus financial stability.

    And please read what I actually write so I don’t have to repeat myself over and over again. I didn’t say ALL abortions would stop, I said some would. If you look at the reasons for abortions, most are performed for what can only be perscribed as convenience reasons. I’m not saying they’ll suddenly desperately want to have a child, I’m saying at least some of these women would decide the potential of prosecution is a lot more inconvenient than nine months of pregnancy. And yet again, more importantly, making it illegal would take the blood off the hands of the rest of the society so at least the abortions that would still happen would not be done with the tacit approval of the entire society. And one more time, the woman who dies from an illegal abortion had another option, unlike the child killed in a legal abortion.

  • invalid-0

    Nope, sorry, you’re wrong, this has nothing to do with “womenfolk” vs. “menfolk” or who should act how or who should say what–I’d say the same things to a man making these arguments, and I’d say the same things if I were a woman.

    And actually, no, I don’t align with the religious fundies, I can’t stand their including birth control in this equation, and I think that one of the reasons abortion is still legal is because they’ve focused so much on the religious aspect of the debate that they open themselves up to straw man argument for legal abortion and fail to use the scientific facts that are on their side. My defensiveness has nothing to do with people supporting abortion. I can be perfectly civil in such a debate. My lack of patience is with people who try to explain to me what my opposition to abortion is “really about.”

  • wendy-banks

    The only 100% positive ways to not become pregnate are: abstinace (with no rape or insest) And sterilization (male/female), well, and death too, let’s not forget that.

    The religous right don’t even like people to know that they DO have rights to begin with! And the religous right love ignorant people– they are soo much easier to control than well-educated ones… And they don’t fight back when threatened with hell, excomunication, shameing, et la. The key word is CONTROL– They hated loseing control of woman, and they are doing ALL they can to get it back– Even if it means our death.

    Goddess bless

  • emma

    ‘I’d say the same things if I were a woman’.

     

    How do you know? You don’t. No one can know what they’d do or think if they were another person.

     

    Cyber yelling and telling people what they may or may not say is controlling behaviour, and it’s one of the reasons I stated that this is about control for you. The other reason is that your arguments all seem to be based on ‘if only people who didn’t want kids were abstinent. If only the rhythm method were practiced perfectly. If only women never, ever missed a pill. If only the world were perfectly ordered and people never, ever made mistakes. You’re not accepting that life is messy and people are imperfect.

     

    In your post below you wrote ‘you don’t want to get into the consciousness argument with me’. Again with the trying to control the conversation. You’re also trying to present the idea that consciousness as irrelevant as uncontested fact, when that’s not the case.

     

    And oh god, here we go with the slavery/racism argument. Are you going to make a Holocaust comparison next?

  • invalid-0

    Well, maybe that’s what it’s about for the religious right, but THAT’S NOT WHAT IT’S ABOUT FOR THIS STAUNCH PRO-LIFER!

  • invalid-0

    Ok, fine, if I were a woman with the same capacity for logical reasoning that I have, I’d say the same thing. But I also said I would say the same things to a man making the arguments you’re making, and that I would say the same things if it were men who got pregnant. I wasn’t telling anyone what they may or may not say about anything other than THE MEANING AND MOTIVATION BEHIND MY OWN THOUGHTS!! That’s not about control, it’s about resenting having someone speak for you. Again, I’m not trying to speak for you. I do accept that life is messy and people are imperfect–I just said that you don’t deal with the messes and human imperfections by taking innocent lives.

    I wasn’t saying it’s irrelevant, I said if you want to make that argument, you’re going to be confronted with numerous logical fallacies that follow from this argument.

    And no, I’m not going to make a Holocaust comparison, because I’ve never heard anyone justify the Holocaust with the same arguments people used to justify slavery or abortion, which are eerily similar. You also need to realize before you start your eye rolling that comparison of faulty logic is not stating that two things are morally equivalent. I’m not saying abortion is the moral equivalent of slavery, I’m saying that if the arguments being used to justify abortion could be used word for word with slavery substituted for abortion, that probably means they’re not very solid arguments.

  • wendy-banks

    No dear, you have already stated you want to control women’s freedom and liberty wether or not to have a child. And, it is NOT up to you as you do not have a womb to grow a child in. And, untill it is capable of surviving on it’s own, that child, bit of cells, whatever anyone chooses to call it IS PART OF MY BODY, and is my to deal with! Stop trying to take away MY rights for a maybe child that may or may not survive to partrition.

    And yes, right-to lifers are all about CONTROL– Control of the mother, control of women, and control of women’s right to– or not to have a child. Got it NOW? Never mind, people like you never will– It’s beyond you, I fear.

    Oh, and by the way, there are many, many kids that need adopted right NOW, why bring more into the world that are unwanted to live in poverty. That is immoral in my book.

  • invalid-0

    UGGGHHHHH, It’s like running up against a brick wall that shields any facts from getting through. You just stick your hands in your ears and tell anyone who wants to protect innocent life that they just care about control. I NEVER SAID I WANT TO CONTROL WOMEN’S FREEDOM AND LIBERTY WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE A CHILD. JUST THAT THAT DECISION NEEDS TO MADE BEFORE THERE’S ANOTHER LIFE INVOLVED!!!! MAYBE OTHER PRO-LIFERS ARE ABOUT CONTROL, BUT I AM NOT, STOP SPEAKING FOR ME, I AM ABOUT PROTECTING INNOCENT LIFE!!!!!!!!! It is IN your body, that doesn’t make it part of your body–it is a genetically unique human being, with its own tissues, its own organs, its own chromosomes, its own brain, the list goes on. Ability to survive on its own is a manufactured distinction that opens you up to all sorts of errors of logic–right when it’s born it sure as hell can’t survive on its own either. Guess that means it’s ok to kill it until the age of 18, huh?

    There are no newborns waiting to be adopted–if you’re talking foster kids, these are kids who were kept by their parents and then either got to be too much to handle or the parents were abusive or addicted. Many people are very hesitant to adopt a child with this kind of baggage. But NO newborn put up for adoption would fail to be placed in a loving, welcoming home.

    By the way, did you catch the point about the fact that if men were the ones with wombs, I would say the exact same thing? And what, may I ask, do you tell pro-life women when you can’t break out the “you don’t have a womb” argument–because there are plenty of those too. Actually, according to some polls, more than there are pro-life men. So what’s it about for them, pray tell?

  • invalid-0

    You are hardly in a position to judge the feminists on this thread as blind…at least they are consistent in applying their arguments.

  • invalid-0

    If they refuse to acknowledge that what it is about for us is protecting innocent life, then yes, they are blind. Disagree with our characterization that what’s inside the womb IS an innocent life, but no, they don’t have any ground to stand on there, so all they can do is tell us what we’re thinking and that what we “really want is to control women.” They back off on that talk, an I’ll stop referring to them as blind.

  • invalid-0

    They don’t need to back off on the talk as long as they are consistent while you are not. You don’t stand for innocent human life – you’ve demonstrated it already.

  • invalid-0

    Then as long as they continue to insist on it “really being about” anything other than protecting innocent life, at least for this particular pro-lifer, they remain extremely worthy of the label “blind.”

  • invalid-0

    Until you consistently stand up for innocent human life its not about innocent human life. You have contradicted so many of your own arguments.

  • invalid-0

    How have I contradicted any of my own arguments? By not standing up for anyone’s convenience or financial stability over someone else’s life? I’ve already said I’m not opposed to abortion in cases where the woman’s life is in danger. My not happening to believe that killing a human being is a within the realm of acceptable choice does not prevent me from consistently standing up for innocent human life, it promotes it.

  • invalid-0

    Ha, tell that to the other posters on this board–they would agree with you that I’m no moderate on this issue, but they’d put me on quite an opposite spectrum from you. In your hypothetical situation of courts granting leniency, they would if this attack on the unconscious patient was the only for for the attacker to avoid their own death, but the only situation where this can ever possibly be the case is here, so we have nothing else to compare it too. My point was death may be a natural consequence, but it is the one natural consequence that people are entitled to do whatever is necessary to prevent, because again, life trumps all other rights. So these kinds of abortions would be protected under the doctrine of self-defense.

  • invalid-0

    Can you not read your own comments? You believe in the woman taking natural consequence…UNTIL it doesn’t suit you. You believe in killing an innocent person to extend the womans life over what would be a natural death for her. You believe in innocent life and self defense…UNTIL it becomes inconvenient for you to stand up and defend the defenseless. Letting the woman die a natural death is not killing her …it never will be. We all die natural deaths, no crime is committed and no one lost their rights. Killing the fetus is always killing and you are choosing its death. You can’t kill a child to extend your life beyond your natural death…self defense doesn’t include killing someone to extend your life beyond your natural death.

    The courts have a duty to defend the defenseless which is the fetus. The fetus has the right to self-defense…its being killed. The woman can try to treat her condition with any means that does not kill her child. If she has cancer then she can treat cancer as her problem, if she has a different complication then she can treat that complication as her problem, but her fetus itself is not her killer so should never be the victim of her actions. The fetus and the cancer are not the same…she can do what she can to battle the cancer but not battle the fetus.

    People are NOT entitled to do whatever necessary to prevent natural death – they are not entitled to kill. Stop making stuff up. And if the unconscious person is the only valid liver segment donor within a reasonable range and its an emergency requiring the liver segment now to extend life so its the only option – the conscious person still can’t kill.

    There is also no right to let the stronger one prevail. The right to life of the fetus includes the right not to be killed. It has the right to self defense.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t know how you can even guess what end of the spectrum I’d put you on.

  • invalid-0

    Ok, I’m laughing very hard right now–only now did I realize that it has been you all along calling me out for my referring to certain of the feminists on this board as blind. I assumed this was one of the rabid pro-choicers (by the way, all of you take note, I will defend your rights to self-defense abortions just as fiercely as I defend the unborn’s right to life if it does not threaten its mother’s life.) But first, my limit for when a person should accept a “natural consequence” is not so arbitrary as “when it suits me,” it’s when that natural consequence is their own death. I am more than willing to say that if a person is responsible enough to have sex, they’re responsible enough to deal with a nine-month inconvenience, but I’m not willing to say that if someone has sex they should be prepared to die. I think this is a pretty stark dinstinction. Also, again, courts of law do not distinguish between “natural” and “unnatural deaths.” If you’re going to use this argument, you’re going to have cite me a case where a court has ever convicted someone for any action for which the person could conclusively prove that the only alternative to their action would have been their death, natural or otherwise. I can’t think of a situation like this. In the case of the liver you refer to, the difference is that in that case the unconscious person’s very presence isn’t what’s preventing the other from getting the treatment they need, as it is in the case of a pregnancy that threatens the woman’s life.

  • invalid-0

    As I understand it, the heavy emphasis placed upon control by pro-choice advocates is because of the fact that the prohibition of abortion will automatically constrain a woman’s autonomy. Your goal seems to be to prevent what you see as a murder, but to prevent these murders you must prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion. Restricting or eliminating access to abortion prevents these murders by denying women the ability to choose not to be pregnant (i.e. have an abortion), effectively requiring them to carry the pregnancy to term.

    It is this constraint upon a woman’s options that is being criticized. While you may personally have no interest in controlling a woman’s actions, the impact of your beliefs that causes pro-choicers to focus on the question of control.

  • emma

    Oh my god, anonymous, your ‘if it’s natural, that’s the way it should be’ argument is a miserable failure. I despise opinions such as yours. You are a true misogynist. Thanks for being so transparent about your utter loathing for women, though; I guess there’s something to be said for honesty, especially when you make it so obvious that you believe women’s lives cease to be worth anything once they’re pregnant.

     

    Do you know what’s natural? Preserving one’s own life. Self preservation is one of the strongest instincts that motivates us. It would actually be incredibly unnatural to willingly sacrifice one’s own life for a foetus. See? I can invoke ‘nature’ too.

  • emma

    See, Alex A-L, the insults (‘if I were a woman with a capacity for logical thought’)* and CYBER SHRIEKING are just making my points for me. You’re insulting my intelligence, the intelligence of most of the pro-choice women in this thread, and trying to dictate what we may or may not say (‘STOP SAYING X!!!’ and so on). You keep talking about how you *can* be civil, while behaving uncivilly *and* blaming us for your inability to remain civil (‘I can be civil except when you say X and Y and Z!!!’).

     

    *My point was that, if you were a female person, and thus were likely to be directly, physically affected by an abortion ban, you may place a little more value on physical autonomy. Yes, there are female anti-choicers, but a lot of them tend to be religious fundie ‘submit to your husband’ types who place no more value on women than the Anonymous commenter above.

     

    In what way are you personally and physically affected by a society that permits abortion? In what way does this affect your physical autonomy?

     

    You’re splitting hairs on the point of forced pregnancy. If I’m using contraception, then I have a reasonable expectation of not getting pregnant. If I get unlucky and my contraception fails and I get pregnant without wanting to be, forcing me to continue the pregnancy would be…well, forcing me to stay pregnant. The government would be exercising control over *my* body. Whether it’s to preserve the life of a foetus isn’t relevant; I’d still be pregnant against my will. I don’t know how I can make that point any clearer, and I don’t understand why you find it so unpalatable to admit that banning abortion means forcing women who don’t want to stay pregnant to continue to be pregnant.

     

    I consider my right – and the right of all other female persons of reproductive age – to physical autonomy to be more important than the right of a foetus to be born. You don’t have to agree with the way I prioritise rights, and that’s fine, but I’m not really crazy about your suggestions that my opinion is based on irrationality, not understanding that abortion kills a foetus/foetuses are alive/foetuses have human DNA/pregnancy can be a result of sex. I’m yet to encounter a pro-choice person who isn’t perfectly aware of all that. The issue isn’t that we don’t understand basic human biology; it’s that we consider the ability of women to choose to end an existing pregnancy to be more important than the right of every foetus conceived to be born.

     

    I really don’t know how to explain this any more clearly, so if you still don’t get it, I give up.

     

     

  • invalid-0

    Yes, I did set up a scenario where the only way they could preserve their life is to get that liver segment. Yes, the unconscious persons presence is what is holding up the liver segment.

    People die waiting in overstaffed emergency rooms, they are not allowed to take actions like overtake the emergency room and force the doctor to give them priority care because they are going to die immediately…even if some of the other patients already admitted aren’t as near death as they are and they need care now. Its sometimes their only option left (why they are in the ER) but taking a gun and forcing medical care isn’t a right. I’ve haven’t heard of someone trying to even push the law this far as to take an action that threaten others in order to extend their life…so there is no case that I can find because I can’t find where someone thought their legal rights went as far as you broadly paint them in being able to do whatever they need to preserve their own life.

    If we have no choice other than homicide (kill the fetus) and natural death (woman dies)…um, homicide is defined as the legal crime. You’ve already conceded that the fetus has a right to self defense yet you stand against the exercise of that right. Again – you say ‘fetus is threatening the womans life’…now the fetus is the cancer? Which is it Alex, a separate unique innocent human being or the cancer? How quickly you dehumanize it as no longer innocent. Remember the woman had a choice Alex that you stated – to not get pregnant. You said its 100% preventable – death from pregnancy is no less a consequence of pregnancy as minor health issues. According to your own arguments the woman chose the natural biological consequences…so she is choosing to take the risk that she might die. The fetus took no such risk. The woman is responsible FOR the fetus PRESENCE in her body – she consented to it and all of the risks it entails.

  • invalid-0

    I do agree that its natural to want to preserve ones life…just as its natural to want to have sex… its just where the exercise of these rights conflict with others rights.

    And you are honest too Emma…at least you are consistent in your arguments.

  • invalid-0

    By the way its a stark distinction between non-lethal but major kidney failure and the minor health issues in pregnancy but you make no health exception for abortion for these cases.

  • invalid-0

    Great post Sayna,

    Force can mean to compel someone to continue something even if just it impels them (constrains them from taking an action) or its just by moral means (no physical arm twisting occurs). Imposing a law that compels the woman to continue the pregnancy beyond her desire is this type of force. People are allowed to withdraw any real or supposed consent for any action involving an intrusion into their body domain at any time no matter what the other dependencies are – this is well established ethics.

  • invalid-0

    I meant “understaffed” emergency rooms.

  • invalid-0

    “DON’T TELL ME WHAT I’M THINKING!!! “

    I wasn’t telling you what you were thinking, I was quite clearly telling you the way you were coming across and you were and are coming across as authoritarian, ignorant and abusive.

    “I may have misspoken in my anger at your assumptions”

    No, you were coming across as authoritarian, ignorant and abusive before I responded to one of your comments.

    “I was talking about the legal rules”

    No, you were engaging in adolescent fantasies about what you desire the ‘legal rules’ to be and it’s quite clear that you have not considered for more than 2 minutes what the male responsibility for unwanted pregnancies should be in your fantasy world.

    “But STOP TELLING ME THAT I HAVE DISLIKE OR CONTEMPT FOR WOMENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN PROTECTING INNOCENT LIFE!!!!”

    Your adolescent contempt and dislike for women and sad need to try to dominate by displaying your dislike and contempt is obvious and palpable. I don’t believe for a moment that you post here because of your concerns about “protecting innocent life”.

  • invalid-0

    “It is this constraint upon a woman’s options that is being criticized. While you may personally have no interest in controlling a woman’s actions, the impact of your beliefs that causes pro-choicers to focus on the question of control.”

    As far as the issue of abortion goes this is true but Alex also consistently presents in a manner which indicates a need for dominance and control so extreme that one cannot effectively reason with him. This combined with his pretense of someone with exceptional logical skills and knowledge and the abundant reality of his emotional immaturity makes it difficult to believe that he has no interest in controlling women. I mean he posts here because he wants to control women.

  • invalid-0

    You can believe or not believe whatever you want about why I’m posting on this board. but that doesn’t make it true, and more importantly, statement of such a paranoid belief as that one strips you of any credibility you might otherwise have. (Actually the original reason I went to this board was I got such a kick out of the Rick Warren controversy and I wanted to see what was being said out there, but I got so annoyed by the writer of this blog crowing about the major pro-choice victories when if she looked a little deeper, she would have realized that she was counting her chickens WAY before they were hatched.) But in terms of this argument only dislike or contempt I have or am showing is for people (men or women) who presume to go inside my mind and tell me what my opinions are really about, or what sinister hidden motivations I have. You don’t know me, you don’t know how I think, and I assure you my female friends would tell you that I have no dislike, contempt for, nor desire to control them.

    Also, those legal system issues, I wasn’t talking about any “adolescent fantasies” I was talking about what is within the realm of current law, and the way our legal system works, you can capture a person’s money but not their time unless they’ve actually broken the law. So again, you saw my addressing the issue legally as saying that we should mandate financial support from the men as saying that I think that should be their only responsibility, and you saw my referring specifically to cases where the woman definitely is not going to raise the child and saying that the man should be completely responsible for pregnancy-related medical costs as my saying in all cases that should be the man’s only responsibility, when in reality I was only using that scenario as a way to address the cases where a woman is perfectly physically capabale of carrying a pregnancy to term but insists she has to kill that child because she “can’t afford the pregnancy.”

    However, you obviously didn’t get what the source of my anger was, so I’m going have to illustrate it on you another way. It’s obvious to me that you people don’t really care about protecting your control of your bodies. What this is really about for you is the fact that you hate children and want them to be killed before they can come into the world and keep crowding up the planet.

  • sayna

    You speak here of pregnancy as an inconvenience. I wonder what mothers would say to you trvializing their experience like that. Some possible “inconveniences” that pregnant women endure are:

    Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
    exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
    altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
    nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
    heartburn and indigestion
    constipation
    weight gain
    dizziness and light-headedness
    bloating, swelling, fluid retention
    hemmorhoids
    abdominal cramps
    yeast infections
    congested, bloody nose
    acne and mild skin disorders
    skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
    mild to severe backache and strain
    increased headaches
    difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
    increased urination and incontinence
    bleeding gums
    pica
    breast pain and discharge
    swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
    difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
    inability to take regular medications
    shortness of breath
    higher blood pressure
    hair loss
    tendency to anemia
    curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
    infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
    (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
    are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
    extreme pain on delivery
    hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
    continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section — major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

    Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
    stretch marks (worse in younger women)
    loose skin
    permanent weight gain or redistribution
    abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
    pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
    changes to breasts
    varicose veins
    scarring from episiotomy or c-section
    other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
    increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
    loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

    Occasional complications and side effects:
    spousal/partner abuse
    hyperemesis gravidarum
    temporary and permanent injury to back
    severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
    dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
    pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)
    eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
    gestational diabetes
    placenta previa
    anemia (which can be life-threatening)
    thrombocytopenic purpura
    severe cramping
    embolism (blood clots)
    medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
    diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
    mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
    serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
    hormonal imbalance
    ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
    broken bones (ribcage, “tail bone”)
    hemorrhage and
    numerous other complications of delivery
    refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
    aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
    severe post-partum depression and psychosis
    research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including “egg harvesting” from infertile women and donors
    research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
    research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

    Less common (but serious) complications:
    peripartum cardiomyopathy
    cardiopulmonary arrest
    magnesium toxicity
    severe hypoxemia/acidosis
    massive embolism
    increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
    molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
    malignant arrhythmia
    circulatory collapse
    placental abruption
    obstetric fistula

    More permanent side effects:
    future infertility
    permanent disability
    death.

    [Source]

    Keep in mind that this list includes only physical side effects. The possible emotional side effects are a different story altogether, and one could argue that they hold less weight because they’re not quite tangible or observable. Granted, some of these things would just be considered inconveniences by most people. But many of them are serious, life threatening or otherwise deeply traumatic and painful.

    I understand that you make some exceptions for the life and health of the woman, but what would you do in the case of a pregnancy where life was not at risk, but the woman’s body would be permanently altered and disfigured? Keep in mind: You HAVE said that the only time killing is justified is when life is threatened. This doesn’t include liberty, bodily integrity, health, happiness, safety or comfort.

    If you absolutely refuse to allow women to terminate their pregnancies, you are forcing them to remain pregnant, and thus risk their lives, health, and well-being. I suppose this list won’t change your mind, but I think that you should still be aware of what will happen if you get your way. I understand that some women are at higher risk than others and that not all women face complications, but the fact of the matter is that the risk is always there. And you advocate subjecting women to these risks against their will just because they had sex you don’t approve of.

    Consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy any more than consent to kissing means consent to sex. As I have said before (and you have neglected to respond to) pregnancy is not a voluntary action. A woman may consent knowing that she is exposing herself to the risk of pregnancy, but this is not the same as consenting to impregnation, carrying a pregnancy, or giving birth.

  • invalid-0

    Thus the issue becoming that if in order to prevent murders we must restrict one small element of autonomy (and really even this isn’t happening, it’s really just insisting that this autonomy be exercised at an earlier point than some would like it to be) then again, since the basic human rights are listed in the order of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the right that involves life must take precedent.

  • invalid-0

    Yet again, see what you want to see, but that doesn’t make it there. Try reasoning with me in a way that doesn’t presume to tell me what it is that I really want. Otherwise, I will continue to insits that YOU post here because you want to kill children.

  • invalid-0

    Guaranteed side effect of abortion on unborn child:

    DEATH

    Once again, life trumps all other rights. Not about whose rights are more important, about WHICH rights, yet again. Again, I do indeed make exceptions for the life threatening complications and side effects you list here, and no the legal right to self defense does not encompass any of these other areas–only the threatening of one’s very life.

    And the comment about “had sex you don’t approve of” is ridiculous. I’m not making a value judgement about sex. I just said it comes with natural consequences that include the presence of a human life inside one’s body, and we’re not obliged to provide a way out of those natural consequences once the exercising of this right begins to infringe on the very right to life of another. It’s not making a moral statement to say that if a person has sex, they should be prepared to accept biological consequences, it’s a scientific one. And you fail to acknowledge my repeated statement that I would say these same things if men could get pregnant. I would not be asking for the right to take a human life, no matter how valid some may claim the reasons for it to be.

  • invalid-0

    This would all be true if there weren’t a way to avoid the pregnancy in the first place, but there is.

  • invalid-0

    This is true that it forces her to continue the pregnancy. Each day she doesn’t want to be pregnant a law impelling her is forcing her. A person can withdraw any real or supposed consent at any time for a bodily intrusion, even one they could have avoided, regardless of dependencies.

  • sayna

    It’s not making a moral statement to say that if a person has sex, they should be prepared to accept biological consequences, it’s a scientific one.

    Again, you seem to be either making intentionally dishonest statements or distorting and misrepresenting science. What makes this statement unscientific is that it is an opinion, not a fact. The word “should” automatically makes this a personal judgement, and I don’t see how you can claim that it’s not a moral one.

    What’s more, you haven’t been able to justify this “should” to us. In order for a claim to be taken seriously in debate, one must back it up with empirical evidence or at least a logical argument.

    You keep insisting that life trumps liberty. Tell us why you think so. One reason why I think that ending a life is justified in this case is that the fetus will not suffer, but the woman will. If the fetus dies before it develops the ability to feel pain it will go from feeling nothing to feeling nothing. If the woman is forced to sacrifice all rights to her body for the sake of this fetus, she will undeniably be forced to risk her life and health, she will be forced to endure an involuntary invasion of her body for nine months, and she will be treated like a second-class citizen.

    No human being has the right to use another person’s body without their consent. In any other case killing to defend one’s bodily domain is considered self defense. I can kill a rapist who wants to use my body against my will for nine minutes, why not a fetus that would use my body against my will for nine months? Especially when the rapist is a sentient human being and I might have been able to stop him without lethal force? And don’t forget that anything short of death is just an “inconvenience”, so by your logic I can’t kill him.

    Before you start: Yes, a fetus does need a female to continue living and being born. But there is no legal precedence stating that someone is obligated to relinquish their liberty to save the life of another, even when that person is family and will die without my help. Citizens cannot legally be forced to donate organs (even after their death) or blood. The case of McFall vs. Shimp ruled that a man could not legally compel his cousin to give him a life-saving organ donation.

    And while we’re at it: What makes fetal life special and not any other life? A fetus is alive and biologically human. So is a tumor. A fetus is exactly as alive as a tree and a cow, so why aren’t lumberjacks and farmers considered to be engaging in genocide? It’s also “innocent” in the same way as a tree and a cow: it is incapable of conscious action. Why is it that the police and soldiers can kill and not be called murderers? Oh, and if you support rape exceptions: What makes “murder” acceptable in some cases but not others? What are the scientific differences between a fetus conceived through sex and one conceived through rape?

    You dodged this one before, but I think that women deserve an answer: Exactly what should the punishment be for a woman who (a)induces an abortion herself or (b)hires a doctor or someone else to induce the abortion? It makes no sense to say that something should be illegal and yet have no definite legal consequence. It also doesn’t make sense to say that something is/is as bad as murder and not give it an equally severe punishment.

  • invalid-0

    For the thousandth time, the only time I’m trying to tell anyone what they can or cannot say is when they presume to tell ME what MY own thoughts really are, mean, or indicate. Again, up to this point, I haven’t been attempting to interpret your thoughts for you. I may disagree with them, but I haven’t been trying to tell you what you’re “really trying to do.” But ok, since this explanation has clearly not worked before, I’ll try it in practice. It’s clear to me that you don’t really care about preserving women’s autonomy over their bodies, you just secretly hate children and the very process of childbirth, and you want to kill as many children as possible. Do I actually believe this? Well, let’s just say I believe it as long as you believe that what I’m “really” trying to do is “control women.” OK? FAIR ENOUGH?

    And another point of mine was, no, if men were the ones who got pregnant, I would not be asking for the right to kill a human being. Maybe with some unthinking men you can get them with this trap, but not me. I didn’t say it affected me physically, I said it affects me in the same way the abolitionists were affected by living in a country that allowed slavery. They couldn’t live with themselves as long as they were being complicit in the legal deprivation of rights to human beings.

    I get a kick too out of your continuing to explain the motivaton behind others’ beliefs when you talk about “female anti-choicers” (By the way as to that term, people living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. There are a lot of other possibly more appropriate terms we could break out for your position if you insist on calling us “anti-choice.” We have enough respect for you to refer to your position by your preferred label, please give us the same courtesy.) But first of all, I have come across female pro-life atheists, secondly, I laughed even harder at your “submit to their husband” remark. I’ve got two words for you on that one: Sarah Palin. Yes, she’s religious, but if you’ve ever seen any of the specials on her leading up the election and seen the dynamic between she and Todd, you’d know pretty clearly that there’s definitely a submissive one in that relationship and it ain’
    t the woman!! HA! “Submit to their husbands!” Men are actually in many cases more pro-choice than women.

    You did make one very revealing statement though. This is the first time you used the phrase “forced to STAY pregnant,” which at the very least implies knowledge that no one is forced to GET pregnant. And you’re the one who’s failing to understand something here if you say you understand the physical biology here, but yet still put someone’s right to anything other than their very bodily life ahead of another’s right to their very bodily life. There’s no other legal circumstance where this is the case, which is why you are not using logic or reason in taking your position.

  • invalid-0

    But no one forced her to get pregnant in the first place. And no, they can’t withdraw that consent when doing so deprives another of life and they could have prevented it in the first place.

  • invalid-0

    Yes they can. When someone consents to a clinical trial (no force) they have the right to stop at any time, even if this is a life saving study that will help other patient.

    Please name me a legal standard that says I cannot stop someone from using my body for their own life. There isn’t one. The right to life is not protected over anothers bodily integrity at all, ever.

  • invalid-0

    Because not every judgement is a “moral” one. Morality refers to what a person should do for the sake of decency, and is often interchanged with religious values. This is a scientific judgement, and I am not making a statement that I “don’t approve” of sex, just that it has physical consequences that if avoiding them involves taking a human life, we’re not obliged to make it possible to avoid them. That’s not saying sex is bad.

    Life trumps liberty because it is the most basic right. Needs are hierarchical, and if you don’t have life, you can’t use any of your other rights. That’s why in our declaration of independence the most basic human rights were listed in this order: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your ability to feel pain argument is another red herring. There’s a disorder that prevents people from feeling pain–do we have a right to kill people who suffer from this disorder because they “won’t suffer?” And how many times do I have to explain that I support abortions when necessary to save the woman’s life, so no, my position would not force any woman to risk her life.

    You killing the rapist analogy fails under the microscope too, because in general courts would not recognize the right to kill a rapist if he were not threatening your very life in addition. If it were a date rape case, he tries to force himself on you and you have the option of escaping from him and he were not using a weapon to prevent any other form of escape, I don’t think the courts would legally recognize the right to kill. In order to prove self-defense, legally one must show that escape was not possible, and this would not have been the case if the rapist were not threatening to kill you if you did not consent.

    The organ donation point doesn’t work either, because in that case the person refusing to donate their organs is not doing anything active to cause the death of the other. It is a disease killing that person. But an abortion is an active action that physically ends the life of another human being.

    I don’t think you’ll find anyone else anywhere who will classify a tumor as being human. But even beyond this, the reasons tumors are removed is that they will cause death if they are not, unlike the unborn child (and if it will due to another condition, then it is permissible to remove it.) Trees and cows are not human, the unborn child is. Police and soldiers can kill because they are trying to prevent other deaths.

    There are no scientific differences between rape pregnancies and others, but what there is is the distinction that the other pregnancies were preventable, the rape ones were not.

    As to the punishment, again I would advocate for it being phased in over a long period of time in order to allow society to adapt, but I’d put the punishment as being similar to that of a woman who panics when a baby is born and leaves it in a dumpster. I’ve heard of cases like this where the woman gets a rather light sentence because it’s hard not to have some sympathy for her in this case. But sympathy does not absolve someone of responsibility, though circumstances can be considered as mitigating factors.

  • sayna

    This does not change the fact that pregnancy is an involuntary biological process. That a woman used contraception and that she intends to end her pregnancy also indicate that she did not willingly become pregnant.

    That no one forced her to have sex isn’t the issue. What you seem focused on denying and hiding is the fact that you are forcing her to remain pregnant and give birth against her will.

  • invalid-0

    A person’s action of stopping their participation in a clinical trial does not by its very action cause the death of another person. Please name ME a legal standard that says you can actively cause the death of another person unless that person is threatening your very bodily life. There isn’t one.

  • invalid-0

    There are plenty of rights documents with commas separating different rights or creeds in them but that doesn’t mean that a list is a hierarchy of rights or creeds.

    The Declaration of Independence was written as a result of the Revolutionary War. The history of the Revolutionary war is fairly consistent in that the colonist’s liberty was at stake, not their lives. They voluntarily decided to put their lives at risk to obtain their liberty, many of them dying for it. They used such phrases as “Give me liberty or give me death” and “Live Free or Die”. They wrote the Declaration of Independence as a direct result of fighting a war which was caused by the belief that life without liberty was not worth living. I don’t see how you can even extrapolate the opposite with any level of assurance.

  • invalid-0

    My reply to this one is already in my prior post Alex…is in the part that you didn’t respond to. As long as the right to life does not include the right to my body the law support my right to withdraw such support.

  • invalid-0

    And what YOU seem focused on denying and hiding is that in ensuring that she is not forced to remain pregnant and give birth against her will even though she could have avoided the pregnancy in the first place and the involuntary biological process was triggered by a voluntary physical action, she is actively ending the life of another human being, which is permitted under no circumstance unless that being is threatening one’s very life.

  • invalid-0

    We’re not ignoring you…you haven’t provide any legal standard the the right to life includes the right to the woman’s body. Instead Saynas given you opposite examples where it was not upheld, but liberty was. Given the right to life does not extend as far as anothers body then the woman is not depriving a fetus of its rights by terminating her pregnancy. You can’t deprive someone of a right that they don’t possess.

  • invalid-0

    It’s a recognition that if you don’t have the first, you can’t have the second, and if you don’t have the second, you can’t have the third. Maybe their lists was not meant as a hierarchy, but the fact that you can’t have liberty without life makes life the most basic of the human rights, which is why it must be put ahead of anyone else’s right to anything other than their very life.

  • invalid-0

    They would have to be charged with involuntary manslaughter. The list would also include caffeine, exercise, and breast feeding. They would have to face the same charge as involuntary manslaughter for a child.

    And the punishments would start immediately. No society gets used to something by calling it killing while acting differently. Society just gets used to the double talk.

  • invalid-0

    Not if that withdrawal actively involves ending another life.

  • invalid-0

    You can’t reference the document as the reason behind your hierarchy as they recognized that life isn’t worth it without liberty.

    As far as the hierarchy, the right to life has never been held in any hierarchy to be more important than another another persons bodily domain. Its not just fetuses…all would need to be equally protected.

  • invalid-0

    The burden is on you to provide a legal standard that the right to self-autonomy or control of one’s own body extends to the point of ending another’s life because it has the misfortune of being trapped inside your body. Where was liberty upheld in a court of law over life? I must have missed it.

  • sayna

    Because not every judgement is a “moral” one. Morality refers to what a person should do for the sake of decency, and is often interchanged with religious values.

    While I suppose it can be argued that not every judgement is a moral one, your judgement is still just that. Science deals with empirical, observable eveidence. It deals with how things are, not how things “should” be. One can have opinions based on scientific evidence, but that doesn’t make opinions scientific.

    I’m curious as to how you can argue that your judgement is not a moral one. You seem to be arguing that we should not take a human life because it is wrong. “Wrong”, in a context like this is essentially the same as calling something “immoral” or “indecent.” Do you believe that a decent human being would have/allow abortion? If not, you believe that abortion is indecent.

    If you still think your judgement is scientific and not moral or just a general opinion, please explain how.

    Life trumps liberty because it is the most basic right. Needs are hierarchical, and if you don’t have life, you can’t use any of your other rights

    How is it the most basic right? Personally, I don’t think life is worth living without a certain degree of liberty. Interestingly, I have heard it argued that bodily domain is The Right Without Which No Other Right Exists :

    In terms of the political theory involved, the basic question is a stark and simple one: if you cannot control your own body, what other rights can you possibly have? If your body is not yours, what does it matter if you can freely express your political and religious convictions? The principle involved is similarly simple: as long as you are not violating anyone else’s rights, your right to control your own body is absolute. Period. For the reason indicated above, the fetus is not a person in the same sense the mother is: the fetus would not exist but for the woman who carries it. The woman’s right to her own body must, in fact and in logic, take precedence over whatever rights you believe the fetus possesses, up to the time of birth.
    [...]
    As long as we have our current form of government, there is one task that must unquestionably belong to the federal government: the protection of those rights without which no other rights are possible. The most fundamental right is the right to one’s own body. If you don’t have that right, it is ridiculous to speak of other, derivative rights. Highway speed limits are optional; the right to your own body is not.

    More eloquently“:

    To split yourself in two
    is just the most radical thing you can do!
    So girl, if that s–t ain’t up to you
    then you simply are not free!
    Cuz from the sunlight on my hair
    to which eggs I grow to term
    to the expression that I wear
    All I really own is me.

    Addressing another statement…

    Your ability to feel pain argument is another red herring. There’s a disorder that prevents people from feeling pain–do we have a right to kill people who suffer from this disorder because they “won’t suffer?”

    The Fallacy Files describes the red herring fallacy as “one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy”. Don’t exactly see how my point fits that.

    People with this disorder are physically incapable of feeling pain, but they are not inside another person’s body without their consent. Furthermore, they are sentient and capable of feeling distress and emotional pain. It’s important that you understand all aspects of my argument.

    And how many times do I have to explain that I support abortions when necessary to save the woman’s life, so no, my position would not force any woman to risk her life.

    While some pregnancies are higher risk than others, all pregnancies carry the risk of complications that can cause death or permanent disablity. By not allowing voluntary abortion you are forcing women to endure these risks.

    Trees and cows are not human, the unborn child is.

    What makes human life more valuable than plant or animale life? You dodged this question again.

    There are no scientific differences between rape pregnancies and others, but what there is is the distinction that the other pregnancies were preventable, the rape ones were not.

    But you’re still killing an innocent, helpless fetus so that a woman doesn’t have to deal with the consequences and inconveniences of pregnancy. Besides, maybe there was something she could have done to prevent that rape? The woman using birth control was doing so to avoid pregnancy, what makes her will any less valid?

    As to the punishment, again I would advocate for it being phased in over a long period of time in order to allow society to adapt, but I’d put the punishment as being similar to that of a woman who panics when a baby is born and leaves it in a dumpster. I’ve heard of cases like this where the woman gets a rather light sentence because it’s hard not to have some sympathy for her in this case. But sympathy does not absolve someone of responsibility, though circumstances can be considered as mitigating factors.

    I thought this was about saving lives, not just changing law and societal norms at your whim! Why should we wait? Just because a murderer doesn’t consider what they did murder doesn’t make them any less of a murderer. Why not punish them immediately?

    Abandoning a newborn is passive killing, not active killing

    …in that case [refusal to donate an organ] the person refusing to donate their organs is not doing anything active to cause the death of the other. It is a disease killing that person. But an abortion is an active action that physically ends the life of another human being.

    Didn’t you just say that the two are different?

  • invalid-0

    You do understand, do you not, that the revolutionaries did not take any other people’s lives just to protect their liberty? They didn’t attack the British to gain their independence. They DECLARED their independence. Remember, it was a declaration of INDEPENDENCE, not at declaration of WAR. It took on the same effect of a declaration of war only when the British responding by attacking. The British could have accepted the declaration. But only when they decided that depriving the revolutionaries of their liberties was more important than the Brits’ own lives did the revolutionaries begin fighting.

    You don’t get that it’s the reverse. A person’s bodily domain does not allow them to ACTIVELY take another’s life.

  • invalid-0

    As long as the right to life doesn’t include the right to anothers body the burden is not up to us. The fetus is not being deprived of any right when it doesn’t have the right to begin with. Its your burden to prove the right to life extends over anothers body.

    Sayna gave you McFall vs. Shimp.

  • invalid-0

    McFall vs. Shimp was valid because the refusal to donate was not the direct, proximate cause of death. It was an INaction that caused the death, not a direct action, as an abortion is. So not a valid comparison, you still have failed to provide an example of how one’s right to self-autonomy allows them to actively take another life.

  • invalid-0

    The call “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” is attributed to 1775, preceding The Declaration of Independence of 1776.

    Please name a legal standard that says my bodily domain does not include the right to stop someone from using my body for their life. There is none.

  • invalid-0

    It is a valid comparison as it hold that the right to ones life doesn’t include the right to anothers body integrity. If there is no right to use anothers body to maintain ones life then no right is being deprived by stopping it. You can’t be guilty of taking away someones right to something they don’t possess. No crime is committed, no law transgressed.

  • invalid-0

    “They would have to face the same charge as involuntary manslaughter for a child.”

    Do you mean that women who miscarry should be charged as if they had accidently killed a child?
    All miscarriages? How early a miscarriage? What do you mean “breast feeding”? Do you mean that if a woman breast feeds (or excercises) while she is pregnant she should be charged with attempted manslaughter?

    What punishments? Jail time for a miscarrage? How much jail time?

  • therealistmom

    "We must restrict one small part of autonomy"? This is NOT a small part! A woman being forced to carry a pregnancy when she wishes not to is literally having her body taken over by a proto-human. This is over nine months of incredible body changes, with a potential for pain, disability, or yes folks even death. Then the emotional aspects will remain with her for a LIFETIME. She isn’t giving up nine months of convienience which is how most anti-choicers seem to think. Because we’re sluts who got ourselves knocked up we should just accept the consequences, and being the unfeeling harpies we are we’ll just be able to give away the resulting baby and skip off merrily into the sunset.

     The argument earlier about "natural consequences" quite frankly made me ill. The fact is, pregnancy is not necessarily a "natural consequence" of sex. Sexual activity in humans is NOT primarily for procreation, it is for the formation of relationships, bonding, and sometimes simply for pleasure. 

    If we wanted to take that kind of argument to an extreme we could say that if you get into a car you consent to death. After all, you can use your seatbelt, drive within the speed limit, and do everything possible to make driving safe, yet you could still end up in a wreck that cripples or kills you. You don’t HAVE to ride in a car, you CHOOSE to. So obviously if you end up injured or killed its simply a natural consequence of your actions.

  • emma

    Here we go with the insults and demeaning comments again. You really same incapable of engaging in a civil debate, Alex. Please have a think about how you’re coming across. Have you considered the possibility that we keep saying your interest is in controlling women because you come across as controlling, domineering and insulting? Have you no capacity for introspection?

     

    Of course I know pregnancy results from sex, but consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy, as Sayna has previously stated. I think you and I rather fundamentally differ on this point. Jesus. I do not see the fact that someone got pregnant through a voluntary act as a reason for them to be forced to continue the pregnancy. Whether pregnancy results from a voluntary act may be a significant distinction for you, but it isn’t for me.

     

    Your statement that I ‘just want to kill babies’ isn’t worth a serious response, and the rest of your comment is just a stream of insults, and I’m not bothering with that.

  • invalid-0

    Key point there being that the line was indeed “Give me liberty or give ME death”–not “give me liberty or give SOMEONE ELSE death.” I’m all for self-determination regarding your own life, just not power over the life of another. I’m not giving you any legal standard of yours until you show me one that says anyone’s right to determination of their body allows them to directly take the life of another individual.

  • invalid-0

    What insults and demeaning comments? Yet again, I’m coming across that way because I can’t stand people speaking for me. Yes, I have much capacity for introspection, and I’ve used a lot of it in coming to my position on this issue. But when all’s said and done, sex IS consenting to the POSSIBILITY of pregnancy, and society is under no obligation to provide a way of avoiding this if it takes another life.

    MY STATEMENT THAT YOU “JUST WANT TO KILL BABIES” IS PRECISELY AS WORTH A SERIOUS RESPONSE AS YOUR STATEMENT THAT I JUST “WANT TO CONTROL WOMEN!!!!!!!” No more, no less.

  • invalid-0

    No crime is committed because abortion is currently legal, which it should not be. The legality of something doesn’t make it right. Slavery was once legal too, because blacks weren’t considered human beings. Didn’t make that right. The unborn child must be given the right to live. Yet again, the reason that case being cited is valid is that the person refusing to donate their organs isn’t engaging in a direct physical action that causes the death of the other person, which an abortion is.

  • invalid-0

    It doesn’t say “Give me of liberty, unless another persons life depends on my body, then I value life more”. You’re the one that made the claim there was a hierarchy here that they valued life first. They valued their liberty and considered it important enough to give up their lives for.

    I need no law to specifically granting me the right to an action when the action does not deprive anyone of a legal rights or violate other laws. You have no law upholding the right to life over anothers body and you have no law stating that anyone is forbidden from stopping another from using their body to maintain their life. So yes I well within legals standards of not violating any law nor anyones rights by terminating a pregnancy.

  • invalid-0

    I said no crime is committed because there is no right to use anothers body to maintain ones life. The use of anothers body to maintain ones life is not a right. The right to life doesn’t not include this. The organ donation refusal stands, it is a violation of another persons rights to use their body to maintain their life. The fetus is in violation of the womans rights. If a woman terminates her pregnancy she has not violated ANY rights. You have not shown the right to life extends this far and until you do the fetus is not deprived of rights when a woman terminates her pregnancy.

  • invalid-0

    The reason I am saying it’s a small part of autonomy is that the only thing we’re attempting to restrict is WHEN the decision must be made about child-bearing, not WHAT decision is made. I’ve said before that when the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life she most certainly can end it, so stop peddling the “yes, even death”–I’m not arguing about these cases.

    I will say this line to anyone who plays the “anti-choice card” on me. I’ve done it several times, but I will NEVER tolerate being called that. People living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. There are several other names for pro-choicers that I could break out if you insist on labeling me “anti-choice.” I am pro-choice-being-made-before-there-is-another-human-life-involved. I have enough respect for you to refer to your position but your chosen label, now please give pro-lifers the same courtesy.

    I am not calling anyone a “slut” or an “unfeeling harpie,” but I find it ironic that you show how not unfeeling you are by referring to the pain that a womam will endure from giving up a born child, while still allowing that child to be killed before it even has a chance to be born. A woman giving birth to a child has every right to never even look at that child if she doesn’t want to, but don’t claim to me “how can you imagine I’m that unfeeling as to do that!?” if you’re unfeeling enough to deprive it of its very life.

    And yes, pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex. It may not be the only purpose, but sex is not a necessity of life, and given that it results in a human life, if a person truly cannot handle a pregnancy they must avoid it. (Realize that this deprives men of their sexual pleasures as well if women are more reluctant.)

    Finally your car analogy does not work because there is nothing done to make car riding safer that deliberately results in the death of another innocent person, and if there were, it would not be considered permissible, even if it did reduce the possibility of death for the person who chose to ride in the car. SO perhaps I misspoke. It is not ONLY the fact that it is a natural consequence, it is the fact that it is a natural consequence that results in the formation of a human life. This being the case, there’s no other scenario that it can be legitimately compared to.

  • invalid-0

    She’s using the car analogy regarding consent. Getting injured is one possible known outcome of driving yet consenting to driving does not mean you consent to injuries. If it did, I wouldn’t be able to sue the other driver that hits me. Consent to one act does not automatically assume consent to one of its possible outcomes.

    Your contradicting yourself on your own definition of consent and allowing abortion in case of the life of the woman so no wonder she says “yes, even death”.

  • emma

    Actually, it’s not the same, Alex. People in this thread are stating that you are motivated (or appear to be motivated) by a desire to control women on the basis of your behaviour and statements within this thread. The cyber-yelling, which often seems to involve telling us very forcefully what we may or may not say. The desire to force everyone to live according to your morality. The numerous statements about how people *should* behave, and how society/the world *should* be. The implication that we’re illogical, irrational and ‘blinded’ by feminism. I say illogical due to your comment that if you were a woman capable of logical thought, you *know* you’d still hold all the views you do now. The implication of this statement is that women who disagree with you are incapable of logical thought. (And you can’t know that; no one knows what they’d think or do if they were a different person in different circumstances. I don’t, because it’s not possible.)

     

    Thinking about it, my impression is that you want to control your world, perhaps not just women.

     

    At this point, it seems to me that you’re being deliberately obtuse. You’re losing your temper all over the place, and some of your positions don’t seem – to me – particularly well thought out. The rape exception, for example. Is foetal life precious and innocent and always to be preserved, or not? Are the lives of foetuses conceived by rape less valuable than foetuses conceived inconsensual sex? You seem to be arguing that banning abortion is about making women face the consequences of choosing to have sex rather than about preserving foetal lives. Thus, if you didn’t choose to have sex, you shouldn’t have to face the consequences, therefore foetal life is only selectively valuable.

     

    In any case, you seem disinclined to try to understand why it is that our impression is that you’re controlling, overly aggressive and don’t have a great deal of respect for women, particularly those who have sex and those who disagree with you, and I’m tired of explaining the same things over and over to someone who refuses to listen (as it were). If you don’t get it by this point, then it’s not worth continuing to debate you. I might as well do something worthwhile, like banging my head against a wall.

     

    Do you know what I find interesting? You’re making excuses for your inability to remain civil (‘I could if you didn’t keep saying X!!!’, &c) in the midst of lecturing and moralising about taking responsibility for one’s own actions. Think about it. I’m finished.

  • therealistmom

    .. about the car-as-consent analogy. Riding in a vehicle is even more of a "voluntary" act than having sex- which, of course, is a natural part of human instinct and social bonding. Yet we do not assume that riding in a motorized vehicle means that we accept being injured or killed as a "natural consequence".

     The "yes, even death" was primarily aimed at those anti-reproductive-choicers (there, I was more specific AL, an anti-abortion stance IS an anti-reproductive-choice stance, as you are eliminating one very signifigant choice) who fail to acknowledge that even in this day and age, pregnancy and childbirth CAN result in the death of the woman, at a considerably higher rate than a first-trimester abortion. 

  • sayna

    …Perhaps you’ve heard of it. A little case known as Roe vs. Wade.

    And when you’re the one making a claim in an argument, the burden of proof is actually on you. You have not even attempted to explain or justify your position. Basically your argument is that fetus comes before female because women who have sex should have to “face the consequences”, but you haven’t told us why. You are talking about taking away my rights as a human being. You are talking about taking away my right to control the most private, sacred parts of my body. You are telling me that what I feel in my mind and heart to be morally right is invalid. I think you own me an explantaion. Saying I must be forced to give birth because “I must, I must, I must!” doesn’t cut it.

    Please address my latest post. It’s on the first page right now.

  • sayna

    The reason I am saying it’s a small part of autonomy is that the only thing we’re attempting to restrict is WHEN the decision must be made about child-bearing, not WHAT decision is made.

    No. This decision is about what a woman should be allowed to do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancy prevention is not the issue right now, we’re talking about pregnancy options. You are saying that the only option a woman should have is to remain pregnant and give birth. You are eliminating an entire option and coercing a woman into the only one you feel is acceptable.

    Perhaps it’s hard for you to understand due to the fact that you will never have to deal with a decision like this, but yes, this is a MASSIVELY big part of one’s autonomy. What you’re talking about here is taking away a woman’s right to control the most private, sacred parts of her body.

    I am not calling anyone a “slut” or an “unfeeling harpie,” but I find it ironic that you show how not unfeeling you are by referring to the pain that a womam will endure from giving up a born child, while still allowing that child to be killed before it even has a chance to be born.

    I highly doubt that you’re a mind reader, so I’m insulted that you presume to know what’s going through a woman’s head when she decides to terminate a pregnancy.
    “God forbid you ever have to walk a mile in her shoes
    ‘Cause then you really might know what it’s like to have to choose.”

    As I have already explained to you, a fetus dying goes from feeling nothing to feeling nothing. I don’t see how it’s cruel to end a life that, in many ways, hasn’t truly begun. What’s cruel about ending the life of something that has no awareness of it? What’s cruel about choosing not to bring a being into a state of consciousness? It’s like saying that not having every sperm a chance to impregnate every egg is cruel with the lack of justification and explanation you’ve given.

    A woman giving birth to a child has every right to never even look at that child if she doesn’t want to.

    Have you no capacity for empathy at all? It’s hard to stand pro-lifers saying that adoption is more compassionate when they essentially see it as “Hey, it’s not your problem anymore!” You have no idea how agonizing it is to be forced to have a child and then give it up. Show some respect.

    Earlier you claimed that there were many parents willing to adopt children. I’ve heard quite the opposite, that there are more children waiting than there are parents to adopt them. Sadly, people don’t usually want to adopt kids who are older or sick. And anyway, how can you advocate forcing women to give birth and then give their children to more “worthy” parents. It would be mostly poor women that would have to give away their children. Are these women just producers and their children just a commodity?

    It may not be the only purpose, but sex is not a necessity of life, and given that it results in a human life, if a person truly cannot handle a pregnancy they must avoid it.

    When one makes a claim such as this in a debate, they are obligated to explain why. I’m not exactly desperate to listen to someone telling me what I “must” do when they can’t even tell me WHY they think so.

  • invalid-0

    It would have said that if the person who’s life depends on your body was there because of a physical action that you CHOSE to take. And yet again, they valued their liberty enough to give up their OWN lives for it, not insist that OTHERS give up THEIR lives for it. And now I can only repeat again that you DO need this law granting you any right that infringes on another’s right to life. Any time one takes another’s life, they need the justification of self defense, especially since there were ways of avoiding your body being “used to maintain their life. You are violating the child’s right to life by terminating a pregnancy.

  • invalid-0

    I didn’t say the opinion was scientific, I said it isn’t moral. It falls more into the logical category. But the argument I was talking about as not a moral one was not it being wrong to abort, yes, that’s is somewhat moral (so was opposition to slavery, by the way) but I was talking about the statement that if one is responsible enough to have sex, they’re responsible enough to deal with the natural physical consequences of their actions in a manner that doesn’t take another life. It was in response to someone saying “just because they had sex that you don’t agree with.” To which I said that I’m not making a moral judgement about sex. I’m not saying premarital sex is wrong–that would be moral. I’m saying all sex comes with implicit responsibilities–that’s logical, not moral.

    Your “right without which no other rights exist” point goes down with the line “as long as you are not violating anyone else’s rights, your right to control your own body is absolute.” Thing is, with an abortion, YOU ARE violating someone else’s rights, a fundamental right to life. And life remains the most fundamental right, because without your right to life, you can’t exercise your right of control over your body.

    Your argument about not feeling pain was a red herring in that you were not arguing for abortion rights at the time on the grounds of the child being inside the other person’s body without their consent or any of these other (also red herring) arguments. You were saying it’s justified to take the unborn’s life because they can’t feel pain. (Even though there are varying claims about at what point a developing child gains this ability, though I don’t think I’ve ever seen the claim made that it can’t until it’s born.) So if you’re using that as a justification, then legally we should also be permitted to kill people who have this disorder that prevents them from feeling pain. So the use if this argument does indeed distract from the main argument because it’s shot down so easily. If you want to use the lack of emotional pain and sentinence argument, then you put comatose patients into the realm of people it would be permissible to kill.

    As to the general risks, a good analogy here is dangerous cities. The risk of a woman with a normal pregnancy (not suffering from a condition that makes the pregnancy itself a threat to her life) suffering out of the blue life-threating complications is about the same as risk of being attacked on the streets at night of a moderately dangerous U.S. city, say, Detroit or Newark. (Maybe even less than that.) But that does not give a street walker in any of these cities the right to go up to a random person and kill them on the off chance that they might be getting ready to attack you. Same with a normal pregnancy.

    As to human vs. plant or animal, this is a totally different debate, and I don’t think we want to go there. The answer is years of nearly universal acceptance among humankind. If you’re telling me that non-humans should have the same rights as humans, we’ve entered a completely different realm that has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion issue.

    I’m not claiming that women could have prevented their rapes. Contrary to what you may think, just because I’m pro-life doesn’t make me a chauvenist, I’m not going to give you any bullshit about the way a girl is dressed or not giving strong enough signals or any of those idiotic statements that real chauvenists make. Pregnancies that result from rape cannot be classified as preventable, thus this is the one area where the argument of the unborn being inside her body without her consent could be valid, unlike consensual sex in which a woman knows the possible risks and is making a conscious choice.

    It is about saving lives, (and it’s not a “whim” to protect life) but it is out of consideration for women that I am advocating this phasing in. In this case they haven’t considered what they do to be murder because society has accepted it for so long, so we cut a break at first and only prosecute the doctors who perform them for a while. Plus, the saving lives portion will also come from the practical measures to reduce unplanned pregnancy that I will advocate for just as strongly as you. The legal ban would be more for the purpose of removing the blood from our hands when we tolerate this as a society.

    Yes, passive and active killing are different, but frankly the reason the passive killing of a newborn by abandonment is punishable is the sheer ease of avoiding this situation by bringing that newborn to a hospital. Not the same as the passive killing of refusing to donate organs where there’s not such a simple alternative.

  • invalid-0

    Actually, it is indeed the same. If you can presume to tell me what I’m really thinking or what I really want, then I can presume to tell you what you’re really thinking or what you really want. And no, you weren’t saying I was COMING ACROSS as wanting such and such, you were stating as a fact that this is indeed what I want. You are more than welcome to tell me how you see me coming across, in which case I will tell you that you are mistaken in your analysis, and I might even say that if you think my desire to protect human life translates to a desire to control women, that is your problem. But once again, you were stating what I want as a fact. You STILL don’t get that the only cyber yelling about what you may or may not say I have ever done on this forum has been concerning when you presumed to speak for me. That’s the only time I’m losing my temper. So I responded by presuming to speak for you. Also, the abolitionists also desired to “force the rest of society to life according to their morality,” that’s not always a bad thing, when that morality involves the protection of life. Not to mention that all laws deal with how someone believes something “should be.”

    My positions are extremely thought out. In acknowledging the possible validity of the rape exception, I am not saying that life is worthy of protection in some cases but not in others, I am acknowledging that there might be some level of merit to the idea of putting the question of whether or not the woman gave consent to that life using her body ahead of the question of it being worthy of protection. But because she had a way of preventing it from getting into her body in the first place, this “permission” rationale for allowing abortion extends only as far as the cases where this prevention was not possible, which are rape cases.

    You do not know me, and those who do know that I am not controlling, only aggressive when it comes to trivial matters like protecting life, and certainly have no shortage of respect for women. I do understand why you think I’m coming across the other way, and if you put it this way–that this is how I’m coming across, I will perfectly civilly say you are misreading me. Only when you presume to state as fact what I am or what I want will I then respond in the way I have before.

    I will explain the view on sex as implied consent to at least the possibility of a pregnancy in the form of a social contract. Our society is formed on the basis of social contracts, and let’s look at parenthood as another example of a social contract. Parenthood can be extremely rewarding, joyful, pleasureful, all the wonderful adjectives I can think of about it. But it also comes with daunting responsibilities and can get downright messy and inconvenient at times, and though it can certainly enrich one’s life it is not a necessity of life. However, no one can claim that a person has the right to reap the pleasures of parenthood without also being willing to take on the burdens. If a person is not ready for the burden, they are also not ready for the pleasures. That is one kind of social contract. Well so is sex. Can be all the positive adjectives parenthood can be. And while certainly enriching, it is also not a necessity of life. Thus, since it too comes with pitfalls and burdens, one must be prepared to face these burdens in order to reap the benefits, and with sex one of the burdens is the remote possibility that despite all the precautions that can be taken, a living, breathing human being will take up residence inside your body and make its home there for the nine months it needs to become fully formed. Like parenthood, we are not under any obligation to make it possible to enjoy the pleasures of sex without accepting its burdens.

  • invalid-0

    There is this right when she left her body open to its taking up residence there by taking a voluntary action. And really it isn’t “using” her body, it’s simply inside her body. It’s not taking anything away from her body. She’s not losing anything from her body. No court has ever extended the right to take another’s life past the point of self-defense, whatever other imposition that other may be having on the one taking its life.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, I have heard of the case of legal acrobatics known as Roe v. Wade. It had NO legal basis whatsoever. They based it on the right to “privacy,” which if they’re going to go down that road, they might as well have made rape permissible if it was committed in the “privacy” of one’s own bedroom. (Note here again, I’m not comparing the actions, I’m comparing the LOGIC used to make them permissible.) Justice Ginsburg, by the way, has actually acknowledged that this was an extremely flawed decision from a legal standpoint, but she doesn’t have the courage to act on this fact within her role on the court because she’s personally pro-choice.

    If all you’ve taken out of my probably 40+ posts is “you must, you must, you must” then I must question your reading comprehension. Read over my other posts again, they give numerous reasons why. And I’m not saying “fetus comes before female” for the thousandth time, I’m saying that life comes before all other rights. And there are many things that people feel in their hearts and minds–this alone is no justification.

  • invalid-0

    Then she completely missed my point that it’s not just general consent, it’s what you’re consenting to. The substantive fact here is that the outcome in question is the creation of a human life. Thus, if this is one possible outcome, then yes, consent to one act DOES consent to the other if THAT PARTICULAR OUTCOME is the natural consquence.

  • invalid-0

    I’ll say again to you that it’s not only about the fact that it’s a voluntary act, it’s all of these elements put together, the most important one being that the natural consequence we’re referring to here is the creation of a human life. We would have to accept being injured as a natural consequence of riding in a car if the only way to avoid it were to willfully and intentionally cause the death of another innocent person.

    And no, an anti-abortion stance is an anti-the-choice-being-made-after-which-time-another-human-life-has-come-into-the-picture stance. Once again, I don’t want to eliminate any choice, only change the mandate for the TIMING of that choice.

  • invalid-0

    Pregnancy prevention not being the issue right now is the crux of the problem. It is the very fact that it is preventable that makes this a smaller part of autonomy than you care to admit. Yes indeed, I am eliminating an entire option–the option that takes the life of a human being, and I will NEVER be ashamed of wanting to eliminate that particular option. She still has the right to control all parts of her body, but those acts of control must be exercised BEFORE there is a living human being inside her. The fact that there is that living human being inside her is reason enough. And your continuing to bring back the “I’ll never have to make this decision” continues to neglect the fact that if men got pregnant, my opinion would be no different. I wouldn’t be asking for the right to make a decision that ends a human life.

    Now for a huge irony. You are offended at my supposedly “presuming to know what’s going through a woman’s head when she decides to terminate a pregnancy” (even though I did no such thing, I simply said no possible thought process going into this decision can make it acceptable to end a human life that poses no threat to yours, thus I would be interested to know what’s going through her head only as a mitigating factor, not a justification), but yet you and others like you on this board have no problem whatsoever with presuming to know what’s going through my mind when I stand up for the rights of the unborn–a thought process which is even more relevant since you have chosen to make my thought process the focus of this debate by ascertaining that what I really want to do is control women.

    Again, if you want to go down the awareness and consciousness road, you’re bringing comatose patients into this equation too, as logically it would then be ok to kill them as well, so that’s a road I don’t think you want to go down. Nor does the sperm comparison work, because the sperm is only half of what’s biologically necessary to make up a whole human being. Once it’s implanted, it’s just a matter of degree, before this the very nature, its composition is different.

    I most certainly have capacity for empathy, just not extending to the point where I am willing accept the logic of sparing women that pain by allowing them to kill that child rather than give it up. My point here was simply saying don’t show me how sensitive you are by talking about the pain of giving away a baby when you are willing to kill it instead.

    The key word in your next statement was “children” not babies. Yes, there are older children waiting to be adopted–ones who went into the system once they already had serious baggage. But there aren’t newborns waiting to be adopted. Every newborn put up for adoption will be given a home. And I’m not making a value judgement as to what parents are “worthy” or not. THAT is an area that truly is a woman’s choice–whether she feels she is worthy. It absolutely should be her decision whether she raises the child or someone else does. But not whether the child lives or dies. And no, they’re not producers or commodities–this devalues both lives. They are human beings who through chosen actions had another human being form inside them that has a right to its life, but once the second human being is out, it should be raised by whomever the first human wants–be it herself or someone else. All of this is the why, so if all you took out of any of this is the “musts” then I don’t know what else I can say.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t see how you can arrive and any conclusion that if a woman has a right to her own body under privacy rights that a man can rape her. Instead her privacy rights would just as much keep a man out of her vagina as a fetus out of her uterus and vagina.

    Instead if a fetus has rights to my body so should a man. My privacy would end with his body’s use of it.

    Justice Ginsburg doesn’t oppose the outcome of Roe, she has other reasoning she thinks is stronger.

  • invalid-0

    It is using her body Alex. No embryo has ever turned into a baby without the interaction of the womans body. An embryo ‘left alone’ – without the interaction of her body never develops. Her blood volume increases, her heart has to pump the additional blood, her hormones change to support the pregnancy, her digestive and excretory systems are all used. She grows a whole new organ. Most of her body is involved.

    Given courts haven’t extended the right to life over anothers body, no court needs to rule what you are saying for me to do it Its not wrong to take away something for which the right to doesn’t exist.

    You are not held to all follow on outcomes of a particular action. Otherwise you consent to being injured in the car accident, being raped in a dark alley. These are all possible outcomes that are known.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t know you can presume what we consent to either. Right now its just your presumption that when a woman consents to sex she consents to some of its possible outcomes.

  • invalid-0

    Saynas already given you a list of all the possible different health outcomes for women in pregnancy – I’m no longer surprised that I have to remind you of something in an earlier post that you are not even factoring into your response here.

    The substantive fact here is that you are saying consent to sex implies consent to pregnancy (well except for your unsuccessful gymnastics around the life of the woman). Consent to driving then would lead to consent to the known consequence which is a wreck and any of the possible injuries that result.

  • therealistmom

    You are completely eliminating any choice for a woman who becomes pregnant except to continue the pregnancy to term.

     Do you honestly and truly think that a woman, no matter the circumstances of the pregnancy, no matter how unwanted a child is, will not have tragic emotions throughout the pregnancy and be horribly affected by the subsequent birth and relinquishment? This is appropriate because she chose to have sex? She should be forced to become an incubator for whatever wealthy couple can afford to pay for a perfect, healthy white infant? (Because there are plenty of kids who need adopted- they just aren’t perfect white newborns.) The woman can’t just "not look at the baby" and go on with her life, particularly after the social stigma given by people just like you who condemn the woman for daring to have sex in the first place. This was proven again and again in the baby scoop era when women were hidden away to give birth and now suffer psychological agonies after relinquishment. They were told "oh, you’ll get over it, you can have another baby". Guess what? They didn’t.

    A woman is not obligated to give up the use of her body to a fetus. Period. There is no other relationship in the world like that of a woman to the potential human she is carrying. Therefore only she can make that decision about what occurs. The "right to life" extends to fully formed, autonomous human beings (as in, not requiring another human’s actual body to survive). The embryo/fetus at the point at which the vast majority of abortions are performed has no consciousness, no connected nervous system, cannot feel pain. It has no autonomous systems at all. The only thing that makes it uniquely human is the DNA, otherwise it is even less complex than most invertebrate creatures since it cannot exist individually.

    Yet you believe that this potential being has greater rights than any other human, in that it has the right to take over a fully formed and conscious human being for it’s survival and development.

     

     

  • invalid-0

    You haven’t established consent Alex, you haven’t established that the right to life overcomes the right to anothers body – if none of these exist independently you can’t put them together to make them binding. Adding up non-existent legal rights does not make a legal right.

  • invalid-0

    “because without your right to life, you can’t exercise your right of control over your body.”

    Doesn’t at all grab my sympathy card….because my right to life doesn’t extend over someone elses body even if I were to need it. Not even if I were a newborn that needed the exact same resources in my mothers body that were provided prior to birth. This ‘right’ doesn’t exist.

  • invalid-0

    There is nothing that you are saying that is salvaging your take on the hierarchy thing you brought up.

    No I do not need a law to take an action that DOES NOT infringe on anothers rights. I am not violating the right to life of anyone as long as the right to life does not extend over my body. I can’t possibly violate a right that doesn’t exist.

    You’ve already been told a ton on the prevention thing and your lack of knowledge even about rhythm method. I can prevent a car wreck by not driving but it doesn’t change a thing.

  • invalid-0

    Why aren’t pregnancies as a result of rape preventable? We all know rape exists. Women could take birth control, avoid alleys, etc. knowing that if they don’t they are taking the risk that a pregnancy will occur.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t know of any legal standard that says a woman can kill a third party innocent person because she was raped.

  • invalid-0

    Given that the right to informed consent and the right to withdrawal consent at any time are written broadly to cover all trials and treatments, regardless of the treatment or the clinical design(the level at which any dependencies would be built in) I don’t know why it needs to be presumed that they would even fit your preference in such a situation.

  • invalid-0

    For clarification

    If I’m pregnant and enroll in a trial or accept an on market standard life saving treatment for the fetus I see no reason in accepted ethics documents that would make an exception to the consent rules forbidding me to withdraw consent at anytime after starting treatment…even if the life of the fetus is depending on its continuation.

    Some people may oppose my decision but I still have the right to withdraw my consent even if the death of the fetus results.

  • invalid-0

    “Try reasoning with me in a way that doesn’t presume to tell me what it is that I really want.”

    This entire thread is testimony to the fact that trying to reason with you is futile. Your ignorance is as dense and impenetrable as your arrogance and sense of entitlement.

  • mellankelly1

    Death of a woman from pregnancy is a natural consequence of pregnancy

    Death from a heart attack is a natural consequence of poor eating and/or exercising habits and yet, people opt for a variety of medical procedures in order to avoid death.  Women are allowed to be the decision makers regarding their health if it is threatened by a pregnancy.  Many women opt to terminate the pregnancy outright or take measures to save their own lives even if it likely means the death of the embryo or fetus.  The women facing these medical issues are the most qualified to be making these decisions… not some third party with absolutely no stake in the outcome.

    Women can’t kill their children in order to save themselves from natural death

    What the heck does that have to do with anything?  No person (man or woman) can kill children.  Luckily, people (with the exception of anti-abortion extremists) are capable of realizing that a child is not killed when a woman opts to terminate her pregnancy… not having a child is kind of the point, eh?

    If Patient A and Patient B are both dying, we don’t kill Patient A to save Patient B. Add to it that Patient A is dying to no fault of their own but Patient B could have prevented their condition.

    None of that nonsense is relevant when it comes to the subject of terminating ones pregnancy.  There is only one "patient" and that is the pregnant woman… no person other than the pregnant woman (in consultation with her doctor) is qualified to decide which medical procedures are in her best interest.

  • invalid-0

    roe v. wade, anyone? :|

  • mellankelly1

    And once again you’ve offered nothing that overturns the fetus right to self defense to prevent itself from being killed.

    Heads up…. a zygote/embryo/fetus does not have a "right" to self defense.  And if it did… you still wouldn’t get to decide whether it would exercise this "right" or in what manner.  Simply because you believe that a zygote (embryo or fetus) is a person with full citizenship rights does not magically make it so.

  • invalid-0

    I’ve seen your posts elsewhere and at least you are consistent in not believing that someone must endure natural consequences, or that a fetus right to life even overcomes another womans body. Given those standpoint yes, none of these scenarios would be relevant.

  • mellankelly1

    Life trumps liberty because it is the most basic right. Needs are hierarchical, and if you don’t have life, you can’t use any of your other rights.

    There is no hierarchy to these rights… life is on par with liberty which is on par with the pursuit of happiness – one right doesn’t suddenly trump another right because you believe it should.  One could just as easily argue that without liberty and/or the ability to pursue happiness, life would not be worth living.

    You killing the rapist analogy fails under the microscope too, because in general courts would not recognize the right to kill a rapist if he were not threatening your very life in addition.

    You may want to do a little more research… a person need not wait for the trigger to be pulled nor the knife to enter their body in order to use lethal force.  Raping a woman is threatening her very life.

    I don’t think you’ll find anyone else anywhere who will classify a tumor as being human

    If the tumor is on a persons body, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the medical field who would classify it as being anything other than human (do people often have canine tumors?)

    Trees and cows are not human, the unborn child is

    Well, that’s a silly little argument.  Human sperm is human.  Human ova are human.  Heck, my eyelash is human. Maybe you meant that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person, in which case you would merely be arguing your personal belief system.

  • invalid-0

    Can we please stop putting human life on a pedestal? The overuse of such overwrought and pathetic terms as “a human being” and “the unborn child” to refer to lumps of cells shows an emotional and intellectual dishonesty. It’s a load of tripe. There is no special defining moment that changes some mysterious vital essence of a human egg / sperm to make it a “child” or a “human being.” That’s not how biology works. It is a gradual accumulation of development that eventually produces an independent organism, not a series of magical tiers on the way to a precious human being. We can call things as they are without loading them with pointlessly emotional connotations. That’s why we have words like “zygote,” “blastocyst,” “gastrula,” “embryo,” and “fetus.” They’re emotionally neutral terms that allow us to focus on the actual facts, rather than getting hung up on sentimentality.

    Back to the topic of putting human life on a pedestal. Even fertilization isn’t a special defining moment, and any attempt to assert it is so can be easily exposed as vacuous. There’s nothing about a “complete genome” that confers any significance upon anything whatsoever. Let’s pretend for a moment that it does, just for shits and giggles. At what point is the genome deemed “complete”? Surely you’re aware that there are many people who have more or fewer chromosomes than the typical 46. I doubt you would argue that a woman with Turner’s Syndrome is less of a human being, or that a woman with trisomy X is somehow superhuman and granted rights above everyone else. Perhaps we will argue that there is a certain requisite of genetic material a person must have to qualify as human, and it doesn’t need to be 46 chromosomes; perhaps as long as we’ve hit 45 chromosomes the person is deemed satisfactory. And that says nothing about the raw quantifiable extent of the genome – are we to count the As, Cs, Ts, and Gs in a string of DNA, and once we’ve hit a tidy round number then we’ve determined that the genome is complete enough?

    The point of this facetious exercise is that sperm and egg cells are just as capable of becoming “human lives” as zygotes or blastocysts; it is irrelevant that spermatozoa and ova have fewer chromosomes than the zygote, because they are simply at differing stages of development. One is not more or less human than the other.

    One other point – what distinguishes a human embryo from the embryo of another species? A lovely illustration of this conundrum is the study of comparative embryology: up until a certain point, the embryos of humans, bats, lizards, chickens, and even fish are virtually indistinguishable. Why should we condemn the abortion of a human embryo when we could care less about the embryos of other species that have advanced to the same level of development? (I can extend this argument to speak of the killing of adult animals, actually, but for brevity’s sake I won’t go there.) What vital essence separates the species? I can hear you squeaking, “DNA!” But we run into the same problem as with the “complete genome” load of bollocks…we share an astonishing amount of DNA with EVERY animal species, and within humans ourselves there is obviously variation. At what point do we decide what percentage of variation turns a person into a different species? Do we undertake the tedious task of counting nitrogenous bases? If a person steps one nucleotide over the line we set that defines the barrier of “human,” are they not human? Pure shit.

    For these reasons (and likely others I haven’t addressed) it’s irrelevant to quibble about what is and isn’t human. “Humanity” is not an observable essence but a value judgement attributed by crude assessments. The only relevant point I can see is one weighing suffering against suffering: if the embryo / fetus does not suffer through its death, but a woman suffers to carry it, then the logical course of action is to terminate the pregnancy because it results in the least suffering all around. End of discussion.

  • invalid-0

    Mellankelly1, you are consistent in your own arguments as you don’t believe its a person.

    If its not a person then correct it would not have these rights, but for those who define it as such it would have to be protected equally under the law.

  • mellankelly1

    Oh Emma, you have so nailed this guy! Perhaps now he’ll better understand what it is that he sees when he looks at himself in the mirror!  It’s crazy how they cannot see the hypocrisy and misogyny inside of themselves until it’s been pointed out to them…

  • janine

    It would be nice if you registered.

  • invalid-0

    Just because you can’t kill a person independent of yourself does not preclude you stopping them from violating your bodily integrity to maintain their life, even if stopping them results in their death. The right to life does not include the right to my body so I don’t need to put up with the violation of my rights on behalf of anothers non-rights. Protections over their right to life ends when they try to use my body to maintain it.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, there is–the fact without life it is impossible to exercise any other rights. Whether it’s worth it or not is another matter, but you still must have your life in order to be able to reap the benefits of any other rights. The right doesn’t currently exists because this society hasn’t progressed to that point yet. The slave owners made that same argument–they weren’t violating any rights because the slaves didn’t have any rights. But eventually our society woke up, and I am confident that we will on this point too. And that car analogy is ridiculous, because it would not be permissible to take another innocent life even if it reduced or eliminated the likelihood or getting into a car wreck.

  • invalid-0

    Again, all of these arguments would be true if pregnancy were unpreventable, but it is. If a person had a way of avoiding the need of another being to temporarily get resources from its body, they are not permitted to actively end that life. And yet again, the right doesn’t exist because our society has not yet recognized this universal right to life, but eventually it will.

  • invalid-0

    Because it’s about proximite causes. In the case of a rape, the woman did not choose to take the actual physical action that directly resulted in the pregnancy.

  • mellankelly1

    This would all be true if there weren’t a way to avoid the pregnancy in the first place, but there is.

    Sure, it is biologically possible to become pregnant from vaginal intercourse… and over half of the women who became unintentionally pregnant were using some form of contraception during the month that they became pregnant.  In addition, the women who weren’t using contraception either believed that they wouldn’t become pregnant at that time or had unexpected sex.  The purpose of sex is not procreation any more than the purpose of life is death.  It is insane to make the statement that a woman consents to pregnancy each time she consents to sex.

     

     

  • invalid-0

    The very definition of a hierarachy is a list of things where without the most basic ones, the ones above it are not possible. The very fact that without life no other right can be exercised makes it at the top (or bottom if you prefer) of a hierarchy. Whether life is worth living without certain other rights is another matter, but you can’t even be in a position of making this determination without life itself.

    No, they don’t have to wait for a trigger to be pulled, or a knife to enter their body, but a gun or knife must be present. Again, I’m not looking at this from anything other than a legal perspective, and I can tell you that you’d be very hard pressed to find a court that would recognize the right to kill an attempted rapist if he were not brandishing a weapon and there appeared to be a means of escape.

    It’s not a human being, it’s its own type of cell. Canine tumors mean the type of tumors canines get, doesn’t mean they ARE canines. And that’s not the point. A sperm, and ova, an eyelash, these are all human ELEMENTS necessary to make up a human being, but they are not the whole. Once it’s implanted it’s a whole, and the only difference between it and a just born baby is the degree of development. Not so for the individual parts. And don’t go down this “your own belief system” road. All laws are according to SOMEONE’s “own belief system.”

  • invalid-0

    You, ma’am, are not an impartial juror, so to speak. Thus, not qulified to evaluate the question of who nailed who here. And I am just fine with what I see when I look in the mirror, thank you very much. I see a man who desires to protect innocent life, and who is supported by somewhere around half, give or take, of the U.S. population.

  • invalid-0

    I still fail to see any circumstance in which your decision to not continue a trial would directly result in the death of the unborn child, or any other case where such a decision becomes the proximite cause of death of another.

  • invalid-0

    The fact that she had ways to prevent this LIFE using her body invalidates your argument. None of the other scenarios you mention involve the need to destroy another life in order to avoid these known consequences. It would be like your arguing that you can kill a random person in a alley because you THINK with no justification, that they might be about to rape you. The reason you consent to a given outcome here is the very fact that this outcome involves the creation of a human life. If the only way to avoid the consequences of riding in car or going into an alley at night involved taking another’s life, then yes, indeed, you would have to consent to those risks.

  • invalid-0

    I would LOVE to show these boards to a person who has never thought about the abortion issue in their life and has no opinion one way or the other, and let them decide who “nailed” who here. If they believe Emma “nailed” me, I’ld accept their verdict.

  • invalid-0

    Because it’s not about her own body exclusively once another human life has been formed. You’re not killing the man by taking him out of your vagina–you are killing an unborn child by taking it out of your body. Privacy no more entitles a woman to an abortion than it does a man to rape someone in his own bedroom. (I’m not saying it does, I’m saying the logic DOESN’T work in either case). And Ginsburg’s position makes her unfit to serve on the court in my eyes. She acknowledges that there was no legal basis for the decision, but she wants abortion to be legal, so she ignores what the court’s job is in favor of her own ideology. If she agrees with the outcome of Roe, but for other reasoning, the way to achieve that outcome would have been to pass a constitutional amendment to make abortion universally legal nationally–something that would NEVER pass. And she knows it. So she molds the constitution to her means.

  • invalid-0

    Can’t you read? The action of removing the consented to treatment that the fetuses life is dependent upon is what causes its demise.

    Ethics of withdrawal of consent is allowed non-conditionally. As much as you might want it to, your “desires” are not a part of accepted ethics regarding the withdrawal of consent. There is NO exception to ones right to withdraw consent.

  • mellankelly1

    The very fact that without life no other right can be exercised makes it at the top (or bottom if you prefer) of a hierarchy.

    And one could argue that without liberty and the ability to pursue happiness their "life" would not be worth living.   You do not get to decide what life means to others.  And arguing that biological life (a living being as opposed to a non-living being) is more important than quality of life (liberty, pursuit of happiness and all that) is merely your personal opinion.  You are aware that people have given their lives in order to secure liberty for others, are you not?

    No, they don’t have to wait for a trigger to be pulled, or a knife to enter their body, but a gun or knife must be present.

    Again… that is simply not true.  If I were to awake to a man attempting to rape me and I killed him I would be within my rights (weapon or no weapon.)  Force likely to cause death is justified in self-defense if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.  Is rape not considered "great bodily harm?"  You must be missing the point… perhaps because you’ve never experienced rape?

     A sperm, and ova, an eyelash, these are all human ELEMENTS necessary to make up a human being

    No, you damned fool… they’re "human."  You may want to study the differences between an adjective and a noun.

    Once it’s implanted it’s a whole

    Please feel free to prove to me how as a zygote I was, in totality, the person I am now.  Please prove that if I hadn’t been born to John and Mary Smith I wouldn’t have been born to John and Mary Jones.  Simply put… there is not proof that a fertilized egg (implanted or otherwise) are people.  This is your personal belief system, which is all well and good, but certainly not a reason to criminalize abortion.

    And don’t go down this "your own belief system" road. All laws are according to SOMEONE’s "own belief system."

    I could argue that all laws are based on a general consensus.  There is no consensus on when a person is present… some say conception, some say implantation, some say viability, some say birth.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not making any “value” or “moral” statements about the “purpose” of sex. I’m making a scientific statement about the outcome. The outcome can be the creation of a human life, no matter what precautions one takes to avoid. Thus, this very fact makes the act of sex a consent to the possibility of a life being formed.

  • invalid-0

    No, actually it’s a testimony to the fact that when you no longer have specific points based in facts to refute what I say, you stick your fingers in your ears and resort to name calling and labeling. I have no sense of entitlement other than the entitlement to fight for the protection of human life.

  • invalid-0

    Privacy may not be the only reason to support abortion rights or the best reason in some peoples eyes who still support the outcome of Roe. But privacy has never had limitations on it that another person can use your body to maintain their life either.

    She acknowledges that there are other reasons which Roe should have relied. She believes equality is one. Its not necessarily that she doesn’t believe it should be a court issue.

  • invalid-0

    Nothing you are saying invalidates my argument…the right to LIFE does not overcome another persons BODILY INTEGRITY. PERIOD. There is no exception to this. The random person has a right to life precisely because they are not using my body…once they need my body their right to life ends. ALWAYS.

    I do not consent to a possible outcome of the act of sex unless I consent to getting injured in a car wreck. Consent is not dependent on another persons life being at state. Consent is simply consent. Its either there or its not.

  • mellankelly1

    Because it’s about proximite causes. In the case of a rape, the woman did not choose to take the actual physical action that directly resulted in the pregnancy.

    Ohhh…. I see, so it’s not about the moral or physical status of the zygote/embryo/fetus, it’s about the circumstances surrounding the intercourse.  Sounds like you’re more into regulating womens proper behaviour, not abortion. 

  • invalid-0

    Yes, I have–the fact that the very act of sex carries the risk of the creation of a human life implies the fact that if there’s a way of avoiding it and you choose not to avail yourself of that way, you lose the right to not have to deal with the consequence BECAUSE OF THE VERY FACT that this consequence WAS the creation of a human life.

  • invalid-0

    What proximate causes allow you to kill a third party innocent person?

  • mellankelly1

    Sure buddy… you keep telling yourself that.  You may wish to research your "facts" regarding abortion… true, most people want to protect innocent life, however, pregnant women constitute "innocent life" even if their pregnancies are unwanted.  Most people feel that pregnant women deserve their full citizenship rights… present company excluded, of course.

  • invalid-0

    “If a person had a way of avoiding the need of another being to temporarily get resources from its body, they are not permitted to actively end that life.”

    This is not a legal standard by any means. The right to life doesn’t extend as far as another persons body.

    Keep dreaming.

  • invalid-0

    “Protections over their right to life ends when they try to use my body to maintain it.”

    NOT WHEN THEIR USE OF ANOTHER’S BODY WAS PREVENTABLE BY THE PERSON WHOSE BODY THEY’RE USING

  • invalid-0

    and in the case of the newborn, one possible consequence of pregnancy is that the newborn is still not viable at birth.

  • mellankelly1

    I would LOVE to show these boards to a person who has never thought about the abortion issue in their life and has no opinion one way or the other, and let them decide who "nailed" who here. If they believe Emma "nailed" me, I’ld accept their verdict.

    What’s stopping you?  It is clear that you’re arguing your personal belief system… not everyone would agree with you, eh?

  • invalid-0

    And I’ve already said that the life-threatening ones do give her the right to prevent them by ending the pregnancy. The reason consenting to sex implies consent to the possibility (though extremely remote if the proper precautions are followed) is the very fact that it is a human life that’s created through the pregnancy. I’ve said this on other boards, but apparently you didn’t read them. The car analogy does not work because if in order to reduce the risk of any of these possible injuries we would have to take the life of another human being, this would not be permissible, thus if this were the case, then consent to driving WOULD lead to consent to the known consequences of an accident. Let’s assume for example that driving on the sidewalks plowing over every person walking on those sidewalks were being proposed as a way for a person to avoid the injuries they might suffer if they had to drive on the streets with all the rest of us. Doesn’t work, does it?

  • invalid-0

    No, if I need another persons body to maintain my life and I don’t get that persons body I have no life and no liberty beyond that point. I get that part but thats the way it is for all of us. The right to life doesn’t overcome anothers body so that the fetus can selectively have life and liberty at the expense of another persons liberty while the womans life and liberty terminate when she needs anothers body.

    If you’re going to pull the slavery thing into this type of context then denying the woman the right to life over another persons body when she needs it is the same as denying a slaves rights. (Hint: When no one has the right to use another persons body to maintain their life, then its not just one segment of the population being denied its rights….the right doesn’t exist AT ALL – thats my argument).

    The car wreck analogy is not ridiculous – its about CONSENT . You keep claiming that consent to sex includes the consent to some of its outcomes. Consent itself doesn’t go this far.

  • invalid-0

    No, only the outcome that involves the creation of a human life. That very fact is what implies consent.

  • invalid-0

    You don’t protect innocent life – you’ve already demonstrated it through other comments on this board.

  • invalid-0

    And the outcome of driving can be a wreck, no matter what precautions are taken which would have to imply consent to injuries too.

  • invalid-0

    You can’t string a bunch of things together that don’t have legal standing (examples consent to one act includes consent to endure its possible outcomes, right to life overcoming anothers body) and arrive at a legal standard. We don’t grant rights by stringing non-rights together.

  • invalid-0

    No, consent laws do not have a ‘creation of human life’ clause. Consent is consent…it was either given or not. If enduring the possible outcomes for an action are consent then it applies on all cases given….not just the one you wish to select.

  • invalid-0

    Yet again, you don’t want to break out that title with me–you open yourself up to a few titles you might not want to be tagged with. Yes, I am eliminating the choice that involves taking a life, and I have no shame in that position. I’m not denying those tragic emotions, I’m only saying that it is not permissible to avoid these emotions by taking another life, especially when there was a way of avoiding that life coming into existence in the first place. Because the choice of sex carries the risk of the creation of a human life, society is under no obligation to give someone a way out of it. That’s not a “condemnation” of someone for choosing to have sex. I’m not saying the very act is morally wrong depending on the marital status of the person or any other factor. I’m saying that it comes with biological consequences, and since one of the biological consequences is the creation of a human life, yes indeed, the person making that choice must be prepared to deal with this particular biological consequence in any manner she chooses other than the one that ends that life. I don’t IN ANY WAY support the social ostracization of women who have babies and give them up. I’m saying nothing beyond the fact that no one has the right to avoid emotional pain by taking the life of another.

    And also, again, the children waiting to be adopted are not newborns of any color. Newborns WILL be adopted. I know plenty of cases of adoptive parents not caring about the race of their child. The ones who are waiting to be adopted were cases where they entered the foster care system long after their birth.

    A lot of other rights used to only extend to white human beings–that’s just as random a distinction as it’s dependency status. Again, if you want to play the no consciousness and inability to feel pain argument, you’re also putting comatose patients into this category. You can’t win this argument on the facts–only on claiming of sinister desires and creating of special rights that infringe on the rights of others.

  • invalid-0

    I can use caps too to tell you HOW THE LAW REALLY IS…The right to life doesn’t include the right to another persons body.

    You’ve already been called out on the prevention thing and you choose to ignore, yet again.

  • invalid-0

    Society is under no obligation to ban it. They don’t ban overcoming natural consequences. And until you show that the right to life includes the right to anothers body, you can’t even string this non-legal standard (banning from overriding natural consequences) along with the other non-rights and arrive at a right.

  • mellankelly1

    The fact that she had ways to prevent this LIFE using her body invalidates your argument

    So, by that reasoning, the fact that over half of all women who became unintentionally pregnant were using some form of contraception (they were "attempting to prevent LIFE") invalidates your argument, right?

    The reason you consent to a given outcome here is the very fact that this outcome involves the creation of a human life

    But what if you’re actively attempting to prevent this human "life?"  Your argument is very inconsistent.  If a woman is taking measures not to become pregnant or becomes pregnant against her will then it is permissible for her to end this pregnancy?  If someone is actively trying to become pregnant your argument would be true (albeit unenforceable.)  But what say you of the pregnancies that result from failure of contraception (or user error), threat to maternal life and non-consensual sex?  Suddenly, in these scenarios it would be allowable for these women to terminate those pregnancies (as long as they provide "proof"?)  What makes those "human lives" different?  Your opinion?  Pa-lease… you are simply not that important to the women facing these pregnancies.

  • invalid-0

    They do have a not taking of a human life clause. Context matters here. It’s not the one “I” wish to select. Human life has meaning.

  • mellankelly1

    the fact that the very act of sex carries the risk of the creation of a human life implies the fact that if there’s a way of avoiding it and you choose not to avail yourself of that way, you lose the right to not have to deal with the consequence BECAUSE OF THE VERY FACT that this consequence WAS the creation of a human life

    Consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood.  You simply cannot make the statement that because pregnancy is a biological possibility that procreation is the purpose of having sex.  You are being utterly reductionistic.

  • invalid-0

    The don’t have any exception to WITHDRAWAL OF CONSENT FOR THE USE OF THEIR BODIES EVEN WHEN THAT USE IS TO HELP ANOTHER INNOCENT PERSON. NONE.

    Yes, context does matter.
    You don’t need any clause anywhere specifically for a woman terminating her pregnancy as that right to life over anothers body does not exist in the first place.

  • invalid-0

    But society does ban the intentional taking of a human life, and in order to overcome that ban one must be able to show that their very bodily life is at stake. If the act of abortion didn’t directly end the human life, this would be different. If there were a passive action that made the proximite cause of death say the lack of nourishment–naturally preventing it from using the other’s body for its sustenence, this might be different. But abortion is the PROXIMITE CAUSE OF DEATH of the unborn child, so in order for you to be allow to directly end a life in this manner, you must be able to prove a threat to your own life.

  • invalid-0

    Society bans killing because it takes away someones right to life. If the right to life doesn’t extend over another persons body then its fine to stop it and society is in no obligation to protect life over the other persons body.

  • invalid-0

    You do need that clause when the action you’re taking actively ends that life, not merely passively takes away its source of support.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not sure where your analogy is going. If I take any risk with a possible outcome then I don’t necessarily consent to all of the outcomes. If I walk on the side of a highway I know a possible outcome is that I can get hit, but that doesn’t mean I consented to those injuries either.

  • invalid-0

    meaning…

    “…then its fine to stop that use of your body and society is in no obligation to protect life over the other persons body.”

  • invalid-0

    No, I don’t need a clause to take an action that doesn’t take away anyones rights!

  • mellankelly1

    I’m not making any "value" or "moral" statements about the "purpose" sex. I’m making a scientific statement about the outcome.  The outcome can be the creation of a human life, no matter what precautions one takes to avoid

    Oh, malarkey…. find me a scientist or legal scholar who claims that consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy and I’ll eat this computer.  Pregnancy is a biological possibility of sex… just as orgasm is a biological possibility of sex.  Please do not pretend that you’re all indignant about people accusing you of attempting to dictate womens proper behaviour… if you do not wish to be called out on your misogyny, perhaps you could at least attempt to be less blatant about it.

  • therealistmom

    … for outlining that particular argument better than I have or could be able to. Speaking as the parent of a child with 46+ chromosomes (my daughter has Down syndrome but it is a Robertsonian translocation, ie., an extra piece of the #21 connected to one of the complete #21 chromosomes) I can say that a magic genetic number does not decide when something becomes a "human being". She is a fully fledged "person". A zygote/embryo/fetus before viability is not.

  • mellankelly1

    I see a man who desires to protect innocent life, and who is supported by somewhere around half, give or take, of the U.S. population

    a) you pick and choose which "innocent life" you wish to protect and b) nowhere near half of the population supports your abhorrent views.

  • invalid-0

    And here we go again. (Emma, Megan, everyone…please forgive me.)

    Anonymous, please explain how it is possible to “equally” protect the rights of the zygote, blastocyst/embryo/fetus while equally protecting the rights of women. How is it done?

  • emma

    Thanks, Mellankelly. :)

     

    Actually, with regard to misogyny, do you know what I find interesting? The male ‘pro-lifers’ who identify as non-religious (Alex A-L, pro-life atheist &c) seem quite a bit more motivated by misogyny than the religious wingnuts. Not that wingnuts have a great deal of (if any) respect or concern for women, but the non-religious anti-choicers seem to be worse. The fundies, while contemptible and extremely misguided, seem at least to be motivated by a genuine concern for preserving all foetal life (just a pity they lack concern for born people). The non-religious anti-choicers, however, seem outright hateful.

     

    Thank you, Alex A-L, for your kindness in explaining social contract theory to me. I have a politics degree. I know what a damned social contract is. Social contract theory is based on the idea that people consent to governmental authority in exchange for protection of certain negative and positive right, including the right to one’s private property – individual sovereignty over one’s own body. According to the liberal theorists, the protection of property and individual liberties is one of the most important functions of government. As far as I’m aware, there is no law anywhere that allows foetuses to enter contracts.

     

    Fail again.

    • invalid-0

      How am I motivated by misogyny and not protection of life? Did you miss the part where I mentioned I’ve been vegan for years? Do I have to show a listing of how many anti-war/anti-globalization events I’ve been involved in?

      Unless of course, you’re talking about the formerly “Raving Atheist”….I tend to agree, he’s pretty douchey (especially now that he’s a jesus freak)

  • invalid-0

    I don’t understand your first statement at all. But you keep making the statement that the right to life doesn’t overcome another’s body, but neglect the fact that the woman doesn’t lose her body when she’s pregnant. The very reason one’s own body is so sacred is that it is the source of their very life. But if the unborn child is not depriving her of her very life, the sacredness of her body does not extend to the point where she can ACTIVELY end another life. If it were possibly to simply remove the supply of nutrition to the unborn child, then it would die of its condition of being dependent on another’s body to survive, and that might be one thing, but the act of abortion is the active taking of that life, which is what makes it unaccepable. And I didn’t say consent goes as far as consenting to ALL possible outcomes, for example I certainly don’t oppose condom use–or birth control for example–but I use the condom issue to illustrate for example that I don’t say that having sex consents to possibly getting an STD, but the point is that in avoiding an STD, you’re not taking a life. The reason consenting to sex consents to the possible creation of a human life is THIS VERY FACT that it IS a human life that’s being created. So again, the car analogy does NOT work because it doesn’t involve a matter of life being created, but I remind you again, for example, that the right to prevention of car accident injuries would not extend to the point of plowing over pedestrians by driving on the sidewalks instead of exposing oneself to the hazards of the road.

  • invalid-0

    Nope, the right to bodily control does not extend to the point of actively ending another life. You keep citing legal standards, but yet again, the very fact that the legal code is or is not a certain way doesn’t in and of itself justify that policy. YOU keep dreaming.

  • invalid-0

    No, it’s a combination argument. The pro-life stance hinges first on the physical status of the unborn child, but in some cases also acknowledges that it is true that this can be undermined by the fact that she may not have consented to the unborn child using her body. But since consenting to sex acknowledges that a human life could be formed from this action, this then must be looked at as consent. The one situation where this does not apply is rape cases. This is why there is a legitimate argument to be made for rape exceptions. And I still don’t understand how by making a statement that acknowledges the scientific reality that human life is created through the consent to sex, I’m making a statement about a woman’s “proper” behavior. I don’t care who has sex, when, under what circumstances. I’m just saying that there is no obligation to provide a way out of the natural consequences of one’s chosen actions IF this natural consequence involves the creation of a human life AND the way out of this natural consequences involves ending that life. It’s perfectly consistent with the widely held belief that life is the most basic human right, and is to be protected above all else.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not trying to decide what life means to others, I’m just saying no one gets to decide that someone else’s life is not their right. How a person regards their own life is their own business. It is only when they begin to decide the value of someone else’s life that outside forces must step in. And yes, I am aware that people have given their lives in order to secure liberty for others, but that’s the key point–indeed, they have given THEIR OWN lives, but they do not have the right to force someone else to give his/her life to secure liberty for others, which is what you are asking the unborn to do here. They don’t have a say in the matter.

    Of course rape is great bodily harm, but that’s not the only element required to prove self-defense. I have studied the legal statutes for various classes and functions I have been involved in in the past, and for a self-defense claim to be considered valid in a court of law, it also must be proven that there was (or at least appeared to be) no possibility of escape–something that a court may be hard-pressed to accept if the would-be rapist was unarmed. (Thus the element of reasonably believing the lethal force was in fact necessary to prevent such harm). Not quite sure how we got on this topic in the first place anymore, but anyway…..

    Nice job breaking out the name-calling, very mature, but I’ll distinguish, I was referring to the unborn child as A human, as a noun, not “human” as an adjective. And yes, that’s my (and many others’ “belief systems” just like the fact that African-American’s humanity and status as human beings starte dout as some people’s “belief systems.” I will not apologize for that.

    And you play the general consensus very well when it suits you, but uh oh, what if the abortion issue were put to a national ballot and the majority voted against allowing it? Something tells me you wouldn’t be so gung ho about general consensus then. And the fact is there are a fair number of polls that indicate that if this were to happen, the majority would be on the pro-life side. And yes, there are also plenty that say the opposite, so we really can’t know which way it would go, but from almost every set of polls I’ve come across, the trend is in the pro-life direction. But the point here being to find out how far your argument about consensus extends when it becomes inconvenient for your position.

  • invalid-0

    Frankly, what’s stopping me is the fact that I’m not really sure I know anyone with currently no opinion on this issue or with little knowledge of how the issue is framed. If you can (honestly) produce a couple of such individual, I’d be glad to have them read these posts and judge as a true impartial observer, see who they side with. I’m quite confident my arguments would prevail under those circumstances.

  • invalid-0

    Yes indded pregnant women constitute innocent life, but they only have the right to protect that innocent life over the innocent life of the unborn child if their own innocent life is actually at stake. Otherwise it’s not a matter of protecting “innocent life” it becomes a matter of protecting something less fundamental than innocent life at the expense of someone ELSE’S innocent life. I most certainly feel that pregnant women deserve their full citizenship rights, just take issue with the idea that these rights include taking another’s life if their own is not directly threatened.

  • invalid-0

    I’ve already covered this, but no, I don’t pick and choose which innocent life I wish to protect, I just insist that it actually be the woman’s innocent life she is protecting before she ends another innocent life.

    Dream on about the “nowhere near half” thing, ma’am. The truth hurts:

    A December 2003 poll conducted by Zogby International, a respected nonpartisan polling firm, confirms that, by a 53% to 36% margin, the public supports the statement, “Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter.” Some 68 percent of Republicans agreed with this statement while 43 percent of Democrats in the U.S. also agreed. The Zogby poll also showed that Americans are more inclined to support “restrictions on abortion” compared to five or ten years ago. According to the poll, 22 percent of Americans were more interested in abortion restrictions, while only 11 percent were less interested.

    A November 2003 poll conducted by the Gallup Organization finds a strong majority of Americans continue to support the ban on partial birth abortion. In Gallup’s latest poll, 68% of the public says partial birth abortion should be illegal, while only 25% say it should be legal. Even among respondents describing themselves as “pro-choice,” 50% support the ban while 42% do not.

    Earlier in 2003 two polls revealed that a majority of women are now Pro-Life. An August poll done by The Polling Company revealed that 54% of women selected one of three different Pro-Life views opposing all or almost all abortions. Only 39% backed abortion. In contrast, two years ago (in 2001), when The Polling Company asked female registered voters to describe their views regarding abortion, a slight plurality (48% vs. 43%) indicated they supported abortion.

    These poll results are similar to those found in a poll conducted in late spring 2003 by the pro-abortion Center for the Advancement of Women. That poll showed that 51% of women took a Pro-Life position and also found that keeping abortion legal was next to last on a priority list of public policy issues. Faye Wattleton, president of the group, bemoaned the results of her own poll. “There is significant and growing support for severe restrictions on abortion rights,” Wattleton said.

  • invalid-0

    You might want to look up the definition of misogyny, because I guarantee you you won’t find it to be the desire to protect innocent life, born or not. Also, I know some of these religious “wingnuts” and I assure you that they are just as concerned for born people as unborn, just once again in a hierarchy of rights, as in life trumping all others, no matter whose it is. I don’t know what to say to your “hateful” comments except that yes indeed, I’m hateful to the concept of the destruction of innocent life and the advocation of such by such anti-lifers as you. (I warned you about the use of terms like “anti-choice” and up until now I remained respectful in my labels, but no longer–as long as I am “anti-choice” you and your ilk will henceforth be referred to as “anti-life” until such time as you are willing to extend us the same courtesy in your terminology that we have extended to you.

    Also, you don’t have to be able to official enter into a contract to be protected by one. An infant certainly can’t enter into a contract either, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t protected by various other social contracts. An unborn child’s lack of contractual status doesn’t keep it from being protected by the concept of sex constituting the same kind of social contract as parenthood does–namely wishing to partake in the pleasures and rewards requires assumption of the risks and the responsibilities.

  • invalid-0

    No they have a right to life because they are a human being, not because they are not using your body. They didn’t begin using your body without an action on your part DIRECTLY causing this. And no consent is not simply consent. It depends what you are or are not consenting to. And since life is the most basic right there is, the burden of when consent begins in matters that involve the creation of human life must be much lower than the burden of when consent begins to be given to other non life-creating related outcomes. One more time, you’re not consenting to being injured in a car accident, but you are consenting to not take other innocent lives to prevent your being injured in a car accident, even if you could prevent such injuries by doing so. It’s the driving on the sidewalk metaphor again.

  • invalid-0

    No it doesn’t invalidate my argument, because the women using the contraception still knew that there was a possibility that their decision to engage in sexual encounters might still result in a pregnancy, despite their best efforts to the contrary, yet they still CHOSE to assume that risk, thus since that risk is indeed of a human life being created, it’s a risk that must be accepted. Since in a non-consensual sexual act there was no CHOICE to assume that risk, then AND ONLY THEN can it be argued that consent was never given. Threat to maternal life, I’ve already addressed–here’s abortion is justifiable under the self-defense concept. Again, it’s not just the human life point, it’s all of these points on top of each other and combined together that make up the pro-life position, at least for those such as myself who do not base any of our position on religious grounds.

  • invalid-0

    It isn’t the right to her own body that is being granted under this privacy right–it’s the power over a being that happens to be inside her body. So by that logic then, yes, you could claim that a person’s being granted the right to the “privacy” of their own bedroom allows them to do whatever they wish to anyone else who has the misfortune of being trapped inside that “private” space.

    From what I’ve read of Ginsburg’s statements on Roe, she wasn’t saying Roe should have relied on other reasons, she was saying that the matter should have been addressed at the legislative level, not the judicial level. I’ve never heard her justify Roe on the equality basis, I’ve read statements where she said there was very weak legal basis of Roe period. It’s just that she is pro-choice personally, and she knows that having to deal with it at the legislative level would leave the “right” very precarious, because to legalize it nationally can only be done by an executive order or passed law, which can be changed with practically every new congress or at least every new administration, or it can be done through a constitutional amendent making it nationally legal, but this would have no hope of passing. So she’s content to keep a completely flawed judicial precedent on the books because she personally wants the rights granted.

  • invalid-0

    Yet again, that’s not the equivalent scenario. The equivalent scenario would be if the most fool-proof way of avoiding injuries in a car accident were an action that also actively took an innocent life, again, like say driving on the sidewalks and through people’s yards, or say driving a car equipped with an airplane engine that obliterates everything in its path. That would eliminate the injury risk to you, but since it would also kill innocent people it’s not permitted. So it’s not that driving consents to injuries, but it does consent to not deliberately taking other lives in order to avoid injuries.

  • invalid-0

    I’m indignant because this has nothing to do with what I think is “proper” behavior. You see “misogyny” in my acknowledgement of a biological fact, there’s nothing I can do about that, except I’ll give you the same advice I gave Emma earlier in that you might want to look up the definition of misogyny, because what I’m doing will not fit it. But you’ve just acknowledged that pregnancy is a biological possibility of sex, what you atill apparently refuse to acknowledge is that it’s the creation of a human life, which an orgasm is not because it has only have of the material necessary with none of the biological interaction.

  • invalid-0

    Even independently of the prevention thing, at best these are two conflicting facts. The right to one’s body does not include the right to deliberately and actively end another’s life. But since life is the most basic of the rights and the right without which no other right can exist, when two rights conflict with each other, the one that protects life takes precedence.

  • invalid-0

    No, because you aren’t actually killing it, the condition for which it is being treated is. Your action simply removes the treatment. Abortion isn’t the equivalent of removing treatment because it is this act itself that ends the unborn child’s life.

  • invalid-0

    You missed my point again. I didn’t say the purpose of of sex is procreation, I said that it’s a risk inherent in any sexual encounter. Following from that, the fact that the biological possibility of procreation is indeed the creation of human life, this is where it follows that consent to sex is consent to at least the possibility of pregnancy. It is the very fact that procreation is the creation of a human life AND is a possible biological consequence of any sexual encounter.

  • invalid-0

    I didn’t say you consent to ALL possible outcomes–only the outcomes that involve the creation of a human life and which the only ways to avoid involving the deliberate ending of said life.

  • invalid-0

    Except that this action does–it takes away the right to life of a human being.

  • invalid-0

    Not if the very act of stopping that use directly kills it in the first place, especially since there were means of avoiding that use in the first place.

  • invalid-0

    In this case what distinguishes it as a human despite chromosomal structure similarities is the fact that it was created by two other humans. It can never become any other species. If you want to get into the value of humans over other species, this is a completely different argument that I don’t want to go into, because that goes much farther into the philosophical and out of the scientific and logical, which are the realms in which the abortion matter must be settled. But you hit the crux of the matter when you pointed out that there is no “magical point.” Here’s the problem with that argument–it’s what I call “the undertaker problem.” And it’s why I was absolutely appalled by Barack Obama’s answer to the abortion question at Pastor Warren’s (the ORIGINAL SOURCE BEHIND THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION–talk about coming full circle) Saddleback Forum. When he was asked when and if the unborn is entitled to human rights, he said that “answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.” Not a bad answer. The problem is, this is an argument AGAINST allowing abortion, not FOR it. Thus, the undertaker problem. So an undertaker gets a person in the morgue who may or may not be dead. The undertaker is not a doctor–it’s “above his paygrade” so to speak to determine this person’s life status. So the appropriate move for the undertaker is to assume he can’t bury the person until there’s a definitive answer from so for whom it’s not “above their pay grade.” The undertaker would not say, “well, this is above my pay grade, so I’ll assume he’s dead and I’ll bury him anyway.” But that’s effectively what Obama and people who phrase the argument your way are saying when they say it’s above their pay grade, so for that reason we’re going to keep abortion legal. The fact that there is no exact point requires us to go back, at least until such time as the “exact point” can be established, to the earliest point at which there is scientific justification, which really would be implantation, since before that point it is not yet a matter of degree of development, it is a matter of the very nature of the being. But once it has implanted, its status is only a matter of its degree of development, so from this point forward, if we acknowledge that life is the most basic right, we assume cautiously on the side of life.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, it does. It has no right to use my body. You’ve ignored other peoples points on prevention.

    You can’t make up rights from non-rights. If consent to one act does not include consent to possible outcomes, if real given consent can be withdrawn at any time, if the right to life does not include the right to anothers body then you don’t have a claim to a right by stringing them together.

    You are making stuff up and have utterly failed to show any standards that support you.

  • invalid-0

    Society only bans it when someones rights have been violated. They do not ban taking away a non-right.
    I can prevent a wreck by not driving.

    Stop making stuff up.

  • invalid-0

    It takes away their maintaining their life at the expense of my body. That is not a right, so no rights taken.

    You can’t make up rights from non-rights. If consent to one act does not include consent to possible outcomes, if real given consent can be withdrawn at any time, if the right to life does not include the right to anothers body then you don’t have a claim to a right by stringing them together.

  • invalid-0

    The injuries would fall under ALL, so no you are not held to them.

    You can’t make up rights from non-rights. If consent to one act does not include consent to possible outcomes, if real given consent can be withdrawn at any time, if the right to life does not include the right to anothers body then you don’t have a claim to a right by stringing them together.

    0+0+0=0.

  • invalid-0

    No they aren’t conflicting.

    The right not to be killed is derived from the right to life.
    The right to life doesn’t include the right to anothers body – so not a right. The right to ones body includes the right not to have another person violate it to maintain their life. Sayna’s already given you this case.

    Nothing you say about ‘most basic right’ has ever extended the right to life over anothers body.

  • invalid-0

    I understand that the woman doesn’t ‘loose’ her body completely. No ones claimed that. Its being used for anothers benefit. Again, the right to life doesn’t include the right to use anothers body. PERIOD.

    By the way there are possibilities like the one you propose (removing the placenta from the maternal portion vs. fetal portion). But it doesn’t make a difference that the fetus has no right to use the womans body to maintain its life so no ones depriving it of a right. PERIOD.

    Yes, the car analogy does work!!!! Its about the CONSENT part. We are not held as if we CONSENTED to the outcomes so consented to injuries. You can’t string non-rights together to obtain a right. As long as the right to life doesn’t include the right to anothers body they woman is not violating a right by terminating her pregnancy.

  • invalid-0

    Yep! Instead, the right to life doesn’t include the right to use my body. Its not a protectable right to use someones body to maintain their life. Yes, the legal standards do justify that policy….as long as the right to life doesn’t include the right to anothers body its the same for ALL of us. No one is being deprived of their rights.

  • invalid-0

    That is a combination argument….You’re adding non-legal standards to try and develop a legal standard. Non-rights don’t add up to a right.

  • invalid-0

    Once the treatment has been established the condition is no longer able to kill it. I am taking an action that kills it, removes its dependency on the already life-maintaining treatment, which was consented to.

    And if you want to go there anyway for some reason…then its the fetus inability to maintain its own life that is the condition that kills it. I’m just removing the treatment given by my body that was saving it from its own condition.

  • invalid-0

    The driving scenario about the CONSENT part you kept trying to bring up. You haven’t established CONSENT. Now you are offering scenarios where someones rights are violated. They have a right to life, therefore a right to not be killed. The right to life doesn’t include the right to anothers body! Therefore the fetuses rights are not being violated!

  • invalid-0

    You’re example actually proves what RealistMom was saying on consent…you know there is a risk of getting in a wreck and if someone hits you, you are not held as if you consented to the injuries. Its about rights. And you haven’t proved the right to life overcomes another persons body either.

  • invalid-0

    Sex has the risk of pregnancy only as an outcome, the act doesn’t create the embryo itself. A human beings right to life does not include the right to anothers body. You are not held to consenting to enduring the outcomes of the risks you take. Its not the driving on the sidewalk metaphor. There you are talking about it from the perspective that its taking away someones rights. In the case of the embryo no right exists to take away.

    You can’t string non-rights together to obtain a right. And there is no ‘lower burden of consent’ to be strung together with these non-rights to create a right here either. Consent is consent. Its either there or not and when really given can even be withdrawn at any time.

    As much as you want to keep saying it, it doesn’t make it true. You’ve failed to show any legal standards to support the non-rights, non-standards you are seeking to hold up.

  • invalid-0

    Given everything else you’ve said, the woman cannot be deemed ‘innocent’ even if her life is an issue. Only the fetus can be….there is no allowance for killing an innocent person to save the life of someone that could have prevented the condition. Self defense doesn’t go that far.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, it is as it covers the right to use birth control (even then it was applied to the body and gets into her bodily cavities which the woman has the right to control). No, your conclusion about the bedroom isn’t right as I believe other people have bodily rights too – forbidding any of us from violating the bodily integrity of another (and there is no right to life exception either to allow the fetus to violate my body).

    I saw a statement by her at OnTheIssues where she supports her abortion rights support using the court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey and cited the equality between men and woman as a reason.

  • therealistmom

    I want you to go and find a ruler or tape measure. Any one will do. Now, meaure out 1.02 inches on it. Take a look at that size.

    According to a neutral source (VisibleEmbryo) that is the size of a 12-week embryo, ie. the end of the first trimester, just before the fetal developmental period begins. I even used the larger end of the scale to be generous. Keep in mind the vast majority of abortions take place even before this point. 

    Now I want you, with a straight face, tell yourself that this embryo has a greater right to bodily integrity than a fully grown woman. That it has the right to literally take over a woman’s body for survival and development. That this potential person, that is not even far enough along in its development for the intestines to have moved into the body cavity, to move except for a few rudimentary flailings of the stubs of limbs, having no thoughts, feelings, ability to feel pain… that this being has the "right to life" so great, so much more than any other human interaction on earth, that they can force a fully developed human being to give up their body to nurture it.

    Have you done that? And you still feel that way? 

    So what does that tell you about how you value women?

  • invalid-0

    So both sides were willing to die over a disagreement over who gets the liberties at stake. It doesn’t lead to the right to life including the right to another’s body at all.

  • mellankelly1

    No, it’s a combination argument. The pro-life stance hinges first on the physical status of the unborn child, but in some cases also acknowledges that it is true that this can be undermined by the fact that she may not have consented to the unborn child using her body.

    That is not "pro-life", my dear… when you make the statement that it is okay to kill the "unborn child" due to the circumstances surrounding the intercourse, you are admitting that your stance is not about the moral or physical status of the zygote/embryo/fetus.  This is clearly about what you deem to be the proper behaviour of women.  Riddle me this… if it’s okay for a woman to terminate a pregnancy (the "unborn child" as you like to phrase it) that was the result of rape, why isn’t it okay for a woman to kill her child if he/she was the result of rape?  Could it be that the "life" of the zygote/embryo/fetus is not on par with the life of a child, perhaps?  Your posts are not "pro-life" (clearly you do not value the lives of pregnant women) but about moralizing the sexual behaviour of women.  You are anti-abortion.  Period.

    But since consenting to sex acknowledges that a human life could be formed from this action, this then must be looked at as consent.

    Do us a favor and look up the differences between a fact and an opinion.  It is merely your opinion that a woman consents to pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood upon consenting to sex… there is simply no factual basis for this statement.

    The one situation where this does not apply is rape cases. This is why there is a legitimate argument to be made for rape exceptions

    Right, you’ve already established that this is not about the new life being created, but about women being made to pay for consenting to (and probably enjoying) sex without being open to the possibility of pregnancy, childbirth and/or motherhood.

    And I still don’t understand how by making a statement that acknowledges the scientific reality that human life is created through the consent to sex,

    That is a new one… "human life" is created by "consent to sex?"  Wow.  Just… wow.  You may want to call those in the scientific field and let them know that a zygote is not formed when a sperm fertilizes an ova, but when a woman consents to sex (I’m sure they’d be rather surprised to hear this.)

    It’s perfectly consistent with the widely held belief that life is the most basic human right, and is to be protected above all else.

    Some would say that a persons right to bodily autonomy is not only the most basic human right, but the most important right.  The American people will not stand for the government having control over the bodies of it’s citizens (including the pregnant ones… even if their pregnancies are unwanted.)

  • mellankelly1

    I’m not trying to decide what life means to others, I’m just saying no one gets to decide that someone else’s life is not their right.

    Precisely… and if you actually believed this, you wouldn’t be attempting to take rights away from pregnant women (particularly when their pregnancies are unwanted.)

    It is only when they begin to decide the value of someone else’s life that outside forces must step in.

    Baloney… you wish to step in when women make private medical decisions that will not effect your life to any degree.

    which is what you are asking the unborn to do here.  They don’t have a say in the matter.

    I’m not "asking the unborn" to do anything… that would be an exercise in futility.  Do you oftentimes ask things of non-sentient beings?  Further, if "they don’t have a say in the matter" (you know, because they have never possessed the ability to think or "say") then why do you pretend to know what "they" would say?  Are you magical?

    Of course rape is great bodily harm, but that’s not the only element required to prove self-defense

     Yes, it is.  Anyone could research this stuff and find that my statements are true.

    I was referring to the unborn child as A human, as a noun, not "human" as an adjective

    Oh, while a zygote, embryo and/or fetus can be described as human, they are most certainly not described "A Human"… I’m surprised you would admit to making such an error.

    and many others’ "belief systems" just like the fact that African-American’s humanity and status as human beings starte dout as some people’s "belief systems" 

    Fabulous… and now you’re comparing an African American person to a thousandth of an ounce, second old fertilized egg.  Sure, lets just pretend that African American people are not fully developed, self-aware, thinking, active members of society… nicely done.  I expected nothing less.

    And you play the general consensus very well when it suits you, but uh oh, what if the abortion issue were put to a national ballot and the majority voted against allowing it?

    Oh, it’s been done sweetie… one needn’t look further than South Dakota, Colorado and/or California to see what the general consensus is when it comes to denying pregnant women their full citizenship rights.  Nice try, though.  May want to fact-check first in the future, though.

  • mellankelly1

    Yes indded pregnant women constitute innocent life, but they only have the right to protect that innocent life over the innocent life of the unborn child if their own innocent life is actually at stake

    Sorry buddy… you don’t get to determine what rights women have… the Constitution guarantee’s us individual rights over our own bodies.  It would be unconstitutional (not to mention immoral) to give our government control over the bodies of pregnant women.  When you make the statement that your anti-abortion stance is based on the notion of "protecting innocent life" but then deny the worth of the pregnant woman’s life, you are picking and choosing which "life" is of more value to you.  Sorry… you do not get to decide the value of a pregnant woman’s life anymore than you get to decide the value of her pregnancy. 

    I most certainly feel that pregnant women deserve their full citizenship rights

    Then I am afraid you do not have a clue what full citizenship rights entail… I suggest reading up on it.

  • mellankelly1

    I’ve already covered this, but no, I don’t pick and choose which innocent life I wish to protect, I just insist that it actually be the woman’s innocent life she is protecting before she ends another innocent life.

    Yes, when you decide that the zygotes "life" is more worthy of protection than the pregnant woman’s life… you most certainly have made a choice which "life" you wish to protect.  Further, you wish to define what "life" means and which meaning of "life" is more important.  Certainly you can do this within the realm of your own life, but you simply cannot dictate what the "life" of a zygote means to anyone else.

    Dream on about the "nowhere near half" thing, ma’am

    Polls?  We don’t need no steenkin’ polls!  Not when we have actual proof that the majority of Americans will not support any legislation which takes rights away from US citizens (even the pregnant ones) – simply take a gander at Colorado, South Dakota and California.  Keep reaching buddy… it actually helps!

  • mellankelly1

    You might want to look up the definition of misogyny, because I guarantee you you won’t find it to be the desire to protect innocent life, born or not

    It is misogynistic to discount the life (mental, physical and spiritual) of a woman faced with an unwanted (or doomed) pregnancy.  To make the statement that you wish to protect "innocent life" is blatantly false.  You care little of the lives of women, particularly when you make statements that once a woman has become pregnant (by your words sex=consent to pregnancy) the life of the woman is insignificant to you… you are pro-fetal life.  Your very statements belie your disdain for a woman who consents to sex without being open to the possibility to becoming pregnant… virtually regulating women to the status of "walking uterus’s."  Sorry but I believe the worth of women goes far beyond their biological capacity for becoming pregnant.

    just once again in a hierarchy of rights, as in life trumping all others

    Just once again… your opinion does not a fact make.

    An unborn child’s lack of contractual status doesn’t keep it from being protected by the concept of sex constituting the same kind of social contract as parenthood does

    Right, except that sex does not constitute the same kind of "social contract" as parenthood (f.y.i. neither does pregnancy.)

  • invalid-0

    But in order to enforce the right to life not including the right to another’s body requires taking that life, and the right one’s bodily autonomy does not include the right to delibertately end a life, so at best these are conflicting facts, and that being the case, since life is the most basic right, the one of these rights that protects life takes precedent. Otherwise you’re arguing that life is not the basic right, and that’s a dangerous road to go down because of other implications that has. And how many times do i have to say that it’s not about the sheer concept of consent, it’s WHAT that consent is for. Yet again, by driving in a car you do consent to any injury thats only available method of avoidance is the deliberate taking of another life.

  • invalid-0

    Nor does it lead to one’s right to bodily autonomy including the right to end another’s life. Conflicting statements, thus the one that protects life takes precedence.

  • mellankelly1

    No it doesn’t invalidate my argument, because the women using the contraception still knew that there was a possibility that their decision to engage in sexual encounters might still result in a pregnancy, despite their best efforts to the contrary, yet they still CHOSE to assume that risk, thus since that risk is indeed of a human life being created, it’s a risk that must be accepted

    If a woman and/or her partner are taking measures to avoid pregnancy then they are in no way, shape or form consenting (giving assent or approval), as a matter of fact, they are doing the exact opposite.  Your supposition is untrue… why would a person actively try to prevent something that they are consenting to (preventative consent, anyone?)

    Since in a non-consensual sexual act there was no CHOICE to assume that risk, then AND ONLY THEN can it be argued that consent was never given.

    And we’re back to your opinions regarding women’s proper behaviour.  The judgments formed in your mind regarding consenting to pregnancy are relevant only within the realm of your life… you are perfectly free to abstain from vaginal intercourse in order to avoid an unintended pregnancy.  Others, however, are perfectly free to use contraception in order to avoid an unintended pregnancy.  And if that contraception should fail, these women are perfectly free to consider their options and make the best, responsible and most moral choice for themselves and their families.

  • invalid-0

    That statement may be true, but it’s equally true that one’s right to not have their body used doesn’t extend to the point of being allowed to actively kill that person. So it’s two conflicting statements at best, and in a case like this the one that takes precedent is the one that protects the more basic of the rights, which is the right to life.

  • invalid-0

    ANd you’re doing precisely the same thing. The taking of another’s very life by an active deliberate act is not permissible even to preserve bodily control–only to save one’s very life. So you’re trying to add up some non-rights of your own.

  • invalid-0

    The right not to be killed is derived from the right to life. And until you are able to establish that the right to life includes the right to anothers body, it is not wrong.

  • invalid-0

    Name your legal principle. On the contrary, there is no law that says I can’t stop someone from violating my body to maintain their life. I don’t need a law to permit me to an action that doesn’t take away someones rights. And THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LIFE OVER ANOTHERS BODY. The law is clear and Sayna gave you the case.

  • invalid-0

    Its not conflicting. Name the law that forbids me from stopping someone from using my body to maintain their life. The legal right to life does not include the right to use anothers body. Life does not take precedence over another persons body. Sayna’s already given you a specific case where it was not upheld.

  • invalid-0

    Of your post, I am only going to address those points that apply directly to my argument, because I really don’t see what my post has to do with pay grades or your undertaker analogy. I was pointing out the arbitrariness of the “life begins at fertilization / conception / whatever” argument. Life did not begin at conception; it existed well before then, actually, in individual sperm and egg cells. Sperm and eggs are alive: that is scientifically proven fact. Your assertion (and it is indeed an assertion, not a fact, which is a concept you seem to have trouble with) that what makes a zygote special is the fact that it was made by two humans is precisely arbitrary.

    What you seem to be doing is what I call “moving the goalposts”: once your opponent reveals a flaw in your argument, you go back and specifically tailor your argument to avoid the flaw. In this case you seem to have changed your whole definition of human life to dodge my points: fertilization is no longer the defining event; the fact that two people made the cell is! You can keep doing this, if you like; I’m confident that I can maintain my accuracy regardless of where your goalposts are. :D It’s like shooting holes in a blimp that’s trying to run away…

    What would you say, then, about a cloned human? Is that person not a human, then, because his/her DNA came from the somatic cell of only one person? Maybe you’re going to twist your definition a little more and say that as long as the DNA came from a human, then it’s a human. Fair enough. But we run into the same problem as other posters have already addressed…it does not matter that the DNA is human, because even the non-sentient cells that line my rectum have human DNA (and a full genome at that). Let’s all pass some legislation (hee, hee) to protect the cells in my rectum from annihilation, even in the event that removing them would alleviate medical conditions like hemmoroids. Okay…the cells in my rectum don’t have the potential to become cute-nosed little human beings without some serious scientific tampering, so let’s move on to something more germane to the topic of abortion. You know some other cells I have that do have the potential to become human beings? My eggs! God (law?) save my poor little eggs, being so neglectfully flushed from my reproductive tract every 26 days or so. The fact that they never thought or felt is of no consequence, dammit! They are human, and they just might become children someday! And that says nothing of the thousands of eggs I allowed to die when I myself was a fetus, when they committed ritual suicide via apoptosis.

    Maybe your next argument is that passively allowing eggs / zygotes / embryos etc to die should remain legal, because at least I’m not actively killing them. But conferring human rights to fetuses / embryos / what have you will confer the same rights to them as to real, born children. If you passively allow an actual child to die, then you are guilty of criminal negligence causing death, and you go to jail. This means that you could technically charge a woman of a crime if she doesn’t elect for dangerous medical procedures to save the life of her fetus. Or you could force her to endure said treatment via court order. I don’t know about you, but that sure looks like a fuckin’ utopia. This isn’t a slippery slope argument, by the way, although I admit it certainly looks like one. The key point is that these things become possible immediately after you grant an embryo / fetus personhood.

    By the way, please stop abusing the word “scientific” in your posts. Especially when you convey in the same breath just how little you know about science in the first place. I love how you say “implantation” is the earliest point where there is “scientific justification” for ascribing life to a lump of human cells. Care to explain exactly why this is?

  • mellankelly1

     You see "misogyny" in my acknowledgement of a biological fact, there’s nothing I can do about that, except I’ll give you the same advice I gave Emma earlier in that you might want to look up the definition of misogyny, because what I’m doing will not fit it.

    Sure, one could "look it up" and theorize about the many different ways a person could be a misogynist.  However, one can get a better understanding of the concept when they’ve seen it practiced… such as reading the posts which paint a picture of women becoming insignificant once they’ve become pregnant (intentional or not.)  Discounting the personal belief system of a woman simply because she has the biological ability to become pregnant is misogynistic… there’s no way around that one (even using your circular logic regarding "innocent life".) 

    Further, when you make the statement that there are certain situations in which it would be acceptable to kill this "innocent life" that have nothing at all to do with the moral or physical status of this "life" you are most certainly judging women’s proper behaviour.

  • invalid-0

    As long as the right to life doesn’t include the right to my body they are not conflicting. I don’t need a law permitting me to take an action that does not deprive someone of their rights. You’re being completely rediculous.

    No matter what you want to call life (“basic right”) it doesn’t mean it extends over anothers body. SO ALL ARE HELD TO THE SAME.

    The car analogy stands for us not being held to the outcomes of the risks we take. IT STILL STANDS.

    Stop being such a misogynist in trying to deny women their equal rights.

  • invalid-0

    One more time I am making NO statement about the proper behavior of women. I have no moral objection to sex by any consenting person at any time. Just to the denying that the creation of a human life is one possible consequence. And ok, I misspoke, human life is formed by sex, not consenting to sex, but by consenting to sex one consents the possibility of human life being formed, even if they’ve taken precautions to prevent this. And all of this stuff about regulation just “women’s” behavior overlooks the fact that I’d say the same things if it were men who got pregnant. And I most certainly value the LIVES of pregnant women, I just don’t value anything other than their LIVES at a higher level than the lives of another human being. But I have no problem being called anti-abortion, I’m proud of that label as well. Just don’t break out the “anti-choice” term just because I am advocating for insisting that this choice be made at an earlier point than you would like it to have to be. And it is merely your opinion that one does not consent to all the consequences WHICH RELATE TO THE CREATION OF HUMAN LIFE, but my opinion has logical basis behind it, while yours does not.

    I said it’s about the new life being created, but with the caveat that this can be overridden by the concept of life not extending to the point of using another’s body IF AND ONLY IF there was no consent given, which can apply only in rape cases.
    And something cannot be “the most basic human right” if there’s another right without which the first right cannot be used. You cannot use your right to bodily autonomy without your right to life, this is what makes life the most basic human right.

  • sayna

    Conflicting statements, thus the one that protects life takes precedence.

    You’ve been making arguments like this over and over, essentially saying that quantity of life outweighs quality of life. When you make an argument in debate, it is your job to support that argument. And, more personally, when you’re telling me that I should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth against my will, you have got some serious explaining to do.

    Why do you say that life must be preserved at all costs? As I’ve said twice before, a fetus that dies goes from experiencing nothing to experiencing nothing. A woman, on the other hand, is undoubtably capable of suffering and most certainly will if she is forced to sacrifice herself to someone else’s personal morality. What gives the creation of life precidence over another human being’s quality of life? Why must a human being be created at the cost of another human being’s freedom?

  • invalid-0

    I’m not neglecting it. The right to life is not so sacred that its protected over another persons body for anyone.

    And I don’t ignore that when we take a risk of a wreck such as driving a car we are not bound to endure all outcomes such as injuries when they occur …and that yes, it really pivots on the protection of rights.

  • invalid-0

    …imbedding its point in the bull’s eye of a dart board. Cheers.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not trying to take any right away from pregnant women other than the right to end another’s life. That in no way contradicts what I said about it not being anyone’s right to determine the right to life of another. And stop trying to speak for me!!! This isn’t about my wanting to stop “her private medical decisions” it’s about wanting to stop SPECIFICALLY the ones that end another life. SO no, it doesn’t directly physically affect me, but it sure as hell affects another innocent life.

    Thank you Larry (or rather the female equivalent) Literal. Ok, it’s what you are making a decision of which its very nature FORCES the unborn to sacrifice its rights for yours even though it CAN’T make opt otherwise. (The things you say about can’t “ask” it to do anything and couldn
    t “say” anything about the matter also apply to a newborn, ok? I was using these terms figuratively.
    I HAVE researched the self-defense statutes and they clearly state that demonstrating no resonable possibility of escape is a required element of an affirmative defense. Can you point to me a case where a woman killed an unarmed would-be rapist and had a court accept an affirmative defense?
    And of course they A human, they’re human beings, not simply elements of them. The difference between them and a newborn is simply a matter of degree of development, not their very nature as it is with the individual elemets such as sperm, ova, or eyelashes.

    I’m not “comparing one to the other” in abilities or ages or sizes, just in humanity status.

    And nice try, but I’ve done more fact-checking than you have. First of all, I said NATIONAL ballots, and the polls I’ve cited are representative of national opinion. You cite three state ballots, each with its own unique problem with extrapolating them as representative of the “general consensus” you speak of: California I have no doubt has a pro-choice majority, it is one of the farthest left states in the U.S. But I’ve gone over this in other posts, but it was before you started commenting. I’ve examined those other two results looking at the exit polls and their languages, and the fact of the matter is the South Dakota ballot failed because its rape exception was considered too ambiguous and putting too large a burden on rape victims in obtaining this exception. Polls showed that with a simple, straight up rape exception this would have passed overwhelmingly. The Colorado one went down because its language was so broad, it could easily have allowed for the banning of birth control as well, and most people don’t want to go that far. I would have voted against the Colorado initiative, despite my pro-life stance, for that reason. So your extrapolation does not work.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not doing the same thing. I’ve named real legal principles for you. The legal principle is that the right to life doesn’t extend over another persons body. Sayna even gave you a specific case. The other legal principle is that I don’t need a specific law that tells me I can take an action to preserve my own rights when no one elses rights are being taken. As long as the right to life doesn’t include the right to another persons body I am using legal rights to back up my decision.

  • invalid-0

    Using birth control would be one step that a woman could take so that a pregnancy that results from rape would be more preventable.

  • invalid-0

    I can’t do something with my car that deprives a bystander/pedestrian of their right to life. Its illegal for me to consent to taking away this other persons life. But when no right exists to begin with yet mine are being violated I have the right to act to protect mine.

  • invalid-0

    So you are stuck having to prove that the right to live extends over anothers body in order to prove that I’ve done something wrong by terminating a pregnancy.

  • pcwhite

    My, my…this messy argument is all over the pages now, isn’t it?  It’s getting difficult to keep up.

     

    The thing is, a random ignorant observer is not an authority when we’re talking about a philosophical issue like abortion.  Their opinion is valuable in a situation like, say, a taste test between Pepsi and Coke.  If random ignorant people made good judges on philosophical issues, then we would just do away with philosophers altogether, wouldn’t we? All an ignorant person would be able to assess is your ability to debate (and let’s face it, Alex…you’re not looking so hot.).

     

    I’m not confident that your arguments would convince the majority of people, but I’ll throw you a bone and say you do manage to convince one.  I’m willing to bet that your argument prevails not due to its intellectual merit but due to its heavy reliance on emotion rather than reason.  You conjure up the image of "killing an innocent human life," and who could resist?  The only person who could is someone informed enough to see through your dishonesty: that actually, in the vast majority of cases, what we’re killing is an organism incapable of thoughts or feelings and thus incapable of being innocent.  It is innocent in precisely the same way that a rock is innocent.

     

    I’ll weigh in with a little emotional wording myself…does a pregnant woman not qualify as innocent life?  Does she not suffer?  Is she incapable of feeling pain?  Does she not deserve to control her reproductive organs?  Does she not deserve the same full and unrestricted life as her fetus’ father?  Argue with that, blackheart.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t consent to endure the outcome of any car wreck. I can override the consequences with medical treatments.

  • mellankelly1

    Just to the denying that the creation of a human life is one possible consequence

    Not one person (including myself) has denied that pregnancy can be a possibility when one engages in vaginal intercourse.  What we take issue with is your supposition that simply because the biological possibility of pregnancy exists, that one is consenting to pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood when they consent to sex… even when they use contraception.  You may want to re-read the comments.

     And all of this stuff about regulation just "women’s" behavior overlooks the fact that I’d say the same things if it were men who got pregnant.

    I disagree… men cannot get pregnant and you’re not asking that men be held accountable for any harm they may cause to a zygote, embryo or fetus.  As men are not the citizens that you wish to deny rights to, you will continue to be regulating only womens behavior.

    And I most certainly value the LIVES of pregnant women, I just don’t value anything other than their LIVES at a higher level than the lives of another human being.

    Women are the only human beings who would be directly affected by the criminalization of abortion.  Please do prove how you are not placing more value on the zygote, embryo or fetus when you wish to bestow rights which people do not even have and which will directly result in the diminution of womens rights… I’ll be waiting.

    Just don’t break out the "anti-choice" term

    f.y.i within the context of this debate, you are anti-choice because you are anti-abortion.  You do not wish for a woman to be able to decide if/when and under what circumstances she wishes to gestate a pregnancy, give birth and parent (or voluntarily relinquish) a child.  And you’re certainly not pro-choice about sex since you opine that consenting to sex = pregnancy.  Keep dancing, we’ll just continue to call you on it… you can’t run away from the words you’ve written.

     And it is merely your opinion that one does not consent to all the consequences WHICH RELATE TO THE CREATION OF HUMAN LIFE but my opinion has logical basis behind it, while yours does not.

    Oh, I must have missed the part where you cited scientific and/or legal sources for your opinions (that consenting to sex is not only consenting to pregnancy but also to gestation, childbirth and parenthood.)  Perhaps you could be a dear and re-post those for me?

    I said it’s about the new life being created, but with the caveat that this can be overridden by the concept of life not extending to the point of using another’s body IF AND ONLY IF there was no consent given, which can apply only in rape cases

    And (thankfully) your personal beliefs are not only nonsensical but utterly unenforceable.  Again… having a personal belief system is all well and good but is an unacceptable reason for criminalizing abortion, not to mention discounting the personal belief systems of every pregnant woman.  Face it, you are just not that important.

     You cannot use your right to bodily autonomy without your right to life, this is what makes life the most basic human right.

    And you cannot dictate what "life" means to any other person.  You do not get to decide that "life" is more important than personal liberties or happiness for any other person. I would gladly give my life in order to ensure the personal liberties of my daughters (including their right to bodily autonomy.)

  • mellankelly1

    I’m not trying to take any right away from pregnant women other than the right to end another’s life

    If you advocate giving control over womens bodies to some form of government you would most certainly be taking rights away from pregnant women.  Discrimination by it’s very definition.  No pregnant woman has the right to kill another person so I call B.S. on that comment.  Simply because you believe a fertilized egg is a person does not mean that women should be denied their citizenship rights.

    And stop trying to speak for me!!!

    Baby, your words speak for themselves.  I merely copy & paste… hate the message, not the messenger and all that.

    This isn’t about my wanting to stop "her private medical decisions" it’s about wanting to stop SPECIFICALLY the ones that end another life

    "Another life?"  There is no "another life" – you want to stop SPEFICALLY women from having sex if they do not wish to gestate, give birth and parent and beyond that you want to SPECIFICALLY stop women from making the best and most moral decisions regarding their pregnancies.  You can word your opinions any way you want but it comes down to controlling the personal and private medical decisions that women make.

    SO no, it doesn’t directly physically affect me, but it sure as hell affects another innocent life

    The effect of terminating a pregnancy is that the woman is no longer pregnant.  Please do share with me the "affect" that this would have on a zygote an embryo or fetus.  You have no problem with how forcing pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood on a woman affects her life… there’s that whole "picking and choosing" which "life" is more valuable recurring theme.

    Ok, it’s what you are making a decision of which its very nature FORCES the unborn to sacrifice its rights for yours even though it CAN’T make opt otherwise.

    A zygote, embryo or fetus does not "sacrifice" anything as it has nothing but biological life (as opposed to death) to give up.  Again, where is your outrage that women will be forced to sacrifice their mental, physical and spiritual well-being (and in some instances, their lives) if they are forced to gestate, give birth and parent (or voluntarily relinquish) a child?  You are very inconsistent with your concern for "life", aren’t you?

  • wendy-banks

    Is it possible that we remove this Alex A-L’s ablity to post?

    I’m tired of,(and I’m sure every one else here) this fool’s demeaning, abusive, and clueless ranting. Nothing we will EVER say will change his mind–He is far to closeminded to ever see that the rights of the mother MUST out weigh the rights of the potental child.

    He is a source of nothing but irritation– And he has done nothing but repeat himself and quote error filled data and half truths (or whole lies) over the past five pages. (That, and prove what a bunch of gits the right-to-life folks are)

  • invalid-0

    “The taking of another’s very life by an active deliberate act is not permissible even to preserve bodily control–only to save one’s very life.”

    “Not permissible”? You’re just making crap up.
    A couple of years ago an old guy in a neighboring town came home and found a 16 year old boy in his house. The boy was there to steal the old guy’s crap, the old guy got his gun and killed the kid, shot him in the back as he (the boy) was trying to escape out a window. There were no charges filed because, legally, the man had the right to defend his property.
    Likewise (and in the same city) a guy had his beater extra car stolen by a 15 year old neighbor. He followed and shot and killed the kid several blocks from his house as the kid was, once again, trying to run away. The car was worth about 600 bucks. No charges were filed against the shooter here.
    So, what are you going to argue, that a man has the right to kill someone trying to steal his TV but that women don’t have the right to bodily sovereignty? .

  • invalid-0

    “Using birth control would be one step that a woman could take so that a pregnancy that results from rape would be more preventable.”

    Why enable?
    Using rapex and/or a gun would be more effective.

    (“RapeX, is a latex sheath embedded with shafts of sharp, inward-facing barbs that would be worn by a woman in her vagina like a tampon. If an attacker were to attempt vaginal rape, their penis would enter the latex sheath and be snagged by the barbs, causing the attacker pain during withdrawal and (ideally) giving the victim time to escape. The condom would remain attached to the attacker’s body when he withdrew and could only be removed surgically, which would alert hospital staff and police. This device could assist in the identification and prosecution of rapists.”)

    The nice thing about the rapex is that it is also effective in preventing the transmission of STD’s.

    That said, in the form of Plan B should be offered to every rape victim

  • invalid-0

    You said we consent to the consequences and she gave you the injury examples from a wreck. We get that you do try to offer up one exception (though unsuccessfully) for the life of the woman. But we aren’t held as if we consented to outcomes just short of death.

  • emma

    Alex, I said you are coming across as controlling, aggressive and domineering, because, in fact, you *are*. You may not be that way IRL, but as you’ve pointed out, we don’t know you, so we can only judge from the way you’re coming across here. Make sense? Why should we concede that you’re not a controlling or dominating person when your behaviour on here indicates otherwise? If you stop writing in a domineering and aggressive way, I’ll revise my opinion of you.

     

    Do you know why I keep commenting on your repeated assertions that you could be civil if only we didn’t keep telling you you’re coming across as controlling? Because it’s classsic abuser behaviour. Anyone who’s ever had experience with an abuser knows how common it is for abusers to tell you that it’s ‘your fault’ they hit you (or whatever other abusive behaviour) because you ‘made them angry’. You’re not hitting, but you’re losing your temper and trying to control and dominate, and then blaming us for it, and that’s one of the major reasons we are getting the impression we are. Why don’t you actually stop and think about what I’m saying, rather than reacting and assuming our impression of you is entirely unjustified?

     

    I was hoping you’d pick up on what I was getting at without my having to spell it out, but since you seem to be choosing not to, well, I’m spelling it out. I’m also going to repeat:  Why don’t you actually stop and think about what I’m saying, rather
    than reacting, losing your temper and assuming our impression of you is entirely
    unjustified?

  • emma

    Two words, Alex: cultural imperialism. You’re infantilising recipients of aid. You’re trying to dictate the priorities of people living in circumstances that would be unthinkable to you. Struggling to feed your family? Much more important you don’t have an abortion! Have HIV or at massive risk of contracting it? Well, that’s ok, as long as you don’t have an abortion. At an extremely high risk of being raped and mutilated (e.g. in Congo)? Well, it’s so much more important that you don’t have an abortion!

     

    And Alex, have you ever thought about the logistical problems with rape exceptions? Bear in mind here that rape is severely underreported, and even when cases are prosecuted, the conviction rate is extremely low. How would you ensure someone had really been raped? What if someone were raped and allowed to abort, but their accused rapist wasn’t convicted (keep in mind: low conviction rate)? Should they be charged? I’m sure you’re aware women who report rapes are often put through hell by the legal system. Don’t you think it would be even more hellish if there were a possibility of police, prosecutors, defense attorneys and so on making the assumption the woman was only making the rape accusation in order to be permitted to have an abortion? Would it not be cruel to put rape victims through this trauma, or at the very least, the extra indignity of being forced to navigate the legal system and beg to be allowed to have an abortion? Remember, there aren’t always detectable signs that rape has occurred, and there are types of coercion that aren’t physical.

     

    How would you resolve these problems?

  • brady-swenson

    Hi Wendy,

    I understand your frustration but we do prefer to keep comments open on this site to all who are able to obey the standard of civility we set out in the commenting policy. That being said, if there are any comments you feel violate the policy please do use the “report comment” form to let us know why.

    That being said, I think it could be a good thing for the anti-choice crowd to prove, with their own words, their error!

    Thanks,
    Brady

  • emma

    I warned you about the use of terms like anti-choice and up until now I remained
    respectful in my labels, but no longer–as long as I am anti-choice you and your ilk will henceforth be referred to as anti-life until such time as you are willing to extend us the same courtesy in your terminology that we have extended to you.

    Are you trying to threaten me, Alex? I would strongly suggest you reread your comment. You are sounding more and more controlling and domineering. You cannot possibly not see it.

    You’ve been respectful in any aspect of your arguments thus far? Really? Where? And who is this ‘we’ of whom you speak? You’re the only person agreeing with you, so it would be accurate and far more honest to use the singular pronoun ‘I’. In addition, ‘your ilk'(!!!) are seldom respectful or even honest in their terminology; I see terms like ‘pro-death’ and ‘pro-abort’ and other such hyperbolic stupidity used with great frequency by anti-choicers here.

    Are you familiar with confirmation bias, Alex? I would guess those who share your beliefs would judge you as having ‘won’ this argument, and pro-choicers would believe the reverse. I think Mellankelly’s kicked your ass, personally, and she’s managed to do so without temper tantrums, threats/implied threats or becoming abusive. Actually, everyone other than you has managed to refrain from abusive language. Interesting.

    If it makes you happy, please feel quite free to refer to me as ‘anti-life’. Since your arguments are an epic failure, I’d hate to deprive you of the small pleasure of using moronic terminology.

  • invalid-0

    Still doesn’t add up in your mis-attempt at a ‘save the life of the woman exception’…especially when you believe the woman could have prevented whole the situation to begin with. And the fetus itself isn’t the threat to the woman..its the condition. Also you chose treating the ‘most innocent’ when treating a drunk driver and a victim. None of your arguments add up in any consistent manner.

  • invalid-0

    Sayna’s not about hiding anything. Once pregnant, a woman is being forced to continue a pregnancy through to childbirth as long as she is impelled by a law.

  • invalid-0

    The car analogy is important as it shows that even though we consent to one act we aren’t held as if we consented to the outcomes if they violate our basic rights. We don’t forfeit our basic rights because we took a risk…we don’t give them up just because we took a risk with a known possible outcome. If we get hit we can sue the other driver and get medical treatment to overcome the outcomes.

    For the flip side analogy, we can’t intentionally plow into innocent pedestrians with our cars either as this deprives them of basic rights. We’re not allowed to consent to taking away anothers basic rights just as we do not consent to giving ours up due to taking a risk.

    As long as the basic right to life doesn’t include the use of anothers body, taking a risk (whether getting pregnant or some other scenario) doesn’t entail forfeiting ones basic right of bodily autonomy to another to maintain their life. The basic right to life doesn’t go that far.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, they are conflicting, because even if it’s true that the right to life doesn’t include the right to another’s body, the right to one’s body also does not include the right to actively take another life. SO they do indeed remain conflicting, and then we are into a value judgement, but it’s perfectly fair to say in the case of conflicting facts, the one that must take precedence is the one that protects the more basic right, meaning the right that without which, one cannot exercise any other right.
    Keep capitalizing, fine, but that doesn’t make the car analogy the equivalent because outcomes that deal with life are in a completely different category as other outcomes.

    And stop making this about “misogyny” or men vs. women!! This is not about “equality.” I’m not asking for men to have the right to end another human life either, nor would I be asking for it if men could get pregnant. It has nothing to do with that, it has to do with protecting life.

  • invalid-0

    ANd that is the problem, that we as a society have not yet progressed to the point where we recognize the right to life that you are claiming does not exist.

  • invalid-0

    No, because you have still yet to prove that your right to your body extends to the point of taking another life. Yet again, conflicting statements even if they’re both true, so again, the one protecting life takes precedent.

  • invalid-0

    Precisely because the method you use to override the consequences does not by its very nature take another person’s life. If it did, you would indeed consent to the outcome of a car wreck.

  • invalid-0

    Name a law that allows you to stop someone from using your body (temporarily) by taking their very life actively. There are none. And not the fact that abortion is legal. We’re debating whether it should be or not, so you can’t use that fact that something is currently legal as the reason for it to remain so. And again, Sayna’s case, that McFall vs. Shimp doesn’t apply here for two reasons. First, the refusal to donate the organs was not the proximiate cause of death, whatever disease the person suffered from was. Also, I’m quite certain that if the refusing party had actually been responsible for the other’s need of the organs in the first place, then I’m pretty sure the court would have required the donation.

  • invalid-0

    And the right to one’s body is not so sacred that it allows one to actively kill another to protect it. And I’m not ignoring anything–I’ve said that no, you’re not bound to endure ALL consequences of something, only consequences that either involve the creation of a human life, or require the taking of one to prevent.

  • invalid-0

    Just to make clear on the medical treatments…
    Regardless of not being able to plow into pedestrians and kill them to avoid a different injury, as this takes away the pedestrians basic rights, we are still not treated as if we consented to endure the injuries in this case either – we are allowed medical treatment to override them. We took a risk, with outcomes, and we override the consequences.

  • invalid-0

    No I don’t have to have a law state that I can take an action if that action doesn’t infringe on any rights. There are lots of things I do every day that no law specifically tells me I can do.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not saying anything about quantity over quality, I said that one does not have the right to END another’s life to preserve their own quality of life. I’ve explained it many times. It’s because what you’re carrying is a human life, which society takes an interest in protecting above all else. Yes, that can be constituted as a value, but many laws are value based. It’s YOUR personal morality that makes the unborn sacrifice itself. ANd no, there’s nothing that says a human being MUST be created period. It was created through a voluntary action, so that invalidates the freedom point. She has the freedom to ensure that life is never created in the first place. And yet a million more times, if you want to go down the “experiences nothing” road, you’re putting several other situations into this category if you do this.

  • invalid-0

    Again you string non-legal standards together. This is analogy is about consent and rights. I do not consent to the use of my body for another, no matter what risk I take. And you haven’t proven the right to life includes the right to anothers body..therefore no right taken at all.

  • invalid-0

    Nor is there a law that says you can take another’s life to stop them from “violating” your body. So yes, you would need to cite a law that allows this. It’s the active taking of another life, which is only permissable as self-defense. Sayna’s case, like I said earlier, first doesn’t work because the refusal to donate wasn’t the proximite cause of death–a disease was–and also person the person being asked to donate wasn’t responsible for the other’s need of the organ in the first place. Try again.

  • invalid-0

    Yes it does allow me abortion as long as the right to life does not include the right to anothers body.

    You’ve provided no evidence and are stringing non-legal standards together. You don’t have consent, you don’t have outcomes, you don’t have the right to life includes the right to anothers body. You fail again.

  • invalid-0

    No, the latter (right to not be stopped from using anothers body to maintain your life) is derived from the first (right to life extends over anothers body). You need the right to life overcoming anothers body in order to protect it as such.

    I only started capitalizing when you started capitalizing at me in another post on this thread.

    You can’t claim anything about ‘if men could get pregnant’ with any level of credibility.

    You fail again.

  • invalid-0

    You are also stringing non-legal standard together. It doesn’t allow you abortion as long as the right to your body doesn’t include the right to take a life. You don’t have that anywhere other than abortion currently being allowed, and again, you can’t justify something by saying it’s currently legal. The consent was the very fact that the action one consents to sometimes creates a human life.

  • invalid-0

    One doesn’t derive from the other, they’re completely seperate, possibly conflicting concepts. You haven’t shown that the right to bodily autonomy extends to the point of directly taking another’s life, and I haven’t shown that the right to life doesn’t extend over another’s body. They are in direct conflict. You say bodily autonomy takes precedence because, I don’t know, just because it does–you say so. I say life takes precedence because without life no other right can be exercised. You can claim without bodily autonomy no other right is worth exercising, but at least it can be, unlike with life.

  • invalid-0

    None of which involve taking another’s life.

  • invalid-0

    No, on the contrary I’m relying on legal standards. As long as the right to life doesn’t include the right to anothers body I’m fully within the law to exercise my rights to my body given there is no legal claim to the contrary.

    We’ve already covered consent…myself, Sanyna, RealistMom etc. and you’ve failed to show that we’re held to endure the outcomes. Until you show that the right to life overcomes anothers body you haven’t built a case that we should endure this one.

  • invalid-0

    The legal claim to the contrary is that you’re not allowed to directly take another life unless it is in self-defense, so unless you can show another example of where it’s permissible to do so to protect bodily autonomy, you, too, are stringing non-rights together.

  • invalid-0

    Yes one does derive from the other. Thats what makes it wrong to kill someone that they have the right to life. But when your rights don’t extend in a certain area, you have no right to be protected in that area if they intrude on anothers rights. The person with the counter right has the right to defend their rights. Thats exactly why the right to life would need to be extended.

    No I didn’t just say that bodily autonomy takes precedent. Sayna gave you a case, so I have no idea why you are claiming I’m just saying it.

    The right to anyones liberties cannot be exercised if they don’t have the right to life. But they too are excluded from using anothers body to maintain their life. Its this way for all people. No ones right to life includes the right to anothers body, even if they need it so they can continue their life and liberties both. We’ve covered this part already. Its the same for all.

  • invalid-0

    You have to show that the right to life includes the right to to anothers body in order to show that its wrong.

  • invalid-0

    As long as the right to life isn’t protected over anothers body the fetus lacks the right to be protected. The right belongs to the woman to stop it.

  • invalid-0

    It still doesn’t work until you can name a principle that allows you to actively take another life. Sayna’s case I’ve addressed three other times, but I don’t know how many different “anonymous”s I’m dealing with here, so I’ll say it again. The organ donation case: the refusal to donate was not the active cause of death–a disease was. And also, the person being asked to donate did not not cause the other’s need for the donation in the first place. If they had, that case might of been decided very differently.

  • invalid-0

    And in the case of a car wreck, no one would be granted the use of my body anyway so there is no ‘precisely’ that limits me from stopping someone from using their body to maintain their life anyway.

  • invalid-0

    should read…

    “from using my body to maintain their life anyway.”

  • invalid-0

    Those two cases are ridiculous. So no, I am not arguing that a man has a right to kill someone trying to kill his TV (unless that person was armed, in which case they are protecting their very life) but I would assume those cases were in the South, where vigilante justice is commonly considered to be acceptable. Whoever made the decision not to file charges apparently was woefully unfamiliar with the concept of self-defense, and what conditions must be met in order to do so. I don’t endorse those decisions in any way, and my guess would be that if you weren’t using them to justify allowing abortion, you wouldn’t either.

  • invalid-0

    No, the legal standard allows me to stop someone from using my body to maintain their life.

    Don’t need a specific self defense law as long as the right to life is not protectable over my body.

  • invalid-0

    Not if she has to actively take its life to stop it.

  • invalid-0

    Don’t need a law to enable you to take an action that does not infringe on someone else’s rights, when protecting your own.

  • invalid-0

    1.02 inches is 2.59 cm. Thanks Realist Mom! Oh and if Alex says “A person’s a person no matter how small.” I’m going to call Dr.Suess’ wife and get her to sue them. =)

  • invalid-0

    Sayna’s case is about the right to life versus the right to ones bodily autonomy. The latter won. You don’t need a law that allows you to exercise your rights when no other counter rights are protectable. Either the right to life overcomes anothers body or it doesn’t. Until then, you can keep trying to string other non-legal standards together but it still doesn’t come up with a protectable right to life over the anothers body.

    No one needs a specific law that allows them to take an action to protect their rights when there is no counter rights at stake.

  • invalid-0

    The right to life doesn’t include the right to use anothers body means that it doesn’t at all. There are no exceptions. If I’m acting to defend my rights where there is no counterbalancing right, I have the right to take active measures.

  • invalid-0

    We get to defend our rights through active or passive measures…as long as we aren’t violating a counter right, and in this case there isn’t one.

  • invalid-0

    And what you’re not acknowledging is the pregnancy IS the creation of a human life. That’s the problem here.
    If you want to claim that men are not the citizens that I wish to deny rights to, the only right I am denying women to is the right to sex with no possible consequences. So the only part of “women’s behavior” I am attempting to regulate is the one that ends a human life, not their sexual behavior. And men don’t have that right to sex with no consequences either, not to mention the fact that if abortion were illegal and thus (certain) women more reluctant to engage in sexual encounters, men are losing some of this “pleasure” as well. I’ve said before that I have no problem with legally holding men 100% financially accountable for a woman’s unwanted pregnancy. (And before you accuse me of this like someone else has earlier, no, I do not think men’s responsibility should be limited to finances, it should include ALL areas, I’m saying that financially is the only way that can be legally regulated.) So the point being yet again that this has nothing to do with equality, and it also doesn’t change the fact that if men could get pregnant, I still wouldn’t be asking for the right to end a human life.
    Yes, I am placing more value on the unborn child’s LIFE than on the woman’s right to anything OTHER THAN LIFE. But it’s not a one-to-one comparison. It’s not a matter of woman vs. unborn, it’s a matter of right vs. right, and life is at the top of that list.
    The only “choice” I am “anti” is the choice that ends another life. So fine, call me “anti-choice-of-abortion” if you wish, but my opposition to the choice of abortion no more makes me against “choice” in general than your support of abortion rights makes you against “life” in general.
    The legal source is the fact that there IS NO legal standard by which one is allowed to take another’s life to protect anything other than their right to their own life.
    Yeah, just like a person’s “personal belief system” that African-Americans were actually human beings was “no reason to ban slavery.” That was pretty tough to enforce too. Read about the history post-emancipation proclamation. Plenty of slave-owners didn’t free their slaves just from that.
    I’m not trying to “dictate what life means to another person”–only recognizing that you most certainly DO get to decide that life overrides another person’s personal liberties or happiness. You don’t get to kill another person if it’ll make you happy to do so. And you have every right to choose to give YOUR OWN life to ensure the personal liberties of your daughters, but you do not have the right to give SOMEONE ELSE’S life to do so.

  • invalid-0

    M,

    Here he goes again…same stuff all refuted.

  • mellankelly1

    That being said, I think it could be a good thing for the anti-choice crowd to prove, with their own words, their error!

    I agree with Brady… they do more harm than good when they start making statements about women’s proper behaviour.  It’s always good to allow others to see that the true agenda of those who abhor abortion and swear up and down that they are merely "pro-life" are more concerned with regulating women’s behaviour and punishing the women who happen to enjoy sex without being open to the possibility of pregnancy.  Misogyny at it’s finest.

  • invalid-0

    “Those two cases are ridiculous.”

    Many gun laws are ridiculous. They are, nevertheless,the law.

    but I would assume those cases were in the South, where vigilante justice is commonly considered to be acceptable.

    Stereotype much?
    No both occurred in a mid sized city on the west coast. There was quite a bit of public uproar because these cowards shot teenage boys in the back. The men were, nevertheless, within their rights and broke no laws. I mentioned these cases in order to point out that you aren’t speaking of the law as it’s written when you make an ass out of yourself telling us what is and is not “permissible” and that people regularly shoot and kill intruders in their homes.
    I could care less what you do and do not endorse. I do not need to “justify” abortion and I particularly do not need to justify abortion to the likes of you. Why waste time trying to reason with a teenaged boy intent on trolling? I was pointing out that your poorly made and misogynistic argument was and is inaccurate as usual no matter how often you use your caps lock key.

  • invalid-0

    for what standard says its illegal to stop someone from using your body to maintain their life. There isn’t a law that covers this. (Pssst: Its not defined in any of our laws because the right to life doesn’t overcome anothers body).

  • invalid-0

    I advocate giving only enough control as is necessary to protect innocent life–something the government takes a compelling interest in, and yes, sometimes restricting other rights in order to protect the most basic right of all. No “citizen” has the right to end another life for reasons other than self-defense, and just because you “believe” what they are killing is not a person is not a reason to deny them their most basic right.

    You’re reading in my words what you want to read. I have no desire to control any private or medical decision other than the ones that affect more than just the woman making that decision. Not to mention that if I’m stopping “specifically” women from sex, that sex would have been with someone else, now wouldn’t it? SO I’m also stopping them. So again, no equality issues here on that point.
    The effect it has on the unborn is to make it DEAD!! If that were how it were affecting the woman, abortion is most certainly a right. I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to say this before it registers. You can disagree with me on the all you want, but I’m not making a judgement about WHOSE rights are more important, only about WHAT rights are more important. Nothing inconsistent about that. When it’s woman’s life vs. unborn’s life, the woman takes precedent. It takes precedent in any case where it’s the same rights that are in question. But when it’s one’s life vs. the other’s anything other than life, life takes precedent. Again, you can disagree with me all you want, but there’s nothing “inconsistant” about that.

  • invalid-0

    Because I’ve refuted everything you’ve said to “refute” me.

  • invalid-0

    It’s also not defined in any of our laws because the right to one’s body does not allow them to ACTIVELY TAKE a life. The point isn’t that you’re stopping them, it’s that you’re stopping them by taking their life.

  • invalid-0

    Your inconsistent – self defense doesn’t allow someone to kill an innocent person to save themselves from a condition they themselves could have prevented and consented to.

  • invalid-0

    Putting the word ACTIVE in caps doesn’t change the equation. I could add ACTIVE in caps or PASSIVE in caps. There is no law that makes it illegal to stop someone from using your body to maintain their life. None. There is no law that stops this, we’re still waiting for you to deliver one.

  • invalid-0

    But Hint – you won’t find it to show it to us because the right to life doesn’t include the right to anothers body. And the person who does hold the rights can defend their rights by both active and passive measures.

  • invalid-0

    And until you can deliver an example onto this blog that shows that the right to life overcomes anothers body…you don’t even begin have a case. You can keep spinning but you won’t have made your case.

  • invalid-0

    Protecting life has NOTHING to do with cultural imperialism. So I guess if one is “struggling to feed their family” then its ok to engage in cannibalism, right? There are limits. Where did I compare HIV risk or rape risks to getting abortions? I didn’t say we shouldn’t give aid to countries that allow abortions, I just said we should stipulate that specifically the money we give cannot be used to fund abortion. We’ve got enough problems to deal with in our own country without that money going to fund abortions overseas (or at home for that matter).

    I understand that there would be logistical problems with rape exceptions, but those problems aren’t a reason to allow abortion on demand. My personal suggestion would be to give the woman the benefit of the doubt on this one and simply say that the rape has to be reported with as accurate a description of the suspect as she can give. (Or if, as in many cases, the woman knows her rapist, she gives his name). I give women the benefit of the doubt that they will not ruin someone’s life in order to obtain an abortion if this were the legal requirement. (It’s more likely here, I think, that a woman would try to get her doctor to make a false claim that her life was in danger if she did not get the abortion, and there are doctors who would still do this.) This would need to be monitored to some extent, but yes, some cases would slip through the cracks. The bottom line, however, is that just because something is not 100% enforceable doesn’t mean one can’t do all one can to do so, and it doesn’t illegitimize a law. No law is 100% enforceable.

  • invalid-0

    You don’t begin to have a case until you can show that the right to bodily autonomy includes the right to take a life.

  • invalid-0

    Not if those means involve taking another life.

  • invalid-0

    No ma’am, I am coming across as controlling, aggressive, and domineering, because that is how you see anyone who does not accept you assertion that anyone has a right to anything other than their own life when the only way to assert that right is the taking of another’s life. But fair enough if you really want to hit below the belt with that abuser reference, because what I’m doing is more like a person defending themself against abuse, but fine, I will politely request of you to not speak for me in telling me what my pro-life position’s “true” motivations or intentions are.

  • invalid-0

    There you go again, trying to keep it in your realm. See the thing is this isn’t really a philosophical debate. It’s based in science, reasoning, and legal logic. But you lose in those realms, so you try to keep it in the one realm where you can at least play to a draw. The best “philosophical” argument you have is that the right to life doesn’t extend as far as someone else’s body, but this is contradicted by the equally valid statement that the right to bodily control does not allow you to physically take another’s life. So there’s your draw. But scientifically and logically, our side wins because of the biological humanity of the unborn coupled with the avoidability of the circumstances in the first place. But if you want to go to an impartial, unbiased source, I’m willing to leave words like “innocent” out of the equation. I’m still confident my arguments would prevail. And a rock doesn’t lack rights because it is innocent, it lacks rights because it is not a human being.
    And to answer your questions, yes, a pregnant woman qualifies as innocent life, but unless her life is threatened by a pregnancy, your protection statement falls flat on its face because you’re protecting something other than her life by taking another’s life. That is true without ever bringing emotion words like innocent into the equation. And so the answer is no, a person does not have the right to “control” over something–organs, unrestricted life–once the point has been reached where the only way to assert that control is by ending another life.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not your “buddy.” And the constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to exercise any of their rights by any method that deprives others of their own basic rights, so yes, it is constitutional to give the government just enough control as is necessary to prevent people from exercising their rights in a way in which they infringe on others’ rights. How many times do I have to explain that I am not picking and choosing which life is more valuable, I am picking and choosing that LIFE in general is more valuable than any other right. Once again, disagree with me all you want about that, but at least acknowledge that this is what I’m doing, not what you contend.

    I have read up on full citizenship rights, and nowhere have I found taking another’s life for any reason other than protecting your own life included in this list. I insist again that you show me a LAW–(and not a court case–O.J. was found not guilty of murder, remember? Translation–court cases can come to the wrong conclusion) that states this.

  • pcwhite

    The abuser reference is hardly a hit below the belt.  Perhaps it only felt that way because it hit right on target.

     

    I have had personal experience dealing with abusive people myself, Alex, and believe me – you’re coming across much the same way.  I want you to do me a favour.  I want you to very carefully read your post with the "abuser-vision" glasses on, and see if you can spot the aggressiveness in your posts by yourself.   You don’t even have to admit it to me when you do see it.  Just try and stretch a bit, to see if you can see what we’re talking about.

     

    When we tell you that your opinions are about controlling women, we’ve got to admit that we can’t read your mind.  I’ll give you a point there…but it’s only a pittance.  We say your stance is misogynistic because of its observable effects – restricting women’s reproductive freedom, and punishing women for unprotected sex.  Your posts don’t place any scrutiny on men at all, even though they share EXACTLY as much responsibility for a pregnant woman’s condition.  That is EXACTLY.  Banning abortion piles all the consequences on the back of the woman, not the man.  And that is why your stance is anti-woman.

     

    I think it’s laughable, actually, that you think you’re defending yourself against abuse, especially given the discrepency of tone between us and yourself.  I have some words for you…"We are only coming across as abusive because that is how you see anyone who does not accept your assertion that embryos have the right to trespass inside a woman’s body."  Look familiar?

  • invalid-0

    The abuser reference was a hit below the belt in that if my losing my temper can be equated to “abuse” so can your trying to speak for me. There is legitimate defense, and there is illegitimate defense, and abuse is generally in repsonse to some perceived “slight” that wasn’t even there in the first place. Assuming you know one’s own thought process in not an “imagined” insult. And yes, I see “aggressiveness” (with regards to protecting life and not being spoken for), but not all aggressive people are abusive. And if you can play the misogyny card again, then I can say that your positions are murderous because of their observable effects–the ending of the life of someone who poses no threat to your own life. So it goes both ways there. I’m more than willing to lay off any imflammatory language I use, but I ask for the same courtesy from you. And I did place scrutiny on men. Because women and men do have some natural unequal burdens from pregnancy, I am willing to tip any scales against men that anyone would wish to propose in order to ensure that it is not only women who are being restricted or “punished” by ending legal abortion on demand. I suggested one example as being that the man becomes 100% responsible for all financial costs incurred by an unplanned pregnancy (because right now money is the only thing that can truly be garnished by a court of law) but if you have a suggestion that goes farther than this under which case you would accept at least the fact that both the man and the woman will have to deal with certain consequences from their action that created a human life, I’m more than open to them.
    Finally, my comparison to protecting myself against the message board equivalent of abuse was not in reference to your disagreeing with me about the status of the unborn or its right, it was in reference to people trying to speak for me and interpret my thoughts and intentions.

  • invalid-0

    You missed a vital point when I chose treating the most innocent first in the case of a drunk driver or victim. I also qualified that both are in equally urgent need of the treatment. That’s the substantive point here.

  • invalid-0

    Since when does case law or common law no longer count as law?

  • pcwhite

    The last time I checked, reason and logic were key to philosophy.  I think anyone but you would say that I was applying reason and logic quite successfully, Alex.  I would say that you are not, because you make it abundantly clear that you rely on a single arbitrary axiom from which your arguments follow: "the unborn has the right to life, even if it has to annex a woman’s body to survive."  I argue with reason; you argue with dogma.

     

    I’m curious, actually, to see if you have argued with science at any point whatsoever.  Your argument does not become scientific the instant you employ the word "science."  You have to…you know…argue with science.

     

    Now that I’m on it…tell me, exactly, why science favours your position.   I’ve stated elsewhere that of course the "unborn" has humanity…because even sperm, eggs, and unconscious body cells are demonstrably human.  That is the science.  It does not follow, however, that science determines that fetuses / embryos / fertilized eggs have the same right to life as fully conscious, fully sentient people.  Debates about "rights" are by their very nature philosophical and not scientific.  Science is the study of physics, biology, and chemistry, not the study of law or morality.

     

    By the way, I suggest you take a refresher course on reading comprehension. "And a rock doesn’t lack rights because it is innocent, it lacks rights because it is not a human being."  If you care to read my post again, you’ll notice I never used the language of "rights" when I referred to the rock.  That point was about innocence and consciousness, and how "innocence" is not a quality you can ascribe to a non-thinking entity.

  • invalid-0

    No I didn’t miss the point, as the timing of both needing treatment at the same time isn’t what I’m taking issue with. Its that you chose the ‘most innocent’ when you had to. If the woman consented to and could have prevented her pregnancy she is not only not ‘the most innocent’ and self defense laws don’t go this far.

  • invalid-0

    No, just it cases where it’s not the actually the pregnant woman’s life that she’s protecting. And I can do this just as much as people can now dictate what the life of an African-American means to someone else. The stage of development is just as arbitrary a distinction as color of skin.

    And yes, we do need polls, because they represent the national opinion–I’ve taken more than a “gander” at CA, CO, and SD, and first, three states are not representative of the entire nation, but more importantly, two of them have nothing to do with what you claim them to. I’ve made this same point in response to another post, but I don’t think it was yours. California definitely is a pro-choice state, no question. But the SD ballot went down because people considered its rape exception to be too complicated and onerous. Colorado’s language would have allowed for birth control to be banned as well, and very few people want to go that far. As I said on other posts, I would have voted against the Colorado provision–doesn’t mean I agree with you on this issue. So again, I wouldn’t be counting your chickens based on those.

  • invalid-0

    It is murderous to discount the life of another human being. (Doomed pregnancies are outside of this equation as well–abortion is acceptable here too, because the life will soon end anyway–this is about euthenasia, not abortion–a seperate debate altogether). I most certainly care about the lives of women, I just care about the lives of the unborn above any rights OTHER THAN their lives. Not believing in the right to take a life does not show disdain. And yes indeed the worth of a woman goes far beyond their biological capacity for becoming pregnant, but the worth of a created life also goes far beyond an “unwanted” consequence of an action one CHOSE to take. And neither does your opinion a fact make. And my point was that it must be put in this same category precisely because of the creation of life. Anything that involves this must be a social contract on a much higher level than anything else. Again, yes, a value statement, but so are many other laws.

  • invalid-0

    Doomed pregnancies? Great, now your giving the right to murder those innocent babies too? What law gives you the right to murder someone even one minute before they die? What happened to their full citizenship rights? Even if someone knows they are going to die in 1 minutes, you can’t kill them. They have the right to not be actively killed even one minute before they’ve lived their entire potential.

    You’re all over the map.

  • invalid-0

    And trying to give it another name doesn’t help. We’re all going to die someday…so all abortion would be euthanasia whether the pregnancy is doomed or not. We’re all doomed to die whether its years from now, days or just minutes.

  • pcwhite

    via dictionary.com…

     

    murder

    1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

     

    oh.  So you can’t say, then, that my stance is murderous.  You can, however, say that my stance involves killing, which is something I have no objection to.  I am not troubled overmuch by the accusation that my political beliefs result in the deaths of creatures that don’t feel or think, because at least that is accurate.  Go ahead and call me anti-embryo, if you like.  I don’t mind.

  • invalid-0

    They are the building blocks to philosophy, just like bricks are the building blocks for buildings. That doesn’t mean everything that uses logic and reason is by definition philosophy. And my “dogma” is based in the scientific fact that the only biological difference between a newborn and an unborn is the degree of development. What it is does not change, only what stage it is in. This is not the case with individual elements of a human being such as sperm, ova, or individual cells. And again, you are ignoring that this is a combination argument. I was using “innocent” in combination with the human life portion, but ok, like I said, I’m willing to take that kind of language out of this debate–I’m confident an impartial observer would still favor my arguments even without the “innocent” language. You’re more than welcome to put it to the test if you know any impartial observers–I don’t know any otherwise I would.

  • invalid-0

    When it isn’t based on any previous statutes. Common law has to derive from other rights, and in this case the other right you rights you want to derive this one from directly contradict with other established rights. You were the ones trying to argue this based on existing law. Yes, case law is technically law, but case law can pervert the law as well. Plessy v. Ferguson for example.

  • invalid-0

    Then I hope you’re ok with the killing of comatose patients, (even ones that will most likely come out of their comas within nine months) because they don’t feel or think either. I also didn’t say that your stance IS murderous–my implication is that your stance is precisely as “murderous” as mine is “misogynistic.”

  • mellankelly1

    And the right to one’s body is not so sacred that it allows one to actively kill another to protect it

    Kill "another" what?  There is no "other".  A woman can terminate her pregnancy when she has decided that it is the best, most moral and responsible decision for herself and her family.  Making "sacred" decisions for pregnant women is not your job… they are perfectly capable of making these "sacred" decisions for themselves

  • invalid-0

    My only “threat” was to break out terminology that I don’t think you wanted to hear or appreciate being referred to by. It’s that simple. As long as I’m “anti-choice” then you are “anti-life.” The moment I am “pro-life” again, then you are “pro-choice” again. Yes, I have been respectful. I have used science, logic, and reason, I have never resorted to name calling (which some of you have–i.e. “damn fool,” “misogynist,” “moron” to name just a few.) The most disrespectful I have ben other than disagreeing with your logic (or lack thereof) has been emphatically exclaiming my wish to not be spoken for or have my thoughts interpreted. By “we” I mean the pro-life community which, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, makes up approximately half of the U.S. combination, male and female. Yes, it does appear that I am one of only two pro-lifers on this board, (with the other being much more extreme in their views than I am) and eventually it is entirely possible that I may have to stop posting simply out of the sheer volume of responses I would have to give, as they are increasing exponentially and it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep up. I work in schools and only have a two week break! So I can’t keep this up too much longer! However, yes indeed I am familiar with confirmation bias, and do you think you are immune to it? That’s why I propsed, just for fun, showing these arguments to someone who does NOT have an opinion on this matter, but that suggestion was rejected (I assume out of fear of my arguments being deemed the more logical and appropriate ones.) So if you want to continue to call my arguments “moronic” get that statement verified by someone who would not be hampered by this comfirmation bias.

  • mellankelly1

     It doesn’t allow you abortion as long as the right to your body doesn’t include the right to take a life.

    Take a deep breath and step away from your keyboard.  Abortion is "allowed"… it is "allowed" precisely because it is not taking another persons life (although, as an aside – it is perfectly legal to take another persons life in self-defense.)  When you argue that it is not legal to take a "life" you must realize that any "living" thing would be included  and that it is simply not true that people are not allowed to take a "life."  We take "life" whenever we eat meat, for crying out loud… we take "life" whenever we create paper… we take "life" whenever we kill the yicky spiders and ants crawling around our house.  Please, can you at least be honest about what you’re talking about?

    The consent was the very fact that the action one consents to sometimes creates a human life

    It is utterly insane to make the statement that anytime a woman engages in vaginal intercourse (even while using contraception… you know, the stuff that prevents pregnancy) that she is consenting to not only pregnancy but gestation, childbirth and parenthood.  Your extremists views regarding human sexuality are almost comical… they would be if you weren’t being so bloody sincere.  Just way YIK!  Keep you ideology out of my vagina, please.

  • mellankelly1

    It still doesn’t work until you can name a principle that allows you to actively take another life

    Again, you bloody fool… people take "life" when they eat meat or wear leather or kill bugs… no "principal" required.

    The organ donation case: the refusal to donate was not the active cause of death–a disease was

    What would that possibly have to do with abortion?  There are no organs to be donated.  The person most qualified to be making decisions regarding her pregnancy is the pregnant woman, just as the person most qualified to be making decisions regarding donating an organ is the organ donor.  Simply because you believe that a zygote is a person is not compelling enough to deny women their citizenship rights.

  • invalid-0

    Not true. Abortions performed after which time as the unborn could survive outside the womb still kills the unborn. The method of abortion doesn’t automatically change when the unborn child is viable. Yes, I know more of the late term abortions are the partial birth variety, but there are still abortions of the same type performed in the early stages performed after the point of viability. Thus it is the procedure itself that is the cause of death, not stopping of the “nourishment” so to speak.

  • invalid-0

    I know about case and common law, thats why I brought them up in response to your comment.

    On the contrary, there no common law has ever upheld that its an established right for the right to live to be protected over the right to anothers body. You have not shown derived a right to life over anothers body, or the derived right to be actively stopped from doing so even if it results in your death from common law.

    Stop spreading the diarrhea you are spewing all over the internet. You pervert the law. Your sickly controlling.

  • invalid-0

    But the prohibition against killing is not derived from anything–it is absolute except when your very life is on the line. Thus, again you have to establish that the right to your bodily autonomy includes the right to kill, otherwise you continue to play to a draw.

  • pcwhite

    I would not be so confident that comotose patients do not think or feel.  If you are actually talking about brain-dead patients, then no, I don’t have a problem with allowing doctors to kill them – as long as that is concordant with the patient’s living will or his/her family’s wishes.  Deciding the course of action to take regarding a comotose patient involves a different set of ethics from abortion, not the least of which being that a comotose patient does not jeopordize another person’s health through his/her existence.  Nobody is going to suffer because a comotose person continues to live.  The situations are not equivalent, because the comotose person does not need to feed off another person to survive: however, the embryo / fetus does, and that’s why we need the option of killing it.

     

    (Hmm…my whimsy is turning.  Allow me to indulge.)

     

    The situations would only be equivalent if humans reproduced by laying eggs.  If the embryo developed outside of the mother, then we wouldn’t even be having this debate; I think we could all agree that smashing a human egg would be morally repugnant.  I think that is the only situation where you can truly be pro-life and not anti-woman, because forcing a woman to gestate her embryo to term amounts to forced labor.  We live in the real world, where women can’t be taken out of the equation when we’re discussing fetal rights.  That’s why abortion needs to be legal: we cannot have second-class citizens who have fewer rights to their own bodies than everyone else.

     

    While I’m here, I think it would be illuminating for you to define your stance specifically.  Do you consider a moral difference, for example, between aborting a two-week-old embryo and aborting a twenty-week-old fetus?  Or do you prefer to argue in vague abstractions, because you hold "life" to be the absolute value in this debate regardless of its ability to suffer?

  • invalid-0

    Diarhhea x 2

    No there is no absolute standard that says if I start violating another persons body that I have the right to continue to do so because my life is on the line.

    There is no draw to be had – you make so much shit up.

  • invalid-0

    Not sure how the topic of post viability abortions or partial birth abortions are coming up. Perhaps to someone else but they are irrelevant to my comments.

  • invalid-0

    So unless you show that there is anything derived from common law that forbids me to actively stop someone from using my body to maintain their life even if it results in their death, its just more diarrhea.

    Its funny that you suddenly now understand that rights are derived…congratulations.

  • pcwhite

    I would assume you have, seeing as you’ve replied to them, but then stranger things have happened.

     

    You’re quite right to say that the only biological difference between born / unborn is the degree of development.  You are not right, however, to say "This is not the case with individual elements of a human being such as sperm, ova, or individual cells."  I’m actually not sure what you mean by "this"; do you mean to say that there is an important difference beyond development between a zygote and an ovum?  My first post (funnily enough on the last page) goes into the arbitrariness of this argument in some detail; perhaps you’d care to read it again?  Here’s a brief refresher: the only discernible difference between the two is chromosome count, which is as irrelevant to this debate as the difference in development between an ovum and a primary oocyte.

     

    Another thing that leads me to believe you’re skimming my posts is your last sentence.  My whole point was that the opinion of an impartial (read "ignorant") observer is irrelevant.  Why would I want to conduct an experiment I thought was irrelevant?

     

    The word "innocent" is not the only piece of dishonesty in your language.  I am actually not ignoring your "combination argument," if by that you mean "innocence" combined with "human being" and other such emotional tripe. Again, please read my other posts.  The point is that you are using emotional, dishonest, and manipulative language to argue your points.  You are not using (good) logic, and you most definitely are not using science.

  • invalid-0

    So its still up to you to show me that my actions are wrong given that no one has ever derived the right to to life to include the right to anothers body.

  • mellankelly1

    And what you’re not acknowledging is the pregnancy IS the creation of a human life.

    A pregnancy begins by the fertilization of an ova by the sperm… the creation of a zygote.  Nobody has denied this fact.

    the only right I am denying women to is the right to sex with no possible consequences

    Women are able to engage in whatever sexual activity they want to engage in… the fact that you wish to regulate this activity is abhorrent.  There are no circumstances in which consenting women are not able to engage in sexual activity… even though pregnancy is a biological possibility.  Luckily, there are measure which can be taken to avoid pregnancy (such as contraception or not engaging in vaginal intercourse during fertile times) but these activities are up to the consenting adults involved.  Under no circumstances should you or I be able to regulate if and/or when a woman can engage in these activities.  You may have issues with sex in general or perhaps just vaginal intercourse wherein pregnancy is not the desired outcome… either way, your opinions about these sexual activities are irrelevant to any person other than you and your partner.  Or maybe you’re simply a control freak.  Who knows?

     So the only part of "women’s behavior" I am attempting to regulate is the one that ends a human life, not their sexual behavior

    Oh, I see… you’re only interested in regulating women’s sexual activity when pregnancy is a possibility.  Okay dear… that is "sexual behaviour."  Got it now?

    And men don’t have that right to sex with no consequences either, not to mention the fact that if abortion were illegal and thus (certain) women more reluctant to engage in sexual encounters,

    Oh, please do feel free to cite your source for you assertion… otherwise this is merely your opinion… and you know how much your opinion means to me?  Or any other woman?  I’m betting you can guess.

    I’ve said before that I have no problem with legally holding men 100% financially accountable for a woman’s unwanted pregnancy

    How very gracious of you… are you also willing to hold men accountable for the physical, psychological and spiritual consequences of pregnancy?  If so… how?

    Yes, I am placing more value on the unborn child’s LIFE than on the woman’s right to anything OTHER THAN LIFE

    Not only are you placing more value on the biological life of the zygote, you are completely discounting the life (physical, mental and spiritual) and personal belief system of the pregnant woman and that of her family – and that is inexcusable.   There are no circumstances in which the pregnant woman’s life, personal belief system and family should be considered insignificant… ever.

    your support of abortion rights makes you against "life" in general.

    I am pro-women (including pregnant women… even if their pregnancy is unwanted.)  You simply cannot say the same.

    The legal source is the fact that there IS NO legal standard by which one is allowed to take another’s life to protect anything other than their right to their own life.

    Not only are people allowed to take life, one could say that people are "encouraged" to take life (particularly when dealing with food and/or insect life.)   And every person (including pregnant women… even when their pregnancies are unwanted) are allowed to make the best and most moral decisions regarding their lives and the lives of their family.

    Yeah, just like a person’s "personal belief system" that African-Americans were actually human beings was "no reason to ban slavery."

    Please do a little research… African Americans were human beings, they weren’t considered "citizens."  Big difference, honey.  Are you actually arguing for zygotes to be considered citizens?  Good luck with all that.

    I’m not trying to "dictate what life means to another person"–only recognizing that you most certainly DO get to decide that life overrides another person’s personal liberties or happiness

    When you make the statement that biological life is more important than a persons life, you are indeed "dictat[ing] what life means to another person"  You do not get to decide the value pregnant women, just as you do not get to decide the value of her pregnancy.

    You don’t get to kill another person if it’ll make you happy to do so

    Please do remind me where I’ve argued that I should be able to kill another person to "make [me] happy".  You keep on reachin’ buddy.

    And you have every right to choose to give YOUR OWN life to ensure the personal liberties of your daughters, but you do not have the right to give SOMEONE ELSE’S life to do so.

    Please do cite where I’ve stated that I have the "right to give someone else’s life" to ensure my daughters personal liberties.  That’s what I thought.

  • mellankelly1

    Then I hope you’re ok with the killing of comatose patients

    Oh yes, lets please do pretend that a comatose patient was never a person… does that mean that zygotes are people before conception?  Now I could see your issue there.  If you believe that zygotes (like people who fall into coma’s) are people prior to becoming fertilized eggs than at least you would be consistent… right?  It would be refreshing to deal with extremists who are at least consistent.

  • mellankelly1

    I think anyone but you would say that I was applying reason and logic quite successfully, Alex. 

    I concur… and I’m an avid lover of philosophy!

  • invalid-0

    Not consent regarding life. Once something you consent to creates life, one cannot withdraw their consent. There being no rights to take away from an “embryo” (look up the root of that word, by the way” is based on a characteristic just as arbitrary as skin color.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t have any dependency in my comments that necessitates the use of procedures that act on the fetus. Thats not a requirement for my argument and can be overcome by using other methods that don’t.

  • invalid-0

    They’re quite relevant, because you claim that the need for the woman’s body rather than the abortion is the proximate causes of death, despite the fact that the same type of abortion can be performed on pre and post viability unborns. SO if the abortion is the proximate cause of death if it’s done on a viable unborn (which its viability makes it such that obviously the cause of death is not its loss of its mother’s body for its support) how then is this same form of abortion NOT the proximate cause of death if the unborn is not yet viable? You have stepped in again, my adversary.

  • invalid-0

    Nor has any common law ever upheld that it’s an established right to assert control over one’s body by killing another human being. You are the one perverting the law, and if you see my stating facts that must be established as “controlling” well that’s your problem, not mine.

  • invalid-0

    Yes I can withdraw my consent at any time…thats only your premise that I can’t. I don’t need to look up embryo. It has no rights, never has had the right to life and even if you call it a human being there is no right to life over anothers body. And I don’t consent to creating life, its involuntary. I only consent to sex so stop telling me what I’m consenting to. You can’t possibly know what I’m consenting to.

  • invalid-0

    Nor is there an absolute standard that allows you to kill to stop your body from being violated in any way other than killed. ANd again, it would be allowed to “violate” another person’s body if said person were responsible for the need to violate their body in the first place.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, as long as the right to life doesn’t include the right to my body I don’t need a specific legal statute to exercise my rights when no competing right exist. There is no ‘responsible for need’ issue either that allows one person to violate anothers body to maintain their life. That has never been enforced either, even when it could be in scenarios outside of pregnancy. The amount of shit you’ve made up is insane.

  • invalid-0

    No I have not sidestepped…

    You haven’t addressed my withdrawal of consent scenario at all, the problem you had brought up.

    I don’t rely on any action taken against the fetus. You are referring to methods that act on the fetus.

  • invalid-0

    Not once the life has already been created. It’s only YOUR premise that you can. It was also the abolitionists “premise” that they had business on the plantation owners’ property. And I apologize, I misspoke, it is “fetus” that you should look up (and fetus is synonomous with embryo) but “fetus” means “little person” in Latin, so I’ve always gotten a kick out of how when people use that term, they just go into another language in order to disguise what they’re really talking about. And yet again, what is preventing an embryo from having that right to life is a characteristic that’s just as arbitary as skin color. ANd creating life is an involuntary consequence of a VOLUNTARY action. It doesn’t matter what you’re consenting to in your MIND–it matters what you’re consenting to in your BODY–which in the case of sex is the possibility of the creation of a human life. And again, you can’t use the line about the right to life not including the right over another’s body, because you have nothing to compare it to, because frankly, the right to life WOULD include the right over another’s body (in a non-life-threatening way) if that person is responsible for the need to use their body in the first place. It’s like McFall vs. Shimp–had the person refusing to donate an organ (if that very action itself wouldn’t kill him/her) been responsible for the other person’s need for the organ in the first place, the court could easily have compelled the donation.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not referring to post viability abortions in my scenario..nor do I require methods used for them. I actually wouldn’t use those. You don’t understand my scenario if you think that.

  • invalid-0

    Again, it’s about the question of what one is consenting to in their mind vs. what they’re consenting to in their body. A woman may not believe she’s consenting to the creation of a human life, but bodily she is consenting to this risk, and once that human life is there, she must prove the self-defense criteria in order to be allowed to take it. They would try to prevent it because they want the chances of it happening to be as low as possible. But they still understand that it’s a possibility. And again we’re back to the fact that this has nothing to do with “propriety” it has to do with biological reality. When you allow each individual their own personal (non-scientific) morality when it comes to what constitutes a human life, that’s a dangerous road to go down, as society has proven over and over, as various societies have branded many individuals as not human beings.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, birth control is covered under this because at THIS point there is no human life–here is where you can use the phrase “potential life” and have it have meaningful distinction, because you are stopping it while it is still merely live human elements required to make up a human life, but the difference between it and a newborn is still more than simply its level of development. If abortion doesn’t violate the unborn’s bodily integrity, I don’t know what a violation of bodily integrity is. And the trouble with Ginsburg’s position is that Casey was based on Roe, which she acknowledges was flawed. And the equality thing doesn’t work, because men aren’t asking to be allowed to end a human life either.

  • invalid-0

    “It’s also not defined in any of our laws because the right to one’s body does not allow them to ACTIVELY TAKE a life.”

    No matter how often you use your caps lock it’s obvious to everyone that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

  • mellankelly1

    I advocate giving only enough control as is necessary to protect innocent life–something the government takes a compelling interest in, and yes, sometimes restricting other rights in order to protect the most basic right of all

    I, for one, am extremely happy that our government takes a compelling interest in protecting our basic rights… it utterly ensures that government will never assume control over our bodies (even the pregnant ones… even when the pregnancies are unwanted.)  I thank God daily that I was born into a country whereby all citizens have basic rights over their own bodies.

    No "citizen" has the right to end anther life for reasons other than self-defense

    Not true… citizens of the US have the right to end life (sometimes for food, sometimes for clothing, sometimes just because we don’t care for spiders… and sometime even as "collateral damage" or "corporal punishment")  What our citizens do not have the right to do is end anther persons life without a legal reason.  Fortunately, no person is killed when a woman terminates her pregnancy (which, by the way is a perfectly legal option for a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.)

    and just because you "believe" what they are killing is not a person is not a reason to deny them their most basic right.

    Oh sweetie… it’s not my opinion. Please do provide proof (scientific, legal or spiritually) that a zygote is a person.  I’m really looking forward to you providing proof of at least something you’ve written.

    You’re reading in my words what you want to read

    I am perfectly capable of comprehending what I’ve read… however, what I cannot do is change the meanings of the words you’ve chosen to use.  Only you are responsible for the words you’ve written.

    The effect it has on the unborn is to make it DEAD!!

    Please explain to me what the affect of ceasing to live will have on the zygote… how, specifically, will this affect the zygotes life?  Because you have no issue with the affect that pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood will have on a woman… why are you so obsessed with the the biological life of a zygote (whereby the alternative is the biological death of a zygote.)  Hey… if you can refer to the zygote as the "unborn", can I refer to people as "undead"?  Like, how can you charge $399 for a dental "spacer" for the "undead"?  That should totally be a valid argument for not paying that bill.  And also… is the unborn ever undead?  That’s deep.

    When it’s woman’s life vs. unborn’s life,

    When it is the physical, mental and spiritual life  of a pregnant woman vs. the biological life of an embryo… I’m going to have to side with the actual person (every. single. time.)  Call me crazy.  What we have here is a difference of opinion.  You choose to value the "life" of a zygote… I happen to value the lives of pregnant women.  If you refuse to recognize that you prefer the biological life of a zygote over the physical, mental and spiritual lives of pregnant women then you will continue to be inconsistent in your argument (that you are "pro-life")

  • invalid-0

    Now you are making rape apologist arguments. And don’t say its because of the ‘creation of life’ – because you only selectively defend that anyway. This is getting really sick.

  • mellankelly1

    It is murderous to discount the life of another human being

    Um… a) no, it’s not and b) what does that have to do with abortion.  The human beings(the pregnant woman) life is not discounted so long as she is the one making decisions regarding her pregnancy (unwanted to doomed)

     I most certainly care about the lives of women

    You certainly care to regulate the sexual activity of women, but you most definitely do not care about the lives of pregnant women ) I most certainly care about the lives of women (particularly not when their pregnancies are unwanted)

     I just care about the lives of the unborn

    And you are perfectly free to have a personal belief system which allows you to believe that the biological capicity for life is on par with the physical, mental and spiritual lives of women… what you cannot do is impose those beliefs on others who do not share this obsession with the zygote.

     

    PS your "creation of life" crap is utterly abhorrent when you wish to use it to infringe upon the rights of people (specifically pregnant women… particularly when their pregnancy is unwanted)  That is just WAY YIK.

  • mellankelly1

    SD ballot went down because people considered its rape exception to be too complicated and onerous.

    That and the fact that most people can see the hypocrisy of those who purport to be "pro-life" making exceptions for a zygote/embryo/fetus which is in no way morally or physically different than any other zygote/embryo fetus.  That’s how my in-laws changed course… their eyes were opened (you’re welcome) to the fact that the conceptus of consensual sex is in no way different than the conseptus of non-consensual sex… I simply asked them to decide which "life" was more compelling: the mental, physical and spiritual life of the pregnant woman or the biological life of the zygote.  Guess what? They chose the woman every single time.  It made them re-evaluate what being "pro-life" actually meant.

  • pcwhite

    …wow.

     

    This is news to me.  Apparently I can consent to something without even knowing it!  My body can consent for me!  That is so ridiculous I’m having trouble even reading your tortured explanation.  Can you point me to any outside source that says your body can consent to one thing where your mind does not?  Even a dictionary entry or wikipedia article?  If you can’t, then it’s just your opinion, and a pretty warped one at that.  You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too: you’re trying to say the woman still consented to pregnancy…even though she didn’t.  Why don’t you just concede that consent to sex is not consent to pregancy?  It would make your arguments make so much more sense, and it would make you look like a lot less of a twit.

     

    What you’re saying seems to be code for "if that careless slut had unprotected sex, she deserves to face the consequences, even if those consequences include gestating an unwanted pregnancy to term."  The word slut is my embellishment, I’ll admit; but it’s a sentiment I see far too often in real life, so I don’t think it’s being unrealistic to include it here.

     

    …and the fact that you abuse the term "biological reality" comes as no surprise, but I must admit I’m a bit incredulous.  Since when was consent in the realm of biology?  And while I’m on it, since when was morality scientific?  I’m not sure you even know what science is.

  • invalid-0

    Men aren’t being asked to maintain life at the expense of their own body either.

    According to what you’re saying fighting off a rapist would violate his bodily autonomy too. I really don’t give a damned if its a man or fetus using me.

  • invalid-0

    I’m like colleen. I’d stop them both, man or fetus, and I don’t give a damned what you think about my decision. I don’t need to justify my own decision to you.

    And if Ginsburg thought Casey were better reasoning then just the right to privacy in Roe, so be it. Even though Casey allowed further restrictions, it did explicitly say that it was upholding the core ruling in Roe.

  • invalid-0

    One can find some flaws in a court case and still uphold some of its ruling.

  • invalid-0

    I personally am not so thrilled about the doctor focus in Roe…at least in the importance given to this specific context and I think there are stronger reasons to add to the privacy one.

    Casey preceeded Ginsburgs appointment. By the time she got to the Supreme Court the Casey decision was already decided so I can’t see why you think shes unfit due to something that was already superceded prior to her arrival with a case she seems to support. Is she supposed to go back in history and change it even though she didn’t have the means?


    Oh wait, considering who the comment came from I guess the answer is yes. Perhaps she wasn’t on the Supreme Court at the time but her body still could have voted even though her mind didn’t.

  • wendy-banks

    If you and Brady say I have to put with the fount of right-to-life wisdom *gags* Over much more sensible people…

    Stupidity just gets my Irish up–I unfortunally inherited the Crotty temperment from my mother’s side of the family– Mellow to bitch in less than a minute…. *Gee, is your hair really that color, or did it burst into flames again from a fit of temper? No, there’s always been that scorch mark above my computer.*

    Goddess bless on this Yule season.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not depriving any single type of person the right to use my body for their life. No one at all is getting it..whether its an embryo or the color of their skin so its not even relevant to bring this up.

    I do have something to compare the right to life over another persons body. McFall vs. Shimp. (Hint: Its because the right to life doesn’t include the right to anothers body…by saying ‘include’ that covers either ‘starting’ to use anothers body or ‘continuing’ to use anothers body). And there is no law that even says if I cause a persons need then I have to maintain their life. There has never been a case where someone has been compelled to have their organs used for another, even in other contexts where they caused a dependency, even when that person actually exists at the time of the act.

  • invalid-0

    EXCUSE ME!!???? I fail to see where ANYTHING I have said here can consitute a “rape apologist” statement. You’re going to have to back that one up.

  • invalid-0

    Depends how you fight off the rapist. You don’t legally have the right to fight him off by killing him unless he’s threating to kill you.

  • emma

    The justification for denying women equal citizenship rights (voting, owning property and so on) as given by most of the early liberal democratic theorists was that women were ‘illogical’, ‘irrational’, ‘unable to control their bodies’ and so forth. Given that, it is difficult not to see your claims about your superior capacity for logic and reasoning and as misogynistic, especially given your controlling behaviour and the fact that you’re advocating the denial of our right to reproductive freedom. I’ll suggest yet again that you reread your previous comments, in which you stated that if you were female, you would hold the same views you do now if you had ‘the same capacity for logical thought [you] do now’, which suggests that opinions differing from yours could only be held be someone without a capacity for logical thought.

    Now, I’m sure you’ll respond with ‘that’s not what I mean! Just because other people think/have thought all women were illogical doesn’t mean I do; I just think you’re wrong and I’m right and you’re putting words in my mouth!!!’, but we often internalise dominant societal beliefs, and I think the fact that you keep emphasising how rational your views are – with the implication that mine aren’t – is significant.

  • invalid-0

    “You don’t legally have the right to fight him off by killing him unless he’s threating to kill you.”

    Sorry to interfere with your fantasy life but, unless you’re a lawyer and willing to identify yourself as such, you have absolutely no business telling women what they can and cannot legally do and it’s pretty clear that you aren’t a lawyer.
    Women always have the right to use lethal force against a rapist.

  • pcwhite

    It particularly struck me that he said I’ve somehow "lost" on the fronts of reason, science, and logic.  I also notice that he gave me more respect before I declared what sex I am…I have no proof of this, of course, but it strikes me as suspicious that he at least attempted to respond to me with civility before I made it obvious that I possess a pair of ovaries.  It was only after this that he told me, baldly, that I lost on the front of reason.  Make of this what you will…it could just be as a product of his frustration at being repeatedly proven wrong, but I don’t think so…he was already shrieking at everyone else before I ever stepped into the debate.

     

    I have to admit, it was a bit of a calculated move on my part to sign on with a unisex screen name.  I’m very aware of people’s internalized misogyny, and I thought it would give me an (unfair?) advantage to allow people to gender me male.  Read my prose in a masculine voice and see if it sounds more authoritative.  It’s kind of a sad world where that cheap trick would even work, isn’t it?

  • mellankelly1

    I’m not your "buddy."

    Oh, sorry… I totally thought you were a dude.

    And the constitution doesn’t guarantee anyone the right to exercise any of their rights by any method that deprives others of their own basic rights,

    Actually it does… but that is irrelevant because there when a woman has made the choice to terminate her unwanted (or doomed) pregnancy, she has not deprived any other person of their rights.  However, if we were to criminalize abortion because Alex believes women shouldn’t be having sex if they do not wish to procreate, we would most certainly be depriving pregnant women of their own basic rights.  So, thank you for making my argument for me (you certainly couldn’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth there, right?)

    How many times do I have to explain that I am not picking and choosing which life is more valuable, I am picking and choosing that LIFE in general is more valuable than any other right

    You opine that a woman’s life is not nearly as valuable as the biological life of a zygote…  I’m afraid that you’re going to have a difficult time proving that you are not choosing the "life" of a zygote over the lives of pregnant women.  And you’re statement that "LIFE" in general is more valuable than any other right is absurd… do you mean that biological life is more important than the physical, emotional and spiritual lives of pregnant women?  I’m going to have to disagree with you there too… and that’s fine because we are both perfectly entitled to our opinions regarding life and personhood.

    I have read up on full citizenship rights, and nowhere have I found taking another’s life for any reason other than protecting your own life included in this list

    What does that have to do with abortion? 

  • emma

    And his insistence that philosophical issues such as whether life is worth living without liberty, the relevance of consent and sentience and whether a woman’s right to personal autonomy outweighs the right of a foetus to be gestated are in fact scientific questions that can be answered by his superior manly capacity for logic, rationality reason is interesting, given these persistent societal notions about women. His arrogant conviction that his superior arguments would convince all these hypothetical people with no opinions on the aforementioned philosophical questions. And the ‘look up the definition of misogyny’ stuff, as if we must lack his superior linguistic knowledge. And yes, I too had noticed that he became particularly obnoxious once you revealed yourself to possess two X chromosomes. 

     

    I’ve been considering the possibility that’s he’s constructed an elaborate persona with the aim of parodying the worst qualities of anti-choicers (and he’s ‘warned me’ that there will be <i>consequences</i> if I continue to be disobedient and insist on using that term!! But he’s not domineering at all. Of course not. Not even a little bit!! /sarcasm). 

     

  • emma

    I’m not going to address each of your comments individually, so it’ll all be in here.
    Alex, I didn’t say you are an abuser. What I’ve written – repeatedly, and I’m not the only one – is that you are using the language of an abuser. Reread your comments. I’m not putting words in your mouth, or telling you what you believe; I’m making judgments based on what you’ve written here, and how you’ve written it. Is there some other information on which I and others should be relying? All I know of you is that which you’ve conveyed here, and the impression I’m getting is not a positive one. When numerous people are stating that you’re coming across in a certain way, it is worth considering whether it’s possible that you are, in fact, coming across that way.

     

    I’m not sure the Anon poster is more extreme than you, and at any rate, they are much more consistent and honest than you. The argument against rape exceptions is abhorrent, but at least it’s logically consistent, which can’t be said for your argument. It’s not logical to argue that innocent human foetal life is only precious and must be preserved at all costs if it was conceived during consensual sex. All it suggests is a desire to punish women (or ‘make them face the consequences of their actions’) who have sex for pleasure, because if it weren’t, the value of human foetal life wouldn’t be variable (to you). In fact, unless you’re coming from an anthropocentric religious perspective, I’m not sure why the humanity of a foetus is relevant at all. A life is a life, is it not?

     

    You’re displaying an awful lot of arrogance, Alex, with the insistence that any unbiased reader – if one existed, which seems unlikely – would see that your arguments are superior to everyone else’s.
    Why do you so object to being referred to as ‘anti-choice’? You do not want women to be allowed to make the decision (or choice) to terminate a pregnancy/have an abortion/kill a foetus. As women, we are telling you this would have a major impact on our reproductive lives and ability to exercise personal autonomy. Since you want to use the force of law to ban us from making decisions in a way that would have a potentially massive and negative effect on our lives, it is fair to refer to you – or at the least, to your stance on this issue – as anti-choice. As I wrote previously, you are quite welcome to refer to me as anti-life or pro-death if it pleases you to do so; it’s your choice. I maintain the right, however, to think you’re being juvenile and utilising hyperbole.

     

    Regarding cultural imperialism (no need to respond to this part; it’s relevant to the topic of Rick Warren, but not to the thread as it’s developed): at this point in time, the US is in no position to be dictating morality to other nations. The point of aid money is that it’s spent by or within the recipient country to address problems to specific to that country. If people ‘on the ground’, as it were, determine that legal, accessible abortion provision is likely to improve the conditions of the lives of people within countries receiving aid (e.g. to reduce maternal mortality rates), then it is appropriate for them to be able to use aid money as they see fit, without having Westerners with the luxury of pontificating on the internet imposing their pro-foetus morality.

     

    Some countries are almost entirely dependent on foreign aid, so banning aid funding from being spent on abortion means that abortion is functionally inaccessible in such countries, thus, what you’re trying to do is hold those countries hostage unless they accept your priorities. Poverty in the global South has, at least in part, been created/increased by Western colonialism, economic policy and warmongering, and what you’re suggesting is a form of power-mongering.

     

    Finally, it’s really a bit much to expect others to show respect and civility when you’re unable or unwilling to do so yourself.

  • invalid-0

    Umm, a discussion on any proximate cause even being applicable has to do with *legally* recognized injury and liability. It goes back to the same general discussion elsewhere in this thread on the extent of rights and life not overcoming anothers body, not necessarily constraining on this treatment design/withdrawal issue per se.

  • therealistmom

    … I don’t think he’s a parody or a sock puppet. Despite the ALL CAPS he comes across as pretty literate if not always logical. Someone who was attempting to parody would most likely be blatant and add in the overblown punctuation, poor grammar, and incoherence common in internet troll-dom.

  • invalid-0

    You know, I’m still going to try to respond to as much of this stuff as I can when I get a few minutes, but like I commented in an earlier, they are growing exponentially, and I’m only one determined advocate for the protection of all human life (and the other one on this board again is not really much of a friend to me, given the fact that s/he is FAR more extreme than I am on this matter). However, I will no longer go crazy over every little comment posted here that attempts (unsuccessfully) to refute any point of mine, because you have just told me all I need to know about the nature of those posting on this board, when you made your inquiry about “removing” my ability to post. You don’t like what you’re hearing, maybe it even makes you a bit uncomfortable to be shown such glaring gaps in your logic, I don’t know, so you declare yourselves the winners and then try to, as I’ve said before, stick your fingers in your ears and shut out or shut up anyone who dares to question your acceptable ways of thinking. Stifling and silencing dissent and calling your adversary names. Very mature indeed.

  • invalid-0

    Wow, you are one paranoid lady, that’s for sure. I’ll have you know that the first time I was aware that you “possess a pair of ovaries” was right now when I read that very line in your last post. I was not even thinking about your gender, and I had no idea what it was until just now. My change in attitude towards you had everything to do with the arguments you started making, and nothing more. I’ll also have you know that if Emma, Colleen, melankelly1, and anyone else I have been responding to were men, I would handled the debate in the exact same way I have been. I respond to what is said, NOT who is saying it. And how, you ask, do I know what I’d do? Well, because I’ve had these same arguments with males in the past, using the very arguments you are using, simply substituting the words “they” or “she” for the “I” or “we” when I am debating women, and I have spoken in precisely the same way to them. Yes indeed, I get a little cranky and passionate when it comes to protecting human life, no matter who I am arguing with.

  • invalid-0

    So bottom line is what was originally in several posts up….Even when consent truly was freely given, the right to withdraw ones consent from intrusions into ones own body when the intrusion is needed to maintain or save the life of another is allowed in ethics.
    Regardless of the moving goalposts returned in the replies here, any type of abortion method constraints versus proximate causes involves the separate issue of the extent of the right to life in order to establish that there is a legal injury to even recognize.

  • invalid-0

    ….as long as life isn’t protectable over anothers body, stopping someone from using ones body to maintain their life isn’t a legal injury to them.

  • invalid-0

    to be clear in my wording…

    “…as long as life isn’t protectable over anothers body, stopping someone from using ones body to maintain their life isn’t considered an injury to them that is legally recognized.”

  • pcwhite

    I tried to make it clear in my posting that I was merely speculating, Alex, based on the suspicious smell of misogyny in the air.  You are entitled to defend yourself.  But kindly don’t call me a "paranoid lady"; you can defend yourself without treating me with that kind of belittling disrespect.  Given the context of this debate, it is perfectly reasonable for me to wonder if your pig-headed dumbassery rears its head most prominently when you’re dealing with people you perceive to be female.  (Actually, concerns about sexism are relevant in pretty much any internet debate, because misogyny is a pervasive little bastard that seems to have infected everyone in Western society.)

     

    Hmm…your use of "paranoid lady" leads me to think you’re proving my point for me, albeit in a different post than the ones to which I was referring.  I wonder why you chose the word "lady."  In my experience that term is itself misogynistic; I’ve never heard a woman referred to as "lady" unless the speaker was trying to put her down.  ("Look, lady"; "listen, lady"; "whoa, lady"; etc.) I sincerely doubt you meant it as a term of formal, old-fashioned respect.

     

    By the way…if you were only made aware of the fact that I possess a pair of ovaries after reading that last line in my post, it either means 1) you didn’t bother to read my other posts on this very same page, 2) you DID read those posts, but are severely lacking in reading comprehension [hint: when someone refers to "my eggs," that tends to indicate the possession of ovaries], or 3) you’re flat out lying.  I think 1 is the most likely, but this is another claim I don’t have adequate evidence to prove.  It’s also the most generous on my part.

     

    One final point.  If you want to avoid being called a misogynist, then it’s generally the best approach to just debate with us in a civil manner.  That is a small side benefit of not looking like a petulant adolescent.

  • emma

    Hmm…your use of “paranoid lady” leads me to think you’re proving my point for me, albeit in a different post than the ones to which I was referring. I wonder why you chose the word “lady.” In my experience that term is itself misogynistic; I’ve never heard a woman referred to as “lady” unless the speaker was trying to put her down. (“Look, lady”; “listen, lady”; “whoa, lady”; etc.) I sincerely doubt you meant it as a term of formal, old-fashioned respect.

    I thought the same thing, and ditto with the use of “ma’am”. A more appropriate – although still obnoxious – statement would have been something along the lines of ‘wow, you are paranoid’.

    And Alex — you’re making excuses. We get rather passionate ourselves when defending our right to bodily autonomy, but none of us are CYBER-YELLING!!!!, trying to dictate the terms of the debate, and so forth, and then refusing to take ‘personal responsibility’ for our behaviour.

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

    you talk about women consenting to sex which means they are consenting to the consequences up to and including std/sti and pregnancy. but i have to wonder if you understand what that word means to a woman. we are pressured, almost hourly it seems, to give our bodies to men because they ask for them. we are told we’ll do it if we love you. we’re told if we don’t do it we won’t be socially acceptable or we’ll cause you pain. we’re told that our only value is in our ability to be a sexual object. we’re told we have to because you spent all this money on our date, so we owe you.

    now add to that the fact that most women who find themselves facing the question of abortion are underprivileged women, women living with poverty, women who (thanks to abstinence only sex ed) never learned about their options when it comes to protecting themselves, and/or women who live every day with social and religious pressures to be submissive to the wants and desires of men. tell me a woman under those circumstances has the option to consent. tell me the woman faced with the option of consent or force isn’t going to acquiesce. because oh, yeah… less than 4% of rapes are stranger rapes. leaving the majority to be carried out by husbands, brothers, lovers, friends, bosses, co-workers or that guy you met at the bar.

  • invalid-0

    Just wondering if I would be welcome here, you all seem to have the “science and law” stuff down pretty well, anyone open to some heart?

  • mellankelly1

    I suppose by "post abortive" you mean any woman who has personally experienced abortion.  There are many women who have posted about their personal experiences with terminating their pregnancies.  I’ve shared my story and I am always interested in the experiences of others so please feel free… good, bad or indifferent, it is always a wonderful thing for women to share their story so that the stigma surrounding abortion can finally be ended.  What people need to understand is that every woman is different, every woman’s experience with abortion is different… and no persons experience should dictate what other women can or should do regarding their unwanted or doomed pregnancies.

  • therealistmom

    posters on this board would say they care a gret deal about what a woman experiences post-abortion. (Which is what I assume you are getting at… post-abortive sounds as if one is talking to the product of an abortion which, well… aside from a few extremely looney anti-choice sites I can’t say I’ve seen happen.)

    I think the issue is, is that there are a great many people who are against a woman’s right to choose abortion who simply cannot acknowledge that we are dealing with living, breathing, feeling women. In order to maintain their lofty ideal of "saving the innocent babiez!111!!" they have to reduce the woman to a less than fully human status. That leaves two options for them to view women having experienced abortion:

     – The horrid slut who goes out and kills their baby without ever understanding what horrible act she is doing. That is why we should force them to watch ultrasounds or give them false information on fetal development, because they are too stupid and evil to comprehend they are KILLING A BABY!!11!! Those women obviously feel nothing.

    – The woman who was coerced into having an abortion by the evil Planned Parenthood people for profit, or lied to about what it was they were doing, or were bullied into the procedure. Because they were too naive to understand what they were doing at the time, or too scared to fight back (do we see a trend here?) they run into a spiral of guilt manifesting itself as Post Abortion Syndrome, when they realize the KILLED A BABY!11! and become self-loathing whores, suicidal, or otherwise self-destructive.

     The woman they CAN’T acknowledge is the real face of the majority of women who have to choose. It is an agonizing decision; even if one doesn’t believe an embryo/ fetus  is a ‘person’, knowing that you carry the potential there is very powerful. For whatever reason thatthey choose to end the pregnancy, it is intensely personal and thought-out. When it is all over they almost always report… relief. The choice has been made, the procedure done. Might there be some what ifs? Sure, anytime one makes a life altering decision there will be some self doubt. It’s important that the woman be able to feel in control of her own body and life. This is the woman after abortion in the vast majority of cases.

    • invalid-0

      Though you were rid of me, eh? Like I said before, I’m no longer trying answer every little point, because you’ve shown your true colors to me when you tried to have me “banned” from this board, which shows me that I don’t need to dignify every point made, but I just came back to take a look at what’s been said recently (especially now that Obama is starting to show that his “finding common ground” argument was nothing more than a bad joke–there’s NOTHING “common ground” about making ME finance abortions with my tax dollars–it’s one thing to be pro-choice, it’s quite another to use the tax money of those of us who do believe it to be murder to bankroll that very action. “Common ground” would at least assure people like myself that while we’ll still allow abortion, not ONE PENNY of our tax dollars will go to finance it), but I digress. Here you types go speaking for us pro-lifers again. Your comment, TheRealistMom, about the “two possible ways” that pro-lifers look at women who have had abortions, well, neither of those applies to THIS pro-lifer. My view of women who have had abortions is similar to how I regard certain 19th century slave owners. Before you start hollering at me, let me explain this one: most 19th century slave owners were not bad or evil people, or even necessarily naive. They were simply products of their times, and their views within their times had not caught up to reality yet. Don’t get me wrong, slavery (and abortion) are wrong for ALL times, but because some times don’t realize that, you can’t necessarily fault all people within those times for engaging in these practices. Eventually we came around on slavery, and I am confident that we will on abortion too–we’ll one day look back and, just like we ask ourselves now, “is it really possible that we once didn’t consider blacks to be human beings”, we’ll one day say the same about the unborn.

  • invalid-0

    OK, here goes:
    I am post abortive, meaning that my life was changed by my choice to abort. I was the mother (that is what women are called when they are or were pregnant whether their offspring lives or dies, whether they want the title or not, they are not carriers of genetic material, breeders or incubators) of three aborted babies, “potential lives” as you like to refer to them. My babies were terminated by me and my abortionist (that is what I call the person who I paid money to so that the motherhood of my three babies would be ended).
    I was very pro-life in 1977 (age 18) when I had my first abortion. I even wore my pro-life bracelet to my first abortion death (this is my story, I have the choice to call abortion the death of my child, my choice, my verbiage!) I think that, like many women, I thought that after abortion my life would return to “normal”, for some women it may have, for me it never did.
    By the time of my second child’s death by abortion (brought on again by my abortionist and I), my life was starting to unravel. I just wanted the pregnancy over, so I could ditch the father (that is guy who gave me the sperm that assisted in the creation of said temintion). SIDE NOTE: He wanted me to have the child and he would have been willing to raise it, even if I was not willing to do so. But, I had the final CHOICE, so I denied HIM his right to be a father (not very JUST of me, was it?) ADDITIONAL SIDE NOTE: Interestingly, father’s rights are not taken into account when abortion is being chosen, yet it is partly their genetic material that is at risk. It seems a bit lopsided considering that a father has no CHOICE about paying child support if the child (partially his genetic material) is brought to term. In fact, he can be court ordered to pay and subsequently thrown in jail for NOT providing $! DOUBLE STANDARD ANYONE? WAKE UP MEN!!!!
    But I digress . . .
    At the time of my third abortion, I just wanted it to be over, so that I could get on with my life, as crummy as it was at the time. This time, my abortionist, showed me the result of the procedure – -a brownish mass that was my baby’s fetal remains (close to 12 weeks) and placenta. At the time I thought he was a jerk, I was paying HIM to get rid of my pregnancy and HE was showing me the outcome? Who did he think HE was, confronting me with that?? SIDE NOTE: Today I would have to say that he may have been tired of repeat customers; he had also done abortion #2. Maybe he had the right idea about forcing me to look at reality. Reality bites, doesn’t it?).
    The circumstances surrounding how I became pregnant are not important to this post, so I will not include them other then to say that I fully made the choice to be sexually involved; I fully made the choice to educate myself about birth control, but not to use it; and I fully made the choice to use abortion to avoid the biological outcome of sexual intercourse which can be a pregnancy.
    Now, if you respond to me with judgment for having multiple abortions or for not using birth control, I will have to ask why YOU are judging me for exercising my right to choose. SIDE NOTE: At a Washington DC rally 2 years ago, I was confronted by a young woman who did “judge” me for my “choices” when she saw my “I Regret MY Abortion” sign. She stated that “one abortion was understandable, but three, that was awful.” I wanted to ask her why, if one abortion was ok, why not 2 or 3 or twenty per woman? That is what choice is all about, right? Above all else abortion is, presumably, our unlimited ability as women to control our bodies. Yet she, a placard carrying NARAL supporter, did not seem very supportive of my choice. She was judging me, a fellow female, for exercising my right to choose, how terribly intolerant! She was implying that I had abused my freedom of choice and that my choice had limits, what a novel position coming from that side of the issue.
    I found my self pregnant for a 4th time and was seeking another abortion. But I was out of cash and into my 4th month of the pregnancy. Circumstances finally caused me to slow down and consider the other life involved in my crisis. I carried my son and chose adoption for his future. Imagine, me, a previously self-protective and self-preserving person, actually thinking past myself and about the interests of someone else. It was a miracle! I have came to realize that my abortions were all about me and my love of myself and that my son’s adoption was all about him and what was best for his future. That, my firneds, is my post abortion reality!

    Parenthood is all about sacrifice and love for the good of another person, whether you choose to socially parent the child or to release the child into an adoptive home. I have come to understand that parenthood begins when you see those 2 lines on the pregnancy test, the question before each of us really is: What kind of a parent am I going to be: a sacrificial one or a selfish one? It is a sad state of affairs when women ( I am incuding myself, so I am not judgeing anyone) believe that the only way to be truly equal or free in our couture is to have the power to terminate our offspring. We have bought into a lie that abortion will set us free or somehow empower us to achieve our full potential. Abortion diminishes us and strips us of our humanity as women. Why do we feel “empowered” when we can terminate our offspring, yet if someone else harmed the developing child in our wombs we would demand justice and/or do all in our power to stop the harm from occurring? I think that we want it both ways and that, my friends, is not intellectually or spiritually honest.

    I often speak to women who are thinking about having an abortion. When I ask them if they have considered adoption for their child, they invariably say they would never “give my child away to someone else to raise.” They often add, “What if an adoptive parent abuses my child?” I find it fascinating that when abortion is being considered (for the benefit of the born people) the fetus’ future well- being is not considered; however, the option of adoption is often rejected (by the born people who have control) based on a fear that the child’s future well-being and safety might be in jeopardy at the hands of others. All the while, they are planning to end the existence of the child (dare I say abuse the child or take away its opportunity to live, what if that child is a female, what of her potential loss of choice).

    ronic, isn’t it that this same “potential” life creates such different thoughts based on personal convenience and perception. “If I can’t raise the child, no one can” to me smacks of ultimate selfishness (I can say that because I have uttered those same objections myself, prior to getting my selfentered-ness out of the way).
    If I was planning to throw out a “potential” human being because I did not want to be a parent at this time (insert whatever reason you want), why should someone else not be able to retrieve said “potential” human being to love and nurture. Seems like a waste of valuable “potential” to me.
    Using different terms to describe something doesn’t change the reality of what it is. Semantics like these are used for the comfort of those making the choice, so we don’t face the reality of our choice. Again, reality bites, doesn’t it?

    So, back to me: No one forced me to abort, I was not coerced by Planned Parenthood or a partner, nor was I uninformed about fetal development. I was the one responsible for my abortions, I live with the consequences and they are NEGATIVE. One major consequence for me occurred at the time of the delivery of my son, the first child I allowed to be born. After delivering my placenta I hemorrhaged 1,800 cc of blood. You see, my uterus had so much scar tissue from my previous abortions that it had a hard time shutting down. I required a transfusion to stabilize my situation.

    Other women (and men) may not have not been free from coercion to abort either by parents, boyfriends, spouses. Or they may have been like me, determined not to have the child for multiple personal reasons. There are obviously many complicating factors that can affect a women’s perspective on a pregnancy. But let’s be honest, 98% of the time (Guttemacher Statistics) women choose abortion because they “just do not want to be pregnant at this time in their lives.” The red herrings of rape, incest, fetal anomalies, etc. (all very tragic and challenging factors) serve only as a distraction to the real issue: We as human beings are self centered and often do not wish to sacrifice for the good of others if it costs us too much emotionally, physically or socially.

    There is grief after abortion (my reality). What is the griever grieving, if not for a child? A woman who miscarries is allowed to grieve; post abortive men and women are however encouarged to stiffle in, it might hurt the cause. Yet we can’t.

    A woman who miscarries is not told that she should not grieve. Because she “wanted” her baby she is given societal permission to cry. The truth about post abortive men and women, like me, is that we do grieve the loss of our children, even though they died because of our actions. Just like a miscarrying mother, we do not grieve the loss of our “products of conception” or the loss of a “potential” life, we grieve for our babies. We would be considered insensitive if we went to comfort someone who had a miscarriage and told her “we were sorry for the loss of her “products of conception.” Our children were alive, they had life, abortion ended that life, let us cry!!!!!! Be intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a loss!

    If this were not true, why are some abortion providers offering post abortion grieving and even funerals for the “products of conception.” There are post abortion support chat rooms offering support to women who have aborted, what are they all as sad about? And this choice was supposed to set us free? This is a proverbial crock!

    Whatever the circumstances of an abortion, for most women and men (men don’t physically experience abortion, yet they grieve for their lost children) it is not only hormones that bring on this sadness, could it be love?

    For others to devalue and diminish our experiences post-abortively is to deny us our truth, as different as I may be from women who may not struggle. By you telling us that we are on the fringes of the issue is highly disrespectful of our personal experiences as post abortive women and men. WE ARE THE ISSUE, you can’t ABORT our reality! We are the survivors of the choice of abortion, though our children were not so fortunate. We are not going away, we will speak our truth and tell our stories and warn others of the after affects of abortion: mentally, physically, and spiritually so that others will not need to suffer as we have. Those of us who have survived, will stand together to offer women (and men) who are struggling with the after affects of abortion on their lives a place of hope and healing.

    On the front end, before a woman chooses abortion, our stories can serve as another source of information for her as she makes her decision. Lying to a woman and telling her that there are no after affects from having an abortion is not in her best interests, I don’t need someone to give my post abortion trauma a physiological label or approval from the AMA for it to be valid.

    So, there you have it, my experiences, my opinion, my reality. I have not covered the spiritual aspects of abortion but if you want to I can gladly discuss that part of if. If you want to read more stories of men and women who are not ecstatically happy with the outcome of their choice, check out http://www.silentnomore.org.

    Or check out my website at http://www.metrowomenscenter.org to see what I am doing today to help others in the midst of challenging pregnancy situations. Not everyone will listen, but I hope no one will ever say that they did not know there were other options for themselves and their children.

    Thanks for listening – bring it on! (smiling!)
    Colleen

  • mellankelly1

    I think it is a wonderful thing to share your story… why is it that you seem so angry?  Every woman is different and each person is entitled to feel whatever she feels regarding her abortion.  Just as each woman is entitled to her own personal beliefs regarding life, personhood, and what certain words mean to her (i.e. their "verbiage.")  I resent the implications that because an individual disagrees with your terminology or has had a much more positive abortion experience that they are somehow being intellectually or spiritually dishonest.  Not only am I completely and utterly pleased (yes…, happy, satisfied… at times even elated) that abortion was an option for me but I can say without hesitation that I would absolutely terminate a pregnancy under those same circumstances again.  Which is why I am determined to keep this medical procedure legal (i.e. safe.)

     

    Obviously I think it is important for women to share their experiences (good, bad or indifferent) so I am in no way making the statement that your experience is somehow less relevant than mine.  What I’d like you to understand (which I don’t believe, based on your writing, that you do) is that your experience is significant within the realm of your life just as my experience is significant within the realm of my life.  I would never presume to tell a woman that because of my positive experience that she should absolutely terminate her pregnancy.  I believe that the person most qualified to be making decisions regarding her unwanted or doomed pregnancy is the pregnant woman… not you or I based on our personal experience.  Sure, you could absolutely share your abortion experience with a woman contemplating abortion just as I would share my own… what is ludichrist is the implication that either of our experiences should dictate what other women can or should do regarding their unwanted or doomed pregnancies.  I would hate to think that a woman’s negative experience with pregnancy, childbirth and/or parenthood should dictate whether or not some stranger should have her child.  Would you agree?

    As always, thanks for sharing!

  • colleen

     

    "Be intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a loss!"

     

    Clearly there was at least a theoretical loss for you. You will no doubt be angry to hear
    that for most of the women I know who have had abortions this wasn’t
    true. "Relief" is the most frequent adjective(Although the women I know
    who have had abortions generally had just one and then decided to use
    contraceptives.) Indeed the women I know who experience a sense of
    endless loss are those who were forced into what used to be called a
    ‘Home for Unwed Mothers’ and then were forced to adopt their babies
    out. I assure you that women are not lying or being intellectually
    dishonest about their experiences with abortion. Their experiences
    were/are different from what you describe. Are you angry because we’re
    not ashamed, grieving and repentant? Is that part of what you call the
    ‘spiritual aspects’?

     

     

  • invalid-0

    Sweetie, you sound horribly confused and conflicted. First of all, what I cannot comprehend at all about your story, is why — if you were so totally pro-life as you claim to be — then why in the world did you then get not one, but three abortions? Of course, if you are pro-life to begin with then you will have very torn emotions if you do something about which you have negative emotions. And then do it three times. What were you thinking? I don’t get it, at all. I think you need some serious counseling. You have some real emotional issues that you have not addressed. And this is not the right forum for you to get help. You will only succeed in confusing other vulnerable people if you continue to try and solve your problems by telling your confused painful story to other people.

  • invalid-0

    I know that fear drove me to choose abortion so mnay times, I was not thinking of the life of the child, I was thinking about preserving me, and that was very selfish of me. I own the responisbility for abandoning what I knew to be right for the sake of my own future.

    My children could have been given a chance at life, but I chose not to allow that because I had the power to decide, For me that power caused someone elses future to be eliminated. That is my post abortion reality.

    I am angry that our culture uses semantics to hide behind the realities of the loss of a child through abortion by using scinetific terms when motherhood and fatherhod are about heart not science.

    When you say woman “had to choose abortion” it makes it sound as though there were not other choices to be made, ie: “could not” choose to parent or “could not” choose to make an adoption plan for the child. It makes it appear that a women was somehow “unable” or “inhibitted” from choosing those options, or in some cases that those options would somehow destroy her, that underestimates a woman’s ability to overcome challanges that she may be facing by walking through a situation, instead of eliminating it.

    The real issue is that men and women “won’t” choose those other options because they involve sacrifice, exposure, loss of freedom, financial harldship, etc. and we are often prone to self presrevative behavior when faced with tough decisions. I say that because it was what I did and it is what I see women and men continually doing today.

    Abortion Safety: The abortion proceedure is never safe for the child, who half the time is a female. (Did she get to choose?) Just a thought.

    My experience is relevent to my life and I share it so that others might be cautioned before making a permanent desicion about terminating a pregnancy based on fear of adoption or parenting or finances. What they do with the information is thier desicion. I struggle to understand how anyone would be “elated” over the termination of a pregnancy, maybe you can help me understand that?

    As for women experiencing “relief” after abortion, of course we did, the crisis is over. The information/statistic about women experiencing relief after abortion, I belive, comes from initial interviews right after the proceedure at abortion clinics. Most of us do feel initial relief after any major event we face that involves emotions. The question is, what about those of us who knew the moment the proceedure was over that we had made a horrible choice and sturggle with that from day one or 5 years, 10 years down the road? I have spoken with with women who aborted their children over 25 years ago and still regret their decision.

    I am not angry at women who are post abortive, if a person does not regret or have issues regarding her abortion that is her business. There are thousands of us, however, who do have post abortion regret, remorse, and yes, guilt for having taken the life of our children throgh abortion.

    I am angry that people want to “sanitize” abortion by making it seem to be just another medical proceedure without acknowledging that something (someone, even) is lost. If a women is not “ashamed, repentant or grieving” as you say, again that is her business, but that does not mean that abortion is right or that others will not experience it in a different way.

    Women who were forced into homes for unwed mothers as you describe, of course, often had horrible experiences and were often mistreated by the system. That is why it is important for us to support women who are experiecing unplanned for pregnancies with dignity and respect by providing alterntives to termination of the pregnancy such as parenting support and humane adoption practices, and here’s a novel idea, holding the father of the child accountable for suopport and help. Fredricka Matthews Green wrote in her book “REAL CHOICES” that(and this in not an exact quote): “Women do not want an abortion like they want an ice cream cone or a Porche, they want one like a bear caught in a trap wants to gnaw its leg off to get away.” She was a feminist who challenges us to think about better ways to help women expereincing unplanned pregnancies with more them just offering the abortions, but offereng them real support, interesting read!

    I am a very happy lady, I am just also very passionate about this issue, I have had counseling to resolve my post abortion issues so I do not continue to carry that burdon with me today.

    Gotta run, more to say but enough for now!

    Good talking to you!

  • mellankelly1

     I am angry that our culture uses semantics to hide behind the realities of the loss of a child through abortion by using scinetific terms when motherhood and fatherhod are about heart not science.

    Really?  Well, I find it irritating (and extremely dishonest) to pretend that the only difference between a zygote and a toddler is "semantics."  It’s as if the people making those claims actually believe women to be incapable of understanding human reproduction; over half of all women who terminate their pregnancies are mothers and have a very intimate understanding of both gestation and parenthood. 

    The real issue is that men and women "won’t" choose those other options because they involve sacrifice, exposure, loss of freedom, financial harldship, etc.

    First… you do not get to speak for all women who opt to terminate their pregnancies.  You only get to speak for yourself… perhaps you were all of those things but please do not presume to include me in your outburst.  The fact of the matter is that the majority of women who opt to terminate their pregnancies are mothers (including myself)… they (we) are aware of what is required of them and only they can decide what the best course of action is for themselves and their families.

    Abortion Safety: The abortion proceedure is never safe for the child, who half the time is a female. (Did she get to choose?) Just a thought.

    That is emotive nonsense and not a compelling reason to criminalize abortion and give legislatures control over the bodies of pregnant women.  You are free to believe that "a child" is present upon conception but what you simply cannot do is force any other person to lay aside their personal beliefs in order to satisfy yours.

    I struggle to understand how anyone would be "elated" over the termination of a pregnancy, maybe you can help me understand that?

    Why?  You wonder why I would be filled with great joy that I was blessed enough to be living in a country at a time where I was allowed to make decisions regarding the course of my own pregnancy?  I am elated that legislatures were not permitted to make that decision for me without regard to my physical, mental or spiritual well-being.  If you don’t understand that a woman can take pride in knowing that she can be trusted to make the best, most responsible and most moral decision for herself then I’m afraid that I simply cannot "help you understand."  Having regard for one’s own standing or position is called "self-respect" and I suppose that’s just what I feel.

    There are thousands of us, however, who do have post abortion regret, remorse, and yes, guilt for having taken the life of our children throgh abortion.

    And I hope and pray that you all get the help you so desperately require just as I would hope and pray that the thousands of women who regret having children and a) parenting or b) voluntarily relinquishing get the help that they so desperately require.  But these things are not reasons to criminalize abortion (or parenthood and/or adoption, eh?)

    I am angry that people want to "sanitize" abortion by making it seem to be just another medical proceedure without acknowledging that something (someone, even) is lost

    I am irritated that people want to use emotionally charged words and/or their personal beliefs regarding "life" and "personhood" without acknowledging that other people have a differing (and just as valid) point of view.

  • invalid-0

    Geneticlly a toddler and a zygote are the same, why do you find that irritating?

    Human reproduction? What do human beings reproduce,other humans! Amazing!

    Parenthood requires sacrifice and is often inconvenient. Being pregnant meant I was a parent. If I as a parent can terminate my zygote’s existance, why should I not be able to terminate my toddler’s existance, would that be wrong? Oh,that would be child abuse, wouldn’t it?

    First, I never clamed to “speak for all women who opt to terminate their pregnancies.” I do not know your abortion story so I have no idea of your experience.

    I don’t know what you mean when you say “perhaps you were all of those things”, so please clarify that statement.

    Now YOU seem to be speaking for all women here:
    “the majority of women who opt to terminate their pregnancies are mothers (including myself)… they (we) are aware of what is required of them and only they can decide what the best course of action is for themselves and their families.”

    But you make an error, “all” women who opt to terminate their pregnancies “were” mothers to their aborted ____(you pick the word). Some may have had previous births of other children(can I say children here wihout offending you?), whom they are parenting well, but for those (you pick the word) they aborted, not so much.

    I never metioned “criminalizing abortion” I simply pointed out that the abortion proceedure is never safe for the aborted human, who is half the time a female.

    Could you clarify “emotive nonesense” for me?

    As I said earlier, semantics does not change the biologocal truths about human development. At the point of sexual differntiation in fetal development, half of the (you pick the word) are females, to abort them is to take away their future right to choose.

    Question: In your opinion, at what point do you think abortion should be limited? Do you think a woman should be able to abort up until birth, if she chooses to do so?

    When you speak of being “filled with great joy” that you were “blessed to be able to be living in a country . . . where I was allowed to make decisions regardng the course of my own precnancy” and “elated” that “legislatures were not permitted to make that decision for me without regard to my physical, mental or spiritual well-being.” May I ask, and I ask in all seriousness, just what horrors did you think you would experience if you had continued your pregnancy? And, this is in seriousness also, did adoption ever cross your mind as an option?

    I personally take no pride in knowing that I was intrusted with another (you pick the word’s)future and that I chose to have it’s future terminated at my command.

    Why does it “irritate” you that the scientific facts about “human development” are used to support the arguments of a (you pick the word) to be brought to term. Why are the words “life” and “personhood” percieved to be so emotionally charged, could it be that they hit our hearts and we would rather continue to rationalize and justify our actions in the name of the almighty “choice”? Just a thought.

    You have not addressed any of the men’s rights issues I raised, any thooughts?

    I do acknowledge that others have a different points of view, these are issues that we may never see eye to eye on.

    Again, I want to offer women and men the information that abortion does not “have” to be chosen as a way to solve their pregnancy dilemna and that adoption can be an alternative. If we don’t want or can’t raise our (you pick the word) someone would love to have the privilage.

  • invalid-0

    From your post on Dec. 21

    “The point of this facetious exercise is that sperm and egg cells are just as capable of becoming “human lives” as zygotes or blastocysts; it is irrelevant that spermatozoa and ova have fewer chromosomes than the zygote, because they are simply at differing stages of development. One is not more or less human than the other.”

    A sperm without an egg cannot “become” a human life, nor vice versa. A zygote or a blastocyste begins with sperm and egg combining, so the creation of any human life requires both components. Prior to combining the 2 they are just egg and sperm, after combining, a human life developes. Human egg and sperm don’t produce cats or dogs, they produce humans, whatever the number of chromosomes the individual possesess, they are still human, not a cat or a dog.

    “One other point – what distinguishes a human embryo from the embryo of another species? A lovely illustration of this conundrum is the study of comparative embryology: up until a certain point, the embryos of humans, bats, lizards, chickens, and even fish are virtually indistinguishable. Why should we condemn the abortion of a human embryo when we could care less about the embryos of other species that have advanced to the same level of development?”

    Could it be that human embryos have value because they matter to God, that they are created in His imaage?

    “Humanity” is not an observable essence but a value judgement attributed by crude assessments.”

    We loose our “humanity” when we devalue human life.

    “The only relevant point I can see is one weighing suffering against suffering: if the embryo / fetus does not suffer through its death, but a woman suffers to carry it, then the logical course of action is to terminate the pregnancy because it results in the least suffering all around”.

    These arguments reinforce my position that human beings are selfish when it oomes to sacrificing for others, myself included. Allowing another being to share a woman’s body for 9 months is a relativly short tine in the span of anyone’s life. 98% of the time women abort “because they just do not want to be pregnent at this time in life.”

    It all boils down to what value we place on a human beng in relation to our own desires. If we “want” the fetus, we ascribe infinite value to it; if we don’t want it we descard it. Truely, one woman’s “discard” would be another woman’s “treasure” if adoption were chosen.

    I can hear the howls of protest now, as woman who chose abortion rther then release their child into adopton, cry “foul.” We don’t want anyone to think we were a bad mother by letting others raise our children, so we abort and our culture applauds our “courage” to choose termination and to do what is right for us. Adding, smpathetically, that,’It was a hard decision, but you had no ch0ice, you did what was best, aren’t you glad you were able to have a safe proceedure.”

  • invalid-0

    From your post on Dec. 21

    “The point of this facetious exercise is that sperm and egg cells are just as capable of becoming “human lives” as zygotes or blastocysts; it is irrelevant that spermatozoa and ova have fewer chromosomes than the zygote, because they are simply at differing stages of development. One is not more or less human than the other.”

    A sperm without an egg cannot “become” a human life, nor vice versa. A zygote or a blastocyste begins with sperm and egg combining, so the creation of any human life requires both components. Prior to combining the 2 they are just egg and sperm, after combining, a human life developes. Human egg and sperm don’t produce cats or dogs, they produce humans, whatever the number of chromosomes the individual possesess, they are still human, not a cat or a dog.

    “One other point – what distinguishes a human embryo from the embryo of another species? A lovely illustration of this conundrum is the study of comparative embryology: up until a certain point, the embryos of humans, bats, lizards, chickens, and even fish are virtually indistinguishable. Why should we condemn the abortion of a human embryo when we could care less about the embryos of other species that have advanced to the same level of development?”

    Could it be that human embryos have value because they matter to God, that they are created in His imaage?

    “Humanity” is not an observable essence but a value judgement attributed by crude assessments.”

    We loose our “humanity” when we devalue human life.

    “The only relevant point I can see is one weighing suffering against suffering: if the embryo / fetus does not suffer through its death, but a woman suffers to carry it, then the logical course of action is to terminate the pregnancy because it results in the least suffering all around”.

    These arguments reinforce my position that human beings are selfish when it oomes to sacrificing for others, myself included. Allowing another being to share a woman’s body for 9 months is a relativly short tine in the span of anyone’s life. 98% of the time women abort “because they just do not want to be pregnent at this time in life.”

    It all boils down to what value we place on a human beng in relation to our own desires. If we “want” the fetus, we ascribe infinite value to it; if we don’t want it we descard it. Truely, one woman’s “discard” would be another woman’s “treasure” if adoption were chosen.

    I can hear the howls of protest now, as woman who chose abortion rther then release their child into adopton, cry “foul.” We don’t want anyone to think we were a bad mother by letting others raise our children, so we abort and our culture applauds our “courage” to choose termination and to do what is right for us. Adding, smpathetically, that,’It was a hard decision, but you had no ch0ice, you did what was best, aren’t you glad you were able to have a safe proceedure.”

  • mellankelly1

    Geneticlly a toddler and a zygote are the same, why do you find that irritating?

    I’m sure this is simply an oversight on your part but I’ve made no reference to the genetic makeup of either of those subjects.  I was merely responding to the following quote by you (which also made no reference to "genes"): 

    "I am angry that our culture uses semantics to hide behind the realities of the loss of a child through abortion by using scientific terms when motherhood and fatherhood are about heart not science"

    Now, the irony of those statments taken together is that you are essentially using "science" as an argument in the former while attempting to discount the "science" involved in the latter.  Hypocrite much?

    Human reproduction? What do human beings reproduce,other humans! Amazing!

    One can only hope that you were feigning stupidity with this comment.

    Being pregnant meant I was a parent

    Says you.  Many people would say that raising and caring for children means that they are parents.  It’s great that you believe you are a parent to any and all zygotes/embryo’s that may have existed within your body… I just happen to believe that I am a parent to my children, and that’s okay too. 

    I don’t know what you mean when you say "perhaps you were all of those things", so please clarify that statement

    To clarify, what I try to do is reference the comment(s) that I am responding to with indentation and italics, directly above my response.

    Now YOU seem to be speaking for all women here:
    "the majority of women who opt to terminate their pregnancies are mothers (including myself)… they (we) are aware of what is required of them and only they can decide what the best course of action is for themselves and their families."

    That, my friend, is called a "statistic"… I merely stated a fact.  If you take issue with this fact please feel free to take it up with a statistician.  I cannot alter the fact that the majority of women who terminate their pregnancies have one or more children (are "mothers.")

    Could you clarify "emotive nonesense" for me?

    Sure… a conscious mental reaction subjectively experienced as strong feelings usually directed toward a specific object and when expressed comes across as absurd or contrary to good sense. 

    As I said earlier, semantics does not change the biologocal truths about human development.

    Quite honestly, if you believed that were true you would not feel compelled to refer to the zygote or embryo as "a child." 

    In your opinion, at what point do you think abortion should be limited? Do you think a woman should be able to abort up until birth, if she chooses to do so?

    Abortion should always be a womans decision regarding an unwanted or doomed pregnancy… and you are being dishonest when you ask about this woman who gestates a pregnancy for forty weeks, begins the labor process and then decides as she’s giving birth that she’s just going to abort on a whim.  The fact that you bring this straw man into the argument says so very much about you.  Women who have late term abortions do so due to fetal anomoly (or maternal life/health issues) – please do research this fact.  Here is a good place to begin as so many people share their stories:

    A Heartbreaking Choice

    I just cannot imagine the mindset of a person who would want to prevent the pregnant woman, her family and her doctor(s) from making these very personal and private decisions.

    May I ask, and I ask in all seriousness, just what horrors did you think you would experience if you had continued your pregnancy?

    Oh, I cannot even imagine the pain that would have caused myself and my family.  Unimaginable… I shudder to think – what I do know for certain is that making the right decision for myself and my family has had a positive affect on my life (one need not gestate an unwanted pregnancy in order to benifit from the experience.)  I’m very happy to be the mother and wife that I am today and will be forever thankful that I was able to make that decision without government interference. 

    And, this is in seriousness also, did adoption ever cross your mind as an option?

    No.   My choice was to terminate my unwanted pregnancy… adoption would have been an option only if I made the choice to gestate that pregnancy.

    Why does it "irritate" you that the scientific facts about "human development" are used to support the arguments of a (you pick the word) to be brought to term

    I was referencing this quote by you (you know, the one which was indented and italicized directly above my response):

    "I am angry that people want to ‘sanitize’ abortion by making it seem to be just another medical proceedure without acknowledging that something (someone, even) is lost"

    You make the claim that anyone using verbiage which differs from your is "sanitiz[ing]" and yet you are indignant when someone claims that your verbiage is emotional (and might I add, innacurate?) 

    Why are the words "life" and "personhood" percieved to be so emotionally charged

    Because those terms are subjective (relating to personal mental characteristics) and as such, tend to be emotionally charged.  Your opinions about "life" and "personhood" may be very different than mine… we are both entitled to these opinions. 

    You have not addressed any of the men’s rights issues I raised, any thooughts?

    It depends on the woman and the situation… men do not risk their mental, physical or spiritual lives when a pregnancy is gestated.   The pregnant woman is the most qualified person to be making decisions regarding her pregnancy… she will consult her family/loved ones at her discretion (I certainly wouldn’t presume to tell her whose opinion is or is not significant as I have no way of knowing about her interpersonal relationships.) 

    Again, I want to offer women and men the information that abortion does not "have" to be chosen as a way to solve their pregnancy dilemna and that adoption can be an alternative.

    Women are well aware of their choices when facing an unwanted (or doomed) pregnancy… termination or gestation.  If a woman is willing to gestate her pregnancy she can either opt to parent or adopt her child out… the choice is hers.  I think we can all agree on that, eh?

  • pcwhite

    A sperm without an egg cannot "become" a human life, nor vice versa. A zygote or a blastocyste begins with sperm and egg combining, so the creation of any human life requires both components. Prior to combining the 2 they are just egg and sperm, after combining, a human life developes.

    I don’t mean any disrespect, but this is getting a bit tedious. Sperm and eggs are "human lives": they are human, and they are alive. They possess the same level of consciousness as a fertilized egg, the same humanity…the only place a zygote differs structurally from a naked ovum is in the "completeness" of the genome, which is a ridiculous point from which to draw the distinction of humanity.

    I can see you are using the argument from potential here; that is, a fertilized egg is special because it can grow into a fully developed child. My point is that it is arbitrary to use the fertilized egg as the starting point for this potential: yes, a zygote is more likely to develop into a human baby than a bare ovum, but an embryo is more likely to do so than a zygote, a fetus is more likely to do so than an embryo, and so on. An ovum needs a sperm in order to begin to grow: but so what? What makes the addition of a sperm logically different from any other milestone of development? The point (again) is that the addition of a sperm confers no special humanity to an egg, so it doesn’t make it suddenly immoral to allow it to die.

    Could it be that human embryos have value because they matter to God, that they are created in His imaage?

    You’re grasping at straws.  This point is lost on a person who thinks God does not exist.

    We loose our "humanity" when we devalue human life.

    I disagree. However, let’s follow this logic for a moment…you believe it is the embryo’s "humanity" that dictates we shouldn’t kill it, correct? And you think I have lost my humanity because I "devalue human life," right? Then your statement means I, a fully developed adult human, do not deserve protection from murder: but a fertilized egg can annex my uterus and anull my autonomy because its "humanity" is untarnished. I doubt you actually believe this, but you can’t make a statement like that and expect me to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

    These arguments reinforce my position that human beings are selfish when it oomes to sacrificing for others, myself included. Allowing another being to share a woman’s body for 9 months is a relativly short tine in the span of anyone’s life. 98% of the time women abort "because they just do not want to be pregnent at this time in life."

    How is it selfish to remove a "being" from my body that never thought or felt? As another poster before me put it, an aborted embryo goes from experiencing nothing to experiencing nothing. There is no suffering; ergo, there is no deprivation. If we talk specifically about extremely late-term abortions (which are undeniably rare, and usually proceed because of medical complications) where the fetus has developed sufficiently to experience conciousness / pain / suffering, then I realize the debate becomes much messier. However…good luck finding a doctor willing to help you abort at this stage. (And anyway, if the fetus is that far along in its development, an "abortion" procedure that keeps the fetus alive would simply be an induced labour or c-section. I think that is a decent compromise, if circumstances came to that.) Even taking this unlikely circumstance into consideration, it is no argument against legal abortion. We need reproductive choice as a human right, and we shouldn’t have to fight through red tape in order to secure that.

     

    There’s probably more I could add, but I’m afraid this is all I have time for at the moment.  If I left something out, feel free to remind me.  Time to disengage.

  • invalid-0

    I have been thinking a lot about our conversations over the past few days and it has been very interesting to hear what you all are thinking and to try and follow the posts. I feel very sad when I read back over the posts and see the rationalization, justification, fetal devlopment arguments and other points that were shared and to realize that none of it really matters. When abortion happenes a human dies.

    We will never agree that abortion should be a solution for a women’s unplanned or possibly challenging pregnancy. Women deserve help not abortion.

    We will never agree that adoption should be encouraged and promoted as a first option, next to parenting for unplanned pregnanies.

    We will never agree that human life is valuable because it is created in the image and likeness of our Creator and that alone makes it worth preserving.

    We will never agree that men should have a say in what happens to thier offspring if there is a conflict and he wants he child brought to term.

    I believe that we are a poorer society because we have put forth the idea that suffering and sacrifice of a woman for the good of her child is optional and that choice should be guilt free and unfettered.

    For me human life must be protected, women should be supported and provided with the best medical care possible if there are concerns about her heath or the health of a pregnacy so that both she and her child can survive.

    I will pray for the hearts of men and women to be softened to the reality that lives are being taken through abortion and tht the next generation will regect abortion as part of its culture.