How to (Un)pack for a Real Conversation About Abortion


The murder of abortion provider Dr. George Tiller on May 31st has
resulted in a lot of conversation about abortion. It’s a topic
frequently hushed, or spoken about more around its politics than the
actual procedure, the experience itself and the real women who have
abortions. So this increased discussion is certainly something
potentially positive happening because of something horribly tragic.
More discussion around anything which is or may be treated as
unspeakable is always a good thing.

However, often in these conversations and news stories, language is
used that’s confusing or inaccurate, and some statements are made about
abortion or women who choose abortion which are false, unrepresentative
or misleading. And any of this can come from either "side" of abortion
debates or discussions, due to political aims or motivations,
ideological ideas or agendas or just out of plain old ignorance. Just
like a whole lot of people don’t know the finer points of open-heart
surgery, a lot of people just don’t know what goes on with an abortion
procedure, especially from a provider’s point of view. If inaccurate,
misleading or ideologically-loaded language is being used, or myths are
being held as truths, our communication and understanding is always
going to be limited. And that’s never a good thing, unless we don’t really want to understand something at all.

Let’s start with a few typical language issues. When the politics of
abortion are discussed, often language is used in talking about
abortion that doesn’t actually exist in the practice itself, that
providers don’t usually use or have any practical use for, and some of
which is absolutely meaningless or invented only to try and
misrepresent abortion or pregnancy.

"Late-term abortion"

Plenty of you have probably heard the term "late-term abortion,"
lately because Dr. Tiller was one of the few providers who provided
abortions for women past 24 weeks. "Late-term" is a phrase that we
don’t use in practice because it doesn’t mean anything solid, practical
or medical. Even in common use it’s pretty meaningless: when some
people say that they mean an abortion from the 20th week through the
current legal limit (which in some states is up to 28 weeks), others
mean the whole second trimester, and some are talking about abortions
into a period of time when legal abortions can no longer even be
performed (past that 28th week or less in some states) except when the
life or health of the mother is in danger, as determined by her doctor.

Whether a doctor or healthcare worker is talking about a pregnancy
that ends in a birth, miscarriage or with an abortion, we talk about
the timing of pregnancy either in weeks (as in, labor and delivery
usually happen around the 40th week) or in trimesters. The first
trimester of pregnancy is from gestation (from the date of a woman’s
last menstrual period) through 12 weeks, the second from weeks 13-28,
and the third from week 29 until a full-term, which is generally
considered to be between the 37th and 42nd week, even though some women
may deliver earlier or later.

Viability is more of a legal term than one used in healthcare, and
in legal use has been defined as a fetus "potentially able to live
outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid." In other words,
for much of pregnancy, even with amazing care and medical technology, a
fetus cannot survive outside a mother’s uterus. But at a certain point,
even if it has not fully developed yet, it can or may be able to.

What viability is considered to be, in terms of at what number of
weeks, varies from state to state and has also changed over time. When
Roe Vs. Wade was decided, viability was considered to be around 28
weeks, but since that time, it has changed in some areas or countries
to be as early as 22 weeks. However, in practice, viability is
generally determined more by unique development, like lung development
(which will vary some from fetus to fetus) rather than by weeks.

An astute bit of commentary in the Wiki on pregnancy
adds about the increasing time period of viability that,
"Unfortunately, there has been a profound increase in morbidity and
mortality associated with the increased survival to the extent it has
led some to question the ethics and morality of resuscitating at the
edge of viability."

Babies and Conception

"Baby" is another term we don’t use in medical practice: it’s an
infant or newborn when we’re talking about a live birth. Before birth,
we are talking about an embryo, around two weeks after gestation, or a
fetus, from the end of the tenth week of gestation onward. This
language is not meaningless or just about semantics: we’re talking
about very different phases of development when we talk about a zygote,
a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus and an infant. But for those of us
working in abortion, embryo or fetus are the only terms we’re using:
anything before an embryo is to early for a termination (and often even
for a pregnancy test), and an infant at or post-birth is not something
we ever see in our practice.

Conception is also not a term we use in abortion. We don’t have any
need to argue when conception does or doesn’t start, or to use this
term at all because it doesn’t give us any information we need. What we
need to know is if a woman is pregnant, and if so, what the size (via
an ultrasound) of the fetus or embryo is, and, for legal purposes, how
many weeks pregnant she is based on that size and her last menstrual
period.

"Partial-birth abortion"

This this is not a medical term, and there is no such medical
procedure that exists by this name. Rather, it was a term invented by
Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National
Right to Life Committee in 1995.

We have a legal ban — put in place during the Bush administration,
and which remains in place now — on something by this name, even
though it has no meaning in actual practice. Incidentally, the law itself
also contains some pretty strange language for a law or policy. (In
fact, if you also click the link to Roe V. Wade on that page, check out
how different the language is. It’s a pretty major difference.)

What people using this term usually mean is a termination which is
done around or after the legal limit for elective (as in, chosen, and
with no need for a doctor’s order) abortions. The actual medical
practice often being called "partial-birth" is an intact dilation and
extraction (an ID&X, which is very different than a standard
D&E), which is almost exclusively done for health reasons,
stillbirth or profound fetal abnormalities, and/or also if the mother
or parents would like the fetus to remain intact (for their own
emotional process or for burial) or an autopsy is recommended. I won’t
go into depth here about all that procedure can involve, but now that
you know the right term, you can look it up for yourself, or take a
look here, here or here for some sound general information.

Abortion procedures done at this time make up less than 2% of all
abortions every year: they are exceptionally rare. An ID&X is not
usually the procedure used for second-trimester procedures, and never
for first-trimester procedures. ID&X is a type of abortion
procedure for women who, very late in the game (usually in the third
trimester) discover that either their fetus has very serious problems,
that their health or life will be or is in grave danger with a birth or
continued pregnancy, and/or if a fetus was already was stillborn (had
died in the womb). A termination done like this and at this time can
spare the mother the physical risks and emotional pain of going through
the rest of her pregnancy, then labor and delivery with an infant
absolutely known to be born still (to be dead before birth), or which
would die shortly after birth. An ID&X can also be done more
quickly than an induced labor and delivery, and with life or health at
stake, that’s another reason why it has sometimes been done.

"Abortion doctor"

I don’t know of anyone with a doctorate degree in abortion, nor of
any programs where you can get a doctorate in abortion. "Abortionist"
is also a problematic term for this reason. "Abortion provider" is the
preferred term by most. Many doctors who provide abortions are OB/GYNs:
they are obstetricians and gynecologists. Some nurses also administer
medical abortions.


With those linguistic foibles cleared up, let’s take a brief look at
some common statements you may have heard before the last few weeks,
but may be hearing more of now. Nearly all of these statements are
either false, misleading or only represent one group of women or one
kind of experience while rendering another invisible. And all or some
of them have been used by more than just one "side" of debates around
abortion, too. Some of these phrases are used by those who are
pro-choice (who support every woman’s right to choose parenting,
adoption or abortion, whichever a woman feels is best for her), some by
those who are antichoice (who do not support a woman’s right to choose
all three of her options), some by both.

Some of the statements or my responses to them may make you
uncomfortable. I don’t state or respond to them to vilify anyone, to
call out one group any more than another, to put anyone’s rights at
risk or to enable these statements or ideas. I make them because I
think it is so important that we do our best to tell the truth about
abortion and about women. All too often I hear even some pro-choice
people who are not being truthful: sometimes out of ignorance, limited
exposure to abortion and the diversity of women who terminate,
sometimes because they seem to be trying to simply walk the party-line
and limit talk to those situations or women where abortion is the least
challenged out of a fear of losing our reproductive rights.

The thing is, when it comes to reproductive rights, choice and
experience, something as simple as a glib party line is too simple,
because women’s lives and reproductive experiences are not at all
easily simplified. We cannot be easily reduced down to one or two
groups when it comes to our experiences with pregnancy, any choice we
make around a pregnancy, or mothering. Those experiences and situations
are just much too varied for that.

If we deny or hide some truths — and usually the ones that challenge
us the most — I don’t think we’re helping anyone. If our rights are
based on falsehoods, or are only about one group of women and exclude
others, then they may not actually give everyone rights or be rights
which are particularly solid, rather than arbitrary or mercurial.

In my responses to these statements, I’m coming at them from a few
spheres of experience: from the decade and some I have run Scarleteen
and talked with or read women talking about abortion, from the year and
a half I have worked part-time at an abortion clinic (which provides
abortions up to 24 weeks), from a lot of academic reading on the
subject, both in terms of the medical aspects and the first-person
experience of pregnancy, decision-making and abortion, as well as from
my own life: my experiences and those of my friends and family.

"No woman wants to have an abortion."

Many women, if not most, who choose an abortion want to have one. If
a woman freely chooses abortion for herself, rather than being
pressured or coerced into it, then an abortion is absolutely what she
wants.

And let’s be real about that: women are pressured or coerced into all
of the possible choices with a pregnancy with some frequency. Sometimes
that pressure is direct, from family, partners, friends. Sometimes that
also comes from communities, cultures, religions, politics. No matter
WHAT choice a woman is making about her pregnancy, from a pro-choice
perspective, pressure, coercion or force is absolutely unacceptable.

By all means, some women have pregnancies they do NOT want to
terminate, where the last thing they want is an abortion, yet they
still decide to terminate, usually based on very serious or grave
circumstances. Some women feel that of the three choices available they
don’t want to make any of those choices: but one has to be made, even if none of them are wanted.

There is a range in this: for some, abortion is an ideal choice,
what is most wanted, full-stop and without any feelings of conflict.
For others, neither abortion nor childbirth are wanted outcomes, but
abortion is the more wanted choice and what seems best to that woman
with her pregnancy. For many, feelings lie somewhere in between those
two poles.

"Every woman who choses abortion does so with sadness, or finds the decision to terminate one that is exceptionally difficult."

In the United States (and many other areas) abortion is legal.
And there is no legal requirement that a woman must feel a certain way
in order to have or retain the right to terminate her pregnancy.

There is no way all women feel with the end of every or any
pregnancy: all women who terminate do not experience feelings of pain
or deep sadness, just as all women who give birth do not experience
bliss and perfect joy (a myth which is propagated just as much as the
opposite around abortion has been). Women’s feelings vary widely with
every pregnancy, every termination, every delivery. There is not a
"right" way to feel with any of these choices, with any part or
experience of pregnancy, nor if a woman does or doesn’t feel a given
way is she any more or less entitled to her own choices with her
pregnancy.

"No woman has an abortion casually."

Just as the case is with the great range of experiences with how a
woman feels about abortion, so it is with the motivation for, or
decision-making process with abortion. Some women DO have abortions in
a way you or I – or even they – might call or see as "casual." For some
women, having an abortion is not a big deal, is not upsetting,
is not something she feels carries a lot of weight for her. It should
also be noted — though this is not to say if a woman is "casual" about
abortion it is only for this reason — that certain developmental
disabilities, addictions, traumatic life experiences or psychological
conditions can cause a woman to give any number of things, like death,
abuse or pregnancy, less gravity than others might give them or feel
about them.

Having talked to a lot of women about their abortions, would I say
there are many women who feel casually about abortion or take it
lightly? No, I would not: in my experience, that’s the exception rather
than the rule. In fact, I think we can go one step further and say few
women feel casual about a pregnancy, period. But again, we have to be
very careful not to deny any woman’s real experience, even if the
reason we might be tempted to do so is in an effort to try and retain
her/our rights.

"Abortions in the second trimester are only done in cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother and/or fetus are at risk."

That is not true. While in the third trimester, past viability,
abortion procedures can only be done when the mother’s life is at risk,
this is not so for most or all of the second trimester. While
second-trimester procedures are much less common than those done in the
first trimester, many second-trimester abortions are chosen electively,
and it is absolutely legal to do so.

Why do women terminate in the second trimester? Well, this is a big
topic, because we’d need to address the myriad of reasons why a woman
has an abortion at any time. We’d also be irresponsible if we
didn’t explore why it is that second-trimester procedures are
considered so different than first-trimester procedures by many people,
even though that doesn’t fit everyone’s experience of pregnancy. So,
I’ll have to shortcut a bit here to avoid writing a thesis.

There are some common reasons why women do not terminate by the end
of the first trimester, but in the second: because she didn’t accept or
know she was pregnant until later (remember that not all women have
regular periods, and some women experience bleeding during pregnancy
they mistake for a period), because she couldn’t afford a termination
until later, because she couldn’t get access to an abortion in her area
earlier, because she originally wanted a pregnancy, but then changed
her mind, often based on something major changing in her life (loss of
a home or job, loss of healthcare, a natural disaster, another child or
family member becoming ill or in need, loss of a spouse or husband or
of a partner’s support for a pregnancy or child, a relationship
becoming abusive or existing abuse increasing, etc.), and also because
of maternal or fetal health issues or abnormalities (often these can’t
be identified until later in a pregnancy).

If you want to know more about women who have had later
terminations, some sites have recently been compiling first-person
stories. RH Reality Check has a bunch here, and The Atlantic has a good round-up of some from their site here.
And for general first-person abortion stories from women at all stages,
the clinic I work for has kept a story archive for a long time right here.

"If everyone had access to birth control and all the methods we had were 100% effective, all pregnancies would be wanted and we would have no abortions." 

While some women have very firm and consistent feelings before and
during the whole of a pregnancy that a pregnancy is wanted, not
everyone feels that way. Given how much pressure expectant mothers are
under to express nothing but joy about a pregnancy, we can’t even
accurately say how many women have mixed or mutable feelings: we just
don’t live in a world yet which allows women that kind of honesty
around pregnancy.

Even if every wanted pregnancy remained wanted, we can be certain
that many women would still want and need abortion. Life doesn’t just
stay put while we’re pregnant, so our circumstances can always change,
like some of the changes I talked about above, and some of those
changes can seriously alter our plans, previous wants and needs or the
status of our pregnancy. In fact, I think it’s pretty strange to talk
about a process which is about nothing but constant change – for a developing, as well as for a pregnant woman – as if it could be unchanging.

That said, birth control access and efficacy is a huge issue, and
given that in America alone, nearly half of all pregnancies which end
in abortion are unintended, we know that lack of access to methods, not
knowing how to use methods properly or having a lack of cooperation
around contraception in sexual partnerships and the level of
effectiveness methods provide does very much contribute to more
abortion than we would see otherwise. Those earnestly looking to help
reduce the number of abortions drastically should absolutely be working
to increase birth control access, awareness and the development of
reliable methods of contraception, since this is the one thing we know
would make a huge difference which does not in any way diminish or
remove women’s reproductive rights.

"Women who have abortions don’t like or love children."

In the United States around 60% of women who have abortions are
already mothers; mothers who love their children no more or less than
anyone else. Often already being a mother informs much of their choice:
they know, after all, without having to guess, what parenting requires
and what their children need, and if they can or cannot meet those
needs. Lower-income women have always had more abortions than higher
income, and that’s part of this piece, too: many women know when we
cannot afford any children or are already finding it very difficult to
provide care for existing children. Some women choose abortion in part
or entirely out of love for the children they already have: they know
when another mouth to feed and child to care for will make providing
good care for all their children impossible.

There’s an old pro-choice slogan which is "If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?"
It’s been pretty popular because it feels so true for so many women.
When women make decisions around pregnancy, they usually are not just
about either themselves or a child, but about the welfare of both.
Mothering is not an easy business and mothers have to make choices for
their children every day, often many times a day, and some of those
choices are tough ones. Deciding to be a mother or not is one of those
choices, potentially the biggest and most important of all of them.

"Abortion is a bloody, ugly, brutal, painful — insert any other words here used to make surgery sound like a world war — procedure."

I spent a lot of my childhood in a hospital: my mother was a nurse
and a single parent, the hospital was often my after-school hangout,
and I was a curious kid. I probably saw more blood and guts than most
children do for that reason. I was also an adventurous child who got
injured a lot: I severed two of my fingers when I was seven, scraped
the mush of them off the sidewalk, and carried them rather casually
back to our apartment. (Some of my ability to do that without flinching
was likely shock, mind you, but some was probably because I was used to
dealing with or seeing injuries.) I also personally have seen blood and
violence in my personal life outside medical situations, and have lived
through a few incidents of brutality, as have other members of my
family. And I have observed a number of abortion procedures, both in
the first and second-trimester. I’ve also had a termination myself, and
did so only with a local anesthetic.

Certainly, to some people, any surgery seems or looks bloody and
brutal, especially those who get queasy around this stuff. Too, not
everyone can manage emotions well around blood and other things
involved in surgery and healthcare.

However, ANY surgical procedure usually involves blood. Most involve
pain or discomfort, either before, during and/or in recovery from the
surgery, and when a surgery is not painful, it’s usually because
anesthetic and/or sedation was used: some abortion providers offer
both, others just one. Are abortions more bloody than most other
procedures? No. More bloody or physically (or emotionally, though that,
varies very widely from women to women and birth to birth) intense for
a woman than childbirth? Not usually.

Are most women I have observed in horrible pain during their
abortions? No. All of our pain thresholds vary, so what a woman
experiences varies, but again, we’re not talking about a birth here
(birth is usually painful, but we hardly suggest that’s a reason women
should not give birth), and remember, too, that most abortion
procedures only take a few minutes, not hours and hours. Most abortions
are not highly painful procedures, and pain can also be managed with
medications, as with any surgery. While like other aspects of abortion,
experiences of pain vary, some women even report that their monthly
menstrual cramps or some sex they have in their lives had has been more
painful than an abortion was.

I have yet to see an abortion procedure I’d describe as brutal or
violent. As someone who has observed procedures first-hand, I’m always
amazed by how many people who have NOT done so will tell me how things
happen, or how awful everything is, apparently forgetting that of the
two of us, I’m the only one who actually knows and has experienced how
abortions are performed.


By no means is this an inclusive list of either the language used or
misused with and around abortion or the various mythologies around
abortion and women who have abortions. But it’s a place to start, and
we truly are long overdue at even just starting truthful collective
conversation about abortion. If we truly can do that, I strongly
suspect that it can play a part in both reducing clinic violence and in
everyone starting to see women’s lives more clearly, accurately, fully
and compassionately.

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

Follow Heather Corinna on Twitter: @Scarleteen

To schedule an interview with Heather Corinna please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    I agree with this article.

    I’m perfectly willing to be honest about my pregnancy and abortion experiences. After my abortion, I was relieved, happy, and glad it was over. I told my boyfriend pregnancy is “legalized torture”. I hated every second of it. There was no joy for me until after my abortion.

    I get called strange, stupid, emotionless, and other bad things for admitting I was happy not sad after my abortion by some anti-choicers though. I also get called a liar when I give my honest opinion about how pregnancy was for me by certain anti-choicers. If they’d be nicer, I’m sure more women would be willing to share their stories. Pro-Choicers might treat women who enjoyed pregnancy and regret their abortions the way the Anti-Choicers treat me. If they do, they should be nicer, too.

    When I found out I was pregnant, I told my doctor I didn’t want to continue the pregnancy. Even though she was Pro-Life, she put my wishes first and told me about an abortion provider that was covered by my insurance. Like my doctor did, we should put our personal feelings and religion aside, and actually give thought to the situation at hand.

    People need to stop generalizing and stereotyping. So, pregnancy was torture for me, that doesn’t mean it’s that way for everyone. Just because some women are excited when they find out they’re pregnant doesn’t mean all women are, I’m proof of that.

  • invalid-0

    Another area that personally irks me in discussions is the assumption that if there were no birth control, or no abortion, all women would have uneventful pregnancies with safe births – this is where the “a little inconvenience” argument is brought up, when instead there is a 15% chance of complications during the pregnancy itself and a 28% chance of delivery complications.

    In addition, the fetus itself does not always do well. I’ve been pregnant four times and had spontaneous miscarriages twice. I’ve never had an abortion but I still only had ‘successful’ pregnancies 50% of the time.

    This is the reality of pregnancy some people forget which leads to assumptions that really irk me, such as ‘every single time that Plan B is used a healthy viable infant is lost’. That just does not comport with the facts of reproduction – after accounting for mistakes of mioisis which prevent implantation, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriages, stillbirths and birth defects, the potential ‘loss’ may be as little as 17%, and that’s assuming that the woman taking Plan B was actually ovulating near that time.

  • heather-corinna

    Those are great, important additions, crowepps.  Thanks so much for taking the time to add them.

    • invalid-0

      “Confinement” is an antiquated term for childbirth, mostly used in the 19th century. That the Victorians used it to avoid saying “childbirth,” because “childbirth” was (I guess?) too racy, should tell you all you need to know about the term…

  • invalid-0

    You’re welcome. I agree with you that in finding common ground or even just discussing this issue, it’s very important that people need to keep the reality of what we’re talking about in mind based on best evidence and personal testimony, not ‘I heard’ or ‘they say’. I’m sure other people have said this before, but if they required the same kind of detailed ‘informed consent’ facts and information for continuing a pregnancy that some place insist on for abortion, the birthrate would drop precipitously.

  • heather-corinna

    …if they required the same kind of detailed ‘informed consent’ facts and
    information for continuing a pregnancy that some place insist on for
    abortion, the birthrate would drop precipitously.

     

    Boy, no kidding.

  • http://www.fashion-jewelrycharms.com invalid-0

    Everyone shoud cherish a new life, especially for pregnant women, it’s a great chance to lift the health condition of yourself if your treat the pregnancy and be in confinement correctty…

  • emma

    Thanks so much for this.

  • jayn

    That’s one of the most offensive things I’ve heard in a while.  Are women not allowed to have lives?  Are we supposed to quit our jobs, drop out of school, stop going to the gym, etc. the minute we hear we’re pregnant?  Even for a woman who wants a child that’s a pretty harsh comment.

     

    About the comment on pregnancy complications–I hear ya.  My MIL had two miscarriages, one of which nearly killed her.  My cousin’s doctor has threatened her with 9 months of bedrest should she become pregnant again, because both of her previous pregnancies were riddled with complications.  My SIL had a miscarriage that required surgical removal of the fetus.  The physical implications of being pregnant shouldn’t be swept under the rug, especially when talking about women who tried to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

  • heather-corinna

    And this’d be exactly the kind of fostering invisibility and mythology we’re all talking about here.

     

    No woman "should" feel any given way with a pregnancy: women feel how they feel, and there are a wide range of feelings from woman to woman and from day to day with any given woman.  The idea that pregnancy is about an opportunity to improve one’s health is just bizarre: plenty of pregnant women do just fine in terms of their health, to be sure, though plenty also don’t, but regardless, calling it a health improvement venture is beyond misleading.

  • invalid-0

    That may not be what you meant, but that’s sure how it comes across. Ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages and birth defects are very rarely something that’s under the control of the pregnant woman. It might be comforting to believe that if she’s “in confinement correctly” nothing will go wrong, but that sure wasn’t my personal experience.

  • invalid-0

    Great article, but some of the links therein are broken. (E.g. “the law itself”)

  • heather-corinna

    I’ll send a note to get them fixed, thanks for letting me know.

     

    In the meantime, the links do all work where this was originally published at Scarleteen here:http://www.scarleteen.com/blog/heather/2009/06/09/how_to_un_pack_for_a_real_discussion_about_abortion

     

    And that link for the text of the law is here: http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/abortion/2003s3.html

  • aspen-baker

    Hi Heather,

     

    Thank you so much for taking a stand for the range of feelings that women can have around an abortion experience (or pregnancy).  This is so important to remember when talking about abortion, especially publicly, and the more people who speak on this issue with compassion and understanding for the range of emotions, the more each of us is creating a more supportive and respectful social climate.  It matters to the women who have had abortions to have their voices and experiences reflected back to them in public spaces.  It can help reduce stigma and it can help promote their wellbeing.

    Thank you. 

  • invalid-0

    Please don’t promote killing the weak, innocent, and defenseless babies of America. We should not Kill.

  • invalid-0

    How…Orwellian…

    You wish to eliminate the obvious moral problems in tearing unborn children apart with vacuum hoses, cutting them to pieces with scalpels, crushing their skulls to “evacuate” the brains during partial birth abortion, and injecting them with potassium chloride, by simply claiming that all of the terms used to refer to these procedures, and to the victim, are somehow meaningless because they have no precise medical definition.

    It is true of course that babies go through various stages of development. A two year old child is not yet fully developed as a human being. Neither is a nine year old. Will you be rationalizing their murder as well, someday?

    What does it matter if a medical textbook doesn’t have the term “late-term abortion”. The term exists because the fetus is closer to viability (a real term) and it seems even more egregious that a woman would pay a butcher with an M.D. to kill a child to which she could simply give birth, even by an early induction (still morally unjustified, but less egregious because it gives the child a chance to live).

    You can’t win a moral debate by asserting that all of the terms used by your opponents are meaningless, because they have no precise textbook definition. You can’t defeat the truth by attacking language, even if Orwell’s villains thought they could.

    The above essay reads more like self-rationalizing thought processes…the ones abortion clinic workers use to enable them to sleep at night. Who do you think you’re fooling?

    The most chilling paragraphs in the article are these:

    Certainly, to some people, any surgery seems or looks bloody and brutal, especially those who get queasy around this stuff. Too, not everyone can manage emotions well around blood and other things involved in surgery and healthcare.

    However, ANY surgical procedure usually involves blood. Most involve pain or discomfort, either before, during and/or in recovery from the surgery, and when a surgery is not painful, it’s usually because anesthetic and/or sedation was used: some abortion providers offer both, others just one. Are abortions more bloody than most other procedures? No. More bloody or physically (or emotionally, though that, varies very widely from women to women and birth to birth) intense for a woman than childbirth? Not usually.

    I wonder if Josef Mengele used such cold, clinical language when he talked about his vivisections of children.

  • invalid-0

    Thanks.

  • invalid-0

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

    Also, if you can’t tell the difference between a man who actively hated an entire race of people and viewed its born constituents – adults, children, the lot – as pieces of meat, and a woman who is faced with an unwanted or life-threatening pregnancy that she just wants to terminate to get her life back on track, then there’s really no point in arguing. The law is on the side of the person whose sovereign body is affected most by the condition of pregnancy. Stop wringing your hands over the “clinical” language used here. We’ve heard it all before. Women are not stupid.

  • jayn

    "What does it matter if a medical textbook doesn’t have the term "late-term abortion""

     

    It matters because having a common definition helps make discussion possible.  "Late-term" can mean different things to different people–what that phrase means to me and what it means to you may be different, and that muddies the waters of communication, which are already muddy enough here.

     

    "I wonder if Josef Mengele used such cold, clinical language when he talked about his vivisections of children."

     

    You’re missing the point.  Anti-choicers often use descriptions (even pictures) of abortion procedures as part of their ‘arguments’.  But that’s not an argument, or you could use the same reasoning to ban any surgical procedure, such as, say, a C-section.  What a procedure entails has no bearing on whether or not it should be done.

  • heather-corinna

    As someone who has observed procedures first-hand, I’m always
    amazed by how many people who have NOT done so will tell me how things
    happen, or how awful everything is, apparently forgetting that of the
    two of us, I’m the only one who actually knows and has experienced how
    abortions are performed.

  • invalid-0

    I think you may be missing the point as evident by the language you use.

    In your mind they are anti-choice.
    In their mind, they are pro-life.

    In your mind, it’s about your rights being in danger.
    In their mind, it’s about your baby’s rights being in danger.

    This is why it is such a difficult discussion, because not everyone agrees on the personage of that “thing” inside a woman when she is pregnant.

  • invalid-0

    Kind of a weird comment. Are you being tongue-in-cheek?

    I mean, to say to “cherish” a new life, but then use a term usually associated with a prison, seems…huh?

  • invalid-0

    I agree. Redirecting the enormous amount of money that is spent on the military into social welfare would make the abortion rate plummet.

  • invalid-0

    Not every pro-lifer believes that Plan B/oral contraceptives are abortificent. Some pro-lifers believe that a life protectable by law only exists after implantation (since you kinda need an actual detectable pregnancy to even consider abortion in the first place). All pro-lifers aren’t religious. Some are atheistic or agnostic as well.

    http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

    • crowepps

      So how is your proposed law going to handle the 15% of pregnancies that end in a spontaneous miscarriage?  Investigation by the police?  Grand Jury?  Trial?

      What sentence do you think she should get if it turns out that she should have been more careful not to fall down or shouldn’t have had that much coffee?

      I’m aware that not all ProLife Advocates are ‘religious’ in the sense that they belong to an organized church, but I don’t think I’ve read one yet that didn’t base their argument on a personal belief system like ‘all human life is equally valuable’ and then argue that their imposition of that personal belief system on others is justified because ‘everybody agrees’ that the fetus is human.  Obviously, if everybody DID agree with them, not only would the laws already have been changed, but there wouldn’t be any women requesting abortions.

      • invalid-0

        Obviously, if everybody DID agree with them, not only would the laws already have been changed, but there wouldn’t be any women requesting abortions.

        There wouldn’t be any access to safe, legal abortion, and women who did request abortions would end up going to a backalley butcher, obtaining an illegal abortion, and increasing her risk of sickness, permanent incapacitation, and/or death. This is not a place where we want to be, which is one of the reasons that the right to a safe, legal abortion must be kept in place.

  • invalid-0

    Not to mention the comparison is ridiculously faulty. How many other commonplace life-saving surgeries or operations yeild complete sets of dead organs, multiple limbs, and once-functioning bodily systems without killing the patient? But to admit that one of the patients involved in abortion is always killed would be adding too much of a stigma to the procedure, I suppose.

  • invalid-0

    I told my boyfriend pregnancy is “legalized torture”. I hated every second of it.

    I totally understand this, as I feel the same way. And I did it twice, on purpose and planned, because I wanted kids. But I did hate every single thing about being pregnant (and breastfeeding wasn’t exactly fun or wonderful either).

    But if I get pregnant again, I would have an abortion as soon as I found out. Because much as I love and wanted the kids I have, I don’t want any more and there is not a single thing in this world that could induce me to go through another pregnancy for any reason whatsoever.

    And every time I mention to anyone how very much I hated being pregnant and my absolute certainty that I won’t do it again, ever, I get looked at like I suddenly grew an extra head with fangs or something. Because a woman disliking pregnancy and not wanting more babies is unnatural or something.

    • invalid-0

      I agree about everything…except the abortion part. I had two children. Hated the process, love the kids. And I’m also certain I never want to do it again. But because of this, I had my tubes tied. Even though I hate pregnancy/childbirth/breastfeeding, I’d never kill one of my children, and the child that would be conceived would have every much a right to live as the others I brought into this world already. I don’t hate the process enough to actually kill over it. Personally, I’m proud of my tubal ligation. I want to get a t-shirt that says I had one, because I love it so much, and I’m not the least bit scared to tell even my closest family that I had one to stop the “So, when are you going to have another one?” conversation before it even begins.

  • heather-corinna

    It’s restating the obvious and already said, but no one here is talking about killing children.

  • invalid-0

    Because you choose to form definitions based on your side of the argument.

    When I was pregnant, I was pregnant with my children. That’s not inaccurate to say. It’s not as though they sprung out of thin air one day after a doctor visit.

    I HIGHLY endorse contraception. I think that numerous overlapping methods aren’t endorsed as much as they should be, and if they were, abortion would be verging on a non-issue due to its rarity. Abstinence is unrealistic, and oftentimes oppressive, particularly to women.

    But to ignore the life of another human in a certain stage of development is a tragic case of age-discrimination the likes of which has scarcely been equaled in history.

  • heather-corinna

    The whole point of the piece is to talk about using language that involves accuracy from both a medical point of view, and that of the diverse realities of women.  By all means, yes, this is from my "side," which I made very clear, though when we’re talking about things like the reality of a diverse array of women (including some who terminate, by the way, but identify as pro-life or antichoice), I don’t think sides are so easily divisible.

     

    I absolutely understand that your experience being pregnant — and that of many women — is that when you were pregnant, you were pregnant with a child in terms of your emotional experience, and I don’t think there is anything invalid about that. But your experience is not everyone’s experience, and it’s also not in alignment with medeical procedures before labor. (I also agree with you about endorsing doubling-up methods: I do that all the time in all my work.  In fact, I think Scarleteen is one of the only places, if not the only, where anyone can find the math to show effectiveness rates of combining methods.)

     

    But IF we want to be able to talk about abortion accurately, and in a way where some real communication can happen, rather than be stonewalled — again, this piece is about abortion –  we simply cannot talk about "killing children." That is not how the law here in the states views it (and through most of human history as we know it, from what we know of the history of abortion, that is not how it has been viewed), it is not how the medical community at large views it, including all the OB/GYN orgs, the field of practice which deals with all of pregnancy. To view abortion that way, and fetal development that way, also suggests some mighty strange and disturbing (IMO) things (whether a woman terminates or not) if you follow that kind of thinking to it’s logical conclusion, and dismissing the irrefutable fact, and one we thus far cannot change, that it is inside the body of a woman and, to a certain point, is totally reliant on her life, health and well-being.  In other words, based on what you’re saying and where it leads, we would have to then choose whose life to "ignore" in a lot of situations: the fetuses’ or the woman’s.  If that’s the case?  Then by all means, I am someone who is going to say that a person who has been born and who lives autonomously comes first.  But I really don’t see it that way, and I don’t think framing it that way is sound. 

     

    And when you say things like that we are "ignoring a life" again, you are using ideologically-loaded language that also dismisses so many women’s expreiences.  Many, many women, if not most, who terminate pregnancies are NOT ignoring anything.  They are making that decision very aware of the potential child — and what their life may be like to the best of their abililty — they may bring into the world should they continue a pregnancy to term.

  • invalid-0

    This, & the original essay, are going into my “talking points” file.

  • heather-corinna

    You’re welcome, but I hope you’ll edit those from that last comment.  My verb tenses were all over the place in a spot there: sorry about that, folks.

  • invalid-0

    “The diverse realities of women” Reality is reality, and fiction is fiction. If it’s wrong to kill a human in one stage of life, it only stands to reason it should be illegal to kill that human at a different point in its life cycle. Also, I think talking about finding “common ground” while you continue to call us “antichoicers” is just adorable. Maybe you might want to drop that if you want to be taken seriously when you talk about “common ground”…

    “But your experience is not everyone’s experience, and it’s also not in alignment with medeical procedures before labor.” Well, I’m pretty sure that regardless of how we FEEL about the human in their fetal stage we carry in our uteri in gestation pre-birth, we’re all carrying the same thing most of the time. How you feel about something doesn’t change the fact of what it is. If I would’ve been pregnant with my daughter and decided to think of her as a turnip while I was carrying her during pregnancy, it wouldn’t have changed what she actually was, and what would happen as a consequence a short time later (labor and birth). And by “medeical procedures before labor” do you mean ABORTION, perhaps? (I know, it’s such an ugly word even people who support it don’t like to use it…I wonder why?)

    “That is not how the law here in the states views it (and through most of human history as we know it, from what we know of the history of abortion, that is not how it has been viewed), it is not how the medical community at large views it, including all the OB/GYN orgs, the field of practice which deals with all of pregnancy.” That is why the law must be changed. The Supreme Court declared in its statement that it could not consider the life of the fetus because medical technology had not progressed that far. Well, we’ve come a long way since the 70′s. Routine DNA testing (which shows that the fetus has a separate genetic pattern than its mother, indicating a different organism), ultrasound technology (standard and 4D) that shows the fetus preforming actions such as crying, using its own musculature and skeletal systems to move independently of the mother in reactions to stimuli (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/media/fetalcryingvideo.html)…none of these were considered in the court case that established one of the largest human rights violations of our time, considering that a human fetus is by definition “human”.

    “that it is inside the body of a woman and, to a certain point, is totally reliant on her life, health and well-being.” The body is being shared. A shared body implies shared bodily autonomy. The mother should be given consideration if the fetus poses an immediate and severe threat to the woman’s life and should be removed. However, the woman is obligated to give the same consideration to the fetal human within her, and must not threaten his or her life. I’m not advocating protecting one human’s rights over the other. There is such a thing as shared rights.

    “And when you say things like that we are “ignoring a life” again, you are using ideologically-loaded language…” How so? Is a fetal human not alive? Is the fetal stage not a stage of human development and included within a human’s life cycle? I’m not saying that women’s experiences should be dismissed. But abortion is a permanent end to another person’s life cycle in order to rectify a temporary condition on the part of a woman (pregnancy), and to me, that makes little sense when one considers BOTH the fetal human AND the woman, equally rather than one over the other.

  • invalid-0

    Oh, and this bit is actually a lie:

    “it is not how the medical community at large views it, including all the OB/GYN orgs”

    There is such a thing as the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

  • heather-corinna

    My apologies: I had not ever heard of that special interest group within the ACOG before.

  • heather-corinna

    …and to be clear?

    Maybe you might want to drop that if you want to be taken seriously when you talk about "common ground"..

    I, personally, who do not represent RH Reality Check as an organization, have not ever talked about or called for "common ground."  Personally, I feel that women’s bodies and women-in-toto have been used as "common ground" by everyone and political aims far too much in history.  I’m not interested in signing on to that and I’m not a fan of that phrase in relationship to this issue.  So, I have not said I am looking for "common ground," not in this piece or anywhere else.

     

    Which is NOT to say I am disinterested in anyone and everyone being able to discuss the issue better than it has so often been (I am), nor that, particularly as a pro-choice person, I don’t respect any woman’s views or choices concerning her own body and anything at all that happens to be a part of her body at any given time. 

     

    I also do not feel abortion is an ugly word, not in the slightest: when I discussed medical procedures before labor I was referencing any number of the procedures a woman may have with a pregnancy before labor, not just abortion.

  • invalid-0

    We discuss abortion and call it abortion all the time on this site…its even in the title of Heather Corinna’s article above….

    How to (Un)pack for a Real Conversation About Abortion

  • invalid-0

    I apologize for generalizing about the pro-choice side of this debate. If anything I said does not specifically apply to you or your position, please disregard.

  • heather-corinna

    "And when you say things like that we are "ignoring a life" again, you
    are using ideologically-loaded language…" How so? Is a fetal human
    not alive? Is the fetal stage not a stage of human development and
    included within a human’s life cycle? I’m not saying that women’s
    experiences should be dismissed. But abortion is a permanent end to
    another person’s life cycle in order to rectify a temporary condition
    on the part of a woman (pregnancy), and to me, that makes little sense
    when one considers BOTH the fetal human AND the woman, equally rather
    than one over the other.

     

    I think I was pretty clear in my response here that I was not denying that a fetus or embryo or even a zygote, for that matter, is living.  What I disagreed with is that women who choose abortion are IGNORING fetus, embryo, zygote or the child any may become. Most — when you talk with them, and when you listen — express thoughts and feelings around their choices that make very clear neither is being ignored.  Some women even choose to terminate setting their own wants around having children aside because they feel that terminating is what is best FOR that potential child.

     

    Who are you to say what’s temporary for a given woman or not?  Heck, when I terminated back in the early nineties, a protestor I got into it with told me I wouldn’t always be without the resources I was then.  And yet, here I sit, a decade and a half later, still without them despite often working 2-3 jobs, and could have remained without them for the whole of a child’s life, one reason I made that choice for myself. Pregnancy may be temporary, but everything that comes after it may not be.

     

    Even if something IS temporary in a woman’s life that makes her feel unwilling or unable — or where it’s not even about feelings at all, but literal circumstances — to continue a pregnancy, to parent or to choose adoption, many temporary issues, conditions or sets of circumstances are not irrelevant or minor for many women. My severe hyperemesis is temporary: it only happens when I’m pregnant.  But that doesn’t solve the issue of the fact that it would not go away, to the point that some days I could not even keep water down.  A woman’s homelessness may be temporary: that doesn’t change the fact that she may consider that an unsuitable time to remain pregnant or parent.  An abusive relationship may be temporary: same deal. Heck, a woman not wanting to be pregnant at all, to give birth, to put another kid into the world may be temporary, but that doesn’t have anything to do with how she feels at the time, and within the limited window she’s got to make decisions about her whole life and what will or may become of someone else she brings into the world.

     

    I hear that women choosing to terminate thinking both of themselves and a possible child doesn’t make sense to you.  However, there are a lot of women to whom it does make sense, to whom it has made sense, and what makes sense to you or doesn’t does not alter their realities and their experiences.

  • invalid-0

    The body is being shared. A shared body implies shared bodily autonomy.

    You cannot be serious.

  • invalid-0

    And she is not interested in having an accurate conversation about abortion. She is anti-choice and her goal here is to “offer readers” anti-choice opinions because she thinks that any discussion of abortion that does not emphasize “killing children” is dishonest.

  • invalid-0

    Confinement refers to the 40 days AFTER the birth where the mother didn’t leave the home, sometimes didn’t leave the bed, in the belief that she was particularly vulnerable then. Considering their obstetric practices, this is probably true.

  • invalid-0

    You’re right, I’m not interested in having an accurate conversation about abortion. But, I happen to know someone who is….Leroy Carhart!

    Are there times when you don’t remove the fetus intact?

    Carhart: Yes, sir.

    Can you tell me about that, when that occurs?

    Carhart: That occurs when the tissue fragments, or frequently when you rupture the membranes, an arm will spontaneously prolapse through the os…we talk about the forehead or the skull being first. We talked about the feet being first, but I think in probably the great majority of terminations, it’s what they would call a transverse lie, so really you’re looking at a side profile of a curved fetus. When the patient’s uterus is already starting to contract and they are starting to miscarry, when you rupture the waters, usually something prolapses through the uterine, through the cervical os, not always, but very often an extremity will.

    What do you do then?

    Carhart: My normal course would be to dismember that extremity and then go back and try to take the fetus out either foot or skull first, whatever end I can get to first.

    How do you go about dismembering that extremity?

    Carhart: Just traction and rotation, grasping the portion that you can get ahold of which would be usually somewhere up the shaft of the exposed portion of the fetus, pulling down on it through the os, using the internal os as your counter-traction and rotating to dismember the shoulder or the hip or whatever it would be. Sometimes you will get one leg and you can’t get the other leg out.

    In that situation, are you, when you pull on the arm and remove it, is the fetus still alive?

    Carhart: Yes.

    Do you consider an arm, for example, to be a substantial portion of the fetus?

    Carhart: In the way I read it, I think if I lost my arm, that would be a substantial loss to me. I think I would have to interpret it that way.

    And then what happens next after you remove the arm? You then try to remove the rest of the fetus?

    Carhart: Then I would go back and attempt to either bring the feet down or bring the skull down, or even sometimes you bring the other arm down and remove that also and then get the feet down.

    At what point is the fetus…does the fetus die during that process?

    Carhart: I don’t really know. I know that the fetus is alive during the process most of the time because I can see fetal heartbeat on the ultrasound.

    The Court: Counsel, for what it’s worth, it still is unclear to me with regard to the intact D & X when fetal demise occurs.

    Okay, I will try to clarify that. In the procedure of an intact D&E where you would start foot first, with the situation where the fetus is presented feet first, tell me how you are able to get the feet out first.

    Carhart: Under ultrasound, you can see the extremities. You know what is what. You know what the foot is, you know what the arm is, you know what the skull is. By grabbing the feet and pulling down on it or by grabbing a knee and pulling down on it, usually you can get one leg out, get the other leg out and bring the fetus out. I don’t know where this…all the controversy about rotating the fetus comes from. I don’t attempt to do that, just attempt to bring out whatever is the proximal portion of the fetus.

    At the time that you bring out the feet, in this example, is the fetus still alive?

    Carhart: Yes.

    Then what’s the next step you do?

    Carhart: I didn’t mention it. I should. I usually attempt to grasp the cord first and divide the cord, if I can do that.

    What is the cord?

    Carhart: The cord is the structure that transports the blood, both arterial and venous, from the fetus to the back of the fetus, and it gives the fetus its only source of oxygen, so that if you can divide the cord, the fetus will eventually die, but whether this takes five minutes or fifteen minutes and when that occurs, I don’t think anyone really knows.

    Are there situations where you don’t divide the cord?
    Carhart: There are situations when I can’t.

    What are those?

    Carhart: I just can’t get to the cord. It’s either high above the fetus and structures where you can’t reach up that far. The instruments are only 11 inches long.

    Let’s take the situation where you haven’t divided the cord because you couldn’t, and you have begun to remove a living fetus feet first. What happens next after you have gotten the feet removed?

    Carhart: We remove the feet and continue with traction on the feet until the abdomen and the thorax come through the cavity. At that point, I would try…you have to bring the shoulders down, but you can get enough of them outside, you can do this with your finger outside of the uterus, and then at that point the fetal…the base of the fetal skull is usually in the cervical canal.

    What do you do next?

    Carhart: And you can reach that, and that’s where you would rupture the fetal skull to some extent and aspirate the contents out.

    At what point in that process does fetal demise occur between initial remove…removal of the feet or legs and the crushing of the skull, or I’m sorry, the decompressing of the skull?

    Carhart: Well, you know, again, this is where I’m not sure what fetal demise is. I mean, I honestly have to share your concern, your Honor. You can remove the cranial contents and the fetus will still have a heartbeat for several seconds or several minutes, so is the fetus alive? I would have to say probably, although I don’t think it has any brain function, so it’s brain dead at that point.

    So the brain death might occur when you begin suctioning out of the cranium?

    Carhart: I think brain death would occur because the suctioning to remove contents is only two or three seconds, so somewhere in that period of time, obviously not when you penetrate the skull, because people get shot in the head and they don’t die immediately from that, if they are going to die at all, so that probably is not sufficient to kill the fetus, but I think removing the brain contents eventually will.

    Thanks for shedding some light on the procedure, Dr. Carhart!

  • heather-corinna

    I get the impression there is supposed to be some sort of anticipated reaction to this, but I’m not sure what it is.

     

    Indeed, this sounds very much like Dr. Carhart explaining — during the hearing with Ashcroft — how he does some of his procedures and deals with some issues that can occur during a D&E or an ID&X.  Mind, this is not how everyone does those procedures.  In fact, he makes clear that it is his personal preference in that transcript not to induce fetal demise beforehand with an injection.

     

    All the same, while I personally am just as comfortable with second-tri procedures, and ID&Xs based on a doctor’s evaluation, D&Es and ID&Xs are the rarest abortion procedures performed.  Just to be clear, what’s described here is not only not all of those procedures, or how everyone performs them, it isn’t descriptive of any first-tri procedure — the vast majority of abortions in the U.S. — at all.

     

    But my response to this is…umm, okay. And…?

  • invalid-0

    Just trying to help you keep it factual.

    “it isn’t descriptive of any first-tri procedure — the vast majority of abortions in the U.S. — at all.”

    Well, imo, a dead fetal human is a dead fetal human, regardless of which stage of development it is in. Age doesn’t make it any less human, or any less dead. And that is still scientifically accurate to say.

  • heather-corinna

    Yet, if this was only about merely being alive or being dead, I’m not sure I understand why you’d post the part of that transcript you did and in the way that you did.  I mean, if it’s truly just about the fact that something living is no longer living, then who would care HOW it happens or in what manner?

     

    In other words, I suspect you’re being disingenuous when you say you’re "just trying to help keep it factual."  (Especially since I provided links to information on that particular procedure — I didn’t explain it myself because a) how a doctor does it varies and b) I can only put so much information in one article.)  Rather, my feeling is that you wanted to sensationalize.

     

    All the same, abortion issues can’t tend to be boiled down to only whether anyone is alive or dead: central to the issue of abortion, and making reproductive choices as a whole, are quality of life issues for women and children.   That may not be the case for everyone.  But I feel confident saying, particularly as someone who spends so much time listening to women talking about these choices, that no matter what choice a woman makes with a pregnancy — or in choosing to do what she can to prevent pregnancy — most women report it as being central in their decision-making.

  • invalid-0

    Just to get this straight. You guys believe the fetus is alive and human but is allowed to be killed when the woman has serious problems and considers it for the best to kill it. Please correct me if I’m wrong on any part.

  • heather-corinna

    Nearly every part of our bodies are living tissue, including organs we may have removed because keeping them inside us and intact is causing us poor health or suffering. While I don’t think it’s apt to say a fetus is evivalent to a gallbladder, a gallbladder is also living tissue and no one ever told me I was "killing" my gallbladder when I needed to have it removed to preserve my health and well-being.

     

    The issue is not as simple as to be merely about what is living, just like the issue of parenting is not so simple as merely keeping one’s child alive.

  • invalid-0

    Yes but the gallbladder is made up of your cells alone so it belongs to you. The fetus has its own DNA and therefore belongs to itself.But if the woman needs an abortion to save her life it’s okay,abortions for other reasons (especially convenience) are not.

  • heather-corinna

    I simply don’t agree with you.  I don’t agree that those are the only conditions that make an abortion acceptable.  And I don’t agree that anything living within my body, depending on my body to exist at all also does not belong to me and is somehow an independent entity, despite being completely dependent on me and no one else.

     

    I also resent it when people use the word "convenience" when talking about women’s reproductive choices and pregnancy: there is nothing convenient about any of this.  Have you been pregnant before?  What was that experience like for you, no matter what choice you made? How much did you think about what was "convenient" in making your decision?

     

    Classifying things like deciding not to bring children into the world you cannot afford to care for properly, waiting to parent until it is something you very much want to do and feel ready for, opting out of bringing children into abusive or unhealthy dynamics, deciding other huge parts of your life need to come first, being unable to feel like hell for months on end and still take care of yourself — all these situations and more are hardly mere matters of convenience.

    • invalid-0

      One doesn’t have to have been pregnant, or be a parent to be aware of all the points (and I’m not a parent, nor have I ever been pregnant) that you’ve articulated in your above-mentioned post. I agree with you all the way. Thanks for this, Heather.

  • otaku1960

     "The fetus has its own DNA and therefore belongs to itself"

     Isn’t that special?  I hadn’t realized a person could own oneself. But, wouldn’t self ownership quality as slavery?

     "woman needs an abortion to save her life it’s okay"

    So nice of you to permit a woman to save her life if she needs to. I really had NO idea we needed your permission.

    Your grievance shall be avenged.

    • invalid-0

      Everyone owns themselves. Slavery is when someone else owns another person, outside of them self.

      So nice of you to permit a woman to save her life if she needs to. I really had NO idea we needed your permission.

      It’s not a matter of granting permission, it’s a matter of justice. If a woman’s life is in jeopardy, she has the right to choose life over death. However, when such an ultimatum is not present, there’s no reason for a woman to now have the ability to kill something else, if only to preserve their time and energy. Human life, I’d hope, is a little more valuable than that.

      There’s a difference between killing someone who’s coming at you with a knife, and killing someone who’s poking your arm. One isn’t life threatening, if anything, a minor hindrance in comparison. Not to say that pregnancy is as little as getting poked, however it fits my point nicely.

  • invalid-0

    The fetus does depend on its mother for everything but that doesn’t mean it belongs to her. fully grown adults who are severely handicapped are often dependent on a particular individual for all aspects of care, and could not survive without them. But that doesn’t give this caregiver power over the handicapped. Even babies shortly after birth will certainly not survive without parents, but these parents don’t have power over the life of the child.

    I didn’t mean to offend by using the word convenience. I understand that there are real and grave reasons why women chose abortion. I will admit that I should probably have used a better word.

    Yet all the same there are other better ways to prevent such problems. If you are not ready to concieve then abstain from sex or use some of the many contraceptives available. As a last resort there is the possibility of adoption. I understand that this still requires the pain of continued pregnancy,but it is preferable to killing the fetus.

    Even though those reasons are very tragic, none of them would be allowed in justifying the killing of say… a 2 year old boy. That means that this second part of your argument relies on the first. In other words your claim that there are reasons that make abortion a good choice rests on the argument that the fetus does not count as a human being.

  • heather-corinna

    Due to a whole lot of things you’re saying, the way you’re saying them, and the fact that you’re speaking from a perspective that is NOT about your own pregnancy, I’m just not going to engage with you myself any further.

     

    This particular paragraph is a good sumup of why:

    Yet all the same there are other better ways to prevent such problems.
    If you are not ready to concieve then abstain from sex or use some of
    the many contraceptives available. As a last resort there is the
    possibility of adoption. I understand that this still requires the pain
    of continued pregnancy,but it is preferable to killing the fetus.

     

    Beyond you clearly not understanding that the things you present as simple or pat are anything but, I am not going to talk about what is better or preferable for women I am not. None of us, in my book, has the right to say what is best or most preferable for a woman we are not. Even if you personally feel you do, it’s simply not somewhere I am going to go or an approach I’m going to enable.

  • crowepps

    I understand that there are real and grave reasons why women chose abortion.  I will admit that I should probably have used a better word. Yet all the same there are other better ways to prevent such problems.

    Ectopic pregnancy is usually an extremely unwelcome surprise to the pregnant woman as well as a threat to her life.  What way is there to ‘prevent’ that problem?

     

    Downs syndrome with physical abnormalities, conjoined twins, spinal bifida, anencephaly, other gross physical defects like missing kidneys are also usually an extremely unwelcome surprise resulting in a nonviable fetus that can’t survive birth.  What way is there to ‘prevent’ those problems?

     

    The thing you don’t seem to grasp is that these are statistically small but inevitable complications which occur during pregnancies.  The woman, her partner and the doctor have no good choices in these situations.  To insist that they must solve their problem as though they were actually dealing with the healthy baby that they wanted and hoped they would get is pretty cruel.  Their options are limited to how much of the woman’s physical health should be dedicated to a disastrous pregnancy and what kind of funeral.

     

    The only way that I can think of to prevent ALL of these from ever happening again is for no one to ever get pregnant.  If women continue to get pregnant, abortions in these cases will continue to be necessary.

     

    Your objection to abortions in situations that you label as being about ‘convenience’ is also kind of intrusive, since the INconvenience isn’t and can never be yours, but instead something you assert should be inflicted on someone else against their will.  The difference between that situation and one with the severely handicapped or with live born infants is that those caregivers can resign their position at any time and walk away.  The fact that they can either provide care or choose to transfer the burden of that care elsewhere is the reason why there are penalties if they neglectfully or deliberately don’t provide the care.  Nobody is ever required by law to four or six or nine months of being a caregiver in those situations.

  • invalid-0

    If you are not ready to conceive then abstain from sex or use some of the many contraceptives available.

    Um…lives vary. The Better Half spent nearly 6 months of the year on the road during the first 15 years of our wedded bliss. Please take my word that abstinence by necessity is not conducive to abstinence by choice, and diligent birth control practices can fail. #3 son arrived 11.5 months after #2.

    Alaric, you seem to labor under the delusion that intimate family life is a “one size fits all” proposition. Such is not the case and whenever I hear/read flip responses like yours, I can’t help but think how out of touch people like you can be…with the everyday realities of average Americans.
    Also…please note that you put the responsibility and consequences of mutual sexual conduct solely on women…if you are not ready to conceive… Permit me to point that personal authority usually accompanies personal responsibility in matters of personal impact.

  • invalid-0

    crowepps:

    I already said that abortion is justified when the woman’s life is threatened. I also said it’s justified when the fetus is dead before birth. I will now extend it to if the fetus will die from the birthing process. But in the cases of diseases that will handicap the child but not neccesarily kill them abortion is not a legitimate solution. Yes the woman is commited to the pregnancy from its beginnng and therefore can’t walk away. But that still can’t prove that killing the fetus is a legitimate form of escape. I dislike going into hypothetical arguments but if for example someone was entered into a nine month binding contract to care for a severely handicapped person, would it be okay to kill their charge? It wouldn’t be because what measures a lifes worth ísn’t how independent one is. As for the fact that I can never experience the pain of pregnancy, there is really nothing I can do about that. But my own feeling is that death of one is always worse than pain of another. So the great pain of the mother however hard can’t be said to trump the life of a human being. This is true and the only part that can be contested is wether the fetus is a human or not which is what we should be arguing about. Bottom line: none of your reasons however good would apply if you replaced the fetus with a born human at any stage of life. Therefore I would presume that you do not think fetus = human. I’d like to hear why since this is really the central feauture of the abortion debate.

    ahunt:

  • crowepps

    There’s also the fact that contraceptives fail occasionally– I know at least two women who got pregnant because their pharmacist didn’t tell them that the antibiotic they were on compromised their birth control pill, and condoms do break or slip.

     

    It really is intrusive to have someone deciding whether or not you ‘deserve’ to have what you feel is necessary medical care based on the circumstances of with whom and when you had sex.  Too bad some of this focus can’t be shifted over to the boys and men who are the other half of the ‘unintended’.

     

    Some activitists ought to get together and start protesting to change the law so that vasectomies are required as part of the sentence on rapists, wife beaters, perpetrators of incest and child molestors — heck, maybe even guys who visit prostitutes.  I mean, if women’s uteruses and what they do with them are an appropriate topic of conversation so far as restricting their freedom, certainly preventing men’s promiscuous sperm scattering during criminal acts ought to be part of the ‘common ground’ solution.

  • crowepps

    Well, certainly YOU aren’t arguing that a woman whose life is in danger should be forced to go to term, but were you aware that from 10 to 15% of those polled, in one poll even up to 20%, believe there should be absolutely no abortion for any reason whatsoever, including the life of the mother?

     

    What I think is wrong is butting into someone else’s personal business and imposing my morality on them, ‘for their own good’, as though they don’t have morals themself or as though my moral stance is better than theirs.  I certainly would never force anyone to have an abortion, not even to save their life, but I think the present balance between the woman’s rights and fetal viability is just about right.

    • invalid-0

      And those that oppose it for all reasons do have their own consistency regarding their anti-abortion beliefs in wanting to give equal value to all fetuses even if the womans life is endangered by not wanting an action taken to kill one person to stop another from dying from a natural condition. We may disagree with them not making an abortion exception for the womans life, but there is a reason why this percentage exists.

  • invalid-0

    You say that those possible occurrences during pregnancy are statistically small yet you would completely legalize abortion for the vast minority on that basis? No one is arguing that a woman who’s life is in danger should be forced to go to term, however to use that as justification for all abortion is far-fetched. To completely ban abortion is wrong, however to have it the way it is now, where it can be used as a method of birth control(extreme cases) is even more wrong.

  • invalid-0

    Who deserved to have an abortion would not be based on with whom you had sex or when. It would be on what danger you face from the birthing process.

    I don’t claim that men have no responsibility. They do. Men are required to provide child support for 18 years aren’t they? The same rule applies to them: If they are not ready to support a child in this way, don’t have sex. In fact I fully endorse your plan for imposed visectomies on such sex criminals. Except i don’t believe it is a complete mirror image of the abortion debate. Men who scatter sperm promiscuously do not store the resulting life inside them and for this reason there is no male version of abortion and so no male version of the abortion debate. It’s not a sexism thing its just the problem only applies to one sex in this situation.

    That being said though there are many benefits to your visectomy plan. Less unplanned pregnancies would result reducing the very need for abortion even if it were legal. It also helps the common ground as you said. It would mean less developmentally challenged children from incest and less underprivileged youth. It would even reduce the population a little.

  • invalid-0

    Using the radical parts of the Pro-Life movement as justification for abortion is ludicrous. The pro-choice side has its share of commentators who use it merely to flaunt their own pseudo feminism. There will always be fanatics, the only way to deal with them is to ignore them and hope that education removes any future fanaticism.

    It’s not a matter of imposing morality. It’s about the legality of murder. More importantly, the value and dignity of human life. To say that it’s not my business or the laws business as to how you eat your food is one thing. However when what you do directly affects other individuals in a negative manner, in this case the human person within the womb, it is completely within my right to say that it is wrong and to speak out against it.

    • crowepps

      Using the radical parts of the Pro-Life movement as justification for abortion is ludicrous.

      Excuse me, but aren’t those groups a little large to be considered ‘part’?  If half of people polled are ProChoice and half are ProLife, then a return of 15% of the TOTAL polled saying "no abortion even when the mother’s life is at risk" is ONE-THIRD of the ProLife side or more.

       

      In order for you to have any realistic hope of getting things changed, considering their insistence that the ProChoice side isn’t going to be able to ignore them, and their insistence that sensible measures like reducing unwanted pregnancy are off the table, YOUR side has better start the education to remove that fanaticism, because I’ve got to tell you that their constant clamor about how women deserve to die for having sex does a real disservice to your cause.

       

      Feel free to say abortion is wrong, you have an absolute right to speak out against it.  What neither you nor anyone else has is the right to legislate your opinions about the ‘value of human life’ into the civil laws because many people don’t agree with your position that the nonviable fetus has more of a right to life than the already viable woman in whom it is residing.

  • crowepps

    But in the cases of diseases that will handicap the child but not necessarily kill them abortion is not a legitimate solution.

     

    What about if the child will be deaf, blind, profoundly retarded and has a 95% chance of not surviving birth?  A 90% chance?  A 75% chance?  Do we play the numbers game?  More likely than not?  Is the government going to appoint bureaucrats to write a rule book about how big a handicap is too much and what "not necessarily" means?  Isn’t that a lot more offensive than those most closely related, those who are actually going to be there, consulting with their doctor to get the best possible information and making their own choices?  If everyone aborted imperfect fetuses there wouldn’t be any handicapped kids around, and yet lots of parents do choose to go ahead.  Why should the sacrifices and commitment of those who choose to go ahead and love whoever they get be bundled together with the reluctance of others who are FORCED to complete but then abandon?

     

    Therefore I would presume that you do not think fetus = human.

     

    That’s quite a presumption and it’s false.  I’ve been pregnant at least four times and only had two live births.  Considering the number of miscarriages there are certainly ‘fertilized egg’ is never equivalent to ‘baby’ any more than ‘apple seed’ is ‘apple tree’.  My position is based on the fact that biologically pregnancy is a chancy matter and there’s no guarantee that ANY fetus, no matter how healthy it seems to be, is going to graduate to ‘baby’ until it’s actually been born, successfully taken a breath and survived the first few days.

     

    If that seems cold hearted and practical, maybe that’s because women have to be practical – it’s our bodies with which we build the fetus, we are one who compromise our health by the pregnancy, it’s the children we already have who will be impacted if we are unlucky, we are the ones who risk death with each pregnancy and delivery, and if we’re not going to be stark raving nuts we have to just learn to accept that sometimes reproduction works and sometimes it doesn’t.

     

    It doesn’t have anything at all to do with ‘whether the fetus is human’ – it has to do with ‘whether this fetus is wanted enough to endure the metabolic load of this pregnancy at this time’ and sometimes the answer is ‘no, as the woman I would be better off investing this biological effort at a time when it’s more likely I’ll survive the process and successfully nurture a baby after he/she is born’.

     

    Having had my own griefs and disappointments over the years, and my own brushes with the ‘your uterus belongs to GOD’ nuts who wanted to cross examine on me on why I didn’t have children yet, the number of children I did have, what caused my miscarriages, etc., I have come to the conclusion that each couple has to make their own private decisions and nobody else has the right to gratuitously rake over their pain and comment on what they do so long as it’s within the law.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t even know where to begin, Alaric.
    Who deserved to have an abortion would not be based on with whom you had sex or when.
    What the hell?!

  • invalid-0

    If my presumption is wrong then you do see the fetus as human? Then by this you are saying that you could essentially replace the word fetus with human wherever it appears in your argument.

    This would mean that wasting metabollic load on an unwanted pregnancy is worse than killing a human being. This would be the same as saying that a woman’s energy and resources are greater than a human life. No human life should be ignored or extinguished because of how much it’s wanted. If we are to use such logic then human beings are not all equal, but instead their lives should be stratified by how “wanted” they are, and wether the effort to mantain their existence balances this.

    To conclude, you said that a fetus is human but that because its an unwanted human killing it is justified. I simply demonstrated that this statement goes against the moral law of human equality.

    Oh and for ahunt please clarify your statement, I’m not sure what you mean.

  • invalid-0

    My argument can’t be devalued on the basis that other people who agree with me might happen to be idiots. People have different reasons for being either pro-life or pro-choice. I can assure you that there are members in the pro-choice movement who don’t really care about the issue either. They merely use it for their own ends.

    Merely because people disagree with me, is not justification for a lack of legislation. There are very few things that everyone agrees on. Whether or not anti-abortion laws come or not should be based on their own merit. The value of human life isn’t merely something I concocted on my own. There are laws and documents outlining the its value. On the basis that human life is valuable then, abortion as it is now is not right. It is not merely my opinion but everyone’s opinion that human life is valuable. Half of the argument for abortion is to protect the life of the woman. Now, I’m not saying that abortion shouldn’t be used to protect a woman’s life at their discretion. What I am saying is that in every other situation, the vast majority of pregnancies, a woman’s ability to kill the human within her is removed just on the basis that all human life is equal. To justify abortion the only feasible means to do that would be to prove that said human in the womb is not a human. Which can’t be done.

  • invalid-0

    Yes you are correct in saying that such fanaticism clearly has to be eliminated. But the fact that fanatics have an insane view of the issue shouldn’t change the logic of the moderate arguments. reasonable prochoicers and reasonable prolifers should debate eachother leaving out the lunatic fringe no matter how large they may be.

    But you are incorrect in saying that nobody has the right to legislate their opinion of human life into civil laws. It is always change in opinion that changes our definition of human life. Changes in opinion granted legal personhood to blacks, natives and women even though people opposed it.

    If nobody has the right to translate opinion into law then there is no point being pro or anti anything since nobody can influence law.

    Therefore opinion can influence law so long as facts and logic support it, which is what we are trying to prove to you.

  • crowepps

    ahunt – Alric was quoting my inartfully worded reference to abortion being ‘okay’ in cases of rape or incest (with whom).

     To conclude, you said that a fetus is human but that because its an unwanted human killing it is justified.

    You missed my point.  More than half the time the fertilized egg never makes it all the way through the process to live birth.  Pregnancy is risky for the woman.  The woman MAKES the fetus out of her OWN BODY.  Because of that she gets to make the practical decision about whether she uses her body to make this fetus now or a different one later.  The woman’s energy and resources are HERS and so she does not have to provide them to a ‘human life’ that has only a 50/50 chance when she is unwilling to do so.

     

    Human lives are ignored and extinguished all the time because they are not valued - the health and deaths of the homeless, malnourished children, the uninsured ill, civilians in areas at war, foreign soldiers are all ignored and people don’t care much about their ‘extinguishment’.  It’s the antithesis of equality to allow society in general to direct the effort to sustain lives by the usefulness and ‘convenience’ of that life to society but insist that women alone don’t get to make choices about where to direct their efforts.

     

    Once all humans, born and unborn, are considered equally ‘valuable’ and sacred, the discussion might be held about whether women get to make choices, but to assert that the unborn are uniquely valuable while ignoring the far more common and far more numerous deaths of all those other unwanted lives is penalizing women for being female.  They have to use up their very selves to make that child, and jointly with the father they have an equal obligation to provide economic support for the child AFTER it’s born.  The ‘men have to pay child support’ argument would be a lot more convincing if support didn’t stubbornly remain at about a third unpaid.

  • invalid-0

    ahunt – Alric was quoting my inartfully worded reference to abortion being ‘okay’ in cases of rape or incest (with whom).

    Ah…following now.

    Once all humans, born and unborn, are considered equally ‘valuable’ and sacred, the discussion might be held about whether women get to make choices, but to assert that the unborn are uniquely valuable while ignoring the far more common and far more numerous deaths of all those other unwanted lives is penalizing women for being female.

    I dunno, crowepps. Given the enormous negative impact of unwanted pregnancy in the lives of women, I’m not sure that it is possible to reconcile the “sacredness” and potential of fetal life with the actual value and sacredness of female life. I do not see how it can be done.

  • crowepps

    Women, their partners and their doctors reconcile these issues all the time with intimate knowledge of the actual unique conditions involved.   Women are willing to volunteer to take all those risks because they want children, right up to flirting with death after complications arise to give the fetus a few more weeks to grow.

     

    To me, that is what makes the difference between martyrdom (willing to take the risks) and execution (she knew the risk when she had sex).

  • crowepps

    I didn’t say that your ARGUMENT was devalued by the fanatics.  I said that your CHANGES OF SUCCESS were undermined by them.

     

    On the basis that human life is valuable then, abortion as it is now is not right. It is not merely my opinion but everyone’s opinion that human life is valuable.

    Yes, it may be everyone’s opinion that human life is valuable (so long as that human life is similiar to their own – right color, nationality and has its own money).  So what?  You seem to consistently miss the point that we are not talking about ONE human life, we are talking about TWO human lives, one of which is threatening the other.  The earlier in the pregnancy it is, the less certain is the knowledge of the degree of that threat, but statistically abortion is ALWAYS safer than continuing the pregnancy.

    Merely because people disagree with me, is not justification for a lack of legislation.

    No, the fact that the MAJORITY of our citizens disagree with you is.  The majority want Roe v Wade to remain in force.  The majority does NOT want to ban all abortion, the majority does NOT want to ban contraceptives, and the majority do NOT want the government involved in these issues.

     

    Your personal philosophy may be compelling to you, but you see the problem is that you’re not volunteering to sacrifice your own time, convenience and future because you can never be in the situation of being pregnant; you’re instead asserting that the time, convenience and future of OTHER people should be commandeered by force and that they be forced to conform to your philosophy/moral values even if they believe something else.

  • crowepps

    Yes you are correct in saying that such fanaticism clearly has to be eliminated. But the fact that fanatics have an insane view of the issue shouldn’t change the logic of the moderate arguments.

    The problem is that the fanatics have made it clear that agreeing with and legislating "the moderate" position isn’t going to be the end of the issue, is it?  They insist that it all has to be their way 100%.  That’s why I said that the fanatics are YOUR problem.  As long as they’re shooting doctors and lying to teenagers about Plan B being the same as RU-486, you don’t have a hope of getting any moderate proposals through.

    But you are incorrect in saying that nobody has the right to legislate their opinion of human life into civil laws. It is always change in opinion that changes our definition of human life. Changes in opinion granted legal personhood to blacks, natives and women even though people opposed it.

     This is true, however I would challenge you to go to the CDC and look at the comparitive mortality statistics and then say with a straight face that "legal personhood" is the same thing as "equality".  Talk about your lives that are ‘ignored’ and ‘extinguished’.  Take a look at the suicide rate among young Native American men in Alaska – the highest in the country.

    If nobody has the right to translate opinion into law then there is no point being pro or anti anything since nobody can influence law. Therefore opinion can influence law so long as facts and logic support it, which is what we are trying to prove to you.

    The problem is, I haven’t seen a lot of facts and logic, but instead a lot of philosophy on an elevated plain that tends to ignore both.  I’ll give you some specific facts to chew over:

    Human who are considered of marginal value to society as consumers and producers tend to be marginalized and allocated the bare minimum necessary.

    No person is REQUIRED to unwillingly risk his/her own life for the sake of another.

    The number of children neglected and abused in this country is huge.

    The number of children malnourished, homeless and without medical or mental health care in this country is even worse.

    My contention is that if we really, REALLY ‘Value Human Life’ most of these statements wouldn’t be true.  Arguing about the value of human life when you’re talking about a ‘life’ smaller than a quarter and totally supported by someone else is a lot different than talking about a ‘life’ that’s flunking out of sixth grade because he/she is hungry and sleeping in a car.

  • invalid-0

    Sure, but we are talking about unwanted pregnancies, and unwilling women here…

  • crowepps

    Sure we are, but don’t forget, please, that those WILLING women are the ones who end up getting the so-called ‘late-term’ abortions when the ultrasound reveals major problems or when the complications start.

     

    In addition, keep in mind that when the willing women who have miscarriages, in order to lessen the chances of infection doctors perform pretty much the same procedure that is done in an ‘abortion’ to make sure that the uterus is cleared.

     

    Given the complications of willing/unwilling, induced abortion/ spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), etc., it would be pretty difficult to actually sort out who did what without a pretty hefty enforcement arm to monitor and investigate all those women.  Unlike every other crime on the books, is there going to be a presumption of guilt unless there’s a healthy baby?

     

    In there isn’t going to be any punishment of those women who "don’t gestate right", is the to pass just a feel-good law so activists can pat themselves on the back about how they ‘value life’?

  • invalid-0

    Statistically speaking, if I kill a large amount of children in problem areas, crime will go down in those areas. Right now, in Toronto crime rates have gone down which certain analysts are attributing to abortion. That outcome doesn’t justify the killing of those children. You can’t just start killing people to lower crime rates. There are other solutions. Much like there are other solutions in terms of helping people with problems with pregnancy.

    Okay, so you’ve acknowledged that we are talking about two human lives. That’s good. The human in the womb, and the woman caring for it. The problem with what you’re saying however, is that not all pregnancies result in the mother dying, to put it bluntly. I haven’t said that I would like to see a ban on abortion, nay, I would like to see a great number of restrictions placed on it to reduce casual abortion and in all honesty, unnecessary abortion. The only time at which an abortion is necessary when the mothers life is at risk. I don’t mean, the mother thinks she’s going to die. I mean, based on medical advice. If a doctor says that a person is going to die because of the baby in them. It’s effectively a 1- for 1 deal. One person is going to die, the mother merely gets the choice of who.

    People are effectively sheep. This analogy is used all the time but it’s true. The majority believing anything doesn’t give any more credence to the believed idea. By saying that everyone disagrees with me, doesn’t really bother me. Whole populations have been fine with persecution, racism, segregation, the whole nine yards. Nothing is right solely on basis that everyone else believes it or everyone else is doing it. Once again, you’re painting the entire pro-life movement with one brush. I am not anti-contraceptives. I am anti-abortion. Or at least,I’m against the way abortion is now.

    My personal philosophy, is substantiated by the facts that were used to build it up. If you don’t find it compelling, that doesn’t make it wrong. It merely means it conflicts with your desire to allow mothers to kill their babies. Every aspect of human interaction is regulated by government involvement to a certain extent. Business, relationships, parenting, all of these things face scrutiny from the government. A law that would make the majority of abortions illegal would not be doing anything more than any other law. You may feel that your rights are being commandeered, but that’s how everyone feels when something they used to be able to do is removed as an option.

  • invalid-0

    Yes in our society people are treated unequaly in many ways. But this shouldn’t prevent us from striving for equality. Lives like this are usually allocated the “bare minimum” but would you not agree that the most basic right and therefore the barest minimum is right to life?

    Size shouldn’t matter when considering a human life. Fetal growth is just an early stage of human development. As for being supported by someone else. What about comatose patients who are fully supported by a hospital? The hospital does not have the option to turn them away and in some countries like Canada they recieve no financial compensation for caring for them. Is the patient allowed to be killed if they are unwanted? After all they are unwanted, totally dependant on someone else and cost a lot of money and energy to mantain.

  • invalid-0

    One more time, Alaric, please explain to us how you would go about ensuring equality under the law for the blastocyst/zygote/fetus without simultaneously stripping women of that same equality. How can it be done? I’ve been asking this question for years, and not once, has a pro-lifer provided a rational answer.

  • invalid-0

    We may disagree with them not making an abortion exception for the womans life, but there is a reason why this percentage exists.

    We quite understand that there are reasons they exist. It’s sort of pathetic to watch you try to justify those reasons and try to make them appear reasonable or even worthy of respect. You folks need to do some serious self examination.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not trying to make them worthy of respect. I don’t share the view as I stated with ‘We may disagree with them….’ that includes myself. I’m only pointing out that they can’t be dismissed so easily as radical elements per the conversation thread above – as offensive as their views may sound they are quite active in the pro-life movement. crowepps figures above seem consistent of polling of all adults (both pro-life and pro-choice). colleen calculated it out on a different thread of % of pro-lifers alone and it was 40% of pro-lifers who ended up opposing abortion for all reasons – thats a large chunk.

  • invalid-0

    I apologise for misunderstanding and agree that they should not be dismissed. I believe that they, their beliefs and not inconsiderable numbers should be exposed for what they are.

  • otaku1960

    man condescends to lecture a woman about abortion.  If you truly believed in justice, you would not be arguing for fetal rights to force women to carry them.  Your personal opinion is only your personal opinion and it should not carry the weight of law. What you call "no reason" is to a percentage of women a darn GOOD reason to terminate the pregnancy.  Sure, human life is valuable, but enshrining fetal rights as some kind of golden calf we women should all kneel before, you actually DE-VALUE it.  You have NO point and I’m really sick of pro-lifers comparing pregnancy to a "poke in the arm" or similar nonsense.  You will never have to go through pregnancy, you will never have to make such a decision should something go wrong, so I feel you have no business lecturing me about this.  I am my own moral agent and should I fall pregnant, I and not some third party will decide.

    Your grievance shall be avenged.

    • invalid-0

      How does protecting a fetal human’s rights devalue it? That doesn’t make any sense. By protecting those rights, it re-personalizes and returns the humanity to those unborn children. You are not your own moral agent. That’s the single stupidest thing I’ve ever read on this forum. If you were your own moral agent, there wouldn’t need to be any laws. Laws are there as an objective moral agent. A third party always decides. Why is it that if you agree, it’s fine for a third party to decide(government) but if you don’t agree, it’s wrong. I guess you know how those robbers and thieves feel now, the ones that feel they haven’t committed a crime according to their own moral compass. Oh, and if your only rebuttal is that I’m a man, and that I can’t possibly know anything, then what would you say to a pro-life woman? Nothing. Because you have no argument, literally nothing to back up your beliefs.

    • invalid-0

      You aren’t making any sense because you haven’t really said anything but that you think we are wrong. You’ve given no reasons. Fetal rights are human rights and human rights are objective morals. And yes there is such a thing. Saying that as your own moral agent you can do whatever you want is moral relativism, plain and simple. And we all know that moral relativism makes no sense. I have never heard anybody compare pregnancy to a poke in the arm. We understand it is a physically, socially, emotionally and financially taxing process. But that is no excuse to kill anyone, those reasons would never be used in justifying the killing of a child one month old. That means that if the fetus is accepted as human then all other arguments are moot. Therefore for you to be prochoice you must (or at least very likely) consider the fetus not human. This is what you should be arguing, not just saying “I really want it” and “You guys are wrong”. We have a point and if you read it is clearly displayed. Your post responds to nothing we have ever said, leading me to believe that you are ranting about some other prolifers you know and prejudging us based on your knowledge of them.

  • crowepps

    It’s kind of ironic that the same people who get all hysterical about how ‘The Pill Kills’ and how RU-486 has caused 4 deaths after hundreds of thousands of uses totally ignore that ALL pregnancies carry a risk, and nobody knows which ones are the most risky until they’re completely over and the woman recovers.  500 to 600 women still die every year in this country from pregnancy related complications.  Only half a dozen die each year during abortions.

  • invalid-0

    Yes human lives are ended all over the world, and sometimes people seem not to care, but people are punished for their deaths. Those who kill civilians in war are tried for war crimes. Anyone who kills a homeless person is tried for murder. homeless shelters are set up and funded, money is sent all the time to starving children, and we are trying to send even more productive and lasting aid than just money. Many countries have free healthcare and some that don’t are moving towards it. There is also a big difference between death and murder. nobody is allowed to kill the homeless, or starving or sick. But abortion says that it is okay to kill a human. It in fact provides aid to those seeking to kill this human. This is never something we should do.

    Secondly although pregnancy has many chances to go wrong, that doesn’t make the life any less valuable. An antiabortion law would ban abortion centres (abortion doctors would still exist for life and death situations), and discourage makeshift abortions. We would arrest those who were definitely guilty of abortion, but very certain evidence would be needed.

  • invalid-0

    So Alaric…once surgical abortion is outlawed, and black market prostaglandins flood the countryside, how do you envision enforcement proceeding? Already, non-surgical abortions account for 1/3rd of all terminations. Essentially, abortion will become a matter between a woman and her dealer, and absent suspension of the 4th amendment, abortion rates will likely NOT decline…much anyway. Seriously, what is your plan? Miscarriage investigation squads?

  • crowepps

    If you actually believe that all war crimes result in punishment, the deaths of the marginal or poor are investigated as thoroughly as those of the middle class, and that all murderers are punished, you have an unusually optomistic view of how things actually work in this country.  Look up the percentage of crimes that remain unsolved.

     

    It’s true there are laws against actively killing the homeless or starving or sick, but there aren’t any rules requiring the general population to allow the homeless to move into their homes, requiring the general population to feed the hungry at their own tables, or requiring doctors and hospitals to go all out in treating the sick if they are uninsured.  What’s the moral exception that makes deaths acceptable if they happen through negligence?  What’s the moral loophole that allows people to hand over a few bucks to someone else as their agent to save those marginal lives while AT THE SAME TIME insisting on their right to force strangers to continue an unwanted pregnancy in person?

     

    You may not be old enough to remember, but the reason those ‘abortion centers’ were created in the first place was because of ProLife hysteria about abortions being done in hospitals as though ‘those women’ deserved the same care as everyone else and ‘those doctors’ deserved to deliver needed health care in the same setting with ‘decent’ people.

     

    To arrest ‘those definitely guilty of abortion’ how are they going to be identified?  What proofs will the investigative force need to identify which pregancies were miscarried and which were aborted?  Are there going to be jury trials where the women can tell their stories?  Do you think the death penalty is appropriate for girls and women not wanting to be pregnant or perhaps how many years in prison?  Who is going to take care of their other children while they’re in prison?

  • crowepps

    A law that would make the majority of abortions illegal would not be doing anything more than any other law. You may feel that your rights are being commandeered, but that’s how everyone feels when something they used to be able to do is removed as an option.

    The one big difference is that you are advocating for a law that will not apply to you.  You will never be in a situation where you want an abortion and cannot have one.  Your personal philosophy may be compelling to you, but that doesn’t have anything to do with whether it other people should be compelled to live by it.  Fetuses die during pregnancies often.  Why that happens and what the reasons for it are is purely and simply none of your business unless they’re YOUR fetus.

  • invalid-0

    Just because some people break a law doesn’t mean that it’s useless to enforce it. Illegal drugs can be purchased from drug dealers. How do police solve that problem? They find the dealers and arrest them while teaching normal people the dangers of drugs. They install penalties for drug dealing and purchasing that serve to deter people. What they don’t do is give up and set up centers to sell these drugs to anybody who wants them. Abortions will likely decline because many people will not have access to black market abortions, or will chose not to have one because it is no longer legal and therefore less easy.

    • otaku1960

      I’m struck by the comment about "normal people".  So, in  your opinion, any woman who uses a non-surgical method to end a pregnancy is therefore "abnormal"?  Of course abortions would decline if women who have had all options taken away can’t find a way to get around them. But be warned, history has shown us that outright abortion bans (or just draconic restrictions) are largely unworkable and take more time, effort and money to enforce than they are worth. 

      Your grievance shall be avenged.

  • crowepps

    Let’s see, they made alcohol illegal, prohibiting it turned out to create more problems than it solved and so they made it legal again.

     

    They made abortion illegal, prohibiting it turned out to create more problems than it solved and so they made it legal again.

     

    They made a long list of drugs illegal, and prohibiting SOME Of them has turned out to create more problems than it solved and so there is serious discussion about removing at least marijuana from the ‘banned’ list, selling it in stores and taxing it.

     

    Medical abortions through RU-486 will be as close as the nearest dealer.  Every woman who goes out of the country will fill up her purse with Plan B to pass out to her friends when she gets back.  Some women are learning how to do suction abortions and stockpiling the machines just in case.  The rate of abortions won’t go down at all.  What will happen instead is that the death rate for women will go up.

  • invalid-0

    Sorry for not answering this earlier I just noticed this now.

    Here’s your Rational Answer: If a woman’s life is in danger abortion is justified. Abortion could even be allowed until the development of the brain. I’ve been searching for exactly when that is but I’ve been getting a lot of conflicting information from different sources. Here’s one good one: http://brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

  • crowepps

    The part of the brain which is unique to humans, the cerebral cortex, develops at just about the time when abortions are restricted to medically necessary ones – 22 weeks.

     

    http://www.ajnr.org/cgi/content/full/22/1/184

  • invalid-0

    Perhaps the law would go to the lengths of forcing people to care for the hungry and homeless if their taxes did not go to build shelters for them to live in. The difference between those examples and the unborn fetus is that the fetus can not be cared for by anyone but the mother. Unless a fetus shelter becomes a possibility, the mother should care for the child for those 9 months. Perhaps others could help, after all many prolife groups specialize in providing financial aid to those who can’t afford pregnancy. But the direct care of the child always falls on its mother because there is no other way.

    As for enforcement. The only way a certain verdict could be delivered is if a woman sustained an abortion injury, or was caught in the act of aborting. Of course it is very unlikely for this to happen so most effort would be put into finding those who performed abortions. I don’t think the death penalty would be a good idea but jail time is fine. And as for their other children. What happens to the children of any man or woman arrested for murder, rape, robbery etc? They likely will live with relatives until time is served.

    To summarize, nobody can serve as an agent for the mother. It’s simply impossible. I would also add that except in the case of rape, the woman voluntarily created the life inside her. The analogy of turning down a homeless child about to die does not quite fit with abortion. It is more like leaving a child onto the street where you know they will die. Why? Because the homeless child is not your responsibility,but according to the law your own child is.

  • invalid-0

    Abortions will likely decline because many people will not have access to black market abortions,
    Oh boy…first of all, the days of isolated women lacking information, support and financial resources are gone. Women are connected, informed, determined and employed. If you think that women will not be able to access pharmaceutical abortifacients, you have a remarkable low opinion of female resourcefulness.

    They find the dealers and arrest them while teaching normal people the dangers of drugs. They install penalties for drug dealing and purchasing that serve to deter people.
    And this is working soooo well in our society. What are the incarceration rates for non-violent drug offenders? You really looking to add 900,000+ women to the prison rolls…annually? And are you suggesting that all miscarriages be investigated by the police? Because short of such draconian intrusion, your proposals are pointless. I could go on.

  • crowepps

    If people are going to insist that other people live by the precept that ‘all life is equally valuable’ then that homeless child IS their personal responsibility.

     

    It’s does not work as a precept to say ‘all life is equally valuable except when I’m personally inconvenienced’ because that would leave abortion legal.

  • invalid-0

    Rinse, repeat. IF the blastocyst/zygote/embryo/ fetus is a person entitled to equal protection under the law, then there is virtually no realm of human endeavor that women of childbearing age cannot be excluded from, no activity that women may not be restricted from, no aspect of a woman’s life that may not be circumscribed by law. IF the b/z/e/f is a person entitled to equal rights under the law, then equality under the law applies to men, postmenopausal/infertile women, and blastocysts, embryos, zygotes and fetuses but NOT TO FERTILE WOMEN of childbearing age.

  • invalid-0

    You continually reference the fact that society is unfair to everyone as justification for allowing abortion. I don’t understand this train of thought? If these acts of unkindness are wrong, how does this justify abortion? If we can’t start doing the right things merely because we’re still doing some wrong, nothing will ever get done. A homeless child is the parents responsibility. If the child cannot be cared for by the parent, that’s why we have child services. Society does attempt to protect the lives of its citizenry, just because it’s not very good at it doesn’t mean we can’t try to continue to protect the lives of every person we can the best we can. Baby steps, seriously. Just because it won’t have a radical effect over night, doesn’t mean it won’t have an effect. Merely because the fetus is an earlier, not as developed stage in human development, doesn’t mean it’s any less valuable.

  • invalid-0

    You’re equating the value of alcohol in the 20′s to abortion now? Wow, I didn’t realize abortion was so rampant. Prohibition was flawed on the basis that everyone drank alcohol, to ban it was almost like banning TV now..a stupid idea. Once again, if anti-abortion laws were put in place, it would not be a flat out ban on abortion, it would be severe restrictions placed on abortions. Abortion clinics would effectively be gone, as the amount of legal abortions would drop to about 1.2% of whatever they are now based on my last look at the statistics for abortions that were done for health reasons. Hospitals would carry out abortions to save the life of the mother. Abortion is done so commonly now because it is so socially acceptable. If it were made illegal, the number of abortions would go down. To say to the contrary is ridiculous. The penalty would be based on the situations. Doctors performing illegal abortions would lose their license/jail time. The mother could face jail time/fine/whatever the courts see as a necessary punishment. To say that a law shouldn’t be made a law because it would be broken, is not a sound argument. People are murdered all the time, cars are stolen, and fraud is still on the rise yet all of these things are illegal. Why? Not because it will mean everyone will stop doing them, it is so that the amount of people doing these things decline and it becomes more difficult to pull off these illegal maneuvers.

    • otaku1960

      hoary pro life argument for a near blanket abortion ban. It would force women to "think twice" and become "more chaste".  Gee, you could just enact a law mandating burqas while you’re at it. *snerk* 

      Your grievance shall be avenged.

  • invalid-0

    People advocate for laws all the time that will never affect them, it is based on the mere principle of the situation. I don’t believe that people should be allowed to kill their children based on nothing but desire. If abortion is legal, people should be allowed to murder their children before those children are of age. It’s effectively the same thing. If you can’t afford a child even though you have one, no, don’t put him in a ‘terrible’ foster home, just kill him. It’ll be better to have never lived, than to have lived in terrible conditions; well, according to the pro-choice movement.

    So, basically, what you’re saying is; if my wife gets an abortion without my consent, in a situation where her life is not at risk, she is allowed to kill my child and it will not affect me? That’s what you’re saying. That child shares half of my genetic information, and is ‘my’ child as well as hers. Yet its death will not affect me. Geez, I didn’t know how cold hearted I was. The problem with your philosophy, that it doesn’t concern me, is that it does. In a situation involving human rights, it may not be my human rights being violated, but that does not mean that I can be any less involved. Especially so in a case where those who are being persecuted lack the ability to speak for themselves.

  • invalid-0

    What the hell are you talking about? It has nothing to do with the competency of woman, abortions will go down after it is legal because there will be a penalty. No one goes out of their way to break the law. And because it is against the law, the socially accepted nature of abortions will also go down with time. How does creating anti-abortion laws somehow turn every single country into a fascist state? Please, tell me? Every time I get into an argument with a modern feminist(there’s a difference) they always straw man the enforcement aspect. How does child services work? Tip line. No one complains about that. If someone knows about an illegal abortion clinic, they will report it and the clinic will be shut down. Woman going out of their way to get these abortions will be penalized in some way, in whatever the courts feel necessary. Why would miscarriages be investigated by the police? Unless there is suspicion to believe that a person has purposefully committed an abortion, there’s no reason for an investigation. This is Canada, not the Soviet Union…..>_>

    • emma

      David, you still haven’t addressed my comment. Why not?
      Furthermore, you are talking about removing our rights here, not yours. You are advocating restricting women’s physical autonomy; laws that would affect us, as women, not you. I would therefore suggest that you have the decency to address us politely and respectfully (I recognise that the latter may be difficult, given that you don’t actually respect us as autonomous human beings), rather than being aggressive and hostile (‘what the hell are you talking about?’ and so forth). You really should be trying to convince us of the validity of your argument – since, again, you wish to restrict our rights – rather than aggressively attempting to impose your beliefs on us.

       

      This is one of the problems I have with the pro-foetus men on this site: you show up here to inform us that we should be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies, except perhaps under certain circumstances under which you might generously permit us to terminate, and then get hostile and aggressive when we object to that kind of imposition.

       

      It is not our obligation to be polite or respectful to you, by the way, as we are not advocating a removal of your right to bodily autonomy. It’s up to you to convince us that you are not, in fact, motivated by loathing of and contempt for women. So far, you’re failing rather spectacularly in that regard.

  • invalid-0

    Exactly as said by David. Plus, even if you ignore that there are still other factors that seperate abortion from the examples you listed.

    i)abortion is not neglect of the fetus it is deliberately killing it and that is always illegal no matter what kind of human it’s done to.

    ii) while the law allows you to ignore the needs of someone outside your house. It mantains responsibility for your children. That’s why not feeding the homeless isn’t punishable, but not feeding your son or daughter is.

    But these points hardly need be mentioned. David’s point hits the nail right on the head really.

  • invalid-0

    One more time…historically inaccurate. Do some research. From the Janes to PA country doctors, to bayou midwives, abortion has flourished across this nation since its founding, socially acceptable or not. The profound distinction between history and now is the educational, economic and social empowerment of women. We’re not going back, and today we have the internet, and the knowledge, support, resources and wherewithal to circumvent the kind of restrictions you advocate.

    As far as “socially unacceptable?” Clearly you are not familiar with the pattern described as “abortion is immoral, except for mine.” Again, do some research. You are deluding yourself if you think that simply outlawing abortion will end, or even limit the practice.

    Enforcement? Your response to the question of enforcement is “tip lines?” Seriously?

  • invalid-0

    Alaric, did you just equate a woman’s uterus with a “house?” Just checking.

  • invalid-0

    That’s how child services works. It’s not my invention, it’s how laws like these are enforced. The government doesn’t start monitoring everyone. It just checks when there is suspicion. You’re basically saying that woman nowadays have the ability to circumvent the law, or will at least be able to if these laws come into power? Then why are you arguing for it to be legal? Obviously it has some bearing on reducing abortions. That’s why there are laws, to reduce certain events. In this case, that’s abortion. And abortion would still be available to people that actually need them. This isn’t about suppressing woman, no matter how much you allude to that. It’s about preserving basic human rights to all humans.

  • invalid-0

    You may feel that your rights are being commandeered, but that’s how everyone feels when something they used to be able to do is removed as an option.

    You mean…removed as a legal option, don’t you, David? What you fail to grasp is that many women will not permit their rights to be commandeered, as you put it. A girlfriend of mine bluntly states; “my daughters are not livestock, and I will do whatever I must do to protect them, legally or illegally.” Your blithe assumption that the only people potentially involved in circumventing the laws you envision are the woman and her “dealer.” You are wildly mistaken. Mothers and fathers will protect their daughters. Husbands and lovers will help their women. Brothers and sisters will act on behalf of the siblings they love. Friends will help however they can. In all cases? Of course not…but in your zeal to reduce women to their reproductive apparatus, you forget that today, women do not necessarily stand alone. We’re not going back…and while you may be prepared for a social backlash unlike any seen in history…prepared to prosecute and incarcerate parents, husbands, lovers, siblings and friends for conspiracy…sane people are not.

  • emma

    David Marniss, you are actually incorrect. In countries in which abortion is illegal, abortion rates are much the same as in countries in which abortion is legal. In countries in which abortion is illegal, however, the number of women maimed or killed due to unsafe, illegal abortion is much higher.

     

    Do you understand what I’m saying? Banning abortion doesn’t stop abortion. Every day, throughout the world, women are desperate enough to knowingly risk their lives by obtaining illegal abortions (globally, about 70 000 women per year die from complications associated with unsafe abortion. The number of women permanently or temporarily disabled by unsafe abortion is, of course, much higher, but I can’t remember the number off the top of my head). And, you know, the fact that women are prepared to risk their lives to terminate pregnancies really should dispel the notion that women casually terminate pregnancies for no particular reason.

     

    This whole conversation is insane. Attempting to reduce the abortion rate by reducing or eliminating supply is doomed to failure. The best way to lower abortion rates is by reducing demand – i.e. reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Comprehensive sex education, affordable and accessible contraception and a decent social safety net are just a few measures that would reduce the abortion rate.
    Banning abortion doesn’t result in an end to abortion. An abortion ban would allow opponents of safe, legal abortion to pat themselves on the back for their moral victory, and that’s about all it would accomplish.

  • invalid-0

    “Clearly you are not familiar with the pattern described as “abortion is immoral, except for mine.” I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up. http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html

  • invalid-0

    Appreciate this, Anonymous. I’m just worn out and I feel like this is a war of attrition…as in…who is more committed. Thank You…you’ve given me a bit of energy.

  • invalid-0

    No Ahunt, I did not equate the two. I was simply stating that the sphere of your responsibility includes both a) children in your house and b)children in your uterus, and explaining that a) and b) have much in common that seperates them from c) an external person who you have no responsibility over and can therefore support indirectly (as in through taxes instead of direct aid).

  • invalid-0

    I was simply stating that the sphere of your responsibility includes both a) children in your house and b)children in your uterus

    How is this NOT equating Mom’s uterus with Mom’s house? Good Lord, I wish you could be pregnant, while simultaneously being responsible for two boys under five. Good Lord, I wish you had to give up your life plan for the sake of others. Your arrogance and blind privilege is breathtaking, Alaric, and when YOUR house is populated by the fruits of YOUR uterus, let us know. You’ll make history.

    And if the sphere of my responsibility includes the “children” in my uterus, I take it that you would support prohibitions on any activity or employment that would possibly threaten those “children.” Yes, no, maybe?

  • crowepps

    I’m not sure that it is possible to reconcile the "sacredness" and potential of fetal life with the actual value and sacredness of female life.

    Unfortunately, for too many the ProLife method seems to be attaching the ‘sacred’ to virginity, so that pregnant women by definition are less valuable.  This is the meme that leads to those statements about ‘responsibility’ and ‘consequences’ and ‘she knew when she had sex that she was risking’.  Female are only sacred until they are ‘debased’ and made ‘unclean’, after that they have no value.

  • crowepps

    You’re equating the value of alcohol in the 20′s to abortion now? Wow, I didn’t realize abortion was so rampant. Prohibition was flawed on the basis that everyone drank alcohol, to ban it was almost like banning TV now..a stupid idea.

     Your knowledge of history is inadequate.  Actually there were large segments of the population who never alcohol, and who saw the alcohol consumption of others as a major problem afflicting society.  So far as the consumption of alcohol, prohibition actually WORKED during the first year when the consumption of alcohol dropped tremendously.  The defects of ENFORCING that prohibition, however, were discovered to be worse than the original problem with alcohol.

     

    Once again, if anti-abortion laws were put in place, it would not be a flat out ban on abortion, it would be severe restrictions placed on abortions. Abortion clinics would effectively be gone, as the amount of legal abortions would drop to about 1.2% of whatever they are now based on my last look at the statistics for abortions that were done for health reasons. Hospitals would carry out abortions to save the life of the mother.

    Certainly LEGAL abortions would drop tremendously, however ILLEGAL abortions would rise precipitously, together with a huge increase in the death rate of pregnant women.

    Abortion is done so commonly now because it is so socially acceptable. If it were made illegal, the number of abortions would go down. To say to the contrary is ridiculous.

    First, I wouldn’t say that abortion is ‘socially acceptable’.  If it was, those ‘sidewalk counselors’ would stay home.  Secondly, prior to the ruling in Roe v Wade, when it WAS illegal, the number of abortions was very high, as was the suicide rate for women. 

    The penalty would be based on the situations. Doctors performing illegal abortions would lose their license/jail time. The mother could face jail time/fine/whatever the courts see as a necessary punishment.

    The courts don’t set ‘necessary punishment’, laws do.  So what laws would YOU like to see and what punishments would YOU like to see enacted in them?

    To say that a law shouldn’t be made a law because it would be broken, is not a sound argument.

    A law shouldn’t be passed if it is UNENFORCEABLE and past experience, here and in other countries, have shown that making abortions illegal doesn’t stop them.

  • crowepps

    The difference between those examples and the unborn fetus is that the fetus can not be cared for by anyone but the mother.

    That was exactly my point.  Why start there?  Why not start ‘valuing life’ in all those OTHER circumstances where men can just dig right in and prove how much THEY value life?  How come ‘valuing life’ is yet another one of those dirty, unpleasant jobs that they manage by handing the responsibility for it off on to the women around them?

     

    It’s pretty easy to pay (and complain about) taxes and claim that lets you off the hook for all the ills of society — it’s even easier to pick out somebody ELSE and say that society would be better if THEY would just change THEIR behavior.

     

    Instead of harassing women about abortion, how about starting a movement to shame and blame MEN who value life so little that they indulge in ‘promiscuous sex’ and fail to use birth control responsibly?  Let’s put all of THEM in jail and the abortion rate would plummet.

  • crowepps
    That’s how child services works. It’s not my invention, it’s how laws like these are enforced. The government doesn’t start monitoring everyone. It just checks when there is suspicion.
    Good Lord, man, if stopping abortion is going to be handled the way child services are currently done, you might as well not bother.  There are THREE MILLION reports of harm to children every year, ONE MILLION of which are found to be justified when they are investigated.
    You’re basically saying that woman nowadays have the ability to circumvent the law, or will at least be able to if these laws come into power? Then why are you arguing for it to be legal?
    Because circumventing the law kills them.
    Obviously it has some bearing on reducing abortions. That’s why there are laws, to reduce certain events. In this case, that’s abortion. And abortion would still be available to people that actually need them.
    No, the purpose of laws is to be able to PUNISH PEOPLE who are ‘immoral’.
    This isn’t about suppressing woman, no matter how much you allude to that. It’s about preserving basic human rights to all humans.

    Except the women, who lose their rights during their reproductive years.

  • crowepps

    Merely because the fetus is an earlier, not as developed stage in human development, doesn’t mean it’s any less valuable.

    It doesn’t mean it’s any MORE valuable either.  Why start ‘valuing life’ with an undeveloped stage of human life when there’s all kinds of developed life around that could use a hand?  In my opinion, it’s because it all HER responsibility, so it’s a cheap and easy morality, one where the consequences rest entirely on someone else.

     

    Society does attempt to protect the lives of its citizenry, just because it’s not very good at it doesn’t mean we can’t try to continue to protect the lives of every person we can the best we can.

    Seems fair to me to continue to be ‘not very good at’ protecting fetuses until sure time as society is really excellent at preventing rape, spousal abuse and discrimination against women.  Once the WOMAN actually is protected, it would be a good time to start discussing her contents.

  • invalid-0

    Personal responsibility covers both the born and unborn child. The location of that child is inconsequential. Therefore although the uterus and house are very different, a child and a human life exists in both. Also i notice that you put child in quotations. Is this because you don’t see a fetus as human? If so this argument isn’t really for you. Since Croweeps and I were operating on the premise that it was human. I could argue that with you if you’d like. As for actions threatening children. drinking or smoking is allowed, but getting extremely drunk or smoking an incredibly high level would not be allowed. I think i’ll leave it to the scientists to figure out how high these habits can be tolerated.

  • heather-corinna

    I’m still staying out of most of the remaining conversation that has gone on here, especially since it feels so counter to the original piece, very much including some of the language that has been used.

     

    But I feel like I just can’t keep from saying that reading a (correct me if I am mistaken) male-bodied person talk about his utopia for what he would dictate would and would not be allowed (or are we at punishable?) for pregnant women — as well as stating that the "location" of a fetus, location meaning a woman’s freaking body, is not relevant — is earnestly making me completely sick to my stomach.

  • colleen

    – is earnestly making me completely sick to my stomach.

     I had the same reaction. Such revolting  men

     

     

     

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    As for actions threatening children. drinking or smoking is allowed, but getting extremely drunk or smoking an incredibly high level would not be allowed.

    Not be allowed by whom? Are you suggesting that pregnant women be legally prohibited from engaging in otherwise legal activities? If so, at what point in the pregnancy would the legal prohibitions kick in? Bear in mind, there is a long list of activities/hobbies/employment that can potentially negatively impact the blastocyst/embryo/fetus. Write the legislation for us…inquiring minds want to read it.

  • invalid-0

    I apologize if I personally used any of the language you described. But I believe that when used we had it clearly defined amongst ourselves.

    All I am saying is that the location of the human doesn’t make it any less human or any less important. Therefore you have to argue the abortion argument taking into account the humanity of the fetus.

    So, one more time: financial and physical inconvenience, change in life plans and social troubles < death. Unless you want to argue that that’s untrue.

    The argument of prochoicers is that a woman deserves reproductive rights and choice in her pregnancy. They argue that these rights must never be trumped by anything. But human rights have an order and right to life is right up at the top. One can’t exercise rights that infringe on rights of others. And if one acknowledges that the fetus is human then a prolife stance is very sensible.

    Unless of course someone wants to argue that the fetus isn’t human, or if someone else wants to follow croweeps example and explain to me how any problem should be avoided by ending a human life.

    • crowepps

      All I am saying is that the location of the human doesn’t make it any less human or any less important.

      Explain to me how any problem should be avoided by ending a human life.

      Happened to reread this looking for something else.

       

      Of COURSE the location of the human makes it less important.  ‘Humans’ in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran apparently have very little value.  There was a great deal of comment recently about bombing Iran — there are ONE MILLION pregnant women in Iran – their fetuses, obviously, have very little value.

       

      Ending problems by ending human life: ending the problem of crime by using capital punishment as a deterrent, ending the problem of territorial disputes by having soldiers kill each other, ending the threat to a homeowners by allowing them to shoot intruders, ending the problem of law enforcement feeling threatened by shooting suspects, ending a pregnancy when medically necessary and way back in the "good old days", ending the problem of various gods being displeased by performing human sacrifice.

       

      I can think of LOTS of examples where it’s considered perfectly fine to solve problems by killing people.

  • invalid-0

    But human rights have an order and right to life is right up at the top.
    As is personal bodily sovereignty. Your right to life does not trump my right to determine who or what uses my body.

  • heather-corinna

    I’d say it seems strange to me that you’d apologize for the language you used and not the misogyny you’re exhibiting, except that it doesn’t.  Color me unsurprised.

    I do, however, find you saying this more than a little odd:

    One can’t exercise rights that infringe on rights of others.

    Because that IS the central crux of all issues around pregnancy.  Some of what you are suggesting for women, beyond making me personally ill especially considering you aren’t one yourself, WOULD do exactly that.  You can’t separate, somehow, a fetus from the woman whom it lives inside (before viability) and cannot yet exist outside of or without.  It becomes a question — for those for whom it is a question, I am not among their number — of whose rights, since they are inseparable entities, one puts first when one must consider things that way (and that isn’t the case with all pregnancies or abortions: some women choose to terminate setting themselves and their wants aside to try and do what they think would be best for a child), and/or understanding that simplistic logic or absolutism don’t work so well when a woman is trying to make her best choices for both, and considering far more than just the existence of life for both, but the quality of life for both.

     

    And now I’ve gone and dishonored my own agreement with myself not to engage in this with you, so I’m stepping away again.

     

     

  • invalid-0

    The problem isn’t your language. The problem is your obvious contempt for women and your foolish and boundlessly arrogant assumption of ‘moral’ authority over us.
    You have none. How dare you lecture us about ‘personal responsibility’ and particularly after you and your buddy bleat out your pride in your lack of any social responsibility for those of us who are already born? Such men the religious right sends out. I wouldn’t let you near a child.

  • invalid-0

    How dare you lecture us

    To people who think things happen for a reason, being born a fertile women is a Sign about what God (or Sexist Nature) wants, so they feel it’s reasonable to have these expectations. Same way the ruling oligarchy thinks they’re entitled to maximize their profits by avoiding paying a living wage. If God had wanted it different, he wouldn’t have let it happen.

  • invalid-0

    ahunt: I can’t believe what you are saying. When faced with two beings of equal humanity, how can anyone say that the right to bodily sovereignty of one outway right to life of the other?

    HC: I am not exhibiting misogyny. You merely see misogyny because you know I am a male prolife advocate. And in your minds that can only mean I hate women. It is not a question of whose rights one choses to put first. I mean this as in I do not place the rights of the fetus over those of the woman. I just put right to life over right to bodily sovereignty. And killing somebody is never in their best interests, especially if that somebody doesn’t get a choice in their death. So its impossible for a mother to kill her child for the child’s own good.

    coleen: Your presumptions are unfair and prejudiced. I am not the religious right. I am not those you may have argued in the past. I am not a misogynist. I was not bragging about lack of responsibility to the born, I was merely explaining to one of your own why injustices outside the womb can’t justify those within it.

  • invalid-0

    ahunt: I can’t believe what you are saying. When faced with two beings of equal humanity, how can anyone say that the right to bodily sovereignty of one outway right to life of the other?

    Believe it, Alaric. By your own reasoning, if you had kidney failure, and I was your only match…you have the right to appropriate my kidney against my will.

    Also,you are assuming that I grant equal value to the blastocyst/embryo/fetus. I do not. So you can absolutely believe that I think a woman’s right to bodily sovereignty trumps all.

  • invalid-0

    Instead of harassing women about abortion, how about starting a movement to shame and blame MEN who value life so little that they indulge in ‘promiscuous sex’ and fail to use birth control responsibly? Let’s put all of THEM in jail and the abortion rate would plummet.

    Crowepps, I gave this one a coupla days, just to see what the boys might have to say. The silence speaks volumes. Apparently, the boys are all over assigning responsibility, unless it involves assigning responsibility to the boys. Why is that, do you think?

  • invalid-0

    This kidney failure argument of yours isn’t exactly fitting. In denying someone a kidney you aren’t directly killing them, it is not murder. Abortion is the deliberate killing of the fetus. You say you don’t grant equal value to the fetus, why not? At what point does it transform from bundle of cells to human being? Is this change because of some biological change or simply because of change in location? I simply want to know where you stand before I engage in argument with you. After all my previous arguments were based on accepting the fetus as a human being.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, and that means that 1 million children are saved from harm. The system may be inefficient, but because it is there, it can be improved and the fact that is has some success at all is justification enough. Or are you saying that Child Services should be removed as well, because apparently children don’t matter.

    Circumventing the law kills them? What about the child? Less than 1.2% of abortion are for health reasons. That means that over 98% of abortions occur merely because the mother doesn’t want to go through pregnancy. “**** it, let’s just kill the child”, is effectively the reaction. I have never said that I wanted woman to die from child birth. If a woman is going to die, she has the right to kill her child over herself. But that is the vast minority of cases, and I don’t believe that completely legalizing abortion in all cases is the stance to take for the vast minority of pregnancies.

    No, the purpose of law is the protect society. To some, sexual promiscuity is immoral, yet it’s legal. To some premarital sex is immoral, yet it’s legal. Morality is too ambiguous for to base laws off of. In this case, an anti-abortion law would protect those people that are being killed by abortion.

    Reproductive rights? Yes, you have your reproductive rights, but those rights don’t trump another human life. Given that the majority of abortions aren’t from rape or anything like that, I don’t see how you’re losing your rights. You chose to have sex. A possible occurrence is pregnancy. Just because you don’t want to face that, doesn’t mean you should be able to kill your child. The woman must bare the child, and the father is also responsible to that child till the child becomes an adult, his wallet is bound to that kid till 18 years of age. It’s not as if the woman is the only one who is bound by a pregnancy. It is both the mother and father that have to face the responsibility of their actions. There’s no going around that.

  • invalid-0

    Your knowledge of history is inadequate. Prohibition didn’t work because it deprived people of something harmless. It went too far. Laws prohibiting the consumption of liqueur during certain times and places, etc would have much more effective. The difference between alcohol and abortion is that abortion is the killing of a person, vs the ability to drink some beer. One ends in death, that’s the difference.

    The presence of advocacy against doesn’t mean it isn’t socially acceptable. The presence of ‘sidewalk’ counselors doesn’t mean it’s viewed as terrible. Abortions High=High Suicide rates for woman…is what you just said…>_>
    The problem with abortion is that the majority of people who have abortions don’t view the child growing in the womb as a person. Just ‘a clump of cells’…completely ignorant of the fact that everyone is a clump of cells. That’s what a multi-cellular organism is. It’s effectively wide spread ignorance. If more time was spent on education, in terms of Contraceptives, Pregnancy, Abstinence, etc, it would be a lot more effective than just allowing abortion to be completely legal.

    A law that’s unenforceable? It’s enforceable, it would just be difficult. It is impossible to stop organized crime. That’s a fact. And yet, every day, they(the law enforcement body) try. That doesn’t mean it should be legal. Suicide is illegal. How do you enforce that? You can’t, yet it’s illegal. Abortion shouldn’t be legal because it deprives people of human rights. Not to mention the fact that abortion in other countries is used as population control. Used as a method to receive a male heir(killing the female children in the womb, then try again).

    • invalid-0

      The “human rights” that you’re referring to is clearly the so-called rights of the unborn, which is a lot of baloney.

  • invalid-0

    No, it doesn’t make it more valuable. They are of equal value, so when a situation arises where there are two options, one leading to one dead and the other alive Vs both alive…really, which is the more fair choice to the both of them. You mention this constantly, “Why start ‘valuing life’ with an undeveloped stage of human life when there’s all kinds of developed life around that could use a hand?” That’s not an argument for abortion. Maybe if people weren’t so busy fighting for people to be allowed to be alive, we might have some extra time to help some living people. But where we are now, the value of life itself is in question.

    Well, for one thing. Spousal abuse is almost even in Canada. http://www.imfcanada.org/article_files/Canadian%20Spousal%20Abuse%20Statistics.pdf

    As you can see from those statistics, it’s not just woman, it’s everyone who’s in trouble from abuse. Secondly, as for discrimination against woman, I agree with you there. There is discrimination against woman, however not all of it is, “I won’t hire a woman”. It’s more like, “I’ll hire a woman because we don’t have enough woman, not because she possess more skills than her competition.” Quota’s are BS. If woman wanted to be looked at with respect and dignity, they should be on the same playing field as men. So it’s no longer gender differences, it’s just a matter of who’s better. This is not to say that there aren’t legitimate wrongs being perpetrated on woman, however to say that woman are the slaves of the post-modern world is ridiculous. Life is more complicated than that.

  • invalid-0

    You determined that a baby would inhabit your body when you chose to have sex. You can’t just back track and then kill the child based on whim. It’s not his right to life or my right to life, it’s the child’s right to life that trumps your personal desires. Unless you are going to die, there is no reason that you should be allowed to kill someone else.

  • invalid-0

    1) This is not an argument for abortion.

    2)We aren’t harassing woman, or at least, I’m not. A man who indulges in promiscuous sex is just as bound to the child as the mother who is also indulging in promiscuous sex. He’s forced to pay for that child for the next 18 years. Both men and woman are responsible for birth control. If neither use birth control, it’s both of their faults. They are both bound.

    3) So now men should go to jail for having sex? What happened to gender equality?

    At first I wasn’t going to respond to this because it seemed ridiculous that it would even be suggested, however Ahunt’s post prompted me to respond. If only because it was almost equally ridiculous. And as a side not, I’m not constantly checking this site every day to see updates, I have a life…that I live. An unlike some of you, I like life.

  • invalid-0

    No…you applied his reasoning completely inaccurately. No one has the right to take anything that is yours. And as the child developing in the womb is itself alive, even if it is dependent on you, you lack the ability to take its life against its will.

    Secondly, it does not matter that you don’t grant equal value. They are equal. Life is life is life is life. Meaning that all life is valuable by virtue of being alive, once the zygote has been formed a human has begun to develop, and a human that is developing is alive. Therefore it has the same rights as any other living person. So in response to your last statement, no, a woman’s sovereign command over her body does not trump the life of another person.

  • invalid-0

    Actually, I’d say the real reason prohibition didn’t work (as with laws against, well, anything) is that as long as there’s demand, someone will supply. Drugs are illegal. Prostitution is illegal. In some places, abortion is illegal. That doesn’t stop those who want these things from obtaining them. Abortion shouldn’t be outlawed because ultimately that would only cause more suffering for pregnant women without actually saving lives. As with anything, the best course of action is to find ways to reduce demand. Abortion will happen with or without laws against it, but it can’t happen without demand for it.

  • colleen

    A man who indulges in promiscuous sex is just as bound to the child as
    the mother who is also indulging in promiscuous sex. He’s forced to pay
    for that child for the next 18 years.

     

     You need to stop denying and speaking lies. We spend billions of dollars trying to make divorced American fathers with court ordered child support to comply and, most OOW births have no court ordered child support. Likewise anyone claiming that child support payments are in any sense equivalent to the immense tasks of gestating and raising a child needs to shutup and listen to people who understand what they’re talking about. What are you? 15? 

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    Gee David, I’m wondering what alternative universe you inhabit?

    I’m not. A man who indulges in promiscuous sex is just as bound to the child as the mother who is also indulging in promiscuous sex.

    If such is the case, why all the handwringing over fatherless households? MRA’s like to claim that women make it impossible for unwed fathers to participate in the lives of their children, and there may be some truth to this. Ongoing research, however, suggests there are also significant numbers of men who consciously choose non-participation in childrearing. So the question is…men are “bound” by what exactly? Laws may force some level of financial support, but there are no laws that can bind men to children in the paternal sense. And in the real world, child support payments do not even come close to being half the cost of raising a child. So no…it is not true that “promiscuous” men are just as “bound” to parent a child as “promisiscuous” women.

  • invalid-0

    You say you don’t grant equal value to the fetus, why not?

    I do not place potential life on the same plane as actual life.

  • invalid-0

    The fetus use of a womans body to maintain its life is not analogous to a persons right to life.

  • invalid-0

    then the fetus is removed from taking from the womans body, and it dies.

  • invalid-0

    Hey ahunt, looks like the goal posts keep moving!

  • invalid-0

    You determined that a baby would inhabit your body when you chose to have sex.

    Rubbish. I no more determine that a conception will occur whenever I am intimate with my husband, than I determine that I will hit a whitetail with my car on the way to work, though both are possibilities.

  • invalid-0

    No one has the right to take anything that is yoursand…therefore it has the same rights as any other living person.

    And my uterus is mine, and no person has the right to my body against my will. See how that works?

  • invalid-0

    Yet the fetus is alive. In reality, it isn’t potential life Vs. actual life. You only choose to appreciate life when it has nothing to do with you. Much like the Environmentalists with massive carbon footprints and the communists with more cash flow than the country they serve.

  • invalid-0

    Denying and speaking lies? What lies? The facts you can’t refute are now lies?

    Both parties who partake in promiscuity understand the risk of sex. The woman has a higher risk given the nature of the mother/infant relationship. It only means that she should be more careful with sex than a man because in the even of a pregnancy, it will have a more initial impact on her than anyone else. If a man has sex, he might have a child he’s responsible to, and as such, he’s legally obligated to that child in the case of it actually being conceived. Likewise, if a woman has sex, there is also a chance of her becoming pregnant, in the case of her being pregnant, she shouldn’t be allowed to kill her child. She brought this life into the world, for her to kill the child merely because she can’t handle her own responsibility is ridiculous. She is bound to that child, he is bound to that child, both are bound in different ways, but bound they are nonetheless.

    I’m not saying the stresses are equal, what I’m saying is that both are responsible to that child. A man is automatically responsible to the child if it is born. Whereas a woman has the ability to abort it if she chooses? If a woman can abort her child, there shouldn’t be a thing as child support. For gender equality neither party should be obligated to the child in a world where abortion is legal as it is now. But you aren’t advocating for that are you? No, you just want to be able to kill your child.

  • invalid-0

    The direct physical purpose of sex is procreation. When you have sex you are taking the risk that you will bring a life into the world. You driving and hitting a whitetail can only happen if you drive a car. If you don’t want to hit the whitetail, don’t drive.

  • invalid-0

    There are men who want nothing to do with their children. There are men that very much would like to spend time with their children. However to say that because child support payments don’t adequately cover the cost of children that abortion is justified is ridiculous. Why not advocate for men to pay more for child support. Or to create stricter laws fathership. It’s because this isn’t why you believe abortion should be legal. You just want to be able to kill your child. At the end of the day, none of this justifies killing your child. And unless a woman’s life is in danger, nothing else does either.

  • invalid-0

    Uh yeah…about that “promiscuity” thing? A large percentage of women who obtain abortions are married, and an equally large percentage are in committed, monogamous relationships.

  • invalid-0

    Pre-viability, I do regard fetal life as potential life. I came to this conclusion after two consecutive still births.

  • invalid-0

    If a woman can abort her child, there shouldn’t be a thing as child support.

    Why? And I suggest you be very careful here, David.

    • invalid-0

      Because if a woman has the ability to forfeit her responsibility to the child, a man should be able to do the same. That’s gender equality. I’m not advocating for that, because I don’t wish for abortion to be legal, but it is the next logical step in gender equality if abortion is going to stay legal.

  • invalid-0

    Why not advocate for men to pay more for child support.
    Can’t get green from a dry plant.
    Or to create stricter laws fathership.
    SPEW…well, ain’t just the political scientist, David. Out of curiosity, why don’t you write the legislation for us. This I gotta read.

  • invalid-0

    I will keep reiterating what I’ve always believed: the core of anti-choice arguments is always rooted in fear of female sexuality. Namely, sex that is not an act of grim copulation between two legally-married heterosexuals for “the children”. If women can have sex without fear of pregnancy – a ransom on their bodies, if you will – being forefront, how will we put them in their place? If women can contracept and abort, how will we know when we have taken dominance over their bodies?

    • invalid-0

      You’ve said it all. It’s all about controlling women’s ability to live their own lives as they choose, and to the most committed on the anti-choice side it is intolerable that women might choose to be sexually active, and that women might choose not to have children. They cannot understand that motherhood is not the wish of every woman.

  • invalid-0

    conception doesn’t occur in the sex act itself.

  • invalid-0

    PR, I have my own little undeveloped theory about the disconnect between the “all life is sacred” crowd and the ongoing, worldwide devaluation of women. I think the ALIS true believers think of women as the last line of defense against complete disregard for human well being, and if they cannot change the reality that “all human life is not remotely sacred,” then at least they can control female sexuality, and women in general, and claim ownership of this arena of the human condition. Devaluing women and defining women only in terms of their reproductive contribution allows them some sense of power and control in a world that does not share their belief in the concept of “sacred human life.”

  • invalid-0

    Hey ahunt, looks like the goal posts keep moving!

    Yah, and not one of these guys has considered the rational ramifications of placing the goal posts at fertilization.

  • invalid-0

    The direct physical purpose of sex is procreation. When you have sex you are taking the risk that you will bring a life into the world. You driving and hitting a whitetail can only happen if you drive a car. If you don’t want to hit the whitetail, don’t drive.

    You don’t mind if I quote you verbatim, do you? Just checking.

  • heather-corinna

    The direct physical purpose of sex is procreation. When you have sex
    you are taking the risk that you will bring a life into the world.

     

    You
    guys really need to stop saying that. It sounds like what children say about sex, not adults who know better.  At BEST, you can get away with
    saying that the direct physical purpose of INTERCOURSE is procreation
    (after all, of all the kinds of sex there are, only intercourse can
    result in pregnancy).  But even that is pretty iffy, especially when
    you consider how many people’s primary physical motivations for sex, and what
    sex physically results in for them (far more often than it results in
    pregnancy by the numbers) is physical stimulation, pleasure, release, a physical feeling of resolution or
    relaxation.

     

    As well, to limit what the purpose of sex is to procreation or possible secondary physical results is Cliffs-noting sex to a ridiculous degree which again, makes you sound like a simpleton or someone who has not actually experienced sex.

     

    I also just can’t help but feel that if YOU — not a woman you are schtupping, but you — were able to become pregnant, and your sole or only motivation for sex was about procreating, you’d maybe be electing to have sex but a few times in your life at a maximum.  Which we know isn’t the case for most women, and most certainly not the case for most men. 

     

    And I don’t know why I’m bothering trying to get this through to some of you again, maybe I just love exercises in futility, but for the 80-zillionth time, a male-bodied person talking about the risks we all take with intercourse when it comes to children and pregnancy just sounds really foolish.  Even the way you say it — "bringing life into the world" — sounds dismissive of all a woman goes through and may go through before that actually happens, as well as with whom the primary responsibility for that potential life actually lies.  There are plenty of women here, including in this very discussion, who know EXACTLY what all of that entails: why are you so resistant to listen to them and let THEM be the experts on something that’s about them and not about you? Why, when what they express differs from what you presume about pregnancy, do you immediately go to "they’re wrong," rather than considering that by virtue of them actually having thedirect experience you cannot, they might know or understand some things you don’t?

  • invalid-0

    female humans don’t have heat cycles.

  • invalid-0

    especially when you consider how many people’s primary physical motivations for sex, and what sex physically results in for them (far more often than it results in pregnancy by the numbers) is physical stimulation, pleasure, release, a physical feeling of resolution or relaxation.

    Thirty years in, you can add “bonding” maintenance to the list of motivations. And I can only add, Heather, that I’m grateful for the young women like you, who are beautifully articulating the pro-sex/pro-woman/pro-choice positions. I’ve been at this for so long, and I often find myself unable to repeat my position one more time, taking refuge in sarcasm and one-liners. My sense of humor gets the better of me, as does my frustration, and productive dialogue takes a header. Nicely done, Young Lady! And thank you again. My grandgirls also thank you.

  • invalid-0

    Ahunt: If the fetus is potential life just because it has a high chance of dying, then what do you consider an adult with a cancer diagnosis? Does their life become potential just because there is a chance they will not live to a particular age? Of course not. What about children who are born with defects that cause them to struggle through their first weeks of life? They have a much higher than usual chance of death but that doesn’t make their lives any less real. Both you and Princess Rot are wrong.

    The “ALIS” crew believes that all human life is important (sacred might be putting it too theologically for some of us). Most of us see progress in this direction. Laws in all sorts of countries are at least moving in the direction of human equality for all. The developed world especially is meant to set the standard for others to follow. But the fetus is the only human whose rights are denied utterly even by us, and we feel the need to stop it. How many times in the past have we looked at other humans and denied them humanity because it would be inconvenient to do so, or because it was hard to enforce, or because the majority was antagonistic or apathetic to their sitiuation, or because they had no power with which to defend themselves? And every time we look back on the situation and judge ourselves. This is not about controlling sex, it is about saving human lives. Even if you disagree with us, understand our motives and realize that at the very least from our perspective our actions are of the utmost importance. Yes we do believe that your body belongs to you and what you do with it is your business, but that changes when you have another human being living inside you. Your rights and theirs must be compared. And it comes down to which is more important: Right to do as one wish with ones own body, or ones right to life. Killing an inoccent person is indisputedly wrong and we would never argue that anything else would invalidate that statement. But somehow when we dehumanize the victims, make them unwanted accidents, mistakes that never should have happened, We think it’s okay.

  • emma

    David Marniss, I note that you haven’t bothered to directly address my comment from July 17th. In that comment, I pointed out that banning abortion in other countries has not had any significant effect in lowering the abortion rate in those countries. Do you think this would be different in the US? If so, why?

     

    I also pointed out that globally, approximately 70 000 women die each year from unsafe abortions (you can verify this by googling unsafe abortion death rates – I’m not in the mood to find links for you, since you didn’t bother to respond to my previous post). The vast majority of those deaths occur in countries in which abortion is illegal. The rate of injury resulting in permanent disability is far higher.

     

    Now, you can say ‘well, murder is illegal, but it still happens, so should we make that legal???!!’, which is the standard response from advocates of illegalising abortion. But it’s not comparable. The reason it’s not comparable is that abortion bans are not only ineffective, but they actually result in harm. Could you please tell me the point of a law that is not only ineffective, but harmful? Why is that desirable to you?

     

    Don’t bother with comparisons with drug laws, please. I would argue that drug laws as they stand in the US at the moment are both pointless and harmful. I advocate decriminalisation of all drugs; substance abuse should be treated as a health issue, not a legal one. In Portugal, decriminalisation of all drugs has successfully reduced rates of drug use, increased the number of people who’ve sought treatment for drug addiction, and so forth.

     

    So please answer my question. Why is banning abortion or very drastically restricting it desirable when a) it is ineffective, as it results in no significant decrease in abortion rates; and b) is harmful to women, as it increases the number of women who are maimed and killed by unsafe, illegal abortion?

  • invalid-0

    So essentially, Alaric, you have no rational response to the question of how your ideals can effectively be codified into law and actually implemented…and you have no comprehension of how your ideals will essentially reduce women to breeding stock… and you have no understanding of sex apart from the procreative function. Am I missing anything?
    And incidentally, apart from Ireland and Nicaragua, reproductive freedom is gaining ground. Spain will be the next to sign on.

  • invalid-0

    Ahunt: If the fetus is potential life just because it has a high chance of dying, then what do you consider an adult with a cancer diagnosis?

    A separate individual with a medical issue.

    • invalid-0

      A cancer patient is not dependent on someone else’s body to survive. Obvious, really…

  • crowepps

    Then of course there will be the problem of figuring out who the lawbreakers ARE — after all, I’d bet just about every woman who’s ever been overweight (especially that persistent post-pregnancy baby-belly) has had at least one clueless clod glance at her stomach and ask ‘when are you due?’

     

    Perhaps when a woman gets her positive pregnancy test back, they’ll have to paint her face purple or make her wear a pink heart with a fetus inside it on her chest so that those fetal guardians out there can keep an eye on whether she’s eating chocolate or walking too fast or looking at something upsetting like newspapers.

  • crowepps

    Obviously, we all KNOW that, but the point is that if Nature or God or whoever designed our reproductive systems really truly WANTED all sex to be about reproduction, estrus cycles would be exactly the system that It/He would have put in place.

  • invalid-0

    The problem with arguing with you here is, that you already have a presumption of who you’re arguing. You bring up points no one has used to justify their stance and no matter what I or anyone else agreeing with me say, you already think you know my ideals.

    First of all, the pro-life argument isn’t anti-contraceptives, it’s anti-abortion. There are religious groups that are anti-contraceptives, but they don’t understand their own religion. Secondly, your belief that this is nothing more than another attempt to oppress woman is moot by nature of ignoring the heart of this debate. If you cannot justify killing a developing child, you have no argument. If it is, “To empower woman”, there are other ways of doing that other than killing children. Making it so that woman are equal before the law in all respects is a start. Trying to end gender bias, ending quota’s, removing social constraints, etc. These are all ways of helping/supporting/aiding woman in reaching gender equality. Giving them the ability to kill their children may be empowering, but it isn’t right. This has nothing to do with my philosophical views, nor anything subjective like that. On the basis that human life is precious, you cannot justify ending that life merely because you want to. And I have as of yet to see anyone do so.

  • invalid-0

    Sex leads to children. Just because you aren’t having sex to have children, doesn’t negate that fact. You may be desiring the physical pleasure, but that doesn’t remove the fact that sex, intercourse, whatever(if you’re going to argue semantics) leads to children. I’m not saying that everyone has sex strictly for pro-creation, what I am saying is that by having sex, it can lead to pregnancy, and by engaging in intercourse, protected or not, pregnancy is a definite possibility. And by extension of that understanding of sex, when two adults have sex, there not wanting to become pregnant does not excuse them from removing the life of the child. Sex is the act, the child is a possible outcome, you may come for the act, but you that doesn’t mean you can abandon your responsibility to what it has produced. A living person.

    In regards to your second paragraph. I’ve been reading what these woman have been saying. However, I have as of yet to see anyone justify the killing of a child. Everyone has told me that it is an extremely laborious task, that involves anguish, suffering and is the single worst experience in the world. Yet no one has explained to me how two consenting adults, understanding the risks of sex, undergo the process, and yet still desire to kill the child afterward. How can you justify that. It was a consensual act that brought a life into the world, and because someone can’t handle their own responsibilities they’re now allowed to kill a child they brought forth? No one has explained to me how that makes any sense. I’ve heard ranting on gender equality, I’ve heard that it isn’t human, I’ve heard it all. Yet, no one can justify killing a child, especially in a situation where it was a persons own actions that brought said person about. It doesn’t make sense. This goes beyond simple personal responsibility. This is a blatant disregard for human life.

  • heather-corinna

    I didn’t include things like emotional bonding because he was talking about (apparently, and as if we can easily compartmentalize all of this) the physical results of sex (or in his case, intercourse).  Of course, if we talked about all the various purposes and motivations for sex, bonding would be included, and since we’re talking about human needs like touch, which are physical, it’s certainly an overlap.

     

    And I can only add, Heather, that I’m grateful for the young women like
    you, who are beautifully articulating the pro-sex/pro-woman/pro-choice
    positions. I’ve been at this for so long, and I often find myself
    unable to repeat my position one more time, taking refuge in sarcasm
    and one-liners. My sense of humor gets the better of me, as does my
    frustration, and productive dialogue takes a header. Nicely done, Young
    Lady! And thank you again. My grandgirls also thank you.

     

    Thanks so much for saying that. :) That’s really lovely, and I’m thankful for you, too!

  • invalid-0

    Just because you regard it so doesn’t make it so. A still birth is merely a person who has died. Inexplicable death as justification for a devaluing of human life doesn’t make sense. Those children were living inside of you. Their death doesn’t mean that they weren’t living yet. To say they weren’t viable is denying their humanity. The occurrence of death doesn’t deny the value of life.

  • invalid-0

    There are religious groups that are anti-contraceptives, but they don’t understand their own religion.

    Here ye, here ye – your religion is falsely teaching if it does not agree with the teachings of David Marniss.

    • invalid-0

      I’m merely referring to the fact that most religious fanatics have a very shallow understanding of their own religion. If they understood it, they wouldn’t be fanatics.

  • emma

    I have the distinct impression that David is one of those men who is of the view that women who have sex, get pregnant, are desperate, and attempt to abort their own pregnancies or find someone else to illegally and dangerously attempt to terminate their pregnancies for them, deserve whatever they get. If they die, well, tough shit for them. He’s attempting to deny his very obvious disregard for women’s lives by insisting that the result of banning abortion in the US would be different from the result in other countries where abortion is illegal, which is naive, at best.

     

    And David, how dare you suggest that women just casually think ‘oh fuck it, I’ll just kill my foetus’. Who the hell do you think you are to imply that women are irresponsible assholes who don’t figure they just needn’t bother with contraception because hey, we can just go out and get an abortion. Women are not the irresponsible idiots you assume we are, but it’s nice to know what you really think of us.

     

    I don’t think you understand exactly what’s happening here, David. You show up here to inform us that we should be forced to continue pregnancies because David doesn’t like abortion; our beliefs and values and circumstances are irrelevant; it’s David’s beliefs and values that are important. David doesn’t give a damn that death rates of women rise when abortion is banned, or that abortion rates don’t decline – and if you bothered to look at comparative abortion rates between countries, you’d know this — but why bother researching the practical implications of the policies you advocate, right? No, what’s important is that David scores some political points and gets to impose his particular beliefs on other people, because of course, the laws he advocates won’t affect him. Power, control and ‘sending a message’ that David really, really loves foetuses are what’s important here. And oh christ, those vacuous, hackneyed drug and murder law comparisons – do you have any idea just how often we’ve heard that poorly thought out rubbish?

     

    And then, David completely dismisses the concerns of all the women here – the ones who would actually be personally affected by an abortion ban. Why should our opinions and concerns be taken into account; it’s what David wants that’s important.
    Everything you’ve written, David, is exactly the same tripe every anti-abortion male at this site comes out with. Are you all sockpuppets, or something?

    • invalid-0

      I’ve mentioned the ‘oh **** it, I’ll just kill my fetus’ type of woman before, as an extreme example. Obviously you haven’t been reading my responses. In the piece we’re posting on, it articulates that there is casual abortion as well, so I don’t see how you can straw man that and twist it into my hating all women. Also, since you haven’t been reading my posts, I’ve also articulated the belief that abortion should be legal when the mother is at risk. Again, I fail to see how a woman having the power to kill a human being at will, doesn’t affect me. With your logic, no man should be able to advocate for pro-abortion either, because they can’t possibly understand the situation, it doesn’t affect them, so they shouldn’t be involved.

      In response to your last paragraph, I don’t see how I’ve dismissed the beliefs of all woman here. I’ve taken into account the fact that some women feel that they should have sovereign control over all things in their bodies, even over other autonomous life forms. I’ve refuted their points specifically, so as to make sure you understand my way of thinking. Also, once again I’d like to point out that the devaluing of human life affects everyone. Not just woman. When human life is only valuable when it can directly contribute to society, that affects everyone. Human life is valuable by nature of being human. And when that very fact is threatened, I feel it is every persons right and responsibility to defend the nature and value of human life.

  • crowepps

     In denying someone a kidney you aren’t directly killing them, it is not murder.

    Gee, sounds like ‘murder’ to me.  After all, someone who loudly proclaims themselves to VALUE ALL LIFE and then lets someone die because they might suffer ‘a little inconvenience’ is either a hypocrit or values only FETAL life.

     

    Using this train of logic, using RU-486 or a D&C to ‘remove the uterine lining’ would mean that abortion was okay since the INTENT wasn’t to kill the fetus – even though of course everybody knew that’s exactly what would happen.  I suppose the doctor could say ‘oops’ a couple times and then everyone would agree it was just an accident.

     

    The problem with the two concurrent memes: ‘women have to take care of the fetus because they have to do it’ and ‘but not ME, I have NO responsiblity for the lives of others’ arguments is how clear they make it that the ProLIFE narrow focus on just the ‘sacred fetus’ is because men don’t have a uterus.

  • crowepps

    The presence of advocacy against doesn’t mean it isn’t socially acceptable. The presence of ‘sidewalk’ counselors doesn’t mean it’s viewed as terrible.

    Then why are we even here discussing it?  If it’s ‘socially acceptable’ the discussion should be over.

     

    You’re going to have to make a choice between ‘society is protecting itself by banning abortion’ and ‘abortion is socially acceptable’.  Both things cannot be true.  Unless what you mean is PATRIARCHY is attempting to protect itself’ which of course requires that everybody be kept firmly toeing the line of what greatgrandpa thought was a good idea.

    • invalid-0

      What? Why can you not simply justify abortion, everything comes back to the oppression of woman and the progression of the patriarchy. Without resorting to Modern Feminist BS, why don’t you simply explain why a woman should have the ability to end a persons life, when her life is not at danger.

  • crowepps

    Secondly, it does not matter that you don’t grant equal value. They are equal. Life is life is life is life. Meaning that all life is valuable by virtue of being alive

    Were you aware that cancerous cells have ‘mutated’ DNA different from that of their host and are ‘alive’.  If abortion is going to be stamped out to save fetal life, then perhaps we need to stop ‘murdering’ brain tumors as well.

    • invalid-0

      That mutated DNA, is more adequately described as broken DNA. The stop sequences in the genetic information have been corrupted or in some way hampered to prevent the cells from stopping their continuous mitosis. If you’re trying to equate rogue somatic cells to a developing human fetus, you’re a long way off….>_>

  • invalid-0

    Exactly.

  • heather-corinna

    You seem really attached to dismissing that intercourse is only one kind of sex, and that procreation is NOT the most common motivation — even the physical one –people report for engaging in any kind of sex, including intercourse.  But who am I to disallow you to clingto ideas which are not factual?

     

    I don’t have to justify anything.  When I discuss abortion, I am not discussing killing children, as I know I made perfectly clear in the piece.  I also do not have to justify the reproductive choices we, as women, the people who become pregnant — the people you are not — make for the sole responsibility we have for anything that is part of our own bodies. And I most certainly don’t have to jstify it to someone who has been diregarding human life in the whole of his comments.  Point is, continually framing a fetus as a child and also asking women to justify making choices around something your body will not be impacted by in the slightest, and your life will be far less impacted by; asking women to justify making their best choices, which are frequently difficult, and can only be made by her envisioning the whole life of everyone involved, for a lifetime, for something where she bears the sole burden is not only dehumanizing all of us as women, it’s laughable to those of us who are women, even for some women who are antichoice. And a woman like me isn’t going to justify jack to someone speaking the way you have about women and our lives, on this topic or any other.

     

    By the way?

    Everyone has told me that it is an extremely laborious task, that
    involves anguish, suffering and is the single worst experience in the
    world.

    If you’re talking about abortion, or pregnancy, or childbirth, or pregnancy and choices around pregnancy? Baloney. On any of those topics, "everyone" does not speak and has not spoken unilaterally. Might you need your vision checked? 

    (By the way?  Watch your step in talking about consent as you are, when yet again, perhaps by virtue of not being female, you fail to realize how very frequently acts which can or do result in pregnancy are forced on a woman or obtained from her as a result of coercion.  I also find it comical to hear someone from your camp talking about people who understand the risks of sex, because — maybe I’m wrong, who knows — I have this funny feeling that you’re not an avid supporter of factual and accurate comprehensive sex education.)

     

     

  • invalid-0

    time to put them on heart/lung machines.

  • invalid-0

    Ahunt you aren’t making any sense. I have told you time and time again how these ideas would be put into law. Abortion would be illegal except when the mother’s life is threatened, abortion centres would not exist, illegal abortion dealers would be found and arrested, women who had abortions would be arrested.It doesn’t matter that some women would break the law. Laws have to be made if they are right. Not if they are popular or easy. Women would be educated on the dangers of illegal abortions. Abortions would decline, a lot.

    Women would not be breeding stock because we aren’t forcing them to have sex, we aren’t banning them from contraceptives. We are just saying that if they happen to produce a human being they have responsibility over it. This applies for the man as well.

    Now for sex. I don’t know where you in your infinite wisdom managed to determine my view of sex without my ever revealing any of it. I have said it before and I say it again: I am not those you have argued previously put aside your obvious prejudices. Sure sex is done for many reasons and is mostly not done for procreation. But we must all understand what it’s actually for wether we like it or not. There is nothing important about procreation , we don’t want to force procreation into sex. All we say is that when procreation does happen, a human life is produced and can not be killed.

    Finally your comment that abortion is gaining popularity is not relevant. I repeat. Laws should not be enforced because they are convenient or popular. Therefore you can’t justify your point by saying that most people agree with you.

    You adressed none of my original points, but only asserted ludicrous claims of your own which by the way I have answered again and again and again…please let this be the last time I must repeat myself. are you missing something? Oh I’d certainly say so.

  • invalid-0

    yea, its supposed to read like this ‘the right to life trumps the right to bodily sovereignty only when its a fetus and only when that bodily sovereignty is a womans.

  • crowepps

    Just because you regard it so doesn’t make it so.

    Just because you regard it differently doesn’t make your position ‘so’.

     

    This is why we let each person struggle with their own conscience, come to their own conclusions, and make their own decisions.

    • invalid-0

      That logic is flawed. It’s effectively anarchy. It’s objective fact that a person is being killed in the process of abortion. It’s not a matter of me perceiving it as anything other than what it is. We don’t let people come to their own conclusions. We have laws for that, because people can’t be trusted to do what’s right. If everyone did what was right, we wouldn’t need government to protect everyone. Laws would be common sense, and police enforcement would merely be for correcting people that made mistakes. But that’s not the case, is it?

  • crowepps

    I am not exhibiting misogyny. You merely see misogyny because you know I am a male prolife advocate. And in your minds that can only mean I hate women.

    This is a really funny protest coming from someone who keeps repeating that women get abortions because they aren’t thinking about the fetus, they are selfish, they refuse to take responsibility, etc.

     

    Maybe he ‘merely sees’ this blatant disregard of the fetus because he is a male prolife advocate?

    • invalid-0

      Some woman get abortions because they don’t want to deal with the impact of pregnancy, others because they don’t recognize the developing fetus as human, etc. No matter the reason, at the end of the day, this isn’t because they are woman, it’s because they are people. They face insecurities, and aren’t always right. They have hardships and pain, and like anyone else they want to escape it. However, this doesn’t give woman the right to kill their children.

    • invalid-0

      No I did not say that women are selfish or refusing to take responsibility. I did however say that they aren’t thinking about the fetus or at least not thinking clearly. This applies to men and women on the prochoice side. In fact that one comment only confirmed my statement since you accused me of saying things I never said and then blamed it on the fact that I was a male prolife advocate.

  • crowepps

    Women would not be breeding stock because we aren’t forcing them to have sex, we aren’t banning them from contraceptives.

    Who is the ‘we’ you are talking about?  There are indeed men who are forcing women to have sex.  There are very active segments of the ProLife advocacy membership who are indeed trying to ban contraceptives, ALL contraceptives.

    Finally your comment that abortion is gaining popularity is not relevant. I repeat. Laws should not be enforced because they are convenient or popular. Therefore you can’t justify your point by saying that most people agree with you.

     

    This is a democracy and if ‘most people agree’ then that gets to be the law.  Unless you are a LOT more powerful than it seems you are, there isn’t anything instituting the Law According to Alaric’s Moral Code.

  • invalid-0

    In the case of consensual sex it is not against your will. You entered into an agreement knowing full well the possibility of pregnancy. Even if we chose to ignore that fact: The fetus is not capable of rejecting the uterus. It is naturally stuck there and can’t leave. And you intend to punish it for doing so? By killing it? How does that make sense?

  • invalid-0

    Ahunt you aren’t making any sense. I have told you time and time again how these ideas would be put into law. Abortion would be illegal except when the mother’s life is threatened, abortion centres would not exist, illegal abortion dealers would be found and arrested, women who had abortions would be arrested.It doesn’t matter that some women would break the law. Laws have to be made if they are right. Not if they are popular or easy. Women would be educated on the dangers of illegal abortions. Abortions would decline, a lot.

    Well no, they wouldn’t, particularly given pharmaceutical alternatives. And how much time should the woman do? And all of those folks who assisted her…including her parents, her husband/lover, her siblings and her friends? Conspiracy is a crime, you know. And what happens, and it will happen…when it turns out your frankly unworkable and unenforceable plan…falls disproportionately on poor women. Do you have a problem with the two-tiered system of justice that will inevitably result? How do you propose to fund the massive increase in incarcerated Americans that will result from your plan, assuming as you do, people are actually “caught.” Given that at least one third of women who seek abortions are married with children, and that the vast majority of these women abort with the active support of their husbands, by your own reasoning, both parents would be prosecuted…what happens to their other children? You haven’t dealt with any of these questions…rationally, Alaric.

  • invalid-0

    You only choose to appreciate life when it has nothing to do with you.

    Much like male pro-lifers who value life when it infringes on a womans bodily integrity but not on their own bodily integrity.

    • invalid-0

      How does a man who advocates pro-life show any hypocrisy? There is no male equivalent to abortion. A man can’t kill his child unless he does it through the woman. Saying that I don’t value life in other situations literally means nothing. Not only does it only reinforce the fact that being pro-choice inherently means you don’t view life as valuable, but it’s just a way of deflecting the argument. If your only rebuttal is that I’m a man, you don’t have an argument.

  • invalid-0

    You say that illegalizing abortion is unsafe to women.And compare it to the illegalizing of drugs. But the example you gave of Portugal’s drug policy would not work. Do you intend for abortion to be treated as a medical problem? Yet provided by the medical industry? So the same hospitals would be performing abortions and providing therapy to stop them from seeking them? I would also like to mention that much more is at stake in legal abortion. Law can not say that killing a human is okay just because the murderers may hurt themselves.

  • crowepps

    The fetus is not capable of rejecting the uterus. It is naturally stuck there and can’t leave.

    If you will go back through this and other threads you will see a number of posts which use the term "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage".  In about one out of SIX pregnancies there is indeed some rejecting going on somewhere and the fetus does indeed ‘leave’, taking a fairly large volume of the woman’s blood supply right along with it.

  • invalid-0

    I don’t see an exception for rape in this thread…which makes the consensual aspect to any sex act irrelevant.

  • crowepps

    Law can not say that killing a human is okay just because the murderers may hurt themselves.

    You might find that people here listened to your viewpoint more respectfully if you didn’t use dismissive hot button words like "murderers".

     

    Let’s repackage this with perhaps equally unbalanced text:

    "The law cannot say that inducing a miscarriage is okay just because women would rather die than be pregnant."

     

    Why not?  Since in EITHER case the fetus is going to be dead, it seems sensible to me to save the life of the woman instead of executing her for the capital crime of not wanting to be a mother.

     

    I’m beginning to think that what is motivating some ProLife activists is Freudian — they absolutely do NOT want to think about their own mothers having sex for fun and need to insist that the only reason Mom would have had sex was to be rewarded with wonderful THEM!

     

    Either that or there’s some kind of power and control issue: "I am a MAN because I MADE you pregnant and you’d better shut up and pretend you’re enjoying it because you don’t get any choice to reject MY seed."

     

    This much hostility to women just cannot be generated entirely on the basis of concern over the ‘innocent fetus’.

    • invalid-0

      This is actually making me laugh. It’s been said countless times that woman who are going to die, shouldn’t be restricted from abortions, because killing your child to save yourself makes sense. It’s 1:1. So that entire little rant up there is moot. Abortion should be restricted to woman who actually need them. Not to any single person who just feels like killing their child.

    • invalid-0

      The law has an obligation to prohibit acts that are wrong. Some actions are wrong but simply don’t seem important to some people because the victims can’t voice objections. The fetus is a victim in an abortion. The law should do more than just protect the woman, it should strive to protect both. If women seek unsafe abortion outside the law that only displays a problem with those women’s refusal to acknowledge the victim, not with the law itself. In saying murderers I meant to show an example. What if a country had a large population of serial killers? But with murder illegal these killers had to go through lengths to not get caught in their actions. What if these killers ended up injuring or killing themselves a lot in the attempt to commit secret murders? Should said country revise its law and permit murder? No. What if the killers have powerful advocates who outnumber the advocates of the victims? Still, no. Murder in the objective sense is the ending of the life of a human being. The fetus is a human being. A murderer is one who commits murder, that is one who ends the life of a human being. Therefore it isn’t a stretch at all to apply this word to those who perform or have abortions, regardless of how good their reasons may be. This is not to say that I hate women, or even to say that I hate those who have had abortions, but it does mean that what they are doing is wrong. Your reasoning for why prolifers exist is insane. And your closing statement is incorrect. Our hostility is not directed at women, it is directed at the prochoice side. And with good reason, after all why is it impossible to believe that some people out there are concerned about inoccent humans being killed?

  • invalid-0

    If the argument is that no one can interfere with your bodily autonomy unless it’s a fetus living inside you, I’m curious as to whether those in favor of state-mandated childbirth also favor laws requiring blood and organ harvesting of biological parents for their born children, whether they are rearing them or not. It’s not really analogous, but nothing is.

    And in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary, why do people keep insisting that abortion rates will decrease if we make it illegal? Legal, safe abortions will decrease, but illegal, unsafe ones will skyrocket. And let me be clear: legal/safe or illegal/unsafe are the only two choices, because you will not eliminate abortion unless medicine manages to remove the developing zygote/blastocyst/fetus early in the pregnancy so the woman is no longer needed for it to survive.

    Saying that women “will be educated” on the dangers does not erase this issue. History (the kind that started a second ago and extends back in time) has repeatedly shown that if a pregnant woman does not want to be pregnant, in many cases she will find a way to terminate, safe or not. You think a pregnant woman who drinks a bottle of liquor and then gets into a hot bath doesn’t know she could die? You are advocating the passage of a law that will absolutely result in the death and injury of sentient women and girls. Sounds awfully anti-life to me.

    Excellent article, Heather.

  • emma

    Sigh. Yes, abortion is and should remain a medical issue. They should remain legal and be performed safely by trained medical professionals.

    Law can not say that killing a human is okay just because the murderers may hurt themselves.

    And in under 20 words, you’ve just shown yourself to be unworthy of any further verbal engagement on my part.

  • emma

    Crowepps, yes. A more concise version of Alaric’s comment would be something like ‘those murdering sluts deserve to die anyway’.

  • emma

    David, I’m curious about why you keep using the word ‘woman’ as both singular and plural?

    • crowepps

      One possible explanation is that he is not talking about actual real physical women but instead about "woman" as enshrined in mythos — the ideal exemplified in The Giving Tree, one who gives everything endlessly and never asks anything in return but the warm satisfaction of being martyred.

       

      The Christian ideal of Womanhood is that she be a "servant" and always puts everyone else in the family first, including all her ‘church family’.  She must be as perfect a Christian as possible, subsurvient to her husband, sexually chaste, sinless and entirely ‘other directed’.  Her value as Mother is in producing whatever offspring Father feels necessary, applying Father’s direction about how the children should be raised and taking any blame that arises for unpleasant consequences of Father’s mistakes therein.

       

      If she manages to entirely forget her own individuality and performs this role well, she will "redeem" her husband with the Lord, because he as a male won’t be able to put a lot of focus on being selfless or virtuous.  Those are both HER job.

  • emma

    Ahunt, I was thinking to myself a while ago that those who want to imprison women for having abortions really should team up with the prison-for-profit industry, whose lobbyists would jump for joy at the chance to boost their profits by incarcerating lots and lots of women. The United States already imprisons a higher percentage of its population than any other country – what’s a few more, right?

     

    (I really hope I didn’t give them any ideas…)

     

    Anyway, it’s nice to see you, Ahunt. :)

  • invalid-0

    In the case of consensual sex it is not against your will

    One more time, Alaric, engaging in sex is NOT “consenting” to pregnancy. By such reasoning, skiing is “consenting” to broken limbs, swimming is “consenting” to drowning, and so on.

    • invalid-0

      Not even close. Skiing was not created as a means for breaking bones nor swimming as a means for drowning. Sex on the other hand exists as a means of procreation meaning that if all goes “well” pregnancy and birth is the outcome. Of course what nature selects as good for our genes is not always good for us. But despite all our protection against the natural outcome, it remains a possibility. To say that you are now holding a life inside you that is “stealing” your uterus is as if you are claiming that it ended up in there without effort on your part. The fact of the matter is that you put it there by your actions and now wish to kill it. This works in tangent with my second statement that being a natural occurence the baby has 0 choice on where it ends up and how it consumes your nutrients. If pregnancy is a crime against bodily sovereignty, the guilty party would be the natural process of pregnancy itself. And we can’t punish nature.

  • invalid-0

    The problem with arguing with you here is, that you already have a presumption of who you’re arguing. You bring up points no one has used to justify their stance and no matter what I or anyone else agreeing with me say, you already think you know miy ideals

    Coming from someone who has repeatedly accused me of WANTING to kill babies, I find this whine a trifle ludicrous. And I simply bring up points that are the rational extension of your ideals, David, because you refuse to carry your own beliefs through to their logical conclusions.

    • invalid-0

      No, you pretty much just straw man everything I say to the point of no return. Being pro-choice means that you desire that woman should be able to kill their child ‘will-nilly’. It means you do want it to be legal to kill babies. It’s not far-fetched to say that you want people to be able to kill their babies. It’s pretty much spot on to say that really…>_>

  • crowepps

    people can’t be trusted to do what’s right

    The problem with this statement is that ProLife advocates are ALSO people and therefore equally undeserving of being trusted to impose their personal choices on strangers.

     

    Saying "a person is being killed in the process of abortion" millions of times does NOT make it objective fact.  It remains opinion.

     

    ‘Common sense’ too often is no such thing, particularly when one person is using it to justify imposing their personal religious beliefs on others ‘for their own good’. 

  • invalid-0

    And it is even less far-fetched to say that you want to control female sexuality, and you want women to be punished for having sex, to be reduced to walking uteri, to be denied participation in public life, and to make personal and physical sacrifices that you would never demand of men. One thing I’m not yet clear on, David…do you think the person exists at the moment of conception, and that women have a moral obligation to do everything possible to insure the pregnancy goes to term?

  • invalid-0

    Anarchy? Rubbish. No country in the western world with liberalized abortion policies is in a state of anarchy.

  • invalid-0

    You really should look up the definition of “straw man.”

  • invalid-0

    Yes, that’s a definite possibility. Or, when I was a child, I mixed them up a lot…so when I started to type I instinctively began to fluctuate between the two. Or maybe you’re right…I don’t know.

  • invalid-0

    Um, you may want to rethink this. If your premise is that all life is sacred, while you simultaneously admit that you do not value life in all situations…you are contradicting yourself.

  • invalid-0

    Listen carefully ahunt and Opheelia. There are ways to implement an abortion law effectively. Just because other countries may have failed in their methods does not make it impossible.

    Abortions could be legal for the first month. As Heather herself said this makes up the greater percentage of abortions. Abortion laws would be aimed at targeting illegal abortion providers. Women caught for abortions later than 1 month would be arrested. We wouldn’t arrest all their family members just for approving of the deed. That would be foolish.

    Ophelia while it is true that some women know they could die by unsafe abortions, many would not know how dangerous they were. Also this education would be combined with education to limit unwanted pregnancy through the use of abstinence, contraceptives and early abortions (as in first month). This provides women with a wide array of choices. These are reproductive rights in that they provide the woman with choices on when or if they have sex and even the choice on whether to keep the embryo if they get pregnant.

  • crowepps

    Men kill their children all the time, sometimes by beating up, even killing, their pregnant partner and sometimes after the children are actually born.

     

    Pointing out the fact that you’re male is not a rebuttal of your opinion, it’s clarifying that your opinion is not based on the facts because as a male you (a) actually don’t know what you’re talking about and (b) aren’t willing to respect the information given to you by those who do know the facts.

     

    Certainly men quite properly have and express opinions about this controversy, but your insistence that the opinions of the people actually INVOLVED should be excluded from the discussion because they "can’t be trusted" and that therefore the only people whose opinion should have weight are precisely those who will never have the laws applied to them is nonsense.

     

    If the only time you think one life is entitled to negatively impact another for its subsistence is the circumstance where it isn’t ever going to be YOU who gets used and used up, then your statement is less about ‘respect for life’ and more about ‘men get to decide what is moral for women because women were created to serve men.’

  • invalid-0

    Why can you not simply justify abortion, everything comes back to the oppression of woman and the progression of the patriarchy. Without resorting to Modern Feminist BS, why don’t you simply explain why a woman should have the ability to end a persons life, when her life is not at danger.

    Uh David, I’ll answer the question, but I would like to point out that calling feminism “BS”…pretty much costs you whatever shred of credibility you may have possessed. As to your question…YOUR body may not be used to sustain the existence of another against your will. Likewise, my body may not be used to sustain the existence of another against my will. Equality!

  • invalid-0

    Abortions could be legal for the first month.

    Oh Good Lord, I’m getting punchy here. I’ll try to behave. Alaric…do you know anything at all about how the reproductive processes work?

  • crowepps

    If you’re going to allow abortions in the "first month" why was that particular point used as the cut-off date?  Why not allow abortion up to the "kidney bean" stage at 8 weeks or even the "three inches long" stage at 12 weeks.  On what basis did you select this particular time?

     

    Are you talking "first month" as in two weeks from conception or when the second menstrual flow is missed?  Some women have irregular periods and might not even know they’re pregnant until they’re 8 to 12 weeks along.

     

    Are you going to provide those abortions for free so that there’s no delay in the process while saving up money to pay for them?  If the girls who waits too long have an illegal abortion and get caught HOW MANY YEARS are they going to be in prison?

     

    I’m not sure you’re aware of the fact that on the various times when the Supreme Court considered this question, they heard the opinions of a wide variety of interests, and that their final ruling on which laws would be okay and which would not rested on a COMPROMISE which balanced the rights of the woman and the fetus.  I don’t see anything whatsoever in your proposal that improves on their compromise.

     

    Just because other countries may have failed in their methods does not make it impossible.

     

    Including our own government, which could not enforce our own ban on abortion.  Nothing is impossible.  However doing the same thing and expecting a different result because ‘this time it’ll be different’ is, frankly, nuts.

     

    In addition, it will NOT get rid of this controversy because such a large percentage of the ProLife side is "absolutely no abortion for any reason whatsoever" and you offer no assurances that the more moderate ProLife activists will be able to persuade them to accept your compromise solution.

  • invalid-0

    Ah, I see, so we must be nice to you since we are on the “offensive” and you have every right to call us misogynists, idiots and lunatics because you are defending your point. Have you ever heard of innocent until proven guilty? How can you say that since we are not on your side you have the right to assume that we hate women? How can you say that we don’t respect you as autonomous human beings? I can’t speak for everyone else, but I DO! and most prolife men that I know DO ALSO. If your only defence for your side is that those against you aren’t grovelling at your feet, then I suggest you give up arguing about anything. Why don’t you try responding to our points as if we are human beings instead of vilifying us for no reason at every opportunity. We don’t get aggressive when you object to our point, we get mad when you insult us instead of actually stating reasons for your objection.

  • invalid-0

    The first month? Many women don’t even know they are pregnant within a month of conception. For many, skipping a period is normal, or spotting during implantation falsely implies menstruation. I believe you mean the first trimester, which is when the majority of abortions happen. And when you consider that financial factors are a common cause of waiting beyond the first trimester, you are simply proposing a law that discriminates against those without resources. If you are also suggesting that abortions should be paid for by the government within the first trimester, we can have a different conversation about the reality of implementing such a law.

    One thing that particularly disturbs me in the anti-choice movement is the refusal to acknowledge that many unplanned pregnancies occur within abusive relationships. Manipulation of contraception is a very common tactic. And when homicide is the second leading cause of traumatic death for pregnant or recently pregnant women, how can you support the elimination of abortion as an option for those women? During pregnancy and after childbirth, the risk of violence rises dramatically.

    And again, no one has addressed the fact that empirical evidence has shown that restrictive abortion laws result in the death of women and girls. Those providing illegal abortions in other countries are subject to their laws, and it is clearly not a deterrent. Nor has it been a deterrent to women seeking abortion.

    How is your methodology different?

  • invalid-0

    Autonomous life forms within another’s body? How does that work, exactly? But what I find most interesting is your obvious panic about the fact that women are making life and death decisions. Over time and across cultures, men do this routinely, and with sublime disregard for the “sacredness” and “value” of existing life. Yet your primary concern is with women exercising bodily sovereignty. Why is that, do you think?

  • invalid-0

    I’m sorry if at one point I’ve seemed aggressive or hostile, but to be honest, I haven’t been met with anything even remotely polite. And if your only example of me being impolite is saying “What the hell” in reference to someone’s absurd/ludicrous notions than I think you’re grasping for straws.

    I am attempting to restrict your ability to kill your children. This is not because I hate woman, this is because I believe that human life is valuable. Secondly, I didn’t respond to your comment because I thought someone else already had, and I figured that they’d do just fine on their own without me holding their hand. And since I’m assuming your comment is the one concerning the amount abortions not decreasing due to becoming illegal, I’ll just go ahead and refute it now since it won’t be that difficult.

    First of all, the majority of unsafe abortions are conducted in developing countries, in contrast to countries like the US and Canada, 1st world/developed countries if you will. This has two meanings; the first being that any abortions, legal or illegal will be conducted in ways considered dangerous from a North American perspective. This coupled with the fact that even legal abortions are dangerous mean that woman will be injured by abortion, legal or not. This also means that unsafe abortions in developed countries will be vastly better than unsafe abortions in 3rd world countries. If you combine the fact that a combination of the increased education about the dangers of abortion will reduce the amount of attempts to abort in tandem with the fact that unsafe abortions will be much safer in more developed countries you’ll see that there is nothing wrong with making abortion illegal other than it’ll piss some people off. Not just woman, men too. If you didn’t know, there are many men that support abortion merely because it means they can abandon their responsibility to the child produced from their promiscuity. There are also cases of men forcing woman to get abortions just for that reason. So I don’t see how you can unilaterally state that abortion is all good.

    Lastly, I’d like to note that none of that matters. Once you recognize that a human is developing inside the womb, and that an abortion is the killing of that person, it does not matter how difficult it is to enforce, or how many people follow that law, by nature of a human life being in danger anti-abortion laws would have to be instituted. Also, you say that ‘we’(Pro-Life Advocated I’m assuming) allow you abortion in some cases. It’s not a matter of us allowing it, it’s a matter of what’s fair. A woman’s life is valuable and so is the child’s. However, if one of them is going to die, then the woman should be able to decide if she wants to die for her child, or if she would prefer to live. It makes perfect sense. No one is forcing a woman to die against her will.

  • invalid-0

    I tried, really hard, to address that diplomatically without simultaneously pointing the poster to a multitude of pregnancy websites.

  • invalid-0

    Yeah, but Alaric is thinking, and I’m over the moon about that. He could be one of our three boys, passionately defending ideals and kneejerk POVs, and then obliged to pursue knowledge when the facts were diverse and challenging… and at the time,unknown to them. Ready to cut some serious slack here. You game, Alaric?

  • invalid-0

    Really, I want to know how you feel about mandated blood/tissue/organ donation regarding parents of children, whether they reared them or not. I completely understand that it isn’t analogous, but it’s the only semi-equivalent legal scenario I can think of.

    Since, of course, my choice to drive does not make me legally responsible to donate blood, tissue, or organs to another who was injured by my own fault while driving.

  • invalid-0

    Really, I want to know how you feel about mandated blood/tissue/organ donation regarding parents of children, whether they reared them or not. I completely understand that it isn’t analogous, but it’s the only semi-equivalent legal scenario I can think of.

    Since, of course, my choice to drive does not make me legally responsible to donate blood, tissue, or organs to another who was injured by my own fault while driving.

  • invalid-0

    Okay, I’m almost certain I answered something like this already. Whatever, I’m getting used to repeating myself here. 1)In the case of consensual sex the fetus is not inhabiting your body against your will. All women know that sex carries the risk of pregnancy and many choose to take that risk. To claim afterwards that you were not given a choice would be a lie. 2)You are punishing the fetus for existing. That’s your defense. That the fetus exists and you don’t want it to so you may kill it. Existing is not something that the fetus has control over.

  • invalid-0

    If you didn’t notice, I said modern feminism. Which is fundamentally different from just plain old feminism. Technically I’m a feminist, but I’m not a modern feminist. Modern feminism is effectively an attempt to overpower men, it has nothing to do with gender equality. The sole purpose of modern feminism is to give woman as much power as humanly possible so as to sort of get back at men for holding up an oppressive patriarchy for so long.

    Back to your argument; “Likewise, my body may not be used to sustain the existence of another against my will. Equality!”

    My body can’t be used to sustain life, yours can. And for the most part, the act that initiates said sustenance is a consensual act that the woman chooses to involve herself in. It’s not as if the government is raping you and then forcing you to take a child to term, it would merely mean that if you had sex, and offspring was produced you would be responsible for the life you brought into the world. As would the man who participated the sexual act.

    Equality would be, that if abortion was legal, a man wouldn’t have to pay for child support. Because just as the woman has autonomy over her body in regards to other human life, a man should have autonomy over his bank account, once again, in regards to human life. But that’s not the type of world I would wish to live in.

  • invalid-0

    1)In the case of consensual sex the fetus is not inhabiting your body against your will.Well, yes, it might infact be inhabiting my body against my will.

    All women know that sex carries the risk of pregnancy and many choose to take that risk.
    so what?

    To claim afterwards that you were not given a choice would be a lie. Since no one here has clained any such thing, I do not know what you are talking about. 2)You are punishing the fetus for existing. Project much? That’s your defense. No, review.

    That the fetus exists and you don’t want it to so you may kill it. Existing is not something that the fetus has control over. Actually, the conflict arises not over existence, but location.

  • invalid-0

    Calm down, Calm down. I am sorry yes I did mean the 1st trimester. And no I did not choose this time arbitrarily. At the start of the second trimester the fetus is active, has a developing brain, and can feel pain. By the 20th week or so it can recognize its mothers voice. These are all very human actions.

    and no ahunt I have not come over to your side, or any such nonsense. If you had been paying any attention to what I had said I have always cited brain development as the most reasonable point for the start of human life. You were likely to busy accusing me of misogyny to notice.

    Croweeps and Ophelia, I will answer your questions on a different post. They seem like they’ll take lots of space, and besides, I need to do a bit of looking into Ophelia’s semi-equivilent legal scenario. I haven’t heard a lot about it before now.

  • invalid-0

    Certainly your body can be used to sustain life…bone marrow, kidney, liver, blood, and YES, semen.

    yours can. See previous.

  • invalid-0

    You missed the point entirely. The reason there are laws is because people can’t be trusted to do the right thing, the purpose of the laws are to make force people into conforming into doing the right thing by threatening penalization. That way, there’s a reason that people do the right thing.

    Secondly, an abortion kills a person. This is not a matter of opinion, it is fact. An organism, a human, is killed in an abortion, that is the whole purpose of an abortion. It isn’t subjective, it is completely objective.

    Lastly, the reference to common sense was in terms of a society where everyone did what was right. Instead of having laws that said you didn’t kill people, there would just be common sense. Laws would be completely unnecessary, almost, in a society where people just did the right thing.

  • invalid-0

    No, but a country that effectively removes itself from human interaction is moving towards anarchy. When the government stops legislating laws, and allows people to do anything, that isn’t liberalism, that’s anarchy.

  • invalid-0

    That life form exists, by nature of existing it is autonomous. It may exist symbiotically with the mother, but it’s very existence is distinct from the mother. Therefore it is autonomous. It’s not that woman are making life and death decisions, it’s that its legal for woman to kill children. That’s all really. I find that shocking. I don’t really care what you do with your body, until it affects someone else. And in the case of an abortion, you are affecting someone else. You are killing someone else.

  • invalid-0

    Just because some women can’t afford an abortion in the first trimester, is not to say that we are trying to force the poor to have children. It is simply that at the second trimester the benefits of having an abortion can not be enough to justify the killing of the human being that exists at that point. I find it strange that earlier you accepted the fetus as human, yet you assert that escape from shame,poverty, discomfort and pain is enough incentive to justify killing a human being.If a woman in poverty can neither afford to raise a child or have an early abortion, then unfortunately she must abstain from sex or be prepared to carry the child to term until adoption is possible. These are great sacrifices but, they do not oughtweigh a life.

    On the contrary there is a great amount of compromise in this proposal. It would allow the vast majority of women to continue having abortions legally. And this is not proposing the same thing expecting different results. This is a different proposal that will naturally have different results. It will mean less women seeking illegal abortions and less women dying from them. Much, much less.It also nullifies your already mad statements that women would become like cattle.

    Ophelia most of Croweeps’ stuff fits your argument as well. But I must also respond to your domestic violence argument. In these situations the problem is not in pregnancy but in the abusive husband who tries to beat or kill his wife. How are we helping these women by killing the fetus and sending them back into these dangerous homes? The correct thing to do would be for domestic violence to be settled, not temporarily covered up by killing a fetus. How is my methodology different? Because it allows abortions to the majority of women who can afford firsttrimester abortions. Add to that those who can’t afford but are helped by friends,family or agencies. You just finished explaining to me how a woman would go through the lengths of finding any means or even killing herself to avoid having a baby. But now they can’t raise $300-600 (price for a first trimester abortion, correct me if I’m wrong here)? This seems unlikely.

    Finally to answer your excellent question. I would say that although I think refusing to donate a nonrequired organ to your dying child is reprehensible,disgusting etc. It is not quite the same as abortion in that you are not killing the person. I would actually be for a law that required such donation, but first I would like to hear from you some sample scenarios, I already said I have little knowledge of the specifics of the organ donation topic.

  • invalid-0

    Where did I say that I didn’t value life in all situations? I haven’t contradicted myself at all..>_>

  • invalid-0

    A)I don’t know what I’m talking about? You only say that because you can’t refute what I’m saying…>_>

    B)Just because I refute the information given to me doesn’t mean I don’t respect it, I just don’t see how it aids your argument. I refute the fact that these personal accounts don’t account for the loss of life. Nor do they in any way justify abortion. This doesn’t mean I don’t respect the information itself, I just don’t think it aids the pro-choice movement at all.

    C) The fact that you have as of yet to prove how I’m not trying to protect life, your last point is nothing more than mudslinging. Every point in justification for a restriction on abortion has been in regards to the value of human life. It has nothing to do with suppressing woman. Just because I’m a man, doesn’t mean I inherently hate woman…that mistrust of men is misandry itself.

  • invalid-0

    I know what a Straw Man is.
    You straw manned the enforcement argument….>_>

  • invalid-0

    ….I want developing humans in the womb to retain the rights that all humans have. That’s pretty much all I want. You may want me to be a raging misogynistic chauvinist but in reality, that’s just so you can continue complaining and deflecting the real argument here. I believe that once two haploid cells come together to form a diploid cell that is genetically dissimilar from the host parent, a human has been created.

  • invalid-0

    “What? Why can you not simply justify abortion, everything comes back to the oppression of woman and the progression of the patriarchy. Without resorting to Modern Feminist BS, why don’t you simply explain why a woman should have the ability to end a persons life, when her life is not at danger.”

    Alright, I’ll bite. Quite simply, It’s MY uterus. MINE. Not yours, not the child’s, MINE. And no one has the right to use my body for anything against my will. If an unintended pregnancy occurs, then it is my RIGHT to decide if I’m willing to continue it or not. Carrying a pregnancy to term is essentially an act of charity, same as organ donations and food banks. That the fetus must die as a result is unavoidable, but irrelevant. To use an old cliche, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. My right to bodily autonomy cannot be mitigated by anything, that is the definition of a right.

  • invalid-0

    “It may exist symbiotically with the mother, but it’s very existence is distinct from the mother.”

    Definition check–symbiotic implies mutual benefits. A fetus is more accurately described as being parasitic, as it confers no benefits to the mother.

    Regardless, this doesn’t really affect the argument. You say I don’t have the right to kill the fetus? I argue that the fetus doesn’t have the right to sustain itself from my body. I may allow it to, but that is my choice, not the fetus’ right.

  • invalid-0

    I view all life as equally valuable by valuing it equally. No one has the right to anothers bodily integrity to maintain their life…equal.

  • invalid-0

    fanaticism doesn’t necessarily correlate any more/less with anti-contraception beliefs that some religious groups hold than any other beliefs. Indeed they have just as long of a history in some religious groups as anti-abortion beliefs.

  • invalid-0

    Actually in nature intercourse results in the normal course for the embryo to flush out with the womans period. 60% flush out with the womans menstrual period. ‘All goes well’ has nothing to do with nature, it is simply your opinion to focus on those that you ‘like’. And yes, we do override nature (whats punish?)- we do it all the time. But the line of reasoning offered is also why those that oppose it for all reasons do so…they just apply it consistently.

    Also, unless you are making a rape exception then consent regarding the sex act is completely irrelevant to your arguments.

    • invalid-0

      I meant punish as in that we are punishing the fetus for an act that is not its fault but nature’s. It is impossible to hold a natural process accountable for what it has done, but that doesn’t mean we should punish the fetus instead. In the case of rape it is also not the fetus’ fault. It is the fault of the rapist. Abortions done because of rape could be done in the first trimester anyway, before brain activity begins.

  • invalid-0

    Really, a woman can kill her child after birth to save herself from natural death? Or is it that its using her body and the right to life doesn’t extend this far (which is being argued elsewhere in this thread)?

  • invalid-0

    Actually mutations in DNA occur all the time and create the variation in our gene pool that are passed on to offspring. Those in cancer happen to not be valued…but they are similarly a genetically unique form of human life.

  • invalid-0

    It’s not as if the government is raping you and then forcing you to take a child to term,

    So there is a rape exception? Because we’re not hearing it anywhere else in this thread.

  • invalid-0
  • colleen

    .If a woman in poverty can neither afford to raise a child or have an
    early abortion, then unfortunately she must abstain from sex or be
    prepared to carry the child to term until adoption is possible. These
    are great sacrifices but, they do not oughtweigh a life.

     

     So what about men who are unable to support a child? Are they allowed to have sex? What is their responnsibility?

     

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    Mutations due occur in nature all the time, however cancer cells are defective cells. Fundamentally defective, they lack the ability to function properly. The DNA of a cancer cell is broken. The cells have the same DNA, the difference is that the coding to stop mitosis is broken. Making them defective cells, coupled with the fact that cancer kills, this isn’t a logical argument to use to promote abortion.

  • invalid-0

    Actually, a parasitic relationship is a symbiotic relationship. A symbiotic relationship is merely an umbrella term for all of those types of relationships. For the record..>_>

    You argue that it doesn’t have the right to sustain itself on your body? I argue that by removing it, you are killing someone, and unless your life is directly threatened, you lack the ability to exercise power over another persons life.

  • invalid-0

    If a woman is going to die, unless she aborts her child, she should be allowed to kill the child. But otherwise, there’s no justification for abortion. It’s simply because life is valuable and that one life is going to be lossed either way. The woman merely gets to choose if she is willing to die for this child, or if she would prefer life.

  • invalid-0

    Just because you want to call them broken as you don’t value their unique DNA when mutated in cancer. And actually there is a whole line of scientific study into how cancer cells revert to their embryonic genetic instructions which allows them to grow and divide as they do. Cancer can be kept alive outside of its host.

  • invalid-0

    Time to keep cancer alive.

  • invalid-0

    which could happen after birth but then we don’t allow the woman to kill her child to save herself from natural death.

  • invalid-0

    DNA fingerprinting has been used to identify the ‘DNA fingerprint’ of non-cancerous cells versus the different ‘DNA fingerprint’ of cancer cells in the same patient, as in breast cancer.

  • invalid-0

    I want developing humans in the womb to retain the rights that all humans have.

    Then you’re in luck, because they already do! No one is allowed to use my organs without my permission. (written and signed, no implied permission given!)

  • crowepps

    And once again you drag out that "promote abortion" slander.

     

    I haven’t seen one single post on here that suggests that anyone is trying to persuade anyone else to have an abortion.  What the ProChoice side actually is saying is that one person or one group’s OPINION about abortion should not be binding on those who disagree and that therefore decisions in individual cases should be left up to the individuals involved.

     

    I admit my original post was kind of snarky, but YOU are the one who keeps bringing up "different DNA" as though that fact alone imbues two cells with more ‘value’ than the approx. 50 TRILLION cells which comprise the woman.  If "different DNA" means value, sorry, tumor removal doesn’t ‘respect life’.

  • invalid-0

    I believe that once two haploid cells come together to form a diploid cell that is genetically dissimilar from the host parent, a human has been created.

    So David, carry this conviction through to the logical conclusion. Would you support legislation restricting women from otherwise legal activities, if those activities are scientifically shown to potentially negatively impact the blastocyst/embryo/fetus?

  • crowepps

    Just because some women can’t afford an abortion in the first trimester, is not to say that we are trying to force the poor to have children.

    So you agree that poor women should have their abortions funded with tax dollars? 

    It is simply that at the second trimester the benefits of having an abortion can not be enough to justify the killing of the human being that exists at that point.

    Doesn’t that depend entirely on WHY the abortion is being done, since that is what determines the ‘benefits’?

    I find it strange that earlier you accepted the fetus as human, yet you assert that escape from shame,poverty, discomfort and pain is enough incentive to justify killing a human being.

    You continue to ignore the fact that being ‘human’ doesn’t count for much in the real world. 

    If a woman in poverty can neither afford to raise a child or have an early abortion, then unfortunately she must abstain from sex or be prepared to carry the child to term until adoption is possible. These are great sacrifices but, they do not oughtweigh a life.

    ‘Sacrifices’ are made voluntarily — in a case where someone is FORCED to do something then they are instead ‘punishment’.

    On the contrary there is a great amount of compromise in this proposal. It would allow the vast majority of women to continue having abortions legally.

    So you agree your proposal would actually prevent very few abortions? 

    And this is not proposing the same thing expecting different results. This is a different proposal that will naturally have different results. It will mean less women seeking illegal abortions and less women dying from them. Much, much less.

    My reference was to the fact that abortions were illegal before and it didn’t stop abortion, abortions have been outlawed in other countries and it didn’t stop abortions and yet you assert that preventing second and third trimester abortions (12% of the total) means "much, much less" even though MOST of those abortions are medically necessary.

    It also nullifies your already mad statements that women would become like cattle.

    Overlooking the personal insult, and noting that I have tried VERY hard not to personally insult you, when women are REQUIRED to produce offspring against their will, the simularity to ‘cattle’ is obvious. 

    Ophelia most of Croweeps’ stuff fits your argument as well. But I must also respond to your domestic violence argument. In these situations the problem is not in pregnancy but in the abusive husband who tries to beat or kill his wife. How are we helping these women by killing the fetus and sending them back into these dangerous homes?

    Whatever makes you think that after an abortion the women are sent "back into these dangerous homes"?  Continuing the PREGNANCY is what puts them in the position of having to interact with Mr. Domestic Terrorist for the rest of the child’s life.  I’m sure you’re aware that the law holds that beating your wife occasionally "doesn’t mean you’re a bad father" and that UNSUPERVISED visitation makes the child a hostage with which Dad can control his ex-partner?

    …You just finished explaining to me how a woman would go through the lengths of finding any means or even killing herself to avoid having a baby. But now they can’t raise $300-600 (price for a first trimester abortion, correct me if I’m wrong here)? This seems unlikely.

    It’s sure easier to hang yourself than it is to come up with $600.

    Finally to answer your excellent question. I would say that although I think refusing to donate a nonrequired organ to your dying child is reprehensible,disgusting etc. It is not quite the same as abortion in that you are not killing the person.

    It is not quite the same as abortion but failure is make the appropriate donation in such a situation ALLOWS the child to die due to neglect.

     

    If you seriously feel that refusing to donate blood, bone marrow, even an organ is morally superior to abortion you might consider that there are also "sins of omission".

  • crowepps
    You missed the point entirely.  The reason there are laws is because people can’t be trusted to do the right thing, the purpose of the laws are to make force people into conforming into doing the right thing by threatening penalization. That way, there’s a reason that people do the right thing.
    Sure there’s a reason, someone is threatening to kill them unless they allow themselves to be ‘forced’ to ‘conform’.  Which, of course, shows that human life doesn’t have much value.
    Secondly, an abortion kills a person. This is not a matter of opinion, it is fact. An organism, a human, is killed in an abortion, that is the whole purpose of an abortion. It isn’t subjective, it is completely objective.
    And yet there are many people here who disagree with you about the organism being ‘a person’, aren’t there?  So it isn’t an ‘objective fact’ at all.  The purpose of an abortion is to stop the pregnancy by removing the fetus.  If the fetus can’t survive on its own once its removed, that’s its problem.
    Lastly, the reference to common sense was in terms of a society where everyone did what was right. Instead of having laws that said you didn’t kill people, there would just be common sense. Laws would be completely unnecessary, almost, in a society where people just did the right thing.

    Well, yeah, I’m sure that if you eliminated all those messy human drives and desires and wants and needs, there wouldn’t need to be any laws at all.  You could just issue decrees, like the Pope.  David would be the only person in the universe with the moral agency to define "the right thing" and anyone who dared to disagree would be ipso facto wrong.  David gets to ‘force’ everyone to ‘conform’ by punishing those who don’t behave as he proscribes.

     

    Of course, this makes David the ONLY person in the world who is ‘important’, which is a pleasant little ego boost for David, and it totally eradicates any need for David to ever actually listen to other people, who either agree with him and are therefore boring because they’re just repeating what he already knows or disagree with him and therefore aren’t worth listening to because they’re wrong.

     

    History, of course, teaches us that there’s never in the history of mankind been a society in which there was any ruler with sufficient absolute power, harsh enough tyranny, sufficient oppression, no persecution or punishment cruel enough to actually ACCOMPLISH this, but I’m sure it would work really well if actual real humans could be removed from the equation somehow.

  • invalid-0

    Definition of autonomous:
    1: of, relating to, or marked by autonomy
    2 a: having the right or power of self-government b: undertaken or carried on without outside control : self-contained
    3 a: existing or capable of existing independently
    b: responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole
    4: controlled by the autonomic nervous system

  • invalid-0

    Of course they must also abstain from sex or be prepared to support the child regardless. Their responsibility is to the mother and child that they wouldn’t be able to support. This is currently a law, men have to pay child support, and it makes sense.

  • invalid-0

    Nonsense. I posed entirely reasonable questions and did not distort your position.

  • invalid-0

    Sure you did. You denied your “body” can sustain the life of another.

  • invalid-0

    Snerk! Hey, all you low-income people: NO SEX FOR YOU! Classist much, Alaric?

  • colleen

    Of course they must also abstain from sex or be prepared to support the child regardless.

     What a novel idea. Have you gone to any of the men’s blogs and lectured them their twin duties of  personal responsibility and celibacy?

    This is currently a law, men have to pay child support, and it makes sense.

     If it is ‘a law’ than why do the majority of children being raised by single mothers have no court ordered child support or help from their ‘fathers’? Why are taxpayers forced to pay for child support enforcement?

     

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • invalid-0

    Do I believe abortions for poor women should be funded by the government? Well that is a decision based on situational criteria like the amount of money the gov’t has available at the time.

    No reason is enough to outweigh a human life. Unless of course another human life is at stake. I don’t think you understand how important life is. The ending of life can’t be justified by any of the reasons for abortion.

    Being human doesn’t count for much in the real world? Uh yes it does. No matter how many examples of injustices and wrongs you list, the fact remains that they are still injustices and wrongs. Just because bad things are done sometimes, doesn’t mean bad things should be done all the time. Also there is NO other example in the developed world where killing an inoccent person is not only allowed but institutionalized. This sets abortion apart from any of the other wrongs you’ve listed.

    Yes but there is such thing as a forced sacrifice. A father seperated from his family must sacrifice money for child support. He has no choice. Why? Because it is the right thing to do whether he likes it or not. That isn’t a punishment, it’s just something he must do out of moral obligations.

    Yes my proposal would prevent few abortions, but the only ones allowed would be those before the embryo becomes actually human. It truly is compromise.

    Abortions for the sake of the mother’s life are always allowed, just in case you didn’t listen the 1000 other times I said that.

    Women would not be required to produce offspring, they have the choice to not engage in sex. They even have the ability to abort their offspring before they become human. Cattle are forced to breed and their children are harvested. Women would have choice of when/if they wanted to have children. Not Cattle.

    Just because a woman is pregnant doesn’t mean that she must stay with an abusive husband. The woman can leave her husband and he is obligated to pay for her during the pregnancy and afterward. As for unsupervised child visitation rights they aren’t awarded to everybody. If the husband is a known abuser he won’t be given those rights.

    Women who have unsafe abortions don’t seek death, they seek to escape pregnancy. That’s why the seeking of unsafe abortions occurs where and when ALL abortions are illegal. A restrictive abortion law will cause more women to raise the money for an earlier abortion. They don’t want to die, they will rather take the harder but safer route when it is available.

    If you’d quoted me properly you’d see that immediately after that I tentatively supported Ophelia’s proposal but simply wanted some situational examples to clarify. I didn’t say it was better than abortion I was confirming Ophelia’s own claim that it wasn’t totally equivilent to abortion.

  • invalid-0

    No matter how many examples of injustices and wrongs you list, the fact remains that they are still injustices and wrongs. Just because bad things are done sometimes, doesn’t mean bad things should be done all the time. Also there is NO other example in the developed world where killing an inoccent person is not only allowed but institutionalized. This sets abortion apart from any of the other wrongs you’ve listed.

    The first question, Alaric…is that you’ve conceded the first three months. So what changes, in terms of fetal humanity, from one day to the next? Second, you acknowledge ubiquitous injustice and wrongdoing against actual walking, talking people. Why the focus on the fetus? (Again, I have my own theory, but I’d like to understand why the abortion issue is the most compelling for you.) Third, what do you mean by “innocent?” Crowepps did an amazing piece on this point, and I’m asking in good faith.

  • invalid-0

    Different DNA is more important than you think. It means that those cells don’t belong to her. This therefore negates the claim by some prochoicers that the fetus belongs to the woman as part of her body. It doesn’t belong to the woman. So at this point we know that it is alive and that it is individual. But the only remaining question is: “is it human?”. The cancerous cell is not human because it lacks any sort of thought. It only has life and individuality making it about as important as any fungus, bacteria etc. But a human embryo is developing. Your comparison to cancer cells may loosely apply to the first trimester embryo but not to the second trimester fetus with a brain. Cancerous cells don’t have brains.

  • invalid-0

    You aren’t listening to me. A woman won’t die from pregnancy. I’ve already been over this fifty times. If a woman’s life is in danger from pregnancy, an abortion should be allowed, it’s every other situation that I’m arguing against. So your initial point is moot…again.

    Just because you/someone disagrees with fact, doesn’t remove the nature that it is fact. Your logic is that if someone denies something, it can’t be true. There are people that deny the holocaust, based on your logic, the fact that the holocaust happened is now a subjective belief.

    Lastly, I don’t see what you’re talking about in your last paragraph. I haven’t stated any desire to do anything of the like. I argue with you under the belief that if you can’t defend your opinion you don’t deserve one. If you are proven wrong you should change your opinion, and if you’re right, you’re right. It’s not a matter of me knowing everything, it’s a matter of you lacking the ability to prove me wrong.

    Also, in reference to your little history lesson, some of the greatest regimes of the ancient world were tyrannies(One Man Rule). Regimes that make the foundation of the modern world..>_>

  • invalid-0

    Broken DNA….is different…in that it’s broken, versus relatively functioning DNA. Do you understand how DNA fingerprinting works? It’s like a matching game. The difference between cancerous DNA and regular cellular DNA would be glaring. You can’t be arguing that a fetal human is comparable to tumor cells…

  • invalid-0

    Croweeps, human life does have value. Laws don’t say we kill them if they disobey laws. Laws say we arrest or fine them. The only time the death penalty applies is in 1st degree murder (and only in some developed countries). This only makes sense because the murderer has ended a life and pays for it with his own life which is of equal value. Tit for tat. I neither enforce nor reject this opinion, but it does make sense.

    The only reason people don’t consider a fetus human is because it’s easier not to. Decades ago a majority of people thought blacks weren’t humans, guess what they were. People thought natives weren’t humans and they were. People thought women weren’t of equal status to men for much of history, they were wrong. MAJORITY DOES NOT EQUAL OBJECTIVITY!! Many times the majority is wrong because they want free labour, land or servitude. Many times the majority is wrong because they simply don’t know some facts.

    The right thing is defined by those who have logic on their side. That is why we are here. The side in these arguments that has facts on their side will be the victor. And right now we have them, and you merely have your constant backtracking.

  • invalid-0

    It’s not illegal to be a crappy parent. It’s only illegal to be an awful parent. On that basis, a woman that did things that weren’t necessary healthy for her baby can’t be penalized on the basis that parents that only feed their children junk food aren’t reprimanded either, that’s just bad parenting. It would only be when a woman threatens the life inside of her, which is bad parenting. That’s the logical conclusion.

  • invalid-0

    My body can only sustain itself. I can act in a way that benefits other people, but inherently lack the ability to foster life inside of me. Spermatozoa is an extension of my genetic information, it isn’t separate life. Neither is bone marrow or anything else you listed. They are all fundamentally different from the developing person in the womb. They make up an aspect of me, the person is autonomous of the mother by nature of existing.

  • invalid-0

    No…you can live your life anyway you want. You just have to live with the consequences of your actions. You can be sexually active, however there is a chance of pregnancy. No woman has to be a mother, you aren’t forced to have sex.

  • invalid-0

    Not even close. Skiing was not created as a means for breaking bones nor swimming as a means for drowning. Sex on the other hand exists as a means of procreation meaning that if all goes “well” pregnancy and birth is the outcome

    Well shoot, Alaric, lemme just clue the Better Half to the fact that our sex life is purposeless, and has been for the last 25 years. But as a thought experiment, are you suggesting that a woman who has had all the children she wants no longer has any sexual obligation to her husband? Just wondering.

    • invalid-0

      No I am saying that to us as humans sex has a recreative aspect but it naturally has only the procreative. So a husband and wife are free to have sex because its fun and makes them feel better, but if the wife gets pregnant they shouldn’t blame/punish the fetus for it. It’s just bad luck.

  • invalid-0

    You jus’ keep moving those goalposts, don’t you? The question remains: if you value all life, as you claim, and you have the power to sustain it, why is the ability to foster life inside one…a primary consideration?

  • emma

    Surprise! David Marniss is an anti-feminist. I can see why someone who believes women are walking, talking incubators would have some trouble with the idea that the womenfolk are equal human beings with as much right to bodily autonomy as men, though. What a thought!

     

    Why is my ‘little rant’ moot, David? I guess that means you believe it’s irrelevant whether a law will a) achieve its purpose (presumably, that purpose is to save foetuses, is it not?); and b) cause more harm than good. Is it incomprehensible to you that some of us – women, for example – might consider more dead women (and just as many dead foetuses) constitutes ‘harm’? I don’t think you understand the point of legislation, David, or the factors that need to be taken into consideration when designing and implementing it (will it achieve its purpose; will it be a net social good; what negative results are likely to result from it; potential problems with enforcement; and so on and so forth). 

     

    You are an incredibly cowardly debater, David. You’re an insult to my intelligence.

  • invalid-0

    Different DNA is more important than you think. It means that those cells don’t belong to her

    But the uterus those cells inhabit DOES belong to the woman. And like any landlord, she has the right to evict unwanted tenents from her property.

  • emma

    And if your only example of me being impolite is saying "What the hell" in reference to someone’s absurd/ludicrous notions than I think you’re grasping for straws.

    I used that as an example (yes, a minor one) because it was the one I read just before commenting. A better example might be ‘you just want to kill your child!!!111′. And as far as that particular claim goes, you do realise that plenty of pro-choice people have never had abortions, right? Some even have children! Some don’t plan to have abortions themselves at any point in the future. Such women believe, however, that other women are best equipped to make their own reproductive decisions, and that no one, male or female – including you, David – should have the right to interfere. It was an obnoxious, inflammatory, inaccurate claim, and I’m not sure why you made it other than to provoke and/or to be an asshole.

    I am attempting to restrict your ability to kill your children.

    Same old obfuscatory rubbish, trying to pretend there’s no difference between a foetus and a child.

    Secondly, I didn’t respond to your comment because I thought someone else already had, and I figured that they’d do just fine on their own without me holding their hand.

    You mean Alaric’s comment? Actually, it seems Alaric does need someone to hold his sweaty little hand; his response was so brainless, misogynistic, hyperbolic and pathetic that he actually did me a favour in demonstrating to me that he is unworthy of any further responses.

    First of all, the majority of unsafe abortions are conducted in developing countries, in contrast to countries like the US and Canada, 1st world/developed countries if you will. This has two meanings; the first being that any abortions, legal or illegal will be conducted in ways considered dangerous from a North American perspective. This coupled with the fact that even legal abortions are dangerous mean that woman will be injured by abortion, legal or not. This also means that unsafe abortions in developed countries will be vastly better than unsafe abortions in 3rd world countries.

    Yes, most illegal abortions occur in developing countries, but you’re missing a confounding factor in your analysis: For the most part, it’s developing countries in which abortion is illegal. In most developed countries, it’s legal, and actually, the availability of safe, legal abortion is a reliable indicator of the status of women in a given society.
    Thus, more women are going to die from illegal and unsafe abortions in developing countries.
    My point was in regard to illegal abortions, not legal ones, and you lost me when you leapt to the conclusion that unsafe abortion would be safer in developed countries than in developing countries. Does that mean that if I shoved a coat hanger into my cervix and haemorrhaged to death in Australia, I would do so more safely than I would if I were in Nicaragua? The term ‘unsafe abortion’ – at as least I interpret it – means ‘an abortion that is unsafe’.

    If you combine the fact that a combination of the increased education about the dangers of abortion will reduce the amount of attempts to abort in tandem with the fact that unsafe abortions will be much safer in more developed countries you’ll see that there is nothing wrong with making abortion illegal other than it’ll piss some people off.

    Education campaigns informing women and girls of the dangers of unsafe abortion are going to reduce the rate of unsafe abortion? Now you’re just being insulting. Given that we’re not idiots and all, we already know that abortions performed by non-medically trained providers are unsafe. I cannot believe you’re even serious there. Do you need an education campaign to know that, say, prostate surgery or administration of chemotherapy drugs for testicular cancer are dangerous when performed by an untrained person, or by oneself? I really doubt that you do.

     

    You’re still operating on the assumption that girls and women have abortions just for ‘convenience’, and that being forced to complete a pregnancy and give birth is just a minor imposition. Every day, women and girls around the world risk their lives obtaining unsafe, illegal abortions, knowing damned well that it could kill them. This really should illustrate that many women and girls are, for a variety of reasons, incredibly desperate not to continue a pregnancy; that unwanted pregnancy and childbirth are more than just an inconvenience.

     

    Look, this is the best comparison I can come up with right now: Imagine that as soon as a male person had sex for the first time, they were placed on bone marrow and kidney donor registries. Imagine that upon having sex for the first time, all men with two functioning kidneys were required to donate a kidney. Imagine that all sexually active men were required to donate bone marrow whenever it matched that of someone who required a bone marrow transplant. Would that feel like nothing more than an inconvenience to you? A minor imposition? Would you be appreciative if I were to inform you that I planned to lobby for this to become law? Imagine that there were a very real chance of this happening. What would your opinion on that be? Bearing in mind that if you violated the law and refused to donate your bone marrow or kidney, not only would you be imprisoned, but an innocent person would die, would you feel this law were reasonable? Would you be comfortable with it?

    If you didn’t know, there are many men that support abortion merely because it means they can abandon their responsibility to the child produced from their promiscuity. There are also cases of men forcing woman to get abortions just for that reason. So I don’t see how you can unilaterally state that abortion is all good.

    The former point may well be the case; however, not all men are assholes. I know more than a few men who support that availability of safe, legal abortion because they respect women’s right to bodily autonomy, and they’re aware that the consequences of banning abortion would be worse than you’re willing to acknowledge.
    Where did I unilaterally say that all abortion is good? Do you understand that being pro-choice means that one believes that it should always be an individual pregnant woman’s own choice whether to abort, continue a pregnancy, raise the resulting child herself or put it up for adoption? I have no investment in what choice other women make; what I care about is that they are able to make that choice. I don’t support coerced abortion any more than I support coerced continuation of pregnancy and childbirth. Being forced into either against one’s will is an unacceptable violation.

    Lastly, I’d like to note that none of that matters. Once you recognize that a human is developing inside the womb, and that an abortion is the killing of that person, it does not matter how difficult it is to enforce, or how many people follow that law, by nature of a human life being in danger anti-abortion laws would have to be instituted.

    How is this not essentially saying that you don’t care whether an abortion ban actually succeeds in saving foetal lives, or whether women die as a result?

    Also, you say that ‘we’(Pro-Life Advocated I’m assuming) allow you abortion in some cases. It’s not a matter of us allowing it, it’s a matter of what’s fair. A woman’s life is valuable and so is the child’s. However, if one of them is going to die, then the woman should be able to decide if she wants to die for her child, or if she would prefer to live. It makes perfect sense. No one is forcing a woman to die against her will.

    No, that’s your view of what’s fair. Why should your idea of what’s fair trump my view of what’s fair?

  • emma

    Modern feminism is effectively an attempt to overpower men, it has nothing to do with gender equality. The sole purpose of modern feminism is to give woman as much power as humanly possible so as to sort of get back at men for holding up an oppressive patriarchy for so long.

    If you wouldn’t mind, could you point me in the direction of some feminist literature you’ve read upon which you’ve based the opinion expressed in the paragraph I’ve quoted? That’d be much appreciated.

     

    As someone who identifies as a feminist, would you say you identify more with first or second wave feminism? In what way? What school of feminist thought appeals to you most? Marxist feminism? Eco-feminism? Liberal feminism? Radical feminism? (for example) What is it you find appealing about whatever school of feminist thought you prefer?

  • invalid-0

    Abortions for the sake of the mother’s life are always allowed, just in case you didn’t listen the 1000 other times I said that.

    That’s a hard thing to prove, actually. It’s a medical mindset that (in my opinion) is a public health risk. I remember reading an intern’s account (I wish I could find it now) about a troubled pregnancy where the doctors were so “pro baby” that they had unrealistic hopes about the baby being able to be saved — and gave the woman bad advice about her risks. The pregnancy went septic & both died. By the time the doctors admitted they were wrong and tried to save her it was too late.

    I think you will say that’s not the kind of abortion choice you’re talking about … but the decision happens all the time in late abortions where the doctor, fearing for the woman’s health, advises abortion — and the protesters outside will say the woman has a “viable” fetus. It’s the same disvaluing of women that happens when early abortion is called “baby killing”. Since woman are disvalued, the burdens of unwanted but normal pregnancy (without complications) won’t be recognized as being significant.

  • invalid-0

    That you think being pro-choice means women will abort “willy-nilly” shows you do NOT trust women, you do NOT think their opinions are worth anything and you do NOT think they are the best people to deal with their reproduction. You think women are stupid and weak, and if given a choice they will always choose to not bring the pregnancy to term, not because they think of everything that pregnancy, birth and raising a child involves (a hell of a lot) and how it will change their lives and affect their existing family if they have one, but because they are innately selfish and take pleasure in “getting one over” on men by denying their “true nature”. You’ve pretty much admitted this several times, by claiming that women “face insecurities” and wish to “escape hardship”. Well, no shit Sherlock, that’s precisely what makes them the best person to decide! Abortion IS a way of taking responsibility for a situation. It IS the last line in birth control. It is far more selfish to bring a child into the world when it is not wanted, or can’t be adequately cared for. People will want children when its right for them, not when you think its right. You brazenly call us selfish, but you want to be able to force us to bear babies to make you feel mentally comfortable? Who the hell are you to make that demand?

    This is a reoccurring meme on RHRC and everywhere else abortion and contraception are discussed. There is this irritating notion that if abortion and contraception went away, we’d never have a legitimate reason to not want every pregnancy. It shows just how fucking myopic people are and how much they assume without actually listening to women.

    That is why the female posters here find it really annoying when you keep implying that they “don’t understand” what a pregnancy entails, and that somehow acknowledging that a fetus is human but not yet a person, makes one evil. Even when ahunt has admitted she has been there and done that several times, you still feel entitled to tell her what “really” happened, that her opinion is meaningless, even though it was she who experienced it, not you. I find this happens a lot when debating with men, even liberals, and it drives me fucking insane. Listen hon, I realise you’ve had the patriarchy whispering in your ear all your life that you’re always correct and you have the right to tell others what their lived experiences mean, but for fucks sake, shut up and listen!

  • invalid-0

    DNA fingerprinting is used to get your DNA profile of you non-cancerous cells but it is also used to identify the unique DNA of the cancer. Mutations occur in cancer as and in the non-cancerous DNA. Cancer has a unique DNA, regardless of how you prefer to frame it to try to ignore it. These mutations recognized in cancer are even catalogued. Cancer can be kept alive to continue growing outside of its host. Yes, I can argue that human tumor cells are comparable to human embryonic cells – there is a whole line of scientific study as such.

  • invalid-0

    Croweeps: whenever the chances of the mother’s death are significantly high, we should lean towards the cautious side.

    ahunt: What changes from the first trimester to the second is that the fetus now has a working brain giving it abilities of motion and feeling. I said that already.

    Why the focus on the fetus? Because it is alive and human and should not be killed. Walking and talking don’t make someone human. A mute person in a wheelchair for example shouldn’t be killed. I extend the same care to all humans regardless of their size.

    What do I mean by inoccent? I used the word inoccent to seperate the killing of people who haven’t done anything wrong with killing of the guilty under the death penalty. I accept the logic of the death penalty without necessarily embracing it. I use inoccent to explain that there’s a difference here.

  • invalid-0

    If “different DNA” means value, sorry, tumor removal doesn’t ‘respect life’.

    Bingo.

  • invalid-0

    versus relatively functioning DNA.

    Cancerous DNA inside humans is functioning.

    HeLa cells (a cancer) have also been kept alive outside their original host, and are very much growing and thriving. Its DNA is no less functional than any other. There are other examples of cancers that are similarly alive outside of their host.

  • invalid-0

    Exactly Julie. The old laws against abortion (passed along with anti-contraception laws starting in the mid-1800s) where just that, laws against abortion/contraception. They did not declare the fetus a person under the law, abortion was not deemed murder. In order to do so now they would have to (and are attempting to) make the fetus a person. The Tribe book on abortion goes through this…. that, especially if the woman is seen as initially haven chosen to get pregnant, if her life becomes in danger, then self-defense laws do not go this far. This is one of the reasons why those who oppose it for all reasons do exist (not defending them, they just hold their beliefs consistently).

    On the contrary, there is no reason to believe that the fetus wouldn’t have such a right of defense (others can defend you when you can’t defend yourself). Though not about abortion itself, but about fetal rights, the Angela Carder case is haunting.

  • invalid-0

    If a mans sperm isn’t separately alive, thats called infertility.

  • invalid-0

    What does ‘glaring’ mean in terms of DNA fingerprinting?…what measure is equal ‘glaring’? Is it a certain number of mutations? Is it also measured between individuals…e.g. their differences are called ‘glaring’?

  • invalid-0

    This singular focus you have to call out broken in terms of cancer while ignoring the others…e.g. when someone inherits broken DNA as part of their unique DNA…mutations create variability. There are DNA mutations we like as they are beneficial to us and ones we don’t like as they aren’t beneficial to us but that shouldn’t distract from cancer itself , once it exists, being a different DNA.

    Now back to crowepps point.

  • invalid-0

    My further reply to this about the singular focus you have to use broken in cancer while ignoring this in inheritance ended up posted way below. I hit reply on the wrong comment.

  • invalid-0

    Well this attempt didn’t work either, my comment is still embedding in the wrong spot.

  • otaku1960

    can you?  Conferring special rights on the fetuses devalues the WOMAN. She’s just a vessel for the sacred zygote and you only value women for the number they can birth. Wanna talk stupid, here? You clearly see women as unable to be moral, nice of you to show your true colors.

    Now, let’s take your inability to distinguish between morality and laws. The latter must take ethics into account as well, so it cannot be a solely objective moral agent. Otherwise, we would still have Prohibition. Plus, I dispute your claim "a third party always decides", not in reproductive health matters they do! Any woman or girl are more qualified than the government or pro life groups to decide about child bearing.

     

    Next stereotype: your attempt to link actual illegal AND immoral actions like robbery and murder to abortion. It’s like some kind of default argument for pro-lifers. I think I did a fine job of rebutting you since you got all huffy after I pointed out your gender. Did I hurt your delicate ego?  I am able to use different rebuttals to pro life women, so that little slap missed by a mile.   

    In closing,if you want to dismiss my arguments as mere "belief", get your ignorance on. No one is stopping you from looking silly here.

    Your grievance shall be avenged.

  • otaku1960

    You don’t understand. Gotcha. Would comphrehension be easier if I limited myself to using more words larger than two syllables?  Fetal rights are NOT human rights, this is an argument you have so far failed to prove. I’m no longer surprised you don’t realize how granting the right to be born to a a newly fertilzed egg harms the woman. I’m beginning to think you don’t care.

     

    I never claimed I could do whatever I wanted, that is your your internal stereotype talking.  I’ll try my best to put this into words you can comphrehend, but I can’t promise anything. I, personally am moral enough and smart enough to make my own reproductive health decisions, wether using birth control. asking for emergency birth control to prevent pregnancy in the case of rape, or obtaining an abortion to end an uwanted pregnancy.  I do NOT need nor want the government, or a third party (such as pro-life groups or politicians) deciding on the behalf of a potential child or telling me must take a certain course to protect the so called "rights" of a potential child.

     

    Maybe you didn’t say it, but a pro lifer in one of the comment sections DID refer to abortion as merely "a poke on the arm".  It’s way, WAY more than that. For me personally, pregnancy and child birth will not be part of my life. It will be different for other women, but that is their lookout. While I’m at it, please, please, PLEASE try to restrain yourself in the future from comparing ending the life of a potential child with ending the life of an ACTUAL child.  That argument is so old and stale, the mold colonies growing on it have established city-states.

     

    No, I do NOT have to accept the fetus as not human, who are you to tell me what to think?  Pro choicers know it is human. But, it is not a person, it is not sentient, it can’t think or feel what goes on around it. (Caveat: I’m talking about early term fetuses here, when the majority of abortions take place). It has no opinion on anything, in short, the fetus does not care. On the other hand, the woman carrying IS a person, she is sentient, she thinks and feels. What do you think is her opinon of pro lifers like you, who care for her only until she is pregnant?

     

    I never argued "I really want it" or "You guys are wrong". But look at what you are saying to me: "You are stupid", "You are morally incompetent", "You don’t know what you are doing".  That is what screams loud and clear to me from your posts.  Talk about pre0judging!

    Your grievance shall be avenged.

  • crowepps

    you do NOT trust women, you do NOT think their opinions are worth anything and you do NOT think they are the best people to deal with their reproduction

     

    To be fair to David, he doesn’t trust men and doesn’t think their opinions are worth anything or think they are the best people to deal their reproduction either.  He is a totally equal opportunity non-truster.

  • crowepps

    Most reasonable people accept that there is no point in continuing a pregnancy involving an anencephalic fetus, however in a case where the government refused to pay for the abortion of a Navy wife on the grounds that "the mother’s life wasn’t in danger" and insisted she properly should be required to endure another 22 WEEKS of pregnancy they used this description of a "viable fetus".

     

    In its appeal, the government said that "although anencephaly is ultimately fatal," some anencephalic babies have lasted a few months, and in one noted case more than two years. "Although anencephalic infants are ‘permanently unconscious,’ they ‘maintain a heartbeat and respiration without medical assistance,’ " the government argued, quoting from medical journals.

    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/217156_janedoe23.html

  • invalid-0

    If the husband is a known abuser he won’t be given those rights.

    Really? My father got rights.

  • invalid-0

    No one is compelled to maintain the life of another through their bodily integrity even if anothers life is at stake.

  • invalid-0

    I think one nuance here is some men abuse the woman but not the children.

  • crowepps

    Croweeps, human life does have value.

    I didn’t say that human life doesn’t have value.  I said that in most OTHER situations we parse WHICH human lives have value very finely.

     Laws don’t say we kill them if they disobey laws. Laws say we arrest or fine them.

    And yet a police officer shooting and killing a PRESUMED lawbreaker running away is considered "justified", shooting and killing an intruder in ones own home is considered "justified", shooting and killing a person who one feels reasonably threatened by is considered "justified" and shooting and killing a person in prison who is escaping is considered "justified". 

    The only time the death penalty applies is in 1st degree murder (and only in some developed countries). This only makes sense because the murderer has ended a life and pays for it with his own life which is of equal value.

     

    Aside from murder, in the United States federal law also makes Kidnapping and Treason capital crimes, the various states have other capital crimes besides murder: Georgia, Treason; Kentucky, Kidnapping; Louisiana, Aggravated rape of victim under 13, Treason; Mississippi, Aircraft piracy; Montana, Aggravated sexual intercouse without consent;  Texas, criminal sexual contact with a child.

    The only reason people don’t consider a fetus human is because it’s easier not to.

    This is YOUR OPINION.  First, I don’t know anyone who claims that a fetus is not biologically ‘human’ any more than people claim that brain cancer cells are not biologically ‘human’.  On the question of ‘person with equal rights’, however, many people have a definition of ‘person’ that includes more than sorting cells into ‘human’ and ‘non-human’.

     Many times the majority is wrong because they want free labour, land or servitude.

    This is a startling rebuttal, considering that what you are advocating is the "free labor" and "servitude" of the pregnant woman.

    The right thing is defined by those who have logic on their side.

    And yet so far your logic fails to convince anyone.

     

  • invalid-0

    so if the woman wants to end the pregnancy for any reason, she can just have the fetus removed. It dies due to its own inability to live (non-viable means its incapable of life). No one has the right to anothers bodily integrity to live.

  • crowepps

    You aren’t listening to me. A woman won’t die from pregnancy.

    You aren’t listening to me either.  WOMEN DIE NOW WHEN ABORTION IS LEGAL.  600 women die every year in the United States from complications of pregnancy.  Introducing the idea of ‘the fetus as equal’ into medical care for pregnancy in my opinion would mean that MORE women would die in the future.

    Your logic is that if someone denies something, it can’t be true.

    No, my logic is that if someone asserts something, that doesn’t mean it is true, unless it is backed up by some objective facts.  In this case, the objective facts of reproduction do not support your conclusions.

    Also, in reference to your little history lesson, some of the greatest regimes of the ancient world were tyrannies(One Man Rule). Regimes that make the foundation of the modern world..>_>

    Oh, please, surely you’re not going to use the "tyranny makes Mankind great eventually even though individual people are miserable" argument.  I truly do understand that the idea of having a "Strong Man" is very attractive to those who believe other people won’t do the right thing unless they’re coerced, but they consistently fail to take into account that the Strong Man is ALSO a person.

  • crowepps

    Certainly BRAIN cancers are brains.  Or do you mean that the cancer cells don’t have the type of ‘thought’ unique to humans?  Which, of course, is present in the fetus only after most abortions are banned, when the cerebral cortex starts functioning around 22 weeks.

    • invalid-0

      Not only do cancerous cells in the brain not have thought unique to humans, they don’t have thought at all. Cancer cells do not function and never will. They simply divide ceaslessly. Therefore cancerous brain cells don’t think, cancerous heart cells don’t pump blood etc. The cerebral cortex is an important part of the brain, but the fetus is able to think without it. Consciousness exists for example in born children with missing or greatly damaged cerebral cortexes.

  • crowepps

    This nuance is predicated on the idea that there was something about woman and their behavior which justified the abuse.

     

    It is my experience, however, both that continuing contact with the children allows the man to use his treatment of them as a weapon to ‘punish’ their mother, and that abusive men insist everyone else are ‘responsible for’ their feelings of inadequacy so that at the point where the children start displaying independence the man feels threatened and becomes abusive to them also.

     

    I certainly can understand why the courts don’t just toss men out of their children’s lives on the say-so of some woman who dislikes him enough to divorce him, such a scenario would cause huge abuses, but there should be better management of these cases so that children are not forced into continued contact with a parent who is violently mentally ill and a threat to them.

  • crowepps

    Yes my proposal would prevent few abortions, but the only ones allowed would be those before the embryo becomes actually human. It truly is compromise.

    Since your proposal wouldn’t prevent very many abortions, why is this ‘compromise’ better than the laws that are in place now?

     

    The one area in which this would NOT be a compromise would be that you would be introducing into constitutional law one particular group of people who have been adjudged incompetent to apply their own moral judgment and make their own medical decisions – pregnant women.

     

    You might have noticed that some of those discussing this issue here describe themselves as ProChoice.  That’s because their focus in this controversy is NOT on trying to manipulate the decisions of other people but instead on allowing those other people to make their OWN decisions.

    Women who have unsafe abortions don’t seek death, they seek to escape pregnancy.

    That’s right, and those who commit suicide are also doing so to escape pregnancy.

  • invalid-0

    So is someone with Turners Syndrome supposed to be less than human? or to deserve less protection? Trisomy would make one more than human?

  • invalid-0

    Cancerous cellular DNA is broken in that the cells life cycle is actually fundamentally different from regular cells. There is no rest phase. They keep dividing. The reason that cancer kills is because the cancerous cells leach off energy from the rest of the body and displace the physical assignments of the body. Secondly, a genetic mutation is not always favorable. The difference between a normal genetic mutation vs cancer, is that a genetic mutation usually results in the displacement of genes/alleles etc, whereas Cancer is the exact same mutation. It is when the cells lose control. They are broken cells. They aren’t compatible with the rest of the organism, it will kill a person. The fact that cancer cells can exist outside of the body mean nothing.

    You could argue that Cancer cells are comparable to embryonic cells, but none that would aid you in this debate. Cancer cells are somatic, and they’re human. Embryonic cells are human. Cancer cells are a corrupt aspect of an organism, the embryonic cells are an aspect of a distinct, human organism. Cancer cells are part of you, the embryo is another person.

  • invalid-0

    No, sperm is composed of haploid cells. They’re alive, but just like the rest of any cells in my body except with only half my genetic information. They aren’t distinctly alive..>_>

  • invalid-0

    The ‘keep dividing’ part is the same as embryonic cells. You have a problem with embryonic cells then. Embryos leach off a womans body and displace her organs. Cancer can be removed to save the patient without killing it.

    I know that genetic mutations aren’t always favorable…I’m the one that brought it up remember?…but when it comes to the cancer itself the mutation isn’t necessarily harmful to the cancer as its own entity itself. Keep it alive. Humans have broken cells. Broken cells can exist in a human and they don’t develop cancer or bad side effects. There are sometimes a series of mutations necessary before cancer can develop.

    The lose control is where they are being studied to embryonic issue of dividing. Cancer cells are not necessarily part of me…the can be removed with their unique DNA and be kept alive and thrive longer than me. Hela cells are even said to be speciating…something I can’t do.

    You simply are caring what the source of the different DNA is. I don’t and you haven’t given any reason why and egg or sperm should be valued themselves.

  • invalid-0

    The language flip flops you use are amazing. There is now distinctly alive versus alive? Sperm actually do have a viability of their own.

  • invalid-0

    I know they are haploid cells, my first comment on this was a reply to your comment above to ahunt.

  • invalid-0

    Its not punishment to the fetus. A newborns right to life doesn’t include the right to the womans body, even if it still needs some of the same resources in her body after birth to live. If no one has the right to anothers body then its not punishment to stop the fetus either.

    Also, especially in the case of incest, and in rape, the woman often is traumatized, lacks access to early services, has family/support barriers covering up the ongoing incest still to even get early help, or has additional emotional/psychological issues that she may not be able to process and acknowledge the pregnancy to get an abortion right away in the first trimester.

  • invalid-0

    it naturally has only the procreative

    No it doesn’t. The social and pleasurable (hormonal and physical) aspects are natural.

  • invalid-0

    I’m not knowledgeable about ‘thought’ and ‘consciousness’ discussion here in regards to fetal development but just thought I’d add this fyi – tumors can grow the three tissue types and also the mature tissues/body parts such as teeth, hair and nails and electronically active neurons.

  • invalid-0

    Not sure how the heart thing fits in this part of the discussion thread, but I thought they’d found a beating heart in a teratoma.

  • invalid-0

    was referring to the ‘pump blood’ comment above.

  • invalid-0

    Natural ways to trick us into procreating.

  • invalid-0

    The fetus is guilty of unlawful use of the woman’s body to stay alive. Therefore he is killed. That is punishment. Is it the fault of the fetus that it is using the woman’s body to stay alive? Not at all.

  • invalid-0

    I think there’s something very wrong (not to mention deeply creepy) with men who visualize and pontificate endlessly and publically about the reproductive organs of women they do not know. When y’all start obsessing about who properly should have the use of those reproductive organs as if the woman was some sort of livestock and it was your right to declare ownership it’s a real short trip from deeply creepy to genuinely disgusting.

  • invalid-0

    stopping anyone from using your body to maintain their life is not a punishment . Its simply not their right to use your body, even if its not a fetus. You aren’t punishing them by actually exercising your own bodily integrity rights .

  • invalid-0

    No if its to be framed as a ‘trick’ then natural ways to ‘trick’ us into orgasms without live births would be more like it. The majority of embryos flush out with a womans period (60%), even after that there are miscarriages and those that wouldn’t make it without medical treatments available today. The most normal outcome of sex is not a live birth. Female humans don’t have heat cycles either. See crowepps on this.

  • zuzu-petals

    Thank you for this informational article. I do have a question, you might know where I can find the answer. I have worked in a large, state institution for the developmentally disabled for over 3 decades.

     

    I have noticed that over the years, we no longer have the nursery and children’s units. Our population is aging. I am wondering if that is due just to  the developmentally disabled babies and children being kept at home or placed in smaller, community based care homes, or medical improvements in preventing disabilities from occuring, or if the advent of safe, legal abortions in conjunction with widespread pre-natal discovery of disabilities has resulted in fewer persons being born with such conditions.

     

    Any idea where I can find the statistics about how legal abortion may have affected the birth-rate of babies with developmental disabilities?’ Thank you.

  • crowepps

    I am not aware of any site that give a global account of how abortion has changed things but you might try the March of Dimes. In addition, if you google specific birth defects like ‘Down Syndrome’ together with ‘abortion’ and ‘percentage’ you can find stats on how many parents in those situations choose abortion. It would be kind of laborious to go through and get stats for the many, many different birth defects, but I think it could be done, especially if you started with a list of which birth defects are DETECTABLE through testing and ultrasound and started with those which occur at the largest percentage.