Millennials and The Right To Choose


Since Bart Stupak tried to ban federal funding of abortion in a House bill earlier this month, there’s been an abundance of opining articles on the public perception of abortion. And according to two articles published recently, the real split isn’t between red states or blue states, but generational approaches to the issue of abortion.

In yesterday’s New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote about 80-year-old Representative Louise M. Slaughter—a Democrat from New York, staunch defender of abortion rights, and member of what NARAL’s Nancy Keenan calls “the menopausal militia”—who secretly helped her unmarried friend receive the procedure in the early 1950’s. According to her, the pain and secrecy of the experience was “seared into my mind,” no doubt helping to inform her pro-choice policy decisions since entering congress in 1986.

But in the 37 years since Roe v. Wade was decided—including the time in which my generation, the Millennials, has grown up—there has been fewer opportunities for pregnant women and their friends to have these kinds of scarring experiences. Instead, we’ve grown up during a time when abortion, while often expensive or difficult to come by, is at least a legal option. “The result is a generational divide,” writes Stolberg, “not because younger women are any less supportive of abortion rights than their elders, but because their frame of reference is different.” Ana Greenberg, a Democratic pollster who studies public attitude towards abortion, backs up this theory.

Here is a generation that has never known a time when abortion has been illegal…. For may of them , the daily experience is: It’s legal and if you really need one you can probably figure out how to get one. So when we send out e-mail alerts saying, "Oh my God, write to your senator," it’s hard for young people to have that same sense or urgency.

True, there has been no single event to inspire Millennials to fight for the right to abortion. But, as the Times points out—and as New York Magazine thoroughly covered—the other change for our generation has been the development of the sonogram.

As fetal ultrasound technology improved during the nineties, abortion providers, conditioned to reassure patients that the fetus was merely tissue, found it much harder to do so once their patients were staring at images that looked so lifelike. Banking on the emotional power of seeing a beating heart on a television screen—many in the pro-life movement refer to sonograms as “God’s window”—organizations like Focus on the Family began to use this technology to their advantage, sending ultrasound machines to Crisis Pregnancy Centers in an initiative taglined “Revealing Life to Save Life.”

So what does this mean for Millennials? First, it means that we need our theory and rhetoric to catch up with the technology, and quick—otherwise, Roe v. Wade may soon be as obsolete as the tape deck. While we shouldn’t abandon other, more modern issues—such as GLBTQ rights, a distant dream in the 1970s—we should find ways to update our arguments. On Wednesday, the Stop Stupak coalition will hold a “National Day of Action,” which will include a number of abortion rights advocacy groups hosting events and campaigns to inspire pro-choice Millennials to voice our support for pro-choice legislation. Our mothers and grandmothers fought hard to make sure that we could make decisions about our body, and now it’s the Millennial’s duty to ensure that abortion will be safe and legal for the next generation.

Maybe Stupak is just the galvanizing opponent we’ve been looking for.

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

  • progo35

    “So what does this mean for Millennials? First, it means that we need our theory and rhetoric to catch up with the technology, and quick—otherwise, Roe v. Wade may soon be as obsolete as the tape deck.”

    You need your theory and rhetoric to catch up with the technology for what? SO you can tell women that even though it’s actually NOT a blob of tissue, it’s okay to kill it because it’s not a “person”?

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • ahunt

    For what?

    Starting with the authority to determine under what circumstances they will bear children, and ending with the certainty that the resources exist to implement that authority, etc.

  • hekate

    It’s better than telling women they are second to the developing parasite in their womb. I know, women should give up their humanity for some tissue in their uterus leeching their resources, but it’s always nice to remind them that women are in fact people with autonomy.

     

    You know, under a microscope sperm looks just as alive as a fetus in a sonogram. Would you propose we call all forms of ejaculation without reproduction murder? Outlaw men from ejaculating unless it’s within a woman’s vagina with no contraceptive methods hindering it? It’s only fair, afterall, sperm looks so life like!

  • progo35

    I’d like to see some documentation verifying that under a microscope, sperm cells are revealed to have organ systems, limbs, etc, or some developing facsimile thereof, Hekate.
    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • hekate

    I didn’t say they have organs, etc, I said they look alive. Actually, they are alive. What makes a fetus so special when a sperm and egg are alive prior to fertilization? It has organs? It can’t live on its own. It inhabits a woman’s body and requires her resources to survive. Why should a fetus be able to demand that much from a woman when she doesn’t want it in her body?

  • crowepps

    You are aware, I hope, that neither blastocysts or zygotes have "organ systems, limbs, etc."

  • progo35

    "Why should a fetus be able to demand that much from a woman when she doesn’t want it in her body?"

    1) The fetus had no say in being there in the first place, thus, it didn’t "demand" anything-it’s not the fetus’ fault that it’s inhabiting the body of a woman who doesn’t want it there

    2) Barring some sortof medical condition/emergency, nine months of pregnancy = nine months of disrupted plans, vs. an abortion which = one dead fetus. It’s not that the woman’s life, health and plans are not significant and that she doesn’t deserve the support she needs to continue her life plans unimpeded, it’s that those plans do not trump the fetus’ right not to be killed. 

    3) People everywhere require resources that other people want, thus, being dependent on the woman’s body does not negate the fetus’ right to life. 

     

     

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • progo35

    Crowepps-
    I said, “or some developing facsimile thereof.” pay more attention, please.
    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • crowepps

    Facsimile means exact copy which makes no sense whatsoever in this phrase.

    Choose your words more carefully so that they actually convey a meaning, please.

  • progo35

    “some reasonable facsimile thereof” is a COMMON phrase. If you’re so good with words, you should surely be aware of that.

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • progo35

    Moreover, it’s nice to see some in the pro choice movement waking up and realizing that we are NOT living in the 1970s anymore.
    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • ahunt

    3) People everywhere require resources that other people want, thus,
    being dependent on the woman’s body does not negate the fetus’ right to
    life. 

     

    Come again?

  • crowepps

    It may be a ‘common phrase’, but it still doesn’t make sense in the context in which you used it.  Inspection of a zygote or blastocyst does not reveal any reasonably "exact copy" of limbs or organs nor does it show that they are ‘likely to develop’.  In fact, they more often than not do not develop and instead the blastocyst or zygote is flushed from the body.

  • crowepps

    But I thought the whole POINT of the ProLife movement was to take us all back to the 70′s?  The 1870′s, that is.

  • colleen

    "some reasonable facsimile thereof" is a COMMON phrase

    Yes, and in this context it is meaningless because a zygote or blastocyst has nothing resembling an organ system, developing or not.

    Here’s a photo of a zygote. See? No organ system, developing or not.

     

     

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

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • crowepps

    Barring some sortof medical condition/emergency

    Which is it?  Medical condition or emergency?  Does the woman actually have to be going to die in the next 10 minutes in order to ‘deserve’ an abortion?  Or can reasonable medical certainty about what will happen in the easily foreseeable future allow her to qualify?

    People everywhere require resources that other people want, thus, being dependent on the woman’s body does not negate the fetus’ right to life.

    Which of those other people do you feel are entitled to the "resources that other people want"?  Do you think children who require an organ transplant or a blood marrow donation to save their lives are entitled to them even if the person who is a good match objects that they don’t want to donate?  Should we pass laws making giving up a kidney mandatory because that child also has a "right to life"?

     

  • emma

    They would have been happier in around the third century, I think.

  • emma

    It’s a very young person, Colleen!!!

  • progo35

    Coleen-that’s a photo of a blastocyst that hasn’t even implanted into a uterus yet!!!
    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • crowepps

    That was indeed a photo of a zygote. THIS is a photo of a blastocyst.

    http://www.drizzle.com/~mdavis/uploaded_images/jj_blastocyst-703867.jpg

    And there’s an excellent description of the week-long process of implantation here:

    http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/gnidation/resumenidation01.html

  • colleen

    concede the lack of organs etc?
     

    that’s a photo of a blastocyst that hasn’t even implanted into a uterus yet!!!

     Don’t tell me,take it up with  the biologists who own this site.

     

     

     

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

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • harry834

    I do. And if that’s murder, convict me.

  • rad-trad

    How would thier conceding a lack of organs get you anywhere?

    Organs or not, from conception it’s a living human being. Because of that, it should be offered the same protections as other living human beings.

  • colleen

    How would thier conceding a lack of organs get you anywhere?

    I have no desire to ‘get’ anywhere but would like to suggest that before you lecture others about your beliefs you recognise that here in the US  because of religious conservatives such as yourself the protections we offer other human beings are, at present, almost non-existent.

     

     

     

     

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

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • ch

    Explain how you protect two competing interests in one body?  And one of those interests totally and absolutely requires the ALL of the other’s resources in order to eventually survive on its own?

  • prochoiceferret

    Organs or not, from conception it’s a living human being. Because of that, it should be offered the same protections as other living human beings.

    Even if we were to grant you that (the inanity of calling a one/few-celled organism a "human being" aside), the pregnant woman also gets the same protections as other living human beings, which includes the right not to have one’s own bodily resources commandeered by someone else. So women would still have a right to abortion, and it would still be legal.

  • prochoiceferret


    Ceci n’est pas un être humain.

  • phylosopher

    Does it have human DNA, yes.  But so do my tonsils.  Remove them from my body, and they cease to be living tissue. But no one argues my right to have them removed.

    There is simply more to a human "being" which I think most of those sophisticated enough to follow the argument, is personhood.  The abillity to interact, be recognizably unique to other humans, with projects and goals, and a level of, at least, existential independence.

    All of which criteria blastocysts, embryos and fetii fail to meet up to a certian age. 

     

     

     

     

  • crowepps

    personhood.  The abillity to interact, be recognizably unique to other humans, with projects and goals, and a level of, at least, existential independence.

     

    Don’t you think that’s kind of a high standard?  If they have to meet all of those to qualify, I know some people in my town right now who aren’t ‘persons’.  Oddly enough, they are disproportionately ProLife.  Perhaps using the extremely low standard for personhood of with ‘unique human DNA’ is the only way they feel they themselves can be considered valuable?

  • rad-trad

    There is simply more to a human "being" which I think most of those sophisticated enough to follow the argument, is personhood. The abillity to interact, be recognizably unique to other humans, with projects and goals, and a level of, at least, existential independence. All of which criteria blastocysts, embryos and fetii fail to meet up to a certian age.

    I find the personhood argument curious because it delves into philosophy and idealogy. The fact that it is a living human organism is a scientific fact. It can be proven.

     

    Personhood is an idea. It’s definition varies from person to person. We don’t know what it is really. Even in your attempt to explain it, you can only approximate some of the things it does. Are we what we do or are we what we are?

  • rad-trad

    Even if we were to grant you that (the inanity of calling a one/few-celled organism a “human being” aside), the pregnant woman also gets the same protections as other living human beings, which includes the right not to have one’s own bodily resources commandeered by someone else. So women would still have a right to abortion, and it would still be legal.

    We recognize that our rights cannot violate the rights of another, so why should the woman have the right to violate the child’s rights in order to protect her own?

  • ahunt

    Who is this “child” of which you “speak?”

  • rad-trad

    Sorry, “young human”

  • prochoiceferret

    We recognize that our rights cannot violate the rights of another, so why should the woman have the right to violate the child’s rights in order to protect her own?

    Because the "child" (fetus, actually) is already violating her rights. I don’t have the right to bite you, but if you’re violating my rights by attacking me, then I can most certainly bite you (or take any other reasonable measure necessary) to defend myself.

     

    The fetus exists in a woman’s body at her pleasure. If she doesn’t want it there, then it goes. And if you have a problem with that, then when you have a uterus, you can keep an unwanted fetus inside it.

  • julie-watkins

    even if (unless rape) the woman chose to have sex. Rather that speak of an "unborn child’s" right to life, giving birth (giving life) should be considered a gift (the woman’s choice), or women and poor people are 2nd class. The gift should be conditional — if something bad happens, the mother should be trusted to make her own decision (with the help of her doctors and chosen advisors, and medical standards) about late abortion. .

    Reproductive rights (ie, trusting women) are necessary mitigate against Nature’s sexism. Since Nature is sexist, since society (for centuries/millennia) has been sexist & classist, reproductive choice (without attempted legal or societal coercion) is a necessary counter if women are equal to men; if there is not to be different laws for rich and poor. From my PoV, reproductive choice is an "affirmative action" a necessarary compromise. .

    The potential rights of a potential person pale in comparison to the commulative effect of nature’s sexism and society’s sexism and classism, … so I believe trusting women is a reasonable compromise.

  • prochoiceferret

    I find the personhood argument curious because it delves into philosophy and idealogy. The fact that it is a living human organism is a scientific fact. It can be proven.

    You can prove that it has human DNA, and that it is not biologically dead. You can’t derive "and thus killing it is wrong" from that without going into all the squishy philosophy and ideology arguments, and even then, you have to overcome the most obvious argument—why should people give a damn about things too small to be seen with the naked eye in the most private regions of other people’s bodies?

  • crowepps

    The fact that it is a living human organism is a scientific fact. It can be proven.

    A person with massive head injuries on life support because they’re brain dead can also be proven scientifically to be a "living human organism".  So what?  When the plug is pulled, then they are a deceased human organism.

     

    There are lots and lots and lots of "living human organisms" already walking around in the world, some of them pregnant, who really could use the complete and total support of another person for the next nine months and who instead are told that it’s their own "personal responsibility" to take care of themselves because it’s unreasonable to expect other people to do so. 

     

    Good golly, it’s even ‘controversial’ to provide her with obstetric care!  "You have to stay pregnant because it’s your duty to society but society doesn’t have any reciprocal duty to provide medical care for you or your fetus."   So far as I am concerned, unless society as a whole is willing to supply the pregnant woman’s every social, economic and medical need while she is gestating, that lack of support for her releases her from any obligation to support that blastocyst.

  • ahunt

    So far as I am concerned, unless society as a whole is willing to
    supply the pregnant woman’s every social, economic and medical need
    while she is gestating, that lack of support for her releases her from
    any obligation to support that blastocyst.

     

    Now you’ve gone and done it, Crowepps. I’m just gonna go pop some popcorn and grab myself a Bass Ale.

     

    Because we’re getting down to it…what  DO women owe to society? And why?

  • julie-watkins

    In my opinion, even with full support, it would only make the cage a gilded cage.  

    There are too many laws, there are too many proposals that are passed/proposed for the sake of the fetus on the basis that only the mother can give her/him life. I can think of other cases where people are going to die, and someone else has the biological resources to save him/her. Are there laws forcing donation? There’s no legislation in the USA or any other country I know of that will force anyone to donate a kidney, part of a liver, or even blood to another person, even if they’re blood kin, even if they’re the "only match". On this basis I claim "my body my choice". I believe giving birth is a gift, not a moral obligation — and on the basis of lack of laws concerning obligatory organ or blood donation, I think society agrees with me: people always have a choice. My aggravation is that there are laws treat pregnant women as "not people". Even dead people are still people! Unless there’s prior authorization, the default is "bury/burn me whole".

  • julie-watkins

    I don’t think women "owe" society; I think society (looking at sexist/classist past history) owes women.
  • emma

    ‘Microscopic persons’?

     

    Or, for the foetus-worshipping pro-life Xians, precious sweet innocent christ-like sexy! teensy weensy unborn preborn princes and princesses?

  • ahunt

    I’m entirely willing to concede that I have obligations to “society.” The elephant in the room is and always has been societal demands for the unpaid and unrecognized service of women…demands invariably characterized by contempt and entitlement.

    I do not think the world around us can continue to make such demands absent tangible reward. There is a serious distinction between that which is freely given, and that which is coerced. Those who would coerce women into unwilling motherhood had better be prepared to pony up…handsomely. Otherwise, they can shut the hell up.

  • crowepps

    All the angst about why women don’t want to have kids or why women don’t want to marry seems to focus on how selfish it is of women to want to be happy.  It doesn’t seem to occur to anybody that setting things up so that motherhood and marriage pretty much guarantee women will be unhappy just might be the problem.

     

    After all, it’s easier to stay with tradition and continue to force women to get and stay pregnant, force women to get married, than it is to look at how ridiculous it is to set up a system where all the crap work involved in ‘caring for others’ is expected to be done for free by half the population while the other half goes off to congratulate each other on how their paycheck means they really make a contribution to society.

  • rad-trad

    precious sweet innocent christ-like sexy! teensy weensy unborn preborn princes and princesses?

    Technically, they are most of those things. Being precious, as all human life is. Sweet, in the way that babies are. Innocent for sure. Christ-like, in that they have no sinned. Teensy weensy, in that they are small and highly weensy. Unborn, yep. Preborn, as long as the pro-choicers don’t get to them first. Princes and princesses? Well, given the right parents, I suppose that would be true as well.

    Now the real question is…why would you be saying those things sarcastically?

  • ahunt

    Ya think? Shall we list all the traditional reasons why a mother’s love comes free?

    1) No access to birth control/abortion-

    2) No access to higher ed-

    3) No access to credit-

    Feel free to add to the list.

  • crowepps

    Now the real question is…why would you be saying those things sarcastically?

    Perhaps because any of those descriptions would be a ludicrous caption under either of the photos in question?

  • emma

    Rad Trad: What, you don’t think they’re sexy?

     

    In response to your question – uh, yeah, what crowepps just wrote. Look at the blastocyst pic ProChoiceFerret posted above, and then tell me how adjectives like sweet, innocent, adorable, cute, or whatever else apply. Who would seriously look at that and think ‘aww, baby!!’?

  • princess-rot

    …you’re trying to argue with logic against someone who thinks women’s humanity is negotiable or nonexistent depending on the status of their reproductive organs. It’s a futile exercise to try and get them to give up their privilege.

  • princess-rot

    What always strikes me is their insistence that an unborn "baby" is wonderful and unavoidably human and must be protected at all costs, but they seem to forget that at the end of pregnancy there is an actual baby there, which shrieks and cries and has real, unavoidable needs. Then suddenly that wonderful little human being is someone else’s responsibility. It’s a mindset that can only be born of thinking all humanity is by default inherently dirty, and is only "innocent" in the colloquial sense, such as when it’s being used as "punishment" for someone else’s dirty humanity (the mother’s, for having had sex). Even among the women, you get this sort of icky feeling that they had
    all they needed to have children when they wanted to, and even if it
    was in less than ideal circumstances they just want to spread the
    misery around. Such things are a part of why I think pro-life is a poor, lazy and unintelligent position. It requires little or no effort from the pro-life individual, because all the burdens and consequences of pro-life idealogy will fall on someone else’s shoulders. It’s just too easy.

  • therealistmom

    … to even prove that is a HUMAN blastocyst. There is no reason to believe it isn’t, it is from a reputable source, but the point is that it’s a grouping of dividing cells. Without the benefit of DNA typing it could belong to any mammal on the planet (with the exception of monotremes).

  • rad-trad

    So Emma…if something doesnt look enough like a human it isnt a human to you? How far off? Missing a foot? Missing an eye. Mis-shapen head?

    The Realist Mom,
    How does it not have human DNA? As soon as the sperm and egg create the zygote it has a unique human DNA code. Plus…how could two human parents create anything other than a human baby? Biogenesis dictates its humanity.

    • crowepps

      Plus…how could two human parents create anything other than a human baby?

      In one case in a thousand those "two human parents" don’t create anything except a hydatidiform mole, biogenerating an invasive placenta that invades the woman and tries to kill her.

       

      Molar pregnancy is one of the dangerous complications of pregnancy. Molar pregnancy is medically called hydatidiform mole. Molar pregnancy is an abnormality that pertains to the placenta and is caused due to a problem when the sperm and the egg join for fertilization.

      Molar pregnancy includes compete and partial molar pregnancy. Complete molar pregnancy has only the placenta forms and there is no baby. This happens when the sperm fertilizes an egg that is empty and because of this the baby is not formed. This placenta grows and in turn produces hCG which is the pregnancy hormone.

      This causes the woman to think that she is pregnant but the ultrasound will show only the placenta and the baby will not be seen. A partial mole results when the egg is fertilized by two sperm. In this case instead of formation of twins something goes wrong and this results in a fetus and placenta that is abnormal. This baby has abnormally large number of chromosomes and such a baby dies within the uterus.

      Molar pregnancies are not the fault of any person and can be termed accidents of nature. These types of pregnancies are common with older women and in some geographic locations. Most of the molar pregnancies can be seen after the occurrence of a miscarriage. However some can be seen after the occurrence of ectopic pregnancies and normal deliveries. Molar pregnancies are observed in one in every thousand pregnancies in United States.

       

      http://www.checkpregnancysymptoms.com/molar-pregnancy.html

  • therealistmom

    that the point just sailed riiiight over Rad’s head. That photo of a blastocyst- the only way we know it is the product of the species Homo sapiens is that the caption says it is. Just by looking at it, there would be no way of knowing. It is a dividing group of cells attaching to a uterine wall. It could be a giraffe, a pig, a mouse for all anyone knows, except that the image was taken in a human uterus. At this point the “humanity” involved is simply the fact that the four “building blocks” of the DNA helix are aligned in such a way that the eventual product would be a member of Homo sapiens. The number of chromosomes in each cell along with the arrangement of genes has the DNA of a human. Without a perfect host environment (ie, a human uterus with proper lining for implantation) with the exact timing of hormones and the like to support the ball of cells, it won’t ever progress beyond that state- in fact, the odds are against it happening. “Unique” DNA can be created in a lab environment through gene splicing, but without all those other factors it will simply be a collection of cells which happen to have a human DNA sequence (which is only VERY slightly different than other primates, and not far off from other animals).

    So… most of us feel just a bit more justified in caring about the already unique, sentient, breathing, thinking woman who the uterus is within than thinking of the little princess or whatever that ball of cells might against the odds become.

  • rad-trad

    So a few points for the Realist Mom,

    Just by looking at it, there would be no way of knowing. It is a dividing group of cells attaching to a uterine wall. It could be a giraffe, a pig, a mouse for all anyone knows, except that the image was taken in a human uterus.

    And the fact that its in a human uterus is how we can know (barring someone placing a foreign embryo in there) that the embryo in there is a human.

    You also say that the only way we know its human is because it has human DNA…couldnt this be said of an adult human being as well? Sure our DNA resembles other animals DNA, but the fact is its different, and we as a species are drastically different…so maybe that difference lies within that difference in our DNA.

    The fact is, what exists in the uterus is a living human being, so why should it be denied the right to live?

    For crowepps,

    I apologize, I should have said, “In principle” biogenesis states that two human parents can only create human offspring.

    Plus, your mole example is a little like saying, “Yes they can create other things…like pottery, or paintings.” It’s technically true, but the question was dealing with the issue of inter-species procreation.

  • crowepps

    For crowepps,

    I apologize, I should have said, “In principle” biogenesis states that two human parents can only create human offspring.

    Plus, your mole example is a little like saying, “Yes they can create other things…like pottery, or paintings.” It’s technically true, but the question was dealing with the issue of inter-species procreation.

    Obviously, if in one out of a thousand cases two human parents instead create cancer, then the technicality, being an actual (if inconvenient) fact, seems to suggest that the principle is founded in error. I get the impression that you think it is more important that there be an absolute rule than that the rule have a connection with actual reality.

     

    Perhaps you mean intraspecies procreation? Although your views certainly do seem to suggest that you believe men and women are members of two different species and that men as the dominant species have the right to destroy the inferior female species in order to reproduce themselves.

  • rad-trad

    Yeah, you may have missed the point of my argument. I’m not saying that molar pregancies don’t happen. I’m saying that when two human parents reproduce successfully, they can only create human offspring…not dogs or cats or anything.

    Why do pro-choice people always fall back on that tired “all-pro-lifers-hate-women” rag? Has that ever worked?

  • crowepps

    I’m saying that when two human parents reproduce successfully, they can only create human offspring

    And I’m saying that when two human parents reproduce UNsuccessfully, abortion is necessary medical care and saves BOTH the woman and her partner a lot of anguish.

     

    Why do pro-life people always fall back on that tired “it’s not a dog or a cat” rag? Has that ever convinced anybody?

  • rad-trad

    When you say reproducing unsuccessfully, are you talking about cancer? So what does abortion have to do with cancer? Does abortion cure cancer? Wow…amazing.

    The reason we fall back on the whole, “The unborn child is a human being and not a cat or dog” ‘rag’ is because we repect human beings…I would hope that clarifing that an action is killing a human being and should be stopped would convince someone not to do that action anymore. Otherwise that person would be intentionally killing an innocent human being…I wonder what thats called.

  • crowepps

    When you say reproducing unsuccessfully, are you talking about cancer? So what does abortion have to do with cancer? Does abortion cure cancer? Wow…amazing.

    Describing "hydatidiform mole" as cancer is entirely correct, and the ‘cure’ for it is indeed to remove it through abortion.

     

    As for reproducing unsuccessfully, in any instance where the fetus is dead or is too deformed to be viable – when its kidneys, brain, heart, etc., do not form and it cannot survive birth, the ‘cure’ is indeed to remove it at once rather than letting it continue as a drain on the woman’s health.  Certainly some women choose for religious reasons to do so, but REQUIRING them to do so is vile.