Roundup: The Road To The Supreme Court is Paved With Good Intentions


Is it the Yellow Brick Road, or the Highway to Hell?  All I know is that the Nebraska Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is starting its long process to its real target — the Supreme Court, and no one is shocked at all.

It’s been called a groundbreaking law, but a measure approved in Nebraska last week that changes the rationale for abortion bans probably won’t go into effect anytime soon — if ever.

Instead, abortion opponents are hoping it will become the most important case on abortion to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in recent memory. Even they acknowledge the ban on abortions at and after 20 weeks of pregnancy won’t see the light of day unless the high court rules that it is constitutional.

The long trip to the high court — if it indeed lands there — combined with the time it takes for a ruling there could mean a final decision on the law is several years away.

First, a legal challenge must be posed. No one has stepped forward yet, but Dr. LeRoy Carhart, one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers, is considered a likely candidate. Carhart, who practices in an Omaha suburb and is the target of the new Nebraska law, was a plaintiff in two of the biggest abortion cases of the last decade that reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Anti-choice proponents are hoping that they can use the more conservative bent of the court to strike down the ban on limiting abortion before viability, and hope they have a savior in Justice Kennedy.

The fetal pain law violates court precedent that abortions cannot be banned before viability, so it is likely that an injunction will be issued, said Caitlin Borgmann, an abortion law scholar at the City University of New York.

“What the sponsors and supporters are really hoping for is a test case for Justice [Anthony] Kennedy,’’ she said.

Kennedy, a moderate conservative considered a swing vote, is seen by abortion opponents as their best chance for tighter restrictions on the procedure. Abortion rights advocates say he has done nothing to suggest he would favor a previability ban, but opponents are hopeful because of his positions on two high-profile abortion cases over the past decade. Both involve Carhart.

Alternet points out that for a crowd that likes to decry “judicial activism” they sure are interested in having courts make a decision that could overrule precedent.

So what’s going to happen once this gets to the Supreme Court? Tough to say, as we’re about to be treated to another episode of everyone’s favorite reality show, “Supreme Court Justice Confirmation.” But keep in mind, the Conservative Four (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) will be there regardless of who the rookie justice will be. And the Conservative Four have shown no hesitance to make dramatic changes in settled law – just go read about Citizens United and see how they turned decades of campaign finance reform on its’ collective head.

But, you might ask, shouldn’t the idea of judges making dramatic changes to settled law run counter to conservative ideals? Isn’t that – gasp – judicial activism that is so anathema to conservatives everywhere? Shouldn’t conservatives who believe in their principles just go to the ballot box and try to change law through the legislature instead of using the court to end run the will of the people, like they’ve loudly and consistently accused progressives of doing?

They should. I hope they do. I’m not holding my breath.

Of course, the best part is that the entire bill has been passed with the justification of faulty science.  This article includes not only a rebuttal of every one of the four “pain standard” thresholds presented in Nebraska, but continues on to acknowledge that almost no one agrees with the main proponent’s thesis and even those who do say it is utterly irrelevant.

Does anyone agree with Anand?     

Sort of. Vivette Glover of Imperial College London thinks it’s possible fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks “but it’s far from certain”. She backs giving anaesthesia at this stage just in case.

“But this does not justify changing the abortion time limit, where the interests of the mother may be much more important than those of the fetus, and the two have to be balanced,” she adds.

Indeed, Maria Fitzgerald of University College London, co-author of a report on fetal pain in 1997 by the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, calls the Nebraska law “completely irrational”. She points out that even if fetuses could feel pain at 20 weeks, “it is irrelevant because if you wanted you could make sure there was adequate analgesia for an abortion”.

All of this still not enough of a circus for you?  Well, thank goodness we have PETA to weigh in on the fray

Lincoln, Neb. — In the wake of reports that Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman signed two bills broadening the restrictions on abortion, PETA is weighing in on the issue … kind of. The group plans to erect a billboard in Lincoln that reads, “Pro-Life? Go Vegan.” Click here to see the billboard.

“People who support slaughterhouses every time they lift a fork cannot call themselves ‘pro-life,'” says PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich. “We’re asking pro-life advocates to keep every heart beating by going vegan.”

In today’s industrialized meat and dairy industries, chickens and turkeys have their throats cut while they’re still conscious, piglets have their tails and testicles cut off without being given any painkillers, fish are suffocated or cut open while they’re still alive on the decks of fishing boats, and calves are taken away from their mothers within hours of birth.

Mini Roundup: Live Action gets no action in Wisconsin, and Santorum claims having everyone have access to healthcare is the greatest of oppression.

April 16, 2010

Texas law brings new abortion awareness – Oregon Daily Emerald

Want an abortion? Get prescreened – OneNewsNow

Pass the ban on abortion funding – Opelousas Daily World

McDonnell amends 122 bills – Roanoke Times

THE INFLUENCE GAME: Health care fight still rages – The Associated Press

Would-be Stupak rival raises $105K – Detroit Free Press

Veto Shows Abortion Corruption Started by Sebelius Encourages Carhart to … – Christian News Wire

Briefing: New law claims a fetus can feel pain – New Scientist

McDonnell accepts abortion ‘choice’ license bill, but blocks revenue from … – UPI.com

Remember Roe! – Newsweek

Objections raised, still abortion restrictions bill advances in Senate – Missourinet.com

Abortion coverage could sink Utahn’s low-income health insurance plans – Deseret News

Capitol Watch: Court fees, abortion and ethics – Kansas City Star

Pro-life ‘Moses’ Backs ‘Pro-choice’ Candidate – The New American

Former US senator criticizes “legal fictions” used to justify abortion – Louisville Courier-Journal

Obama Weighs Supreme Court Nominees, and Each Potential Battle – New York Times

April 17, 2010

PETA Joins Nebraska’s Abortion Debate – PETA

No charges in undercover Planned Parenthood video – Chicago Sun-Times

Medical care in developing world not the same as that in Canada – Owen Sound Sun Times

After distorted interview, Brazilian archbishop reaffirms Catholic teaching on … – Catholic News Agency

Call for inquiry on baby bonus abortion loophole – NEWS.com.au

Nebraska Abortion Law Challenges Roe v. Wade – The New American

Strong Support For Parental Notification Law – Scoop.co.nz

Utahns having fewer babies – Salt Lake Tribune

China detains parents of couples refusing sterilisation – Sify

April 18, 2010

Branstad’s Pre-Convention Message to Delegates – DesMoinesRegister.com

After health care fight, Stupak ponders legacy, future out of public life – The Saginaw News – MLive.com

Charlene Sitas: Court’s contradictions on abortion confusing – Wisconsin State Journal

Republican governor candidates champion anti-abortion credentials – Wisconsin Rapids Tribune

Abortion protesters’ signs were distasteful – Statesman Journal

Making abortion illegal doesn’t ‘save babies’, it kills and maims women and girls – East African

Strict new Neb. abortion law faces long legal road – The Associated Press

Using the law, we can reduce the number of abortions – East African

Foes may target Wood’s stance on abortion rights – Washington Post

Abortion rulings could bring scrutiny of possible Supreme Court pick Wood – Washington Post

Conservatives get set to cheer for judicial activism – AlterNet

Health reform seeks status quo on abortion – American Medical News

Obama’s abortion policies are shameful – Augusta Chronicle

Promise to rewrite Constitution will reignite debate on abortion – Irish Independent

Shall the righteous inherit the earth? – Seattle Post Intelligencer

Hundreds of Residents Receive Free Medical Services – BeritaJakarta.com

Kenya to align HIV/Aids strategy with new WHO guidelines – East African

April 19, 2010

GOP Promises to “Take Back New Hampshire” – The New American

Hontiveros, Tatad debate on RH Bill – ABS CBN News

Legal fights await abortion law – Boston Globe

Albuquerque – world’s next abortion capital? – OneNewsNow

WHO Official Praises Obama’s Recognition Of Need For Legal Abortion – Medical News Today

District not worried about sex ed warning  – Oshkosh Northwestern

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

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • bornin1984

    But, you might ask, shouldn’t the idea of judges making dramatic changes to settled law run counter to conservative ideals? Isn’t that – gasp – judicial activism that is so anathema to conservatives everywhere? Shouldn’t conservatives who believe in their principles just go to the ballot box and try to change law through the legislature instead of using the court to end run the will of the people, like they’ve loudly and consistently accused progressives of doing?

     

    The above doesn’t make any sense what-so-ever. Nebraska passed a law stating that abortions are illegal after the 20th week. Laws are made by the legislature. The legislature is voted in by the people. Ergo, the law is representative of the people. That’s the way a Democratic system works. It’s funny how progressives don’t understand “judicial activism”. Abortion is legal not because the general populace voted it legal, but because SCOTUS decided to pull the “right” for an abortion out of think air (Penumbras and emanations).

     

    Surely, you see the difference between passing a law making abortion legal and a court deciding that abortion should be legal. Surely, you see the difference between passing a law making abortion illegal and a court deciding that abortion should be illegal. Right?!?!?!

  • mechashiva

    Judicial activism is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, schools were only integrated due to judicial activism. The reason the Supreme Court Justices can afford to make such activist decisions is because they are lifelong appointees. They do not have to be re-elected, and therefore are not beholden to the biases of the voters. Instead, they can focus on what is Constitutional rather than what is popular.

  • crowepps

    Nebraska passed a law stating that abortions are illegal after the 20th week. Laws are made by the legislature. The legislature is voted in by the people. Ergo, the law is representative of the people. That’s the way a Democratic system works.

    That’s the way a Democratic system works when loud pressure groups who control lots of campaign cash organize to force something down people’s throats.  I would note that in those states where a direct population vote was held (such as Colorado and South Dakota) this type of law did not pass.

     

    The purpose of having a court to review laws for constitutionality is to prevent “a tyranny of the majority”.  The problem with having ‘elected representatives’ vote on whether pregnant women are allowed necessary treatment is that the majority of the legislators who are voting are not going to be directly impacted by the law which they pass, either because they are male or because they are females past menopause, and the majority of the persons who elected those legislators are also not going to be impacted by the law.

     

    Abortions after the 20th week are so rare that even most pregnant women are not going to be directly impacted by the law.  Only those women who actually have pregnancy complications or disastrous pregnancies are going to be impacted, and the idea that everybody else gets to vote to ignore the mental and physical damage those complications will cause those women because ‘the fetus is more important’ is really just — vile.

  • bornin1984

    That’s the way a Democratic system works when loud pressure groups who control lots of campaign cash organize to force something down people’s throats.

     

    No, that’s not the way a democratic system works. The way a democratic– really, I should say a representative republic, of which the U.S. is, as that’s more accurate– works, is that the people elect officials who best represent their views. Nothing is being “forced” down your throat, as you have the ability to seat those officials with whom you agree politically, provided you can muster enough votes to do so. And if an elected official fails to live up to your expectation, you always have the option of voting said officials out of office.

     

    But, see, the pro-choice crowd doesn’t like this, as they know that if it were left up to the people, abortion would be much more restricted then it is now, which is why they’re always running to the courts to enjoin either a state law or voter approved referendum limiting abortion. And, henceforth the whole “judicial activism” thing.

     

    I would note that in those states where a direct population vote was held (such as Colorado and South Dakota) this type of law did not pass.

     

    When was this type of law put to popular vote?

     

    The purpose of having a court to review laws for constitutionality is to prevent “a tyranny of the majority”.

     

    Explain to me how limits on abortion would constitute “tyranny of the majority”.

     

    The problem with having ‘elected representatives’ vote on whether pregnant women are allowed necessary treatment is that the majority of the legislators who are voting are not going to be directly impacted by the law which they pass, either because they are male or because they are females past menopause, and the majority of the persons who elected those legislators are also not going to be impacted by the law.

     

    Ignoring the fact that the biggest proponents of legalized abortion are women who are either in the late stage of their child-bearing years or are past menopause, your contention is rather odd on its face, for you’re essentially saying that the only people who should have a say in a matter are those who are directly impacted by it. In which case, I’m fairly sure that the following rationale could be applied to tax increases, with only those people who will see an increase in their taxes getting to decide whether or not their taxes should increase.  

     

    Abortions after the 20th week are so rare that even most pregnant women are not going to be directly impacted by the law.  Only those women who actually have pregnancy complications or disastrous pregnancies are going to be impacted, and the idea that everybody else gets to vote to ignore the mental and physical damage those complications will cause those women because ‘the fetus is more important’ is really just — vile.

     

    Read the law. It makes an exception for health issues. As far as mental health issues go, how about a compromise. The women should be allowed to have an abortion post-20 weeks so long as she submits to a mental evaluation which would determine whether or not her mental health would be impacted by carrying the pregnancy to term. I think that’s fair, don’t you?

  • ahunt

    When was this type of law put to popular vote?

     

    2008/2009, if I’m not mistaken.

     

     


  • crowepps

    When was this type of law put to popular vote?

    Abortion legalized up to 10 weeks in Portugal

    An abortion referendum took place in Portugal on February 11, 2007, to decide whether to legalise abortion up to ten weeks. The referendum was the fulfillment of an election pledge by the governing Socialist Party of Prime Minister Jose Socrates.

    Official results of the referendum showed that 59.24% of the Portuguese approved the proposal put on ballot, while 40.76% rejected it. However, only 43.61% of the registered voters turned out to vote. Since abstention was over 50%, according to the Portuguese Constitution, these results are not legally binding, and parliament can legally decide to disregard them. Prime Minister Sócrates nevertheless confirmed that he would expand the circumstances under which abortion was allowed, since a majority of voters had been in favour.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_abortion_referendum,_2007

    Vote on whether to further restrict abortion in Ireland

    Pro-choice campaigners celebrated throughout Ireland as a referendum which would have further restricted the availability of abortion in Ireland was defeated. The combined force of the government and catholic church campaigned heavily in favour of the referendum A letter from the Catholic bishops was read at every Mass in the State over the weekend pushing for a Yes vote.

     

    It is not possible to obtain an abortion in Ireland. There are no laws that provide for it and no hospital will carry one out. However in 1991, in what became known as the x-case judgement, a court ruling stated that abortion was allowable where there was a threat to the life of the mother, including the threat of suicide. Instead of introducing legislation to allow this to happen all the political parties prevaricated. Each of the major political parties (Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour, Progressive Democrats) have been in power since the X-case judgement and all have failed to implement legislation. In 1992, the ruling party, Fianna Fail introduced a referendum which exclude abortion in the threat of suicide. This was almost identical to the referendum that was held yesterday, and like yesterdays was defeated.

    The vote was extremely close, just over 10,500 votes separated the two sides, 50.42 per cent voted No, while 49.58 per cent voting Yes. Total turnout was 42.89 per cent which was higher than the 35 per cent who turned out for the Nice Treaty vote last year but a lot lower then than the 66 per cent who turned out for the General Election in 1997. A strong urban and rural divide was evident, with the urban areas strongly rejecting the proposals.

    http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/wsm/news/2002/refvictoryMARCH.html

    Switzerland votes to liberalize abortion laws

     The Swiss people have voted to decriminalise abortion in two referendums called to decide whether to liberalise the country’s 66-year-old law, or toughen it further.

    Final results from one referendum show that 72% of voters have backed a parliamentary measure to allow abortions within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

    In the other, 82% of voters rejected a proposal by anti-abortion groups to toughen Switzerland’s already strict abortion laws.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2021121.stm

    South Dakota voters repeal law restricting abortions

    Voters in South Dakota have rejected a near total ban on abortion in one of the highest profile state referendums taking place alongside the US polls.

    Voters rejected the ban, signed into law in March but not yet in effect.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6127430.stm

    South Dakota voters reject banning abortion AGAIN

    An Abortion Ban Initiative appeared on the November 2008 ballot in South Dakota as an initiated constitutional amendment. The ban measures was known as Initiated Measure 11. If the state’s voters had approved it, the South Dakota Constitution would have banned all abortions in the state except for those performed because of rape, incest or to protect the woman’s health.

    NO: 55.3%

    http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/South_Dakota_Abortion_Ban_Initiative_(2008)

    Colorado voters reject “personhood” amendment

    Colorado won’t become the first state to amend its constitution to give fertilized eggs the same rights as human beings, as voters soundly rejected Amendment 48.

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/nov/05/voters-reject-amendment-48-personhood-issue/

    A commentary on those losses

    Two referendum votes dealt blows to the Christian fundamentalist campaigns against abortion rights and gay marriage. Voters in South Dakota overturned a law that directly challenged the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by criminalizing all abortions except where the life of the mother was directly threatened.

    Abortion rights supporters collected tens of thousands of signatures on petitions to force the referendum vote after the South Dakota state legislature enacted the law, aiming to make it the basis for a test case of Roe v. Wade’s support on the Supreme Court after the addition of two Bush appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

    Although the state legislators who adopted the abortion ban and the governor who signed the bill into law were reelected Tuesday, the bill itself was defeated by a margin of 55-45 percent. There was particular opposition to the state law’s failure to include an exception for rape or incest—essentially requiring a woman to bear the child of such an assault.

    There was another defeat for anti-abortion forces in Kansas, where the Republican attorney general, Phill Kline, was defeated for reelection. Kline became notorious last year when he subpoenaed the records of abortion clinics in the state, seeking the names of all teenaged patients younger than 16, suggesting that he would institute prosecutions for statutory rape against their sexual partners.

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/nov2006/ele2-n11.shtml

    And then of course there are polls:

    Do you want to overturn or keep Roe v Wade?

    Overturn: 30.8%   Keep: 60.8%

    http://www.pollingnumbers.com/poll-of-polls/roe-versus-wade.html

    A poll by CNN/Gallup/USA Today states that 65% of Americans wish to keep Roe v. Wade the law of the land and only 29% would like to overturn that US Supreme Court decision.

    http://www.freedom-wire.com/?cat=9

     

  • crowepps

     you’re essentially saying that the only people who should have a say in a matter are those who are directly impacted by it.

    Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.  People who want others to pamper  their strong emotional reactions on the issues of sex and reproduction and WHO ARE NOT DIRECTLY IMPACTED should butt out.

    The women should be allowed to have an abortion post-20 weeks so long as she submits to a mental evaluation which would determine whether or not her mental health would be impacted by carrying the pregnancy to term. I think that’s fair, don’t you?

    Your assumption that the doctor who is recommending that his patient have an abortion based on a threat to her mental health has not ALREADY done an evaluation seems baseless.  Or are you a proponent of the theory that ‘doctors will tell all kinds of lies just so they can get rich doing abortions’.

  • bornin1984

    2008/2009, if I’m not mistaken.

     

    You are mistaken, because it’s never been put to a popular vote in the U.S., as it’s something new.

  • crowepps

    I don’t think that SPECIFIC issue has gone before the voters, because the whole ‘fetal pain’ myth wasn’t dreamed up until recently.

     

    The fact that there is no scientific evidence at all that it is true, and a lot of scientific evidence that is NOT true, had absolutely no effect on the legislators who voted for it, of course, since the whole point of this law was to generate a lawsuit that will provide the professional ProLife con artists a way to solicit donations:

     

    ‘Help us defend life at the Supreme Court! Send your personal check or fill out the credit card information below’

     

    Statement of where funds are used: ‘Almost 20% of the funds donated to us are used for ‘education’ (such as the exaggerations and half-truths in this brochure) and the $100,000 annual salary that goes to our President PROTECTS LIFE (the sweeeeeet life! See his house? His Lexis? His travel expenses?)

  • bornin1984

    Abortion legalized up to 10 weeks in Portugal…

    …Vote on whether to further restrict abortion in Ireland…

    …Switzerland votes to liberalize abortion laws…

    I live in the United States. What about you?

    South Dakota voters repeal law restricting abortions…

    …South Dakota voters reject banning abortion AGAIN…

    …Colorado voters reject “personhood” amendment…

    …A commentary on those losses…

    Straw men or red herrings, I cannot decide, but at any case how does any of the above have anything to do with what I asked you? The simple answer, is that it doesn’t. Nice try. I’d appreciate a response that actually dealt with what I typed out, thank you.

    (You can save yourself the trouble, because both you and I know that the aforementioned law has never been put to popular vote, which is what I said, and which is why you refused to address it.)

    And then of course there are polls:

    Ah, yes. I do love polls. Here are five for your viewing pleasure.

     

    http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

     

    CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-12, 2003. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    .

    Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about [see below]?”

    Legal Illegal Depends
    (vol.)
    Unsure

    %

    %

    %

    %

     

    “When the womans life is endangered”

    85

    11

    2

    2

    .

    .

     

    “When the womans physical health is endangered”

    77

    17

    4

    2

    .

    .

     

    “When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest”

    76

    19

    2

    3

    .

    .

     

    “When the womans mental health is endangered”

    63

    32

    3

    2

    .

    .

     

    “When there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired”

    56

    37

    4

    3

    .

    .

     

    “When there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired”

    55

    39

    3

    3

    .

    .

     

    “When the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child”

    35

    61

    2

    2

    .

    .

    Thinking more generally: Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy? How about [see below]?”

    Legal Illegal Depends
    (vol.)
    Unsure

    %

    %

    %

    %

     

    In the first three months of pregnancy

    66

    29

    3

    2

    .

    .

     

    “In the second three months of pregnancy”

    25

    68

    4

    3

    .

    .

     

    In the last three months of pregnancy

    10

    84

    4

    2

     

    FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

    .

    “Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations . . . .”

    .

    Legal Illegal Unsure
    % % %

    “If the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest”

      10/23-24/07

    70 21 9

      2/28 – 3/1/06

    74 21 6

    .

    “If the pregnancy puts the mothers life at risk”

      10/23-24/07

    73 15 12
      2/28 – 3/1/06 83 12 5

    .

    “If the pregnancy puts the mothers mental health at risk”

      10/23-24/07

    56 28 16
      2/28 – 3/1/06 62 30 8

    .

    “If the baby has a fatal birth defect”

      10/23-24/07

    53 30 18

    .

    “If the pregnancy is unwanted”

      10/23-24/07

    39 50 11
      2/28 – 3/1/06 43 49 8

     

    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/abortion_poll030122.html

     

    American Views on Abortion
    Situation Should Be Legal Should Be Illegal
    All or Most Cases 57% 42
    To Save Woman’s Life 88 10
    To Save Woman’s Health 82 14
    In Cases of Rape/Incest 81 17
    Physically Impaired Baby 54 40
    To End Unwanted Pregnancy 42 57
    D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions 23 69
    Pregnancy is 6 Months+ 11 86

     

    Go to this link for another poll —> http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20070514_Quests_in_Roe_Memo.pdf

     

    And, finally, here’s another poll from the 2002 GSS regarding abortion.

     

    http://www.cpanda.org/cpanda/studies/a00079#fileDscr

     

    Situation Yes No Don’t know,
    or no answer
    There is a strong chance of serious defect in the baby 703 193 28
    She is married and does not want any more children 400 493 31
    The woman’s own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy 825 76 23
    If the family has a very low income and cannot afford any more children 396 496 32
    If she became pregnant as the result of rape 721 184 19
    If she is not married and does not want to marry the man 376 519 29
    The woman wants it for any reason 387 513 24

     

    All five of those polls shows that “hard” cases such as rape, severe fetal defects and issues of maternal health all have greater than 50% support when it comes to abortion (Mental health is an iffy subject). Everything else has support at less than 50%.

     

    But does the pro-choice community care about this? No. They continue to push abortion laws that the majority of Americans do not support. Go figure, right?

     

    (And you’re welcome to find me any poll which breaks abortions down by reason which shows there to be a plurality of Americans supporting abortion outside of the “hard” cases.)

  • ahunt

    (And you’re welcome to find me any poll which breaks abortions down by reason which shows there to be a plurality of Americans supporting abortion outside of the “hard” cases.)

     

    Yet the majority of Americans do not want RvW overturned. Possibly this is a reflection of people realizing that efforts to regulate abortion based on the “reason” for it will result in unconscionable govt. intrusion into the most intimate area of one’s private life.

     

    Which may of course be fine with “one” when it is happening to “one’s” neighbor. Not so much when it is happening to “oneself.”

  • crowepps

    The question you asked:

    When was this type of law put to popular vote?

    Your question does not ask “exactly this law” but instead “this type of law” and it certainly doesn’t specify “in the USA”.  I’m afraid in the future you’re going to have to be more specific in your research requests.

    …say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about “When the woman’s life is endangered”

    Legal: 85%  Illegal: 11%

    I notice your polls are from 2002 and 2003, but I’ve seen similar ones.  Rather than discuss each little bit though, I’ve got to admit the first one out of the chute just kind of stopped me right there.

     

    11% of the people polled think abortion should be illegal when a women’s life is on the line.

     

    Isn’t that just an appalling commentary on how some people value women?  11% think pregnant women deserve to die for having pregnancy complications.  Wow!

  • bornin1984

    Yet the majority of Americans do not want RvW overturned. Possibly this is a reflection of people realizing that efforts to regulate abortion based on the “reason” for it will result in unconscionable govt. intrusion into the most intimate area of one’s private life.

     

    There was actually a study done on this, and it was shown that the reason for the discrepency was because people’s knowledge of what Roe v. Wade actually entails was incorrect. Let me see if I can find it again.

     

    And I apologize for my last post being all jumbled. I went to fix it so it was easier to read, but by that time someone had responded and it wouldn’t let me edit.


  • bornin1984

    Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.  People who want others to pamper  their strong emotional reactions on the issues of sex and reproduction and WHO ARE NOT DIRECTLY IMPACTED should butt out.

     

    This is a poor argument. If my next door neighbor wants to kill his son, that doesn’t impact me any, yet I’d be willing to bet that you wouldn’t argue that I should let my neighbor kill his son because it doesn’t affect me. So, why then, should it be any different from abortion? No, a woman having an abortion doesn’t affect me personally, but that’s never stopped people from passing laws which prevent one party from bringing harm to another.

     

    Your assumption that the doctor who is recommending that his patient have an abortion based on a threat to her mental health has not ALREADY done an evaluation seems baseless.  Or are you a proponent of the theory that ‘doctors will tell all kinds of lies just so they can get rich doing abortions’.

     

    What assumption? And did you not read what I wrote out and what you were responding to?

  • bornin1984

    Your question does not ask “exactly this law” but instead “this type of law” and it certainly doesn’t specify “in the USA”.  I’m afraid in the future you’re going to have to be more specific in your research requests.

     

    Considering the original post is directed at a fetal pain law passed by the state of Nebraska, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that my post was clear. The failure was on your part.

     

    I notice your polls are from 2002 and 2003, but I’ve seen similar ones.  Rather than discuss each little bit though, I’ve got to admit the first one out of the chute just kind of stopped me right there.

     

    By all means, post them. I’d be interested to see a poll which shows that Americans support abortions done outside of the “hard” cases listed above (Generally, rape, incest, fetal defects and issues of maternal health). Unless you mean you’ve seem similar polls stating the same thing, then totally ignore the above.


    11% of the people polled think abortion should be illegal when a women’s life is on the line. Isn’t that just an appalling commentary on how some people value women?  11% think pregnant women deserve to die for having pregnancy complications. Wow!

     

    No. The rationale is that medical technology should aim to save them both, rather then killing one to save another. And, for what it’s worth, I guess you could look at it as being that 89% of people polled believe the unborn only has as much value as the mother wants it to have, which goes to show how much they really value human life.

     

    (But let’s not frame it that way, okay?)

  • crowepps

    The rationale is that medical technology should aim to save them both, rather then killing one to save another.

    But medical technology is not yet capable of saving them both and so the result is that both of them will die. Is having women die along with their fetus supposed to serve as an encouragement to the researchers so their efforts are more strenuous?

  • ahunt

    There was actually a study done on this, and it was shown that the reason for the discrepency was because people’s knowledge of what Roe v. Wade actually entails was incorrect. Let me see if I can find it again.

     

    Well, I certainly look forward to the studies that reveal how people feel about repeal of RvW when the actual ramifications of such an event is spelled out.

     

  • crowepps

    By all means, post them.

    Why would be the point in posting SIMILAR polls? If you want to look at them a nice collection is available here:

     

    http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

    I’d be interested to see a poll which shows that Americans support abortions done outside of the “hard” cases listed above (Generally, rape, incest, fetal defects and issues of maternal health).

    Since you brought it up, what’s your position on whether abortion should continue to be legal in those ‘hard cases’?

     

    Hard cases which describe precisely the situations in which abortions are done at 20 weeks and after?

  • crowepps

    I don’t think it’s surprising people change their minds when a study asks a question like “now that I’ve told you that Roe v Wade let’s doctors brutally rip innocent children limb from limb just because their slutty mothers want to get into their prom dress, do you still agree it should be legal?”

  • ahunt

    now that I’ve told you that Roe v Wade let’s doctors brutally rip innocent children limb from limb just because their slutty mothers want to get into their prom dress, do you still agree it should be legal?”

     

     

    Snerk…

     

    Hey, I was there, crowepps…listening to some fervent pro-lifer explain that college girls only get abortions because they’re afraid they won’t look good in a bikini during Spring Break in Florida…some moons ago.

  • crowepps

    Because the people who believe them WANT to believe that abortions are never necessary, that pregnancy isn’t at all risky, that women never die from pregnancy complications, that ‘gross fetal malformity’ means the child MIGHT have a limp and even that’s not likely because “doctors can be wrong”.

     

    The fact that all of those things aren’t TRUE doesn’t matter a bit, because they really, really want them to be true.

  • bornin1984

    Well, I certainly look forward to the studies that reveal how people feel about repeal of RvW when the actual ramifications of such an event is spelled out.

     

    What would be the actual ramifications if Roe v. Wade was overturned? Don’t repeat the “back-alley” abortion myth, please, because it’s a lie.

     

  • bornin1984

    I don’t think it’s surprising people change their minds when a study asks a question like “now that I’ve told you that Roe v Wade let’s doctors brutally rip innocent children limb from limb just because their slutty mothers want to get into their prom dress, do you still agree it should be legal?”

     

    Pray tell, which one of the polls I posted posed a question in such a way? Honestly, now. Let’s try to leave the straw men and red herrings at home, all right?

     

    Anyway, I along with pretty much every pro-lifers, know that those things that the pro-choice crowd tries to focus on (Rape, incest, fetal defects, maternal health issues) simply do not constitute the majority of abortions. Indeed, collectively, they account for approximately 8% of all abortions. That leaves 92% of abortions which do not fit into the above four categories.

     

    ~~~

     

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf

     

    Percentage distribution of women having an abortion, by their most importantreason for having the abortion, 2004

    Not ready for a(nother) child†/timing is wrong: 25%
    Can’t afford a baby now: 23%
    Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/
    children are grown: 19%
    Don’t want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems: 8%
    Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young: 7%
    Would interfere with education or career plans: 4%
    Physical problem with my health: 4%
    Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus: 3%
    Was a victim of rape: <0.5%
    Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion: <0.5%
    Parents want me to have an abortion: <0.5%
    Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant: <0.5%
    Other: 6%
    Total: 100%

     

    ~~~

     

    Both you and I know that if I were to say that abortions should be legal and those few instances that pro-choicers focus their arguments around, yet illegal in all others, that the majority of the pro-choice crowd would argue that that’s not good enough, which makes one wonder why they make things such as rape the center of their arguments when they won’t limit abortion to those cases.

     

    …And, to the consternation of the pro-choice crowd, there are people who get abortions for petty reasons, while others use abortion as a form of birth control and joke about it. In college, I know one girl who had two abortions, called it no big deal and joked about having another. Denying that these things happen don’t help your cause one bit.

  • crowepps

    In Romania, when formerly legal abortion was outlawed under Ceausescu, illegal abortion skyrocketed, the maternal mortality rate shot up, and the orphanages were overflowing with abandoned children. All of these indicators flipflopped when abortion was once again made legal.

     

    http://caraobrien.tumblr.com/post/352715826/decree-770-abortion-outlawed-in-communist-romania

     

    In Brazil, where abortion is outlawed, illegal abortion is common, the maternal mortality rate is high, and the cops shoot feral children on the street.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children

     

    In Chile, where abortion is outlawed, illegal abortion is common, the maternal mortality rate is high, and feral children live on the streets.

     

    As a matter of fact, pretty much worldwide there is a very tight connection between the difficulty of obtaining a legal abortion and the number of ILLEGAL abortions that happen, higher maternal mortality rates and children being abandoned by their families.

     

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

     

    Perhaps the conversation could advance if you explained just why you think that creating the exact same set of circumstances in the United States would be likely to have a different outcome?

  • crowepps

    Pray tell, which one of the polls I posted posed a question in such a way?

    Your assertion was that there was “a study” which proved people changed their minds when provided with “the facts”.  So far as I’m aware, you haven’t posted a link to it at all.

    Both you and I know that if I were to say that abortions should be legal and those few instances that pro-choicers focus their arguments around, yet illegal in all others, that the majority of the pro-choice crowd would argue that that’s not good enough, which makes one wonder why they make things such as rape the center of their arguments when they won’t limit abortion to those cases.

    Just as both you and I know that if Pro-choicers were willing to give up 90% of abortions in an agreement to get people to accept those hard case exemptions as both legal and necessary, the majority of the anti-abortion crowd would argue that that’s not good enough because “life should be black and white rule and all abortions should be banned no matter what the reason”.

    Which means it’s pretty much a waste of time to talk to people like you, doesn’t it?

  • saltyc

    Are there any thoughtful, informed people on the anti-side to debate with? Crowepps manages to be challenged and make some very eye-opening and interesting posts, but I’m getting bored.

  • bornin1984

    Listen here. We don’t live in Romania, Brazil or Chile. We live in the United States. Well, at least I do. I don’t know about you. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you continue to argue abortion in other countries instead of abortion in the U.S., as that’s a red herring and I’m sure you know it.

     

    But, anyway, abortions safety is linked to who’s performing an abortion and whether or not that country has access to latest technological advances, not whether it’s legal or illegal, for a legal abortion performed in a country which has no access to modern medicines will be just as dangerous as an illegal abortion performed in the same country. Here’s a quote from from Mary Calderon in 1960, the then director of Planned Parenthood:

     

    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/50/7/948

     

    Fact No. 3-Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not
    just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called

    illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15; and, while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 per cent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is. Whatever trouble arises usually comes after self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 per cent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of nonmedical abortionist. Another corollary fact: physicians of impeccable standing are referring their patients for these illegal abortions to the colleagues whom they know are willing to perform them, or they are sending their patients to certain sources outside of this country where abortion is performed under excellent medical conditions. The acceptance of these facts was such that one outstanding gynecologist at the conference declared: “From the ethical standpoint, I see no difference between recommending an abortion and performing it. The moral responsibility is equal.” So remember fact number three; abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians.

     

    This is further highlighted by data taken from the National Center from Health Statistics and the CDC:

     

    ~~~

     

    # Deaths from illegal abortions 1940 – 1985

    1940: 1,313

    1941: 1,080

    1942: 962

    1943: 910

    1944: 770

    1945: 694  

    1946: 593

    1947: 457

    1948: 388

    1949: 298

    1950: 246

    1951: 226

     1952: 249

    1953: 230

    1954: 223

    1955: 211

    1956: 174

    1957: 209

    1958: 215

    1959: 235

    1960: 241

    1961: 271

    1962 253

    1963: 234

    1964: 207

    1965: 197

    1966: 159

    1967: 135

    1968: 109

    1969: 11

    1970: 109

    1971: 75

    1972: 39

    1973: 19

    1974: 6

    1975: 4

    1976: 2

    1977: 4

    1978: 7

    1979: 0

    1980: 1

    1981: 1

    1982: 1

    1983: 1

    1984: 0

    1985: 1

     

    ~~~

     

    Now, granted, we can’t say for sure that those numbers are exactly correct as statistics isn’t an exact science, but even assuming that the actual numbers are 50% higher then the above reported, the point is that you can clearly see a downward trend in the number of women dying from illegal abortions long before the first state legalized abortion (1967) or Roe v. Wade (1973), and that the biggest year-to-year drops in the number of women dying from illegal abortions occurred before 1967. Any idea what could have caused that trend? It can’t be legalization, so it has to be something else. In case you don’t know, it’s the invention of modern medicine and better medical practices post WWII.

     

    Which is why I’m wondering what would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Would we reverse a trend which was occurring long before any form of legalized abortion came around? Would all the medical advancements made the past 60’ish years suddenly disappear? I wouldn’t think so, as that wouldn’t make much sense.

  • bornin1984

    Your assertion was that there was “a study” which proved people changed their minds when provided with “the facts”.  So far as I’m aware, you haven’t posted a link to it at all.

     

    Number one, I’m fairly sure you should re-read what I wrote out and what I was responding to. Number two, I didn’t even look. But a quick search produced this —> http://www.ayresmchenry.com/docs/RoeMemo.pdf

     

    There’s actually been a more detailed analysis done. I’ll have to take the time to find it again.

     

    Just as both you and I know that if Pro-choicers were willing to give up 90% of abortions in an agreement to get people to accept those hard case exemptions as both legal and necessary, the majority of the anti-abortion crowd would argue that that’s not good enough because “life should be black and white rule and all abortions should be banned no matter what the reason”. Which means it’s pretty much a waste of time to talk to people like you, doesn’t it?

     

    Now the above is, on its face, quite humorous. When was the last time you saw pro-choicers put forth something which would ban abortions except in the case of rape, incest and issues of maternal health? Now, on the flip side, when was the last time you say pro-lifers put forth something which would ban abortions except in the case of rape, incest and issues of maternal health? Pro-lifers fight for all abortions being illegal with much less ferverance than pro-choice groups fight to make abortion flatly legal. Indeed, the number of people who believe abortions should always be illegal are not only smaller than the number of people who believe that abortions should always be legal.

     

    I’m actually quite surprised you took the time to make the above comment.

  • bornin1984

    Why would be the point in posting SIMILAR polls? If you want to look at them a nice collection is available here:

     

    Perhaps you need to start reading my posts. Not only did I already post that link, but I picked out the two polls that broke it down by specific instance, and not just “Always/sometimes/never”. If I’m just going to post things for my amusement, then I won’t bother.


    Since you brought it up, what’s your position on whether abortion should continue to be legal in those ‘hard cases’?

     

    Should be legal.


    Hard cases which describe precisely the situations in which abortions are done at 20 weeks and after?

     

    Viability is 24 weeks. Some states have it set at 22, though. Currently, a woman can have an abortion at 20 weeks because she wants to. If, as you say, all abortions done at 20 weeks would represent those hard cases, then why would you care about the law since, in effect, nothing would change.

  • saltyc

    As a Brazilian, I am deeply offended by your assertion that concern about illegal abortion in other countries is a red herring. Many women in my family had enough money and connections to get professional, illegal abortions, which is very sad that they had to break the law to control their own destiny.

     

    PS you know many states legalized abortion pre-Ros, and that many states now will automatically make it illegal if Roe is overturned.

  • bornin1984

    None of his/her posts are exactly eye-opening, as they’re easily responded to. Plus, (s)he has ignored a few of my posts with questions I really would have liked answered.

     

    But to each his or her beliefs. So long as they don’t require another to forfeit his or her life ;)

  • bornin1984

    But medical technology is not yet capable of saving them both and so the result is that both of them will die. Is having women die along with their fetus supposed to serve as an encouragement to the researchers so their efforts are more strenuous?

     

    Medical technology can save them both, but it’s not always successful. The rationale, as I said, is that it’s better to try to save both than trying to save one at the cost of the other’s life, as in one instance one or more parties may die, while it’s assured in the other instance that at least one party will die, maybe even two.

  • crowepps

    Are there any thoughtful, informed people on the anti-side to debate with?

    Judging by the posts here, no.  Instead we get people who post their collection of bumper sticker slogans, or who come to critique our positions as inadequate or based on lies, etc., etc.  As a debate strategy, “you haven’t convinced ME”, “that doesn’t convince me EITHER”, “you STILL haven’t convinced ME” is remarkably unproductive.

     

    As are assertions that the way to solve the problem is to go ahead and just ban abortion and see how many illegal abortions happen and whether the number of women who die is within acceptable limits because somebody wonders what will happen and asserts that probably everything would be okay, most of the time, at least for those women who survive.

  • ahunt

    What would be the actual ramifications if Roe v. Wade was overturned?

     

    Off the top of my head, vicious battles in various state legislatures, a return to the old two-tiered system of justice whereby middle+ class white women will continue to have access to safe abortion, and poor women of color will be targeted for prosecution under restrictive laws, the emergence of a thriving black market in abortifacient drugs, increased female mortality, greater govt intrusion into this most intimate area of private life…for starters. 

  • crowepps

    Medical technology can save them both, but it’s not always successful.

    That doesn’t make any sense at all.  If it is not successful at saving them both then it is not yet capable of doing so.

     

    Provide, please, a link to a description of the medical technology which can move an ectopic conceptus from the place where as it grows it threatens the life of the mother and still preserve it to continue growing.

  • bornin1984

    As a Brazilian, I am deeply offended by your assertion that concern about illegal abortion in other countries is a red herring. Many women in my family had enough money and connections to get professional, illegal abortions, which is very sad that they had to break the law to control their own destiny.

     

    You can be offended if you want, but it’s a red herring because not only are we not talking about Brazil– we’re talking about the U.S.– but also because you’re (Not you, specifically) attempting to divert the arguement to being about abortion in Brazil, instead of abortion in the U.S., more specifically the fetal pain law just passed in Nebraska (Though, that topic was lost long ago).


    PS you know many states legalized abortion pre-Ros, and that many states now will automatically make it illegal if Roe is overturned.

     

    Only a handful of states would make abortion flatly illegal if Roe v. Wade were ever overturned. Most states in the northeast and West (Basically, the areas with the highest abortion rates as is) would leave abortion laws more-or-less the same. The rest of the states would generally leave abortion legal but place far more restrictions on it then there already are. But, yes, in general abortion would end up more restricted then it is currently.

  • crowepps

    I am not obligated to act as your teacher or researcher.

     

    If I have ignored somes of your questions it may be because I missed them or it may be because I didn’t find them worth answering.  Feel free to repeat them and I MAY answer them.

     

    It would be more likely if you can omit the snotty comments like “I can’t believe you said that” and “why don’t you try reading what I wrote”, which tend to make me kind of impatient.

  • saltyc

    What happens in countries that make abortion illegal is always relevant when you’re considering doing the same here. You have to see the impact of similar laws elsewhere, unless you want to wear blinders.

  • ahunt

    Dagnabit crowepps…again with the swift fingers and swifter mind…

     

    What about, say, a weakened heart due to rheumatic fever in adolescence?

     

    Play the odds or play it safe?

  • bornin1984

    Off the top of my head, vicious battles in various state legislatures


    Depends on the state, but in general, of course.


    a return to the old two-tiered system of justice whereby middle+ class white women will continue to have access to safe abortion

     

    Number one, with respect to income, abortion is a normal good, which means that the more income you make, the more you “demand” an abortion. Therefore, I don’t really understand why pro-choicers continue to focus on the poor. It’s not like they’re clamoring for abortions as when compared to other income groups (Generally, the poor have a higher abortion rate then any other group is because they have a higher unintended pregnancy rate). Secondly, I wish we’d get pass the “safe and legal” thing already. It’s empty rhetoric playing on the decidedly false notion that abortions safety is intrinsically linked to their legality, when in actuality their safety is linked to who’s performing the abortion and whether or not the country the abortion is taking place has access to medical advancements.

     

    and poor women of color will be targeted for prosecution under restrictive laws,

     

    When abortions were illegal, can you show me an instance of a woman being prosecuted for obtaining an abortion? Because I’m unaware of such an instance.

     

    the emergence of a thriving black market in abortifacient drugs

     

    Ehhh, this if false. Or, at least, I should say that the above is conjecture, for this is one of those things which would be impossible to quantify as it would be dependent on numerous factors (Such as the availability of people willing to perform an abortion and the price they charge, the availability of certain abortifacients and their effects, etc.).

     

    increased female mortality

     

    This is playing on the notion that if abortions are made illegal women will go to back alley abortionists or use a coat hanger or throw themselves down a flight a stair or whatever. This is decidedly false, though due to population size you will invariably get someone who will try something stupid. It’s inevitable. This, however, is not a reason to state that abortion should be kept legal. It’s akin to saying that I should be allowed to legally steal food from the store as otherwise I might try to steal from a store and get shot in the process (Yes, that’s ridiculous, but it’s the exact same rationale).

     

    But, anyway, I have a serious question. On one hand pro-choicers tend to argue that women should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding “their body”, yet turn around and state that said women would resort to hurting/killing themselves. If said women would resort to harming herself, then why should that women be allowed to decide to have an abortion? Wouldn’t that indicate that she’s not in the right state of mind?


    greater govt intrusion into this most intimate area of private life…for starters.

     

    The above is a cop-out, as no “right” to privacy exists at the expense of someone else’s life. How can it?

  • saltyc

    First off, I don’t require that anyone get an abortion. I defend and uphold the rights of women who seek abortion. In the first trimester, the sex has not yet been determined, so there is no his or her. But women die in places where abortion is illegal, which is why I want legalization for my Brazilian family, and access for my American family.

  • bornin1984

    I am not obligated to act as your teacher or researcher.

     

    That’s okay, as I do my own research. 


    If I have ignored somes of your questions it may be because I missed them or it may be because I didn’t find them worth answering.  Feel free to repeat them and I MAY answer them.

     

    If you missed them, then scroll up. If you don’t want to answer them, then don’t, but it’s probably because by doing so you’d display some inherent weakness in your position.

     

    It would be more likely if you can omit the snotty comments like “I can’t believe you said that” and “why don’t you try reading what I wrote”, which tend to make me kind of impatient.

     

    My comments aren’t snotty in the slightest. I don’t have much patience when I type something out and people respond with some kind of logical fallacy. It’s very annoying. Read what I take the time I type out and respond to the things I type out, not what I don’t type out. Conversely, don’t make comments which I know you know are decidedly false. Do those two things, and all will be well.

  • crowepps

    What about, say, a weakened heart due to rheumatic fever in adolescence?

    Oh, the odds, of course, since obviously a woman who cannot safely carry a pregnancy to term who is required to remain pregnant anyway may  remove the burden of her selfish existence from society quickly and allow the air, water, food and space to be used by some other woman who is more USEFUL to the patriarchy.

     

    Disclaimer: Yes, this is sarcasm

  • bornin1984

    First off, I don’t require that anyone get an abortion. I defend and uphold the rights of women who seek abortion. In the first trimester, the sex has not yet been determined, so there is no his or her. But women die in places where abortion is illegal, which is why I want legalization for my Brazilian family, and access for my American family.

     

    Well, there isn’t really anything to “determine”, as sex is determined by the sperm. Differences simply do not start showing up for a few weeks, and we simply can’t tell the gender of the unborn until about the 3rd trimester or so (Which is why sex-selective abortions are generally looked down upon). So, really, you’re just kind of playing of semantics there, but that’s not terribly important.

     

    Aanyway, women die where abortion are legal. What’s that got to do with anything? Yet again, I point out that you seem to be assuming that abortions legality is linked to their safety. It’s not. It’s linked to things such as medical technology and medical training. I guarantee you that, if abortions in the U.S. were made illegal tomorrow, that abortions here would be safer than abortion which would occur in, say, some poor African country with liberal abortions laws.

  • crowepps

    don’t make comments which I know you know are decidedly false.

    I make it a practice not to try to discuss things with people who have the incredible psychic mind-reading powers to know what I know.

  • bornin1984

    That doesn’t make any sense at all.  If it is not successful at saving them both then it is not yet capable of doing so.

     

    Yes, it really does make sense. What can happen and what actually happens are two different matters all-together, which I’m sure you realize. For example, I can win a million dollars by playing the lottery, but just because I play and don’t doesn’t mean that I’m incapable of doing of winning.

     

    Provide, please, a link to a description of the medical technology which can move an ectopic conceptus from the place where as it grows it threatens the life of the mother and still preserve it to continue growing.

     

    Why would I do that, as I don’t believe that’s what I said. Ask the majority of people who say abortions should always be illegal what should be done in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, and they’ll more-than-likely tell you that a c-section should be performed once it’s deemed that it can survive on its own. Will it always be successful? Maybe, maybe not, but that’s the what they’ll tell you as it doesn’t involve purposely killing one to save another.

  • bornin1984

    What happens in countries that make abortion illegal is always relevant when you’re considering doing the same here. You have to see the impact of similar laws elsewhere, unless you want to wear blinders.

     

    In general, cross-country comparisons are hard to make because of things like cultural differences and views. If you’re going to do cross-country comparisons, then at least compare countries that are similar (Or, in this case, have a similar level of development). Why don’t you compare the U.S. to, say, Ireland? As the U.S. is much closer to Ireland than it is to Brazil, the Philliphines or any other such country you can think of. Of course, abortion is illegal an ireland yet Ireland has a low illegal abortion death rate/mortality rate, so I guess that wouldn’t be a good comparison for you to make.

  • ahunt

     

    Number one, with respect to income, abortion is a normal good, which means that the more income you make, the more you “demand” an abortion. Therefore, I don’t really understand why pro-choicers continue to focus on the poor. It’s not like they’re clamoring for abortions as when compared to other income groups (Generally, the poor have a higher abortion rate then any other group is because they have a higher unintended pregnancy rate).

     

    Come again? This makes no sense.

     

     

     

    Secondly, I wish we’d get pass the “safe and legal” thing already. It’s empty rhetoric playing on the decidedly false notion that abortions safety is intrinsically linked to their legality, when in actuality their safety is linked to who’s performing the abortion and whether or not the country the abortion is taking place has access to medical advancements.

     

     

    What’s your point. Illegal abortion will be safe so there is no reason not to outlaw abortion? What?

     

     

    When abortions were illegal, can you show me an instance of a woman being prosecuted for obtaining an abortion? Because I’m unaware of such an instance.

     

    No, but I can refer you to a recent case in SC that is relevant. Need to look it up.

     

    the emergence of a thriving black market in abortifacient drugs

     

    Ehhh, this if false. Or, at least, I should say that the above is conjecture, for this is one of those things which would be impossible to quantify as it would be dependent on numerous factors (Such as the availability of people willing to perform an abortion and the price they charge, the availability of certain abortifacients and their effects, etc.).

     

    Do your research, and get back to us. Abortificient drugs are “bathtub drugs” easily made and easily distributed. The demand will be there. Given the profound lack of success of our war on drugs, I can safely imagine “entrepreneurs” will be all over the new market.

     

    increased female mortality

     

    This is playing on the notion that if abortions are made illegal women will go to back alley abortionists or use a coat hanger or throw themselves down a flight a stair or whatever. This is decidedly false, though due to population size you will invariably get someone who will try something stupid. It’s inevitable. This, however, is not a reason to state that abortion should be kept legal. It’s akin to saying that I should be allowed to legally steal food from the store as otherwise I might try to steal from a store and get shot in the process (Yes, that’s ridiculous, but it’s the exact same rationale).

     

    Horseshit. There will be increased deaths from illegal abortion, but I’m primarily  referring to deaths resulting from attitudes like yours…save both or save neither.

     

    But, anyway, I have a serious question. On one hand pro-choicers tend to argue that women should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding “their body”, yet turn around and state that said women would resort to hurting/killing themselves. If said women would resort to harming herself, then why should that women be allowed to decide to have an abortion? Wouldn’t that indicate that she’s not in the right state of mind?

     

    Ohhhh noooooes! Women who will seek abortion at any cost are by definition mentally unsound, and should be forced to give birth against their will for their own good!

     


    greater govt intrusion into this most intimate area of private life…for starters.

     

    The above is a cop-out, as no “right” to privacy exists at the expense of someone else’s life. How can it?

     

    So you are down with state mandated monthly pregnancy tests…a la Romania in the bad old days?

  • crowepps

    Ask the majority of people who say abortions should always be illegal what should be done in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, and they’ll more-than-likely tell you that a c-section should be performed. Will it always be successful? Maybe, maybe not,

    You may be confusing ectopic pregnancy with something else.  Successful C-sections to deliver live ectopic pregnancies are so rare that they are considered miracles and the death rate without intervention is 50%.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy

  • bornin1984

    I make it a practice not to try to discuss things with people who have the incredible psychic mind-reading powers to know what I know.

     

    You made a comment about the majority of pro-lifers not being happy if abortion were limited to the “hard” cases in response to my comment that the majority of pro-choicers oppose limiting abortions to the “hard” cases. Being 63, you should know that what you wrote out is untrue, as not only has very nearly every– If not every– Single pro-life law or referendum makes exceptions for said cases, but also that the people who believe abortion should be flatly illegal to be a minority within the pro-life movement (Even more of a minority than those people who believe abortions should be flatly illegal in the pro-choice movement).

     

    That’s what that comment was, and still is, in reference to.

  • bornin1984

    You may be confusing ectopic pregnancy with something else.  Successful C-sections to deliver live ectopic pregnancies are so rare that they are considered miracles and the death rate without intervention is 50%.

     

    I know what an ectopic pregnancy is and, remember, you’re not arguing against my position. I’m explaining to you what someone who believes that abortions should always be illegal, even when the mother’s health is jeopardized, will tell you.

  • ahunt

    Yes, it really does make sense. What can happen and what actually happens are two different matters all-together, which I’m sure you realize. For example, I can win a million dollars by playing the lottery, but just because I play and don’t doesn’t mean that I’m incapable of doing of winning.

     

    What. The. Hell?

     

    Spin the gestation roulette wheel and let the little ball fall where it may?  What are you saying here? That medical science is a gamble, and women are obliged to submit to the lesser odds of survival in order to provide greater odds for the BZEF?

  • jayn

    Ireland’s also a much smaller country.  It’s easier for most Irish women to go to England than it would be for most American women to go to, say, Canada.  Living in the middle of the US as I do, leaving the country isn’t a day trip, like it is in much of Europe.  Distance makes it more difficult here.

  • saltyc

    We live on the same planet where women are dying because of laws that ban abortion.

     

    Ireland has much higher social indicators than the US, plus it’s a little bit closer to England than Brazil is, so slight bit easier to obtain a safe legal abortion.

  • crowepps

    Since there’s a possibility that you are no more capable of reading the mind of “someone who believes that abortions should always be illegal” than you are of reading mine.

  • crowepps

    Another way we could be ‘like Ireland’.

  • saltyc

    sex is determined by the sperm.

     

    False. If the sex organs are not present, you can’t say if it’s male or female. The existence of XX males and XY females proves the determination is not final with the sperm.

    Further, the fact that the code is there does not mean that the phenotype is present. A Rhino sperm may have the gene for a horn, yet not posess one. Same thing with sex.

     

    point out that you seem to be assuming that abortions legality is linked to their safety. It’s not.

     

    I lost the energy. Please please please do some research, ask experts and do your own work.

  • ahunt

    Re: South Carolina cases:

     

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/2/20280/79535

     

    You can do your own foollowup.

  • bornin1984

    Since there’s a possibility that you are no more capable of reading the mind of “someone who believes that abortions should always be illegal” than you are of reading mine.

    You, ugh, do realize that by virtue of my day-to-day activities, I happen to often times rune into people who do believe that abortion should always be illegal, correct? If not, then now you do, and you’re the wiser for it.

    What. The. Hell?
     
    Spin the gestation roulette wheel and let the little ball fall where it may?  What are you saying here? That medical science is a gamble, and women are obliged to submit to the lesser odds of survival in order to provide greater odds for the BZEF?

    No, that’s not what I’m saying at all (Much less so because I don’t believe a woman should have to sacrifice her life to give birth). What I am saying, however, is that if you talk to someone who believes abortion should always be illegal, that they will tell you that medical technologies should be used to ensure that both survive. It’s really not all that hard to understand. Or is it? I dunno’. But either way, it really isn’t.

  • ahunt

    however, is that if you talk to someone who believes abortion should always be illegal, that they will tell however, is that if you talk to someone who believes abortion should always be illegal, that they will tell you that medical technologies should be used to ensure that both survive. It’s really not all that hard to understand. It’s really not all that hard to understand.

     

    And who gets to make the decisionthose who believe that medical technologies should be used to ensure that both survive.

     

    Or the people actually involved?

  • bornin1984

    False. If the sex organs are not present, you can’t say if it’s male or female. The existence of XX males and XY females proves the determination is not final with the sperm. Further, the fact that the code is there does not mean that the phenotype is present. A Rhino sperm may have the gene for a horn, yet not posess one. Same thing with sex.

     

    No, it’s not false. The sperm determines the sex of the child. This is basic biology. You end up with XX males and XY females either because of mutations involving the SRY gene which is located on the Y-chromosome which is only carried by sperm or because something goes wrong during meiosis as it involves the Y-chromosome. That, however, doesn’t change the simple fact of what I wrote out initially. And I refer to to the part of my post where I said “you’re just kind of playing of semantics there, but that’s not terribly important”. That should have ended this whole thing right then and there, but I guess not.

     

    I lost the energy. Please please please do some research, ask experts and do your own work.

     

    It’s a good thing I’ve already done the research. I even pulled up a gigantic quote from 1960 from the then director of Planned Parenthood, and I even provided the data from the NCHS and CDC regarding the number of deaths via illegal abortions up until 1985 or so. I could pull up more, but what would be the point if it’s just going to go unheeded like my last post is? I find it funny how I’m always told that I “don’t have the information”, yet the people who tell me this never provide the requisite information that I apparently don’t have.

  • ahunt

    No, it’s not false. The sperm determines the sex of the child.

     

    So what?

  • bornin1984

    We live on the same planet where women are dying because of laws that ban abortion.

     

    Yet again, anti-abortion laws kill women to the same effect that laws against stealing kill would-be thieves. If women die, it’s either because they injure themselves or they get someone to injure them. In effect, you’re saying that in order to prevent people from engaging in an action which has the potential to bring harm to themselves, that the action they’re engaging in should be made safe for them to engage in. This effectively ignores the effects those actions would have on another, which doesn’t make much sense as people should not be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of the effects it has on another. Indeed, outside of abortion, this is the case. 

     

    Ireland has much higher social indicators than the US, plus it’s a little bit closer to England than Brazil is, so slight bit easier to obtain a safe legal abortion.

     

    Ireland is much closer development wise to the U.S. than is Brazil, Chile, the Philippines, etc. as both Ireland and the U.S. are developed countries while Brazil, Chile and the Philippines are typically labeled as developing countries. Ergo, you’ll get a much better comparison by comparing two developed countries to one another then you would comparing a developed country to a developing country. Also, Ireland is as close to the the U.K. as is the U.S. is close to Canada (*hint hint, wink wink*).

     

    And still, even repeated a million times, “safe and legal” is still– I don’t want to say a misnomer– misleading.

  • bornin1984

    So what?

     

    I don’t know.

  • ahunt

    In effect, you’re saying that in order to prevent people from engaging in an action which has the potential to bring harm to themselves, that the action they’re engaging in should be made safe for them to engage in.

     

    Yes.

     

    This effectively ignores the effects those actions would have on another

     

    Wow. Who knew gestation has no effects on the individual gestating?

     

    which doesn’t make much sense as people should not be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of the effects it has on another.

     

    I’m good with that. Therefore, the individual you claim exists has no right to  use my biological resources to exiist…against my will.

     

    Indeed, outside of abortion, this is the case.

     

    Inside of abortion, too, given the biology, an’ all

     



  • jayn

    The US is ‘as close’ to Canada in that they share a border.  But a woman who lives in the middle of Ireland is a lot closer to the UK than a woman in the middle of the US (such as myself) is to Canada.

  • elyzabeth

    And, to the consternation of the pro-choice crowd, there are people who get abortions for petty reasons, while others use abortion as a form of birth control and joke about it.

     

    Yes, because a trip to a clinic 2 hours away, for a $400 to $1000 medical procedure that might involve pain and bleeding is much more efficient than a $5 box of condoms.  Young women who have had multiple abortions and appear to be using them as “birth control,” at least in my limited experience, go to parties, pass out, get date raped, and then have no idea that it isn’t okay for people to do things to them while they’re drunk.  They just don’t understand it’s not normal–and sometimes they have fun, and sometimes they feel used, and when they feel used, they laugh it off because they don’t want to feel like a victim. 

     

    I read the list, and I couldn’t see which ones were the petty reasons.  Besides the one where the husband/ partner wants the abortion, they all seem like valid statements. 

     

    Percentage distribution of women having an abortion, by their most importantreason for having the abortion, 2004


    Not ready for a(nother) child†/timing is wrong: 25%

    Nature, not people, made that reason.  Spontaneous abortion happens when “the timing is wrong”  ei, miscarriages in time of stress or sickness.  If it isn’t the right time, our physiology has already chosen sacrifice the potential child to give the woman, her current, and her future children the best chance at survival.  Nature has no mechanism for coping with financial, educational, or otherwise modern reasons not to be pregnant, but they are just as important at physiological reasons.


    Can’t afford a baby now: 23%

    Choosing between feeding the children you already have and having another child isn’t exactly a petty choice.  Choosing to send the children you already have to college so they don’t have to work for minimum wage their whole lives instead of having another child isn’t trivial.  Choosing between having your partner work two jobs and having a child isn’t a trivial choice.  Choosing to finish college or to have a child isn’t a trivial choice.  Choosing between getting evicted and having a child isn’t trivial.

     

    Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/
    children are grown: 19%

    Yes, because it is completely selfish for a woman who has just sent her last kid away to school and is busy caring for her aging parents to not have the time to raise a child. 

     

    Don’t want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems: 8%

    Being a single mother is so easy, it would be petty not to want to be one!!!

     

    Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young: 7%

    Women aren’t built to start popping them out as soon as they start bleeding.  Just because they are physically capable of getting pregnant doesn’t mean that a pregnancy wouldn’t be terribly damaging, physically and mentally.  Kids shouldn’t be raising kids. 

     

    Would interfere with education or career plans: 4%

    I wish this one wasn’t the case, but our society makes it quite difficult for women to go back to school and start out on a career after they’ve taken time out to be mothers.  If women want to succeed by standard male-normative financial definition of success, they can’t give up those years in their teens and twenties. 

     

    Physical problem with my health: 4%

    We can agree this isn’t a petty reason.

     

    Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus: 3%

    Again, we can agree that this is a private medical decision best left to women and their doctors.

     

    Was a victim of rape: <0.5%

    You stated you support this reason.  Since the woman wasn’t guilty of committing sex, she gets a free pass.

    Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion: <0.5%

    Nobody likes this one.  I’m not saying that a partner in a healthy relationship can’t have any influence or have an opinion, but it should not be the primary reason.

     

    Parents want me to have an abortion: <0.5%

    I don’t like this one either, see above–no one should be coerced.

     

    Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant: <0.5%

    Less trivial, given the social stigma put on women in some communities for being a little Miss Sluttypants.  And by social stigma, I mean getting kicked out of private colleges, getting kicked out of their homes, getting abandoned by friends and family, etc.

     

    Other: 6%


    Total: 100%

     

     

     

     

  • ahunt

    Not ready for a(nother) child†/timing is wrong: 25%

    Nature, not people, made that reason.  Spontaneous abortion happens when “the timing is wrong”  ei, miscarriages in time of stress or sickness.  If it isn’t the right time, our physiology has already chosen sacrifice the potential child to give the woman, her current, and her future children the best chance at survival.  Nature has no mechanism for coping with financial, educational, or otherwise modern reasons not to be pregnant, but they are just as important at physiological reasons.

     

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

     

    Elyzabeth, no one will engage you here. No one.

     

    No one can tell you why the thinking brain cannot come to the same conclusions as the unthinking biology.

  • emma

    Ask the majority of people who say abortions should always be illegal what should be done in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, and they’ll more-than-likely tell you that a c-section should be performed once it’s deemed that it can survive on its own. Will it always be successful? Maybe, maybe not, but that’s the what they’ll tell you as it doesn’t involve purposely killing one to save another.

    And anyone who claims that ectopic pregnancies should be allowed to continue until viability is so goddamned stupid and ignorant that they should be banned from voting. Someone who believes that women should be forced to put their lives on the line because there’s a minuscule chance that an ectopic pregnancy will result in a viable foetus (although the likelihood that it’ll rupture and result in a dead woman and a dead foetus) could only be someone who loathes women to the point that they’re a danger to society.
    .
    So far you’ve argued upthread that although the majority of Americans surveyed support upholding Roe v Wade, they’d actually change their minds if they knew what it actually entailed (please specify your rationale), but surveys indicating that the majority of the population supports forcing women to continue an unwanted pregnancy in certain circumstances are perfectly representative of informed opinion. I take it you can read minds?
    .
    Arguing that the United States is so fundamentally different from other countries that looking at the results of banning abortions in other countries is entirely unnecessary is anti-scientific. That the US is wealthier than many of the countries in which abortion is illegal is a confounding factor, but it is faulty logic to assume that no negative results of banning abortion in other countries will apply in the United States. You might also want to consider that those living in extreme poverty in the United States might experience effects comparable to people in poor countries. The United States is an extremely wealthy country, but its distribution of wealth is more unequal than that of any other industrialised countries.
    .
    You’re basically arguing that banning abortion in the US won’t result in increased maternal mortality because safer illegal abortion methods would be available, and there would be more effective medical intervention in the event that something went awry, although according to you, that wouldn’t really apply, because there would be no such thing as an unsafe abortion in the US if it were to be banned. All women and girls, no matter how young, poverty-stricken and lacking in resources, would have access to and be able to afford an illegal abortion. Is that a correct summary of your argument?
    .
    IIRC, you’ve also argued that banning abortion wouldn’t be punitive to women as no women in the US have been prosecuted in the past for procuring illegal abortions. So, you’re arguing that safe illegal abortions will be available and that there will be no legal repercussions for obtaining them.

    More later.

  • mechashiva

    What is your malfunction? You are the one playing semantics and nit-picking words for no good reason. Example:

     

    There absolutely is something to “determine.” We don’t exactly know what genes the sperm carried, do we? So, the fetus’s sex is unknown. Therefore, we need to determine (examine and come to a conclusion about) its sex. Why did you take issue with that particular word? Did you think “determine” only meant “cause?” That is a really stupid thing to take issue with.

     

    More importantly, sex of the embryo can be determined in the first trimester fairly reliably using blood tests. Ultrasound can show the sex organs as early as 17 weeks, well within the second trimester. The lateness of sex-selective abortions has nothing to do with the stigma against them. The stigma has grown because countries like India and China now experience a significant increase in the ratio of men to women, which has caused a spike in crime (particularly abductions and human trafficing). The ingrained sexism of those societies lead to selectively aborting female fetuses, thus causing the imbalance. Sex-selective abortions are illegal in those countries for purely practical reasons. Because it is not a widespread problem in America, it is legal to abort for sex-selection purposes. It is frowned upon because our culture frowns on sexism (or so we say).

     

    This string of posts is just like your other ones about or related-to abortion. You only touch the surface of whatever issue you are discussing, and you are convinced that your misinformation is correct. That’s why you can’t debate your way out of a wet paper bag. No, you just keep working on that motherfucker until everyone is just too exhausted to deal with you anymore. Then, you feel like you won.

  • elyzabeth

    ahunt, until it gets treated with the same seriousness as rape, incest, and risk of maternal death, I’ll mention it when appropriate. 

     

    That answer probably always comes to mind ‘cuz I’m working on my degree in animal repro, meaning that “unthinking biology” is what I have to deal with all the time.  So I’m constantly surprised when people are detached enough from physiology to treat it like a trivial matter.

  • wendy-banks

    “Which means it’s pretty much a waste of time to talk to people like you, doesn’t it?”

    I’ve always thought so crowepps…

  • bornin1984

    What is your malfunction? You are the one playing semantics and nit-picking words for no good reason. Example:

     

    There absolutely is something to “determine.” We don’t exactly know what genes the sperm carried, do we? So, the fetus’s sex is unknown. Therefore, we need to determine (examine and come to a conclusion about) its sex. Why did you take issue with that particular word? Did you think “determine” only meant “cause?” That is a really stupid thing to take issue with.

     

    All right. Totally ignoring, and I mean totally, the fact that I said, and I quote verbatim, “that’s not really important”, I’ll bite at this. So, in other words, the unborn has no sex until someone determines what sex it is? Ummm, no. Look at what I initially wrote out (But to each his or her beliefs. So long as they don’t require another to forfeit his or her life), then look at what SaltyC wrote in response to what I initially wrote out (In the first trimester, the sex has not yet been determined, so there is no his or her). You know good and well that you stated above is not what was meant by determined, and that SaltyC was indeed playing semantics by trying to debate whether or not there’s a him or a her forfeiting their life. The fact that you would accuse me of nitpicking and playing semantics when the person doing so is the person I accused of playing semantics, while ignoring the fact that the person was nitpicking and playing semantics, is rather humorous. So I guess the question, therefore, is what is your malfunction?

     

    I really would like to know. Or do you just foam at the mouth at the opportunity to try to jump on a pro-lifer’s post?

     

    More importantly, sex of the embryo can be determined in the first trimester fairly reliably using blood tests.

     

    Then that’s probably a brand-new development (Something in the past few months).


    Ultrasound can show the sex organs as early as 17 weeks, well within the second trimester.

     

    Which is why I said the 3rd trimester or so. I thought it was somewhere around 20 – 22’ish weeks, but wasn’t sure.

     

    The lateness of sex-selective abortions has nothing to do with the stigma against them. The stigma has grown because countries like India and China now experience a significant increase in the ratio of men to women, which has caused a spike in crime (particularly abductions and human trafficing). The ingrained sexism of those societies lead to selectively aborting female fetuses, thus causing the imbalance. Sex-selective abortions are illegal in those countries for purely practical reasons. Because it is not a widespread problem in America, it is legal to abort for sex-selection purposes. It is frowned upon because our culture frowns on sexism (or so we say).

     

    Question: Why the bolded is generally true (To an extent), how does that invalidate what I said? Inquiring minds, mainly mine, wish to know.

     

    This string of posts is just like your other ones about or related-to abortion. You only touch the surface of whatever issue you are discussing, and you are convinced that your misinformation is correct. That’s why you can’t debate your way out of a wet paper bag. No, you just keep working on that motherfucker until everyone is just too exhausted to deal with you anymore. Then, you feel like you won.

     

    I do find it amazing how you try to hop on my posts, whilst ignoring those people who are actually are engaging in that which you seem to take offense with. But, alas, you don’t. Surprising? Not terribly. But it does provide me with a bit of humor.

     

    In any case, it’s well-known that petty insults are the sure fire way to win a debate. After all, nothing else will surely learn someone. Indeed, that’ll learn someone waaay more than actually responding to the points they make would.

     

    (I’m not adding sarcasm tags, ‘cuz it should be deathly obvious.)

     

    If I can’t argue my way out of a wet paper bag, it’s because I’m too big to fit in one. Being 6’7″ makes sure that doesn’t happen.

  • bornin1984

    Yes.

     

    That rationale is fundamentally flawed, for then we should legalize any action which has the potential to bring harm to the one engaging in it, in which case we’d be legalizing some rather… Distasteful… Actions. 

     

    Wow. Who knew gestation has no effects on the individual gestating?

     

    I, ugh, think you might want to take another look at what you said ;)

     

    At any rate, I know what you’re trying to say and, no, I’m not ignoring the effects of pregnancy on the women, which is why I don’t say that a woman should have to either give her life or suffer irreperable damage in order to give birth. However, I do realize that death is irreversible, and allowing one to kill another for a condition, and I hate to label it as such, which is temporary just doesn’t sit well with me.

     

    I’m good with that. Therefore, the individual you claim exists has no right to  use my biological resources to exiist…against my will.

     

    Consent doesn’t need to be explicit. In the case of sex, engaging in it is enough to create a moral obligation should offspring result. At least, it’s that way for a man (i.e., if you have sex with a woman, she can get pregnant and you’ll be held responsible for that child. Therefore, by engaging in sex, you’re agreeing to be responsible for that which results from it). It should be the same way for a woman but, apparently, holding women to the same standards as men is wrong.

    Inside of abortion, too, given the biology, an’ all.

     

    Biology doesn’t dicatate anything. The law does, and that’s what I’m discussing. 

     

    The US is ‘as close’ to Canada in that they share a border.  But a woman who lives in the middle of Ireland is a lot closer to the UK than a woman in the middle of the US (such as myself) is to Canada.

     

    And, thus, she is less likely to seek out an abortion, which is kind of the point ;)

  • bornin1984

    And anyone who claims that ectopic pregnancies should be allowed to continue until viability is so goddamned stupid and ignorant that they should be banned from voting. Someone who believes that women should be forced to put their lives on the line because there’s a minuscule chance that an ectopic pregnancy will result in a viable foetus (although the likelihood that it’ll rupture and result in a dead woman and a dead foetus) could only be someone who loathes women to the point that they’re a danger to society.

     

    And anyone who believes that rights are contingent upon another someone else wanting them to have that right, or somehow refuses to realize that if their mother waltzed herself right on over to the abortion clinic and exercised her “right” to choose an abortion would mean that the person supporting that action today wouldn’t be able to support on account of being, you know, dead is also stupid, but I don’t think name calling is going to get us anywhere, now is it? Nope. So let’s not do it.

     

    Also, I have to ask you about women who believe that abortions should always be illegal? Are you saying that they hate themselves? 

     

    So far you’ve argued upthread that although the majority of Americans surveyed support upholding Roe v Wade, they’d actually change their minds if they knew what it actually entailed (please specify your rationale), but surveys indicating that the majority of the population supports forcing women to continue an unwanted pregnancy in certain circumstances are perfectly representative of informed opinion. I take it you can read minds?

     

    Can I read minds? Outside of mine, no. However, I do have this little knack of looking stuff up, and you’d be absolutely amazed at the literature written regarding abortion. But that’s not really important. It shouldn’t strike anyone as odd (Outside of the pro-choice camp, anyway) that if you ask a broad and generalized question you’ll get a broad and generalized answer, yet that if you ask a specific question, you’ll get a specific answer. For example, if you ask me if it’s wrong to kill someone, I’ll tell you yes. However, if you ask me if it’s wrong to kill someone who’s trying to kill you, I’d tell you no.

     

    If you ask people if Roe v. Wade should be overturned, they’ll say no. If you explain to them what Roe v. Wade entails, and ask them the question again, support will fall (See one of my previous links). If you ask them specific instances in which abortion should be legal or illegal, you always get the pluralities stating that abortion should be generally legal in cases of rape, incest, fetal defects and maternal health issues, while being illegal in cases where the woman doesn’t want a child, can’t afford a child, has relationship problems, wants to continue her education and other such like responses. However, the pro-choice camp does not like this, so instead they focus on broad questions to make their case. But broad questions, as I demonstrated by my example above, mean nothing, because as the pro-choice camp loves to point out, women have abortions for many reasons. Therefore, it would only make sense to ask people those specific instances, now wouldn’t it? I think it would. But that’s just me. 

     

    Arguing that the United States is so fundamentally different from other countries that looking at the results of banning abortions in other countries is entirely unnecessary is anti-scientific.

     

    The above made me chuckle more than you ever know. Anyway, let me ask you two simple questions (No tricks).

     

    1.) Why have the number of deaths via illegal abortion go down precipitously since 1940, even before Roe v. Wade (1973) or even the first state legalized abortion (1967)?

     

    2.) Why are the number of illegal abortion deaths, or the maternal death rate in general, lower in Ireland or Poland, where abortion is illegal, than in countries such as Brazil, Chile, the Philippines or any other developing country in which abortion is also illegal?

     

    Anyway, while I await for an answer to the following two questions, I’d like to point out that cross-country comparisons based on social issues is in itself a futile attempt (Because of differences in cultural attitudes and practices, for one). But, for argument’s sake, let’s ignore the aforementioned futility and actually do a cross-country comparison. Explain to me again why you’d compare the effect of legalizing abortion in a developed country vs. legalizing abortion in a developing country (Or even making abortion illegal in a developed country vs. making abortion illegal in a developing country) instead of comparing two developed countries to one another or two developing countries to one another? Explain to me again why you want to compare the illegal abortion death rate in a developing country to the illegal abortion death rate in a developed country, especially when you consider that the fact that, if abortions were made illegal in the U.S., then we’d be a developed country in which abortions are illegal and not a developing country in which abortions are illegal? It’s, at best, intellectually dishonest, for you’re ignoring the fact that the developed country, by virtue of having higher levels of development, will also have a higher level of technological progress than will the developing country, and that will invariably include medical advancements.

     

    At any rate, this is where the previous two questions come in to play. By now, you should have realized that the answer to the first question is because of advancements in medical technology, while the answer to the second question is a combination of fewer women obtaining an abortion in-country with relatively few, if any, abortions occurring in-country resulting in the death of the women as a result of advancements in medical technology. But you cannot admit this, nor will you admit this, least because doing so would require you to admit that trying to compare the U.S. to any of the previously mentioned developing countries is in error, because those developing countries do not have as the access the U.S. has to modern medicine, or without trying to invalidate the comparison between making abortion illegal in the U.S., which is a developed country, to abortion being illegal in Ireland of Poland, both of which are developed countries by stating that their fundamentally different– something which would also apply to your own comparison.

     

    I await your response :)

     

    (Don’t you find it odd that the countries with high death rates from illegal abortions are developing countries? You should.)

     

    That the US is wealthier than many of the countries in which abortion is illegal is a confounding factor, but it is faulty logic to assume that no negative results of banning abortion in other countries will apply in the United States. You might also want to consider that those living in extreme poverty in the United States might experience effects comparable to people in poor countries. The United States is an extremely wealthy country, but its distribution of wealth is more unequal than that of any other industrialised countries.

     

    Have you not been reading what I’m writing out? Being “wealthier” has nothing to do with anything. It has everything to do with having access to modern medicine. I’ve pointed this out no less than five or six times now– I even posted a direct quote from the director of Planned Parenthood in 1960 which attested to the fact that the death rate from abortions was falling as a result of advancements in medical technology– yet everytime it’s ignored, primarily because it pokes a gigantic hole in the argument abortion abortion legalization has made abortions safe. It hasn’t, and there is a plethora of information out there to attest to this fact.

     

    As it is, I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how making abortions illegal would make them unsafe when making abortions legal didn’t make them safe? Why would making abortions illegal reverse a trend which was occurring before abortions was made legal?

     

    You’re basically arguing that banning abortion in the US won’t result in increased maternal mortality because safer illegal abortion methods would be available, and there would be more effective medical intervention in the event that something went awry, although according to you, that wouldn’t really apply, because there would be no such thing as an unsafe abortion in the US if it were to be banned. All women and girls, no matter how young, poverty-stricken and lacking in resources, would have access to and be able to afford an illegal abortion. Is that a correct summary of your argument?

     

    So, I want to make sure I understand your questions correctly. Are you asking me whether or not, hypothetically speaking of course, a woman who was to get one of those botched abortions would be left to die, seeing as how there’d be no medical intervention assuming something went wrong during an illegal abortion? Are you asking me whether or not I’m saying that, were abortion to be made illegal tomorrow, all the people performing abortions today in a “sterile” environment would suddenly be replaced by back-alley abortionists and the illegal abortion death rate will sky-rocket, just like when abortion was legalized all those back-alley abortionists suddenly became licensed practitioners and the illegal abortion rate plummeted? Are you asking me whether or not I’m saying that making abortions illegal won’t raise the mortality rate, even though I said that due to population size it’s inevitable that someone would try something stupid to harm themselves, yet that this in itself isn’t an adequate reason to argue that something should be legal, otherwise it should be argued that, say, theft should be legal in order to prevent me from being, say, shot by someone who doesn’t want me robbing them? Are you also asking me whether or not young, poverty stricken and resource deficient women who currently can’t afford an abortion would be able to not afford the afford the abortion they currently can’t afford in the future if abortions were made illegal? Because, ugh, if you are, then that would be quite asinine, now wouldn’t it?

     

    (Answering a question with a question– or in this case multiple questions– is actually quite useful sometimes.)

     

    IIRC, you’ve also argued that banning abortion wouldn’t be punitive to women as no women in the US have been prosecuted in the past for procuring illegal abortions. So, you’re arguing that safe illegal abortions will be available and that there will be no legal repercussions for obtaining them.

     

    What I believe I said was– and I’m paraphrasing myself here– is that I’d love to see anyone here find an example of a woman being prosecuted for obtaining an abortion. But, alas, I apparently was someone to perform differential calculus, because no one bothered responding to the question. Ah well.

     

    At any rate, arguing that something will happen when it’s never happened before without providing any requisite reason as to why it might happen is, well, blatant fearmongering.

  • emma

    Good bloody god, that was a lengthy response, and I’m not going to respond in detail because frankly I’m tired and in pain and I just do not have the energy.

    And anyone who believes that rights are contingent upon another someone else wanting them to have that right…is also stupid

    Other than women’s right to terminate pregnancy, which you’re saying should be contingent on whether other people think they should have that right? Hypocrite.

    or somehow refuses to realize that if their mother waltzed herself right on over to the abortion clinic and exercised her “right” to choose an abortion would mean that the person supporting that action today wouldn’t be able to support on account of being, you know, dead

    A really discursive version of ‘zomg what if YOUR MOM had had an abortion?!11′. Yup, if my mother had had an abortion then I wouldn’t be here. And the world would continue to spin on its axis, and I wouldn’t be around to know the difference. What is it exactly that I’m refusing to believe? I don’t know about you, but I love my mother, and the thought of her being forced to continue a pregnancy against her will is really upsetting to me. I’d be devastated to know my mother was forced to give birth to me. If her life would have been better for having had an abortion, then I would absolutely want her to have the right to make that choice. If that resulted in no me, then…so?

     

    And yes, women do internalise misogyny. Some are authoritarians who want to regulate other people’s lives; some think the only justifiable abortion is their own (don’t think for a minute that anti-choice women don’t have abortions). That some women are authoritarian foetus worshippers does not mean anti-choice ideology isn’t inherently misogynistic.

     

    Glad to know I amuse you. :) I aim to please.

     

    (Does it strike you as interesting that the majority of abortion-related deaths occur in countries in which abortion is illegal? It should.)

     

    This is the thing. Most deaths from unsafe abortions occur in developing countries, and most of the countries in which abortion is illegal are developing countries. So, the question is whether higher death rates are due to illegality or lack of economic development. You appear to be arguing that deaths from illegal abortion are entirely a factor of lack of economic development and that legal status is irrelevant, while I’m arguing that yes, obviously access to medical tx matters, but that legal status is also relevant. Deaths related to unsafe abortion tend to drop when there’s access and legality, illegality tends to impede access, particularly for poor women.

     

    I’m not sure how appropriate it is to compare Ireland to the United States due to geography; my understanding is that Irish women tend to travel to the UK for abortions. I imagine Polish women also travel out of the country, but am not sure on that one. I’d guess deaths started to decline before Roe due to changes in social attitudes, access, technology and so on. So, my argument is that banning abortion in the US would do little or nothing to reduce the abortion rate. Illegal abortion would increase, and for women and girls who lack money, access and resources, it would get more dangerous. We’re just using different terminology: where I write ‘women and girls who lack money, access and resources’, you write ‘the occasional person who does something stupid’.

     

    And by the way, regarding the comment you made upthread about how someone who attempted suicide as a result of being unable to terminate an unwanted pregnancy must be too unstable to be allowed to choose an abortion – you might want to consider the possibility that a woman or girl who was that desperate might have extremely good reasons for not wanting to be pregnant.

     

    If you’re going to respond, try not to be a smug asshole, and please don’t write me another dissertation.

  • saltyc

    And if they’re not yet present, there is no sex. There may be code for sex, which only means that the sex is potential, not actual.

    Genotype versus phenotype. Not semantics, actual biological concepts. look it up.

     

    Which gets to the heart of the abortion debate, doesn’t it? To you, once the genes are there, the person is a foregone conclusion. After fertilization, it’s all semantics to you, but not to me when I decided to have an abortion and not to most people.

     

    My sex is a part of who I am, and it’s not always about one’s genes or blood. Look at Castor Semanya. My sex was not present when I was an embryo, niether was most of who I am, it was in development. Just as everything that is a person is in development throughout pregnancy.

    Blood tests don’t always determine him or her, even in an adult.

     

    PS conditions in the womb also determine sex, not just genes.

    Am I the only one here who’s heard of this stuff?

  • princess-rot

    Yet again, anti-abortion laws kill women to the same effect that laws against stealing kill would-be thieves. If women die, it’s either because they injure themselves or they get someone to injure them.

     

    Women who don’t want to give birth are just like thieves who want to steal someone else’s property? By that logic, the fetus, and by extent the woman, is property of the state (or whichever third party enforces the anti-abortion law) until she produces. In your analogy, not wanting to be pregnant is the same as being a criminal, so all women should have the threat of forced birth hanging over their heads as a deterrent for thinking they get to control if and when they bear children? You’re not convincing anyone here that pro-lifers don’t hate women when the core tenets of your idealogy are universally woman-punishing.

  • rebellious-grrl

    In your analogy, not wanting to be pregnant is the same as being a criminal, so all women should have the threat of forced birth hanging over their heads as a deterrent for thinking they get to control if and when they bear children?

    Great point Princess Rot!

  • mechashiva

    No. I just didn’t want to go into it with him because I know it would go way over his head, even if he does have his college biology textbook out. This guy seriously isn’t worth talking to.

  • bornin1984

    And if they’re not yet present, there is no sex. There may be code for sex, which only means that the sex is potential, not actual. Genotype versus phenotype. Not semantics, actual biological concepts. look it up.

     

    Now, let’s ignore the fact that you really are playing semantics instead of focusing on the fact that no one right exists at the expense of someone else’s life by attempting to debate gender determination, since you won’t, and apparently don’t want to, address that subject. Having a penis does not make one a male. Neither does having a vagina for, as you so thankfully pointed out earlier, it’s entirely possible, and indeed it does happen, that sometimes you have someone who is born who looks like, say, a female, but once hits puberty develops as a male would, indicating that they’re really a male. And I really have no idea what the whole genotype vs. phenotype quip was supposed to mean.

     

    (And, please explain to me where you’ve invalidated where I said that gender is determined by the sperm, or that differences don’t start showing up for a few weeks? Because, it’s occurred to me in that none of your posts have you actually showed that I was wrong. Indeed, you’ve proceeded to go off on some tangent, of which I’ve thusly been happy enough to go on with you.)

     

    Which gets to the heart of the abortion debate, doesn’t it? To you, once the genes are there, the person is a foregone conclusion. After fertilization, it’s all semantics to you, but not to me when I decided to have an abortion and not to most people.

     

    And it finally happens. I suppose it was inevitable, by virtue of most pro-choicers argument’s starting with the phrase “I believe…” or something similar, but being a “person” is integral to your argument, not mine. As a result, you have to defend its use. Unfortunately, your problem is that you’re conflating the legal definition of personhood– one who has standing under the law– with the philosophical definition of personhood– what it means to be “human”. This is fallacious, as you’re conflating two seperate subjects, and is akin to arguing that to be blue (Sad), you have to be blue (The color). However, I’ll be generous and ignore said fallaciousness (Not a word, I know. At least, I don’t think so) in hopes that you’ll explain to me what it means to be a “person”.

     

    My sex is a part of who I am, and it’s not always about one’s genes or blood. Look at Castor Semanya. My sex was not present when I was an embryo, niether was most of who I am, it was in development. Just as everything that is a person is in development throughout pregnancy. Blood tests don’t always determine him or her, even in an adult.

     

    I’m not going to lie. I have no idea what the above has to do with anything I typed out. So I suppose you’re going to have to explain it to me, seeing as how I’m dumb.

     

    PS conditions in the womb also determine sex, not just genes. Am I the only one here who’s heard of this stuff?

     

    Ummm, no. The SRY gene, found on the Y-Chromosome which is only carried by the male, determines gender, and problems arise as either the result of mutations of the SRY gene or doing meiosis. Come on. Did you not read my previous post on the subject?

  • bornin1984

    No. I just didn’t want to go into it with him because I know it would go way over his head, even if he does have his college biology textbook out. This guy seriously isn’t worth talking to.

     

    *pats on head*

     

    Two petty insults in as many posts? For shame!

     

    Please, please, please, please, please, try harder. I almost feel bad for you. Almost. But not really. Though I was close. I really was.

     

    (Oh, I noticed that you didn’t jump on SaltyC when she said that sex wasn’t determined during the first trimester. Surprise surprise, huh? I guess you’re not unbiased after all. Not that you really ever claimed to be, but still.)

  • ahunt

    I know Elyzabeth…just expect the discussion to go no further, because anti-choicers flee under the question.

  • bornin1984

    Women who don’t want to give birth are just like thieves who want to steal someone else’s property?

     

    Only insomuch as they have the potential to bring harm to someone else via their actions. Or are you going to ignore the effect abortion has on that who’s being aborted?

     

    By that logic, the fetus, and by extent the woman, is property of the state (or whichever third party enforces the anti-abortion law) until she produces.

     

    In your analogy, not wanting to be pregnant is the same as being a criminal, so all women should have the threat of forced birth hanging over their heads as a deterrent for thinking they get to control if and when they bear children?

     

    Seeing as how few pro-choicers support abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy for whatever reason a woman wants, I suppose they don’t have a problem with making women the “property of the state until she produces” or “forced birth”, either. So why bring this up? It’s a moot point, as it would also apply to your (No you, specifically) argument unless you were for unrestricted access to abortion.

     

    You’re not convincing anyone here that pro-lifers don’t hate women when the core tenets of your idealogy are universally woman-punishing.

     

    Pro-lifers hate women to the same extent that someone who opposes affirmative action hates women.

     

    Anyway, as to your “woman-punishing” comment, explain this to me, because I simply can’t wrap my head around it. How can being anti-abortion be about punishing women, since by virtue of being anti-abortion, you would want fewer abortions to occur, which would invariably lead to more women in the future, meaning that some of those women who we apparently hate would be alive to tell us how much we hate them, whereas they could have been dead, seeing as how they would have been aborted? Furthermore, explain to me how abortion can be about empowering women (Yes, I know you didn’t say this, but it’s just a general question)? Earlier the topic of sex-selective abortions was brought up and it made me think. Using those, for example, explain to me how an action which some would be deemed to be inherently sexist could be construed as empowering women? I don’t want to say you’d be crazy to insinuate that saying that women should be allowed to abort females on the basis that they’re females to be empowering to women, but you’d be crazy to insinuate that saying that women should be allowed to abort females on the basis that they’re females to be about empowering women. Of course, you could say that these sort of abortions should be illegal, but wouldn’t that be taking away the “choice” from the women to decide what’s best for herself, which is what I thought pro-choicers were big on?

     

    No matter how much I think about it. it just doesn’t make any sense. Clarification would be nice.

  • ahunt

    In effect, you’re saying that in order to prevent people from engaging in an action which has the potential to bring harm to themselves, that the action they’re engaging in should be made safe for them to engage in.

    Absolutely, as in safe and legal, as opposed to unsafe and illegal.

     

    That rationale is fundamentally flawed, for then we should legalize any action which has the potential to bring harm to the one engaging in it, in which case we’d be legalizing some rather… Distasteful… Actions.

     

    Slippery slope? Because we believe in a woman’s right to safe legal abortion, we must also condone all other potentially harmful actions?

     

    Who made that rule?

  • jayn

    I’ll just hit the ‘empowering women’ point quickly.  There’s two aspects to that–making choices available, and making choices acceptable.  The point about sex-selective abortion in Asia shows shy the first alone isn’t enough–women are pressured to have boy children, so while technically they have control over their reproduction, society is making it hard for them to necessarily do so in the manner they choose.  I’m not saying to make such things illegal–that’s treating the symptom, not the disease, and of course it impacts the ‘choice’ aspect as well.  The issue is the culture these women live in, which is a much harder thing to affect (not to mention, arguably, none of our buisness).

     

    For women to be empowered, they not only need to have choices open to them, they have to feel that they can make those choices.  If a woman wants to, say, be a carpenter, and she legally can do that, but society will punish her for doing so, that’s not empowering.  That’s keeping women boxed into their ‘appropriate’ roles.

  • bornin1984

    Slippery slope? Because we believe in a woman’s right to safe legal abortion, we must also condone all other potentially harmful actions?

     

    Ummm, it wasn’t a slippery slope. No one is stating that because X has happened Y will happen, but rather that the rationale by which you use to argue that abortion should be legal is, well, a rather odd argument, and demonstrated how it is so by applying the same rationale to something else that I figure you wouldn’t support.

     

    And abortions have been “safe” in the United States before they were legal, due to advancements in medical technology post-World War II. In all honesty, why do you guys and gals continue to use such a statement? I don’t get it, as it’s misleading as it makes it seem as if making abortions legal made them “safe”.

  • bornin1984

    Hmmm. Perhaps I wasn’t being clear, so let me restate what I was getting at.

     

    I’m not talking about other cultures. Rather, I’m talking about the U.S. You cannot, on one hand, argue that abortion is about empowering women while, on the other hand, tell those same women that they can have an abortion based on the rationale that females are inherently worth less than a male or are less desirable than a male. Those two notions work against each other. Now, you can say, as you have, that there’s a difference between what choice can be made and what choice is acceptable to make, but then you’d be ignoring the fact that any “choice” is a choice that can be made, yet all choices are not allowed to be made (At least, not without consequence) and subsequently have to explain why you’d leave an “unacceptable” choice as a, well, “choice”?

     

    The only reason I see why one would leave an “unacceptable” choice as legal, without there even being the slightest consequence of repercussion for engaging in that activity, is because said choice is really not unacceptable, which would just reinforce the notion that there’s nothing wrong with treating females to be inferior to males, or as treating males as desirable or “better” then their female counterparts. But this would go back to my original question of asking how this would empower women, for in effect you would be cementing the notion that being a female is, for lack of a better word, a bad thing. You, in effect, reinforce the very same notion you deem to be a bad thing and eliminated.

  • ahunt

    And abortions have been “safe” in the United States before they were legal, due to advancements in medical technology post-World War II. In all honesty, why do you guys and gals continue to use such a statement? I don’t get it, as it’s misleading as it makes it seem as if making abortions legal made them “safe”.


     

     

    Horseshit!

     

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=283931&p=1

  • prochoiceferret

    Ummm, it wasn’t a slippery slope. No one is stating that because X has happened Y will happen, but rather that the rationale by which you use to argue that abortion should be legal is, well, a rather odd argument, and demonstrated how it is so by applying the same rationale to something else that I figure you wouldn’t support.

    Yeah. I guess it’s only a convincing argument if you’re averse to the whole women-dying thing.

    And abortions have been “safe” in the United States before they were legal, due to advancements in medical technology post-World War II. In all honesty, why do you guys and gals continue to use such a statement? I don’t get it, as it’s misleading as it makes it seem as if making abortions legal made them “safe”.

    Gosh, I don’t know. If illegal clinics are no longer unsafe because they are located in a developed country, then I guess that argument doesn’t wash.

  • prochoiceferret

    I’m not talking about other cultures. Rather, I’m talking about the U.S. You cannot, on one hand, argue that abortion is about empowering women while, on the other hand, tell those same women that they can have an abortion based on the rationale that females are inherently worth less than a male or are less desirable than a male.

    Yeah, it’s kind of like having freedom of speech, and then speaking out against the government that upholds that freedom of speech. Those two notions work against each other, so I guess the only logically consistent solution is to make all anti-government speech illegal.

    The only reason I see why one would leave an “unacceptable” choice as legal, without there even being the slightest consequence of repercussion for engaging in that activity, is because said choice is really not unacceptable, which would just reinforce the notion that there’s nothing wrong with treating females to be inferior to males, or as treating males as desirable or “better” then their female counterparts.

    Yes. This is why we need to pass strict statutes against treating females inferiorly to males. No more catcalling, no more “bitchez” and “hoes.” (We can set up a separate program for young offenders—no more sticking their tongues out and saying “girls are yucky!”)

  • jayn

    I basically see it as two seperate issues, that have drastically different solutions.

     

    The first one is access to abortion.  I don’t see any good in making it more difficult for women who want an abortion to get one, whatever the reason.  Will a few women make choices I don’t approve of?  Yes.  But the key here is that they can control their own lives.  Telling a woman she can’t have an abortion is taking her bodily autonomy away from her, and that’s the more important element for me.  I don’t like what certain people say, but that doesn’t mean I oppose free speech.

     

    The other is that our society does tend to view women as ‘lesser’ somehow–despite laws aimed at creating equal oppportunities for women, we still haven’t achieved equality.  Look around–legally, women in the US are equal to men.  But are we treated as equals?  Often, no.  Things are better, but the work that’s left to achieve equality cannot be given to us through laws.  It’s one thing for a law to declare that women and men are equals–it’s another for people to actually believe that and act on that belief.  We only need things like the Equal Pay Act because people believe women are inferior.  If it was taken as a given that women and men were equals, such a law would have never come about because it never would have been an issue in the first place.

     

    It’s not empowering for a woman to act from a position of thinking she’s inherently worth less, but neither is limiting her personal choices.  I don’t want to tell women what not to do, I want them to know what we CAN do  Empowerment is about knowing you’re capable of doing what you want.  Restricting choices is the exact opposite of that.

  • bornin1984

    Horseshit!

     

    It’s not horseshit. Have you not been reading what I’m writing out (And sourcing)?

     

    If you had, you’d notice that I did not say that no one died from an abortion before 1973. What I said, and have said on more than one occassion, is that the number of deaths resulting from abortions had been falling precipitously since the 1940’s– Well before legalization. So much so, that not only did the biggest drops in the number of deaths via abortion occur before any kind of legalized abortion (First occurring in 1967), but that abortion deaths had fallen so much that the then director of Planned Parenthood in 1960 went on record as stating that abortions, both of the legal and therapeutic kind, were “safe”. I point out to you one of my earlier posts.

     

    Now am I going to have to repeat myself for the umpteenth time? Or will this time be enough? I hope this time will be enough, personally.

  • bornin1984

    Yeah, it’s kind of like having freedom of speech, and then speaking out against the government that upholds that freedom of speech. Those two notions work against each other, so I guess the only logically consistent solution is to make all anti-government speech illegal.

     

    Yeah, it’s kind of not like that. More appropriately, it’d be like you arguing that everyone should have the freedom of speech, and then turn around and argue that everyone should have the freedom of speech that you want to have the freedom of speech, which just so happens to be not everyone.

     

    Yes. This is why we need to pass strict statutes against treating females inferiorly to males. No more catcalling, no more “bitchez” and “hoes.” (We can set up a separate program for young offenders—no more sticking their tongues out and saying “girls are yucky!”)

     

    I’m okay with that. Right as soon as we set up a program which not only prevents girls from calling boys stupid, but right as soon as courts start holding women to the “you did the deed, so you’re responsible for the product of that deed” mantra (Some) women are so apt to show disdain for yet throw on men.

     

    What say you?

  • bornin1984

    But, see, the problem is that you’re still saying, in effect, that a woman can engage in an action which is rooted in the notion that females have an inherent value less than that of a male. There’s not much way to get around this.

     

    But, anyway, I want to focus on the other part of your post. It appears to me what you’re arguing is that by restricting what certain people can do, that we’re somehow showing some kind of disdain or dislike for that person. This, however, is patently false. The law frequently prevents people from engaging in certain actions if those actions have the potential to bring harm to another. For example, I cannot punch you in the arm solely because I want to. Neither can I inject into my body any drug I want, nor can I prostitute myself out, nor can I sleep with who I want, etc. etc. etc. These are all violations of the notion of “bodily autonomy”, as I’m being told what I cannot do to and with my own body, yet these things are rarely, if ever, considered as egregious. Why not?

     

    In general, the reason we say that the above are deemed perfectly acceptable is because they are restrictions aimed at preventing one party from harming another. Therefore, if it’s acceptable to institute laws which prevent one party from infringing upon the life and well being without due cause, then why is it unacceptable to do the same with abortion? The answer is that it shouldn’t be, and simply repeating “Because it’s the woman’s body” or something similar doesn’t answer that question. In fact, it doesn’t address the question, for it does not stand to reason that even if it is “the woman’s body”, that you can do to and with it as you please regardless of the effects it has on another.

  • princess-rot

     

    Only insomuch as they have the potential to bring harm to someone else via their actions. Or are you going to ignore the effect abortion has on that who’s being aborted?

     

    Someone who? Since that presupposes I think a zygote, embryo or fetus is a separate person with an inherent right to use another’s body to develop and grow into a baby dependent, usually, on the existing person who has been passively forced to grow and birth it by removing other options. I do not equate a fetus with a born child, it’s ridiculous and irrelevant. My position on this is summed up nicely by PZ Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/sunday_sacrilege_an_embryo_is.php

     

    Seeing as how few pro-choicers support abortion on demand throughout all nine months of pregnancy for whatever reason a woman wants, I suppose they don’t have a problem with making women the “property of the state until she produces” or “forced birth”, either. So why bring this up? It’s a moot point, as it would also apply to your (No you, specifically) argument unless you were for unrestricted access to abortion.

     

    Are you trying to play some silly “gotcha” game by painting me as some horrid monster who wants all adorable widdle baybeez omgmurdered in their safe wombly haven? Who are these people who want to force abortions on women? They aren’t pro-choice, they are the rhetorical opposite of forced-birth. Do you understand the meaning of the word “choice”? Things are not one extreme or another. It is not “abort every pregnancy” or “birth every pregnancy”. These things are not pro-choice. They are the two sides of the same anti-choice coin which paints women as incapable of making their own reproductive decisions, and the fetus is only important as a political tool of control.

     

    You stated that women who are pregnant but seeking an abortion are out to cause an action that would hurt “someone else” (the fetus, in this argument it is presumed to a be a “person” with all attendant rights) and since you believe this is improper, like stealing, then you believe we do not write laws that legalize this improper behavior. You drew a direct comparison between unwilling pregnant women and thieves. Here’s a clarification for you: thieves steal other people’s property. You compared this to abortion and gave as the reason you think abortion should be illegal, therefore we do not legalize an outlet for that behavior. So, who are the unwillingly pregnant “stealing” from? Not life, you can’t steal something intangible. What are they “stealing” and from whom, BI1984? If not wanting to be pregnant is the same as being as criminal, then by logical extent all fertile females have the threat of being labeled a criminal hanging over their heads, if such an anti-abortion law were enacted.

     

    I don’t want to say you’d be crazy to insinuate that saying that women should be allowed to abort females on the basis that they’re females to be empowering to women, but you’d be crazy to insinuate that saying that women should be allowed to abort females on the basis that they’re females to be about empowering women. Of course, you could say that these sort of abortions should be illegal, but wouldn’t that be taking away the “choice” from the women to decide what’s best for herself, which is what I thought pro-choicers were big on?

     

    Empowerment? Reproductive rights are fundamental – it’s not about whose got the biggest metaphorical dick to swing. In places where sex-selective abortion is widespread enough to cause problems is another outgrowth of patriarchy, the global devaluation of females. Funnily enough, it’s exactly the same thing that demands females countermand their own human rights to support a potential human’s rights. There is not something wrong with abortion, there is something wrong with the concept that females are worth less than males – it just manifests itself differently. The fetus is just a red herring for most of these people. When one dissects the reasons why the unborn fetus is so important, it all comes down to the same line of reasoning, a woman’s worth is based on her ability as a baby oven rather than a person with needs and wants.

  • saltyc

     

    A person is a human being who acts, thinks, perceives and reflects.

     

    Born, tell me what is the difference between genotype and phenotype?

    Let me try once again to explain my view: Just because the genes are there doesn’t mean the person is there. That is not semantics. This is why most people would rather save a single child from a burning fertility clinic rather than a freezer full of embryos.

     

    PS just a quibble -you are aware of XX males that did not have SRY genes?

  • ahunt

    Your EXACT words, Born:

     

    And abortions have been “safe” in the United States before they were legal, due to advancements in medical technology post-World War II. In all honesty, why do you guys and gals continue to use such a statement? I don’t get it, as it’s misleading as it makes it seem as if making abortions legal made them “safe”.

     

     

    From the link:

     

    After I graduated from University of British Columbia medical school in 1962, I went to Chicago, where I served my internship and Ob/Gyn residency at Cook County Hospital. At that time, Cook County had about 3,000 beds, and served a mainly indigent population. If you were really sick, or really poor, or both, Cook County was where you went.

    The first month of my internship was spent on Ward 41, the septic obstetrics ward. Yes, it’s hard to believe now, but in those days, they had one ward dedicated exclusively to septic complications of pregnancy.

    About 90% of the patients were there with complications of septic abortion. The ward had about 40 beds, in addition to extra beds which lined the halls. Each day we admitted between 10-30 septic abortion patients. We had about one death a month, usually from septic shock associated with hemorrhage.

    I will never forget the 17-year-old girl lying on a stretcher with 6 feet of small bowel protruding from her vagina. She survived….Today, in Canada and the U.S., septic shock from illegal abortion is virtually never seen. Like smallpox, it is a “disappeared disease.”

     


     

  • jayn

    Nope, there isn’t, and I’m not about to try.  People make choices for different reasons.  I consider abortion to be a valid choice, and so I don’t care much what the reason behind it is.  I may not like that reason, but I really don’t want to get into the realm of legislating why people can or can’t do certain things.  That just gets messy.

     

    On your second point, the big difference is that if I were to not punch you, your bodily autonomy is intact.  If I were to prevent you from getting an abortion (or forced you to) when you wanted one (or not), your bodily autonomy is not intact.  Argue about the rights of the child all you want, but if I’m pregnant and I am being prevented from taking the actions I want to to deal with that, then my bodily autonomy is being compromised, either because there’s something in my body that I don’t want there, or because I’m being forced into undergoing a procedure I don’t want performed on me.

     

    Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.  I have the right to take appropriate actions to prevent you from striking my nose.  Likewise, I should have the right to prevent my body from being used to gestate a child I don’t want to give birth to.  Appopriate actions simply cannot avoid the death of the fetus for the vast majority of women seeking to undertake such an action.

  • princess-rot

    Oh this is good, from the comments thread of the link I posted:

     

    Posted by: Cerberus | April 18, 2010 6:19 PM

    It’s especially worth noting that this is because free reproductive health is critical for women’s rights. The ability to plan when you will give birth is critical to being able to plan your career, take priority of your education and be a full individual including the right to experience a sex life if you so choose.

    Having to sacrifice an element of personhood to “have the freedom” of a career or knowing that a tryst could end up knocking you out of a job or an opportunity before you are ready are huge stumbling blocks.

    And this is before we get into the fact I hinted at in my last post which is that the abortion war is a cleaned up version of the rape-culture war. I.e. men have lost a large amount of ground on the war to dictate that some women by virtue of angering the patriarchy deserve to be raped and that men have inherent rights to use their spouses and partners for sex on their terms rather than their partner’s consent.

    Abortion tries and dilute the idea of female autonomy and the right to your own body while female, by saying that a “cute, lil’ baby” gets to trump a woman’s right to autonomy…by the virtue of the man impregnating her and putting her in her place.

    A lot of it is also sperm magic.

    A fetus does not automagically “grow” into a baby. It is constructed BY THE WOMAN. Enzymes in her surrounding tissues recruit nutrients, blood, bones, tissue, etc… from the food the woman eats and mostly from her own body. Piece by piece she cannibalizes herself to construct the “miracle baby”. So much so that women who have many problems or can’t take care of nutrition for two is having her body heavily compromised by the strain.

    Let me repeat that. Women build fetuses into birthable children by cannibalizing their own body.

    Again, without consent, this is a horror show. Something akin to the way a tumor leeches the nutrients and important tissues of the body in order to grow itself.

    Without the mother’s input of differentiation signals and the like, there would be no difference between growing fetus and tumor cluster.

    But men aren’t used to thinking of women as wholly human so thinking about all of that is distant, unreal, disconnected. But not existing. The existential dread of that is terrifying and to think a woman with her vagina denata has that power and that she almost entirely alone is responsible for most of the creation of “the miracle of life”.

    That just will not stand for so many.

    And to all of them, I’d like to say, Le Fuck You.

  • jayn

    It occurred to me I probably wasn’t being that clear.  I can’t demand another person feed me, or donate an organ to me.  Sure, it would be nice if they did, but I have no right to take those things by force.  Likewise, a fetus has no right to take my uterus and turn it into a home for 9 months.  Would it be nice if I let it do that?  Sure, and millions of women do just that every year.  But it has no RIGHT to those things.

  • bornin1984

    Someone who? Since that presupposes I think a zygote, embryo or fetus is a separate person with an inherent right to use another’s body to develop and grow into a baby dependent, usually, on the existing person who has been passively forced to grow and birth it by removing other options. I do not equate a fetus with a born child, it’s ridiculous and irrelevant. My position on this is summed up nicely by PZ Myers: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/sunday_sacrilege_an_embryo_is.php

     

    Well, I guess I’ll have to break this response up into three seperate parts.


    1.) Concerning —> “I do not equate a fetus with a born child, it’s ridiculous and irrelevant.”

     

    Ignoring the fact that you’re trying to pass the above off as a self-evident statement, why is it ridiculous and irrelevant? As it stands all you’ve done is pick a point in the humandevelopmental process by which to argue that a human being has some self-worth, and that before that it’s okay to kill it. This would be fundamentally no different than arguing that because an adolescent isn’t an adult, that the adolescent has no right to not be killed. Or that because a pre-adolescent isn’t an adolescent isn’t an adolescent, that the pre-adolescent has no right to not be killed. And so on and so forth white a child and pre-adolescent, a toddler and a child, an infant and a toddler, a neonate and an infant, a fetus and a neonate, an embryo and a fetus and, finally, a zygote and an embryo. But you would scoff as such a notion if it were applied post-natally, so explain to me why I it shouldn’t be scoffed at when applied prenatally?

     

    2.) Concerning —> “My position on this is summed up nicely by PZ Myers”

     

    I’m actually quite shocked that a biologist of any sort would ever insinuate that the unborn at all stages are anything but human. I, suppose, that’s what happens when ideology gets in the way of science. Or, I should say, you mix philosophy and science. It just doesn’t work.

     

    3.) And I saved the best for last. Concerning —> “Someone who? Since that presupposes I think a zygote, embryo or fetus is a separate person with an inherent right to use another’s body to develop and grow into a baby dependent, usually, on the existing person who has been passively forced to grow and birth it by removing other options.”

     

    Someone who? Someone the unborn. Furthermore, my argument doesn’t presuppose anything, as my argument isn’t based on personhood. It’s based on the fact that the unborn are humans, and as a result should share the same basic rights and privileges enjoyed by other humans (Remember that concept of human rights?). Your argument, and indeed legalized abortion in the U.S., rests on the notion that the unborn aren’t persons. This, however, requires you to define what a person is, which to this point hasn’t been done so, as you cannot argue what something isn’t without stating what the thing it isn’t, is. So, without further ado, I ask you “Why isn’t the fetus a person?”.

     

    (I asked this question before and received no answer, so hopefully I’ll get an answer this time. Hopefully, you can do it without conflating the legal definition of person with the philosophical definition of person, which is about as bad as conflating the scientific definition of human being with the philosophical definition of human being. Or, I should say, imposing the latter on the former.)


    Are you trying to play some silly “gotcha” game by painting me as some horrid monster who wants all adorable widdle baybeez omgmurdered  in their safe wombly haven?

     

    I think that you might want to re-read what it was you were responding to. Normally, I wouldn’t bother restating myself, but I’ll make an exception here. Unless you believe that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion whenever she wants at her leisure, then do indeed buy into the notion that she’s the “property of the state” or are into “forced birth”, for you will tell a woman past time period X in her pregnancy that she cannot have an abortion at her leisure, which makes you no different then the people you lambaste, as the only difference is when you set that line.

     

    …Of course, the above is entirely moot if you do believe that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion at her leisure throughout all times of pregnancy. Which is what I said the first time, as well as above, which is what you seemingly didn’t understand.


    Who are these people who want to force abortions on women? They aren’t pro-choice, they are the rhetorical opposite of forced-birth. Do you understand the meaning of the word “choice”? Things are not one extreme or another. It is not “abort every pregnancy” or “birth every pregnancy”. These things are not pro-choice.

     

    Ummm, yeah. Can you explain to me where you read anything about forcing abortions on women in my post? I’d really like to know, because I said nothing about forced abortions anywhere. I don’t know what you’re reading, but it’s most certainly not my post.

     

    They are the two sides of the same anti-choice coin which paints women as incapable of making their own reproductive decisions, and the fetus is only important as a political tool of control.

     

    You know what? Try this response again, only this time do it with the, what can only be describe as, laughable mischaracterization. Go on. I’m a generous fellow.


    You stated that women who are pregnant but seeking an abortion are out to cause an action that would hurt “someone else” (the fetus, in this argument it is presumed to a be a “person” with all attendant rights)…

     

    And yet again I point out that my argument has nothing to do with personhood– that’s your argument. Furthermore, I yet again ask you to explain to me what a person is, and why the unborn are not (And try to keep it consistent with U.S. too, okay?).


    …and since you believe this is improper, like stealing, then you believe we do not write laws that legalize this improper behavior.

     

    Not quite, but for argument’s sake I’ll go along with it.


    You drew a direct comparison between unwilling pregnant women and thieves. Here’s a clarification for you: thieves steal other people’s property. You compared this to abortion and gave as the reason you think abortion should be illegal, therefore we do not legalize an outlet for that behavior. So, who are the unwillingly pregnant “stealing” from? Not life, you can’t steal something intangible. What are they “stealing” and from whom, BI1984? If not wanting to be pregnant is the same as being as criminal, then by logical extent all fertile females have the threat of being labeled a criminal hanging over their heads, if such an anti-abortion law were enacted.

     

    I’m going to chalk the above up to misunderstanding the argument being made, even after I clarified it twice (Or was it three times?). So let me try this one more time. The argument is that a thief should be allowed to steal, regardless of the effect it has on another, because thieves often times get shot in the process of stealing. And since there will always be thieves, we might as well make it legal for theives to steal. That’s the same argument made for abortion to which I was responding. I don’t remember who it was now, but (s)he stated that abortion should be legal, regardless of the effect it has on another, because women are going to have abortions anyway, so we might as well make it “safe” for them to engage in that action rather then leave it “unsafe” for them to engage in said action and possibly bring harm to themselves.

     

    Now, I’ll go out on a limb here and assume that most people here, maybe even you, would agree with the rationale in the latter argument. By the same token, then, you would also have to agree with the same rationale, not necessarily agree with the argument, of the former argument as well, as it’s *exactly the same*. But, judging from your posts, you find the rationale of the former argument to be flawed, even though this is the same rationale in the latter argument. How, exactly, does that work? The subject matter doesn’t change the validity of the rationale behind an argument.

     

    The thing is, that both arguments are equally absurd, as they ignore the effects the that one action has on another by allowing one party to engage in an action freely that would otherwise have the potential to bring to themselves. It’s that simple, and even if you don’t admit as much, I’m quite sure you realize this.


    Empowerment?

     

    Ummm, yeah. Not been keeping up witht he pro-choice movement, have you?


    Reproductive rights are fundamental – it’s not about whose got the biggest metaphorical dick to swing.

     

    How can “reproductive rights” be fundamental when not everyone is provided them?


    In places where sex-selective abortion is widespread enough to cause problems is another outgrowth of patriarchy, the global devaluation of females. Funnily enough, it’s exactly the same thing that demands females countermand their own human rights to support a potential human’s rights.

     

    Funnily enough, no it’s not. For one, there’s no such thing as a potential human, as this not only assumes that the unborn is anything other than a human being (Seriously. If the unborn aren’t human beings, then what are they?) but it also assumes that a human being can become anything other than a human being, or that something which isn’t a human being can become a human being. It can’t and they can’t. Number two, how can abortion be a human right when it’s not afforded to all humans? I mean, last I checked, neither the unborn nor men were afforded a right to abortion, which would mean that the “right” to an abortion is a privilege, as it’s only given to females, and then only to those who can become pregnant.

     

    There is not something wrong with abortion, there is something wrong with the concept that females are worth less than males – it just manifests itself differently.

     

    There’s not something wrong with an action which kills human beings, just the notion that some human beings are worth less than others? Ugh, seriously? Seriously?!?!?!


    The fetus is just a red herring for most of these people. When one dissects the reasons why the unborn fetus is so important, it all comes down to the same line of reasoning, a woman’s worth is based on her ability as a baby oven rather than a person with needs and wants.

     

    Or, and stay with me here, they realize that abortion kills a human being and that no human being should arbitrarily be deprived of his or her life? That’s just a total stab in the dark though. A complete, utter, and total stab in the dark.

  • bornin1984

    The reason we, as a society, tell people what they can and cannot do is to prevent one group of from infringing upon the lives of another group. That’s not “getting messy”. That’s just a simple fact of the law and one of the reasons it exists. If we didn’t, then you’d run into a situation where one could do to another according to his or her will, and that would be, simply put, a situation that no one wants to be in.

     

    Anyway, even agreeing that there is such a thing as a “right to bodily autonomy”, just for argument’s sake, it doesn’t stand to reason that said right exists at the expense of anyone’s life. I said as much before. At the end of the day, it seems that your argument is, in essence, “the right to bodily autonomy is the ability to control your body in a way you see fit and this takes precedence over all else”, but if this were true, then why do you (I’m guessing) support limitations on what someone can do to and with their body if it would harm someone else? I mean, ignore abortion for a momen and take the following situations. 

     

    Let’s assume that I want to punch someone in the arm, and I argue that I should be allowed to do so because it’s my body and I want to use it in any way I see fit. Are you going to up and defend me on the basis that I should be able to use my body in any way I see fit? Now how about if I want to take some drug which has the known effects of causing hallucinations and violent fits of rage. Would you argue that because it’s my body I should be able to take said drug, even though by doing so there’s a good chance I could go berserk and injure someone?

     

    In both of these cases, I’m willing to bet that you would say no, but this begets the question, then, of why the same rationale is not applied to abortion. Why is it thereby impermissable to prevent the woman from using her body and doing to her body in a way that would negatively impact another? How is that any worse then the aforementioned two restrictions?

  • ahunt

    It’s based on the fact that the unborn are humans, and as a result should share the same basic rights and privileges enjoyed by other humans

     

    So if I need your kidney to live, I can take it against your will?

     

    Sigh…I’m sorry guys…but here we go again.

     

    Born, I train horses for a living. I am unwillingly pregnant, forced by law to carry to term. If I take a header off a green colt, 3 months in, causing miscarriage…have I violated the basic rights and privileges you claim for the fetus?

  • bornin1984

    So if I need your kidney to live, I can take it against your will?

     

    For one, as I stated prior, you’re assuming that consent needs to be explicit. That is, if the woman hasn’t explicitly given her consent for the unborn to use her uterus, then it has no right to use it. However, in the case of sex, engaging in it is enough to create a moral obligation should offspring result. That is how it is for the male, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be that way for a female. Secondly, there’s a difference between not providing for and taking away from. Imagine the scenario of a man drowning in the ocean. I’m not obligated to throw myself into the ocean to save him, nor will the law punish me if I don’t. However, if that man has a flotation device, and I purposely destroy it, or do something which can foreseeably cause him to drown, then I’ll be held to some amount of culpability, as I engaged in an action which was aimed at bringing harm to the man. It’s, in effect, the same deal with abortion.

     

    You don’t have to “donate” anything to the unborn, as you can prevent that unborn child from coming into existence. But once that unborn child exists, you should be required to not act in a way which would infringe upon the life and well-being, in this case the normal development, of the said unborn child and should be held to some standard of care when it comes to that child’s well-being– that includes not killing it.

     

    Born, I train horses for a living. I am unwillingly pregnant, forced by law to carry to term. If I take a header off a green colt, 3 months in, causing miscarriage…have I violated the basic rights and privileges you claim for the fetus?

     

    Of course you have, just as you would have violated the rights of someone who drunkenly stumbled into the road late and night if you unwittingly hit and killed them. Now, I believe the question you’re asking is whether or not you should be held culpable? That depends entirely on whether or not you were acting in negligence.

  • ahunt

    The reason we, as a society, tell people what they can and cannot do is to prevent one group of from infringing upon the lives of another group.

    Forced pregnacy being the ultimate infringement upon the lives of women not a consideration here?

     

    Anyway, even agreeing that there is such a thing as a “right to bodily autonomy”, just for argument’s sake, it doesn’t stand to reason that said right exists at the expense of anyone’s life.

     

    You are not entitled to the use of anyone’s body to continue your own life, Born.

     

     

    I said as much before. At the end of the day, it seems that your argument is, in essence, “the right to bodily autonomy is the ability to control your body in a way you see fit and this takes precedence over all else”, but if this were true, then why do you (I’m guessing) support limitations on what someone can do to and with their body if it would harm someone else?

     

    Uhm…are you telling us that pregnancy is not harmful for women?

     

    begets the question, then, of why the same rationale is not applied to abortion. Why is it thereby impermissable to prevent the woman from using her body and doing to her body in a way that would negatively impact another?

     

    For the same reason that is is impermissable for anyone to commandeer, against your will… your body…for their own benefit

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Yeah, it’s kind of not like that. More appropriately, it’d be like you arguing that everyone should have the freedom of speech, and then turn around and argue that everyone should have the freedom of speech that you want to have the freedom of speech, which just so happens to be not everyone.

    Oh? I didn’t know I was arguing that only the women I want to have the right to an abortion should get it. When I say I’m pro-choice, that generally doesn’t mean pro-my-choice. (Or pro-your-choice, for that matter…)

    I’m okay with that. Right as soon as we set up a program which not only prevents girls from calling boys stupid,

    If you want to give up your rights, you’ll find it much less of a hassle to drive to your nearest airport, and make a bomb joke within earshot of TSA personnel.

    but right as soon as courts start holding women to the “you did the deed, so you’re responsible for the product of that deed” mantra (Some) women are so apt to show disdain for yet throw on men.

    What say you?

    I say, welcome to the real world! Courts already do this, when it comes time to pay child support. Of course, if the woman has an abortion, there’s usually no reason for a court to step in after the fact, so no big deal.

  • ahunt

    However, in the case of sex, engaging in it is enough to create a moral obligation should offspring result.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

     

    Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Permit me to point out that if I negligently injure you in a car accident, and you need my blood to live, I have no legal obligation to provide it.

     

    Now, I believe the question you’re asking is whether or not you should be held culpable? That depends entirely on whether or not you were acting in negligence.

     

    Snerk…if you think that charges would not be brought if.. instead of the miscarried fetus…a 3 month old infant died in the header…I have swampland in Michigan you might want to purchase.

  • colleen

    Anyway, even agreeing that there is such a thing as a “right to bodily autonomy”, just for argument’s sake, it doesn’t stand to reason that said right exists at the expense of anyone’s life.

    If you didn’t have a right to bodily autonomy, the state could force you to ‘donate’ part of one of your lungs, a kidney, part of your liver, pancreas or any one of a number of other organs to save the life of someone in need of a transplant. US citizens die every day when their lives could have been saved by such a donation. Gestating a child requires far more than simply donating part of your liver. It’s more painful, it’s more physically demanding, it’s dangerous and it hurts like hell.
    I’ve always found it curious that the men of the ‘pro-life’ movement aren’t donating their organs in droves to save the lives of others just as I find it odd that ‘pro-life” women like Mrs Stanek and, of course, Lila Rose aren’t gestating the very small persons sitting frozen in petrie dishes waiting for a warm, welcoming uterus. It almost looks as if the shared interest of the ‘pro-life’ movement is bullying, abusing, intimidating and harassing women while simultaneously fostering hubris.

  • prochoiceferret

    For one, as I stated prior, you’re assuming that consent needs to be explicit. That is, if the woman hasn’t explicitly given her consent for the unborn to use her uterus, then it has no right to use it.

    Yes, of course your consent doesn’t have to be explicit. The fact that you live in this country would be enough to create a moral obligation to provide a kidney to a fellow country(wo)man who needs it.

    However, in the case of sex, engaging in it is enough to create a moral obligation should offspring result.

    Hey, as long as we’re creating moral obligations out of thin air, posting to this Web site is enough to create a moral obligation to send me raisins. I prefer the 1-pound round canisters. No store brands, please!

    That is how it is for the male, and there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be that way for a female.

    Moral obligations, like mileage, may vary. (Muslims have a moral obligation to respect Muhammed and not drink alcohol.) Legal obligations, however, don’t exist until you have a born child.

    Secondly, there’s a difference between not providing for and taking away from. Imagine the scenario of a man drowning in the ocean. I’m not obligated to throw myself into the ocean to save him, nor will the law punish me if I don’t. However, if that man has a flotation device, and I purposely destroy it, or do something which can foreseeably cause him to drown, then I’ll be held to some amount of culpability, as I engaged in an action which was aimed at bringing harm to the man. It’s, in effect, the same deal with abortion.

    Yes. A pregnant woman who aborts is simply declining to provide for the fetus inside her, so she is not culpable for its death.

    But once that unborn child exists, you should be required to not act in a way which would infringe upon the life and well-being, in this case the normal development,

    Ah yes, the woman should just leave it alone, and let it do its thing. It’s not like “the normal development” is a big deal for her body, her health, and her life in general.

    and should be held to some standard of care when it comes to that child’s well-being– that includes not killing it.

    And if they refuse, or are unable to provide this standard of care, we can throw them in jail to make them provide it!

    Now, I believe the question you’re asking is whether or not you should be held culpable? That depends entirely on whether or not you were acting in negligence.

    Hmm. Horseback-riding while pregnant… don’t you think that’s somewhat acting-in-negligence-ish in itself? Shouldn’t she have stayed home, laying on a sofa and munching on soda crackers, to avoid putting the fetus at risk?

  • ahunt

    Ferret, Horseback riding?…harrumph…try earning a living!

     

     

    But once that unborn child exists, you should be required to not act in a way which would infringe upon the life and well-being, in this case the normal development, of the said unborn child and should be held to some standard of care when it comes to that child’s well-being– that includes not killing it.

     

    But there is little about pregnancy that is good and healthy for women, and plenty that is bad and unhealthy, and infringing upon the life and well being of women. If in fact….you are extending the same rights and privileges to the BZEF…do not the same standards apply?

  • prochoiceferret

    That’s just a simple fact of the law and one of the reasons it exists. If we didn’t, then you’d run into a situation where one could do to another according to his or her will, and that would be, simply put, a situation that no one wants to be in.

    Yeah. Could you imagine if anti-choicers were able to force their will on pregnant women who don’t want to remain pregnant? *shudder*

    Anyway, even agreeing that there is such a thing as a “right to bodily autonomy”, just for argument’s sake, it doesn’t stand to reason that said right exists at the expense of anyone’s life.

    Right. Oh and by the way Mr. 1984, little Timmy Cratchet in Cleveland, Ohio needs your kidney to live. Yes, you’re the only match in our database. Please report to your nearest organ-transplant unit to submit the necessary material within the next 48 hours. If you don’t report by then, a retrieval squad will be dispatched. Have a nice day!

    In both of these cases, I’m willing to bet that you would say no, but this begets the question, then, of why the same rationale is not applied to abortion. Why is it thereby impermissable to prevent the woman from using her body and doing to her body in a way that would negatively impact another?

    Because the fetus is taking life support from her body, and if she doesn’t want to provide that, then she can cut it off. The fact that the fetus “is negatively affected” by this is immaterial. The fact that little Timmy Cratchet will be “negatively affected” by your refusal to provide a kidney doesn’t negate your right to say no (read: bodily autonomy).

     

    Abortion, at its core, is a refusal to continue providing support to a fetus, not an affirmative killing/murder/termination/whatever of same. Once you wrap your head around that, things will make a lot more sense.

  • bornin1984

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

     

    Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Permit me to point out that if I negligently injure you in a car accident, and you need my blood to live, I have no legal obligation to provide it.

     

    Oi vey. First and foremost, you’d do well to not partly quote the things I write out, ignore the rest, and then proceeding to make a “point”. But, anyway, as I stated in my prior post, and what I see you ignored, is that the notion that one ihas a responsibility to that which is the result of pregnancy is the exact standard men are held to. Therefore, why not hold women to the same standard? Just as a consent to sex is seen as a consent to care for that which results from sex for a man, then shouldn’t a consent to sex be seen as a consent to care for that which results from sex for a woman? Wouldn’t that be– *gasp!*– equal which, ugh, I though feminism and stuff was all about?

     

    And, for what it’s worth, your example is a non-sequitur. Not that that will be understood, but it’s worth a try.


    Snerk…if you think that charges would not be brought if.. instead of the miscarried fetus…a 3 month old infant died in the header…I have swampland in Michigan you might want to purchase.

     

    Who said anything about charges? I said culpability will be contingent on whether or not one was deemed negligent. It would do you well to respond to those things that I do type out, and not those things which I don’t.

  • ahunt

    Oi vey. First and foremost, you’d do well to not partly quote the things I write out, ignore the rest, and then proceeding to make a “point”.

     

    Well, you are unnecessarily verbose.

     

    And, for what it’s worth, your example is a non-sequitur

     

    Yeah, I shoulda filled in the blanks. Best guess is that bright folks on the board can follow.

     

    But, anyway, as I stated in my prior post, and what I see you ignored, is that the notion that one ihas a responsibility to that which is the result of pregnancy is the exact standard men are held to.

     

    Not so much…there is the whole pregnancy thing…trivial, I know.

     

    Therefore, why not hold women to the same standard?

     

    Well here, Slim…lemme just transfer this little parasite to you!

     

    I said culpability will be contingent on whether or not one was deemed negligent

     

    Sigh. I’ll bite…so we’re determining culpability for purposes of what?

     

    Be brief.

  • colleen

    But, anyway, as I stated in my prior post, and what I see you ignored, is that the notion that one ihas a responsibility to that which is the result of pregnancy is the exact standard men are held to. Therefore, why not hold women to the same standard?

    Let me wrap my tiny little woman’s brain around this.

    After men have sex they can expect to be forced to gestate for 9 or 10 months because some religious fanatics of a ‘faith’ they do not belong to have decided their social role should be restricted to: masturbatory aid, incubation device and source of cheap labor and are more than prepared to force all men to comply with this?

    Or did you mean that some men provide financial support for the children they have fathered? Is that the “exact standard” you’re referring to, asshole?

  • bornin1984

    Yes, of course your consent doesn’t have to be explicit. The fact that you live in this country would be enough to create a moral obligation to provide a kidney to a fellow country(wo)man who needs it.

     

    In the above case, not a moral obligation to provide a kidney, but rather a moral obligation not to take a kidney away from someone, killing them in the process. Errr, not that that’s important or anything. But I, apparently, like responding to straw men, so keep them coming.

     

    Hey, as long as we’re creating moral obligations out of thin air, posting to this Web site is enough to create a moral obligation to send me raisins. I prefer the 1-pound round canisters. No store brands, please!

     

    Yeah. I just pulled that moral obligation out of thin air, totally seeing as how there aren’t millions of men paying for children they necessarily didn’t want to have on the basis that they decided to have sex, and as a result are being held responsible not necessarily because they want to be held responsible, but because a new individual which did not exist previous exists. I don’t know what I was thinking.

     

    Moral obligations, like mileage, may vary. (Muslims have a moral obligation to respect Muhammed and not drink alcohol.) Legal obligations, however, don’t exist until you have a born child.

     

    Wait wait wait wait wait. So does the above mean that, if, tomorrow a law was passed which stated that legal obligations were created, say, at conception, that you would up and defend that law? ‘Cuz, ugh, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t, and would probably argue something along the lines of you not being morally obligated to “donate” your body to the unborn if you don’t want to (Which, ironically enough, you are doing) which kind of makes the point you were trying to make rather moot.

     

    Yes. A pregnant woman who aborts is simply declining to provide for the fetus inside her, so she is not culpable for its death.

     

    And next you’re going to tell me that a parent who refuses to provide sustenance for their child really isn’t culpable for his or her death, as the parent is simply declining to provide for that child, right? ‘Cuz, ugh, that would be the next step.

     

    Ah yes, the woman should just leave it alone, and let it do its thing. It’s not like “the normal development” is a big deal for her body, her health, and her life in general.

     

    Because just as suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem (Most of the time, anyway) abortion is a permanent solution to a temporary condition (Most of the time, anyway). Surely, you realize the tremendous disservice you do your position by arguing that a woman should be allowed to kill another human being based solely based on something which only– yes, I said only, compared to death with lasts forever– nine months, correct? It’s one thing to argue that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion because she’s going to suffer irreperable harm or damage to her body or well-being; it’s another to argue that a woman should be able to have an abortion solely because she doesn’t want to experience termporary– yes, I said temporary, compared to death which is permanent– discomfort.

     

    And if they refuse, or are unable to provide this standard of care, we can throw them in jail to make them provide it!

     

    Well, considering how we already do it to men with no regards to their ability to do so, with many women championing the fact that we do so, I don’t see why not. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose, after all. Or does that saying only work in reverse when the goose wants it to work in reverse?

     

    Hmm. Horseback-riding while pregnant… don’t you think that’s somewhat acting-in-negligence-ish in itself? Shouldn’t she have stayed home, laying on a sofa and munching on soda crackers, to avoid putting the fetus at risk?

     

    No, because then the woman isn’t getting exercise and is laying around all day, meaning she’ll become obese, and obesity carries pregnancy risks, some of which could cause the child to be born with birth defects, which would be a good case for negligence. She’s safer on the horse.

  • bornin1984

    But there is little about pregnancy that is good and healthy for women, and plenty that is bad and unhealthy, and infringing upon the life and well being of women. If in fact….you are extending the same rights and privileges to the BZEF…do not the same standards apply?

     

    I’ve already said once before that if a woman’s life or health are going to be negatively impacted by carrying a pregnancy to term beyond what’s normally expected of a pregnancy, or if she suffers some kind of grave or irreperable harm, that she should be allowed to have an abortion.

     

    See? I’m not that radical. Just moderately so.

  • crowepps

    Well here, Slim…lemme just transfer this little parasite to you!

    Hmmm, since abdominal ectopic pregnancies have survived and been delivered by ceasarian, proving that having and using a uterus isn’t absolutely necessary to the process, and the fetus is capable of using any body with which it is presented, why not just transfer them to those concerned ProLife men?  I’m sure lots of them would be willing to volunteer.

  • ahunt

    And slowly, the egg cracks open….

     

     

    Yeah. I just pulled that moral obligation out of thin air, totally seeing as how there aren’t millions of men paying for children they necessarily didn’t want to have on the basis that they decided to have sex, and as a result are being held responsible not necessarily because they want to be held responsible, but because a new individual which did not exist previous exists. I don’t know what I was thinking.

     

    …the light hits the wriggling baby snake… and it dawns on us that this is reaaalllly allll about the poor menz for BORN!! Whoda thunk?

     

  • ahunt

    Hey Paul…new question.

     

    You being all over technology an’ stuff…if the means existed…and men could carry a transplanted BZE to term…would you insist that they do so…?

  • ahunt

    Sigh…courtesy of  Liz…one more time:

     

     

    Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

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

    Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

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

    Occasional complications and side effects:

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

    Less common (but serious) complications:

    • peripartum cardiomyopathy
    • cardiopulmonary arrest
    • magnesium toxicity
    • severe hypoxemia/acidosis
    • massive embolism
    • increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
    • molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
    • malignant arrhythmia
    • circulatory collapse

    • placental abruption
    • obstetric fistula

    More permanent side effects:

    • future infertility
    • permanent disability
    • death.
    •  

  • prochoiceferret

    In the above case, not a moral obligation to provide a kidney, but rather a moral obligation not to take a kidney away from someone, killing them in the process. Errr, not that that’s important or anything.

    Well, yes. You only need one kidney to live, so giving the other one to little Timmy won’t kill you. Thank you for doing your part to help your fellow citizen!

    Yeah. I just pulled that moral obligation out of thin air, totally seeing as how there aren’t millions of men paying for children they necessarily didn’t want to have on the basis that they decided to have sex, and as a result are being held responsible not necessarily because they want to be held responsible, but because a new individual which did not exist previous exists. I don’t know what I was thinking.

    You were thinking that this obligation existed before the child was born. But now you’ve realized your error, and know better.

    So does the above mean that, if, tomorrow a law was passed which stated that legal obligations were created, say, at conception, that you would up and defend that law?

    No, of course not. It’s not a foregone conclusion that the conception will result in a live, born child needing support. Heck, for a good long while, you wouldn’t even know for sure which guy to hit up for said support!

    ‘Cuz, ugh, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t, and would probably argue something along the lines of you not being morally obligated to “donate” your body to the unborn if you don’t want to (Which, ironically enough, you are doing) which kind of makes the point you were trying to make rather moot.

    I’m just a bit surprised that you’re arguing that some human beings have the right to obtain life-supporting material directly from the body of another, with or without their consent. Although Timmy is certainly happy to have this awesome power!

    And next you’re going to tell me that a parent who refuses to provide sustenance for their child really isn’t culpable for his or her death, as the parent is simply declining to provide for that child, right? ‘Cuz, ugh, that would be the next step.

    Only if you fail to draw a distinction between supporting a child with one’s body (as in pregnancy, or organ/tissue/fluid donation) and one’s wallet. There’s a reason why we speak of body integrity, and not so much pocketbook integrity. (That’s MRA territory.)

    Surely, you realize the tremendous disservice you do your position by arguing that a woman should be allowed to kill another human being based solely based on something which only– yes, I said only, compared to death with lasts forever– nine months, correct?

    Oh, I didn’t know it was okay to violate one’s rights as long as it’s only on a temporary basis. I guess people who were falsely imprisoned and then exonerated have nothing to complain about, then.

    it’s another to argue that a woman should be able to have an abortion solely because she doesn’t want to experience termporary– yes, I said temporary, compared to death which is permanent– discomfort.

    So for you, pregnancy is “temporary… discomfort.” And people wonder why we say that most anti-choice advocates argue out of their own sheer ignorance….

    Well, considering how we already do it to men with no regards to their ability to do so, with many women championing the fact that we do so, I don’t see why not. What’s good for the gander is good for the goose, after all. Or does that saying only work in reverse when the goose wants it to work in reverse?

    So poor women who can’t get an abortion, and can’t afford to keep up the “standard of care” you are prescribing, may as well be arrested as soon as they get their first bout of morning sickness. Why waste time?

     

    Many people have their own mental conception of a fantasy world. Not many folks, however, set out to make it a dystopia.

     

    (I’m guessing 1984 was your favorite book? You should try The Handmaiden’s Tale. You’ll have wet dreams over that one!)

    No, because then the woman isn’t getting exercise and is laying around all day, meaning she’ll become obese, and obesity carries pregnancy risks, some of which could cause the child to be born with birth defects, which would be a good case for negligence. She’s safer on the horse.

    Ah, so you’re an attorney! And this constitutes your legal advice to her. Here, let me take down your phone number in case she’s indicted for engaging in high-risk behavior while pregnant… the judge might want to send a subpoena. Which state are you registered in, by the way?

  • crowepps

    Hmmm – wonder if the principle underlying his opposition to abortion and ‘letting women off the hook’ would evaporate if it was decided that men who didn’t want to be fathers could opt out of child support.

     

    Isn’t it weird how when someone insists ‘it’s the principle of the thing’ quite often it turns out that the principle they’re talking about is actually the fact that they resent shelling out money?

  • prochoiceferret

    I’ve already said once before that if a woman’s life or health are going to be negatively impacted by carrying a pregnancy to term beyond what’s normally expected of a pregnancy, or if she suffers some kind of grave or irreperable harm, that she should be allowed to have an abortion.

    How very generous of you to allow women to have abortions in certain cases. Were you thinking of anyone in particular to make the determination of whether the negative impact on a woman’s life crosses the “normally expected” threshold, and for that matter, who’s definition of “what’s normally expected of a pregnancy” is to be used?

    See? I’m not that radical. Just moderately so.

    I guess when you’re willing to allow women the privilege of saving their own lives when faced with pregnancy complications, that makes you a moderate.

  • crowepps
  • colleen

    In the above case, not a moral obligation to provide a kidney, but rather a moral obligation not to take a kidney away from someone, killing them in the process. Errr, not that that’s important or anything. But I, apparently, like responding to straw men, so keep them coming.

    Like most of the information you spread here this is wrong.
    You can read about living organ donations here:

    http://www.transplantliving.org/livingdonation/facts/default.aspx

    Indeed you could donate a

    * kidney
    This is the most frequent type of living organ donation. All living kidney donors will experience a decrease in their kidney function, which varies depending on the donor’s age and medical history.
    * liver
    Individuals can donate a segment of the liver, which has the ability to regenerate and regain full function.
    * lung
    Although lung lobes do not regenerate, individuals can donate a lobe of one lung.
    * intestine
    Although very rare, it is possible to donate a portion of your intestine.
    * pancreas
    Individuals can also donate a portion of the pancreas.
    * bone marrow

    and live a long healthy life. Of course you and your fellow ‘pro-life’ warriors would could never stand the pain and would never put your sorry selves out like that for someone else. We all understand that the men of the ‘pro-life’ movement are cowards and bullies and would never dream of helping someone else live or, for that matter, applying their own notions of moral obligation and responsibility to themselves.

  • princess-rot

    Ignoring the fact that you’re trying to pass the above off as a self-evident statement, why is it ridiculous and irrelevant? As it stands all you’ve done is pick a point in the humandevelopmental process by which to argue that a human being has some self-worth, and that before that it’s okay to kill it.

     

    You expect me to believe you think all life is precious when you define an arbitary cut-off point for bodily autonomy and the right to live one’s own life ends at the onset of (presuming hetero, obviously) sexual activity, because at some point there may be a fetus present? Yes, it is okay to remove it, because nobody else has the right to cannabilize my organs for their benefit until they are able to survive on their own. Even corpses, who de facto longer need bodily autonomy, have to give consent during life to permit the harvesting of their organs after death.  Anything else is immoral and unethical, even if the recently deceased is a perfect match and their organ will save someone’s life. No consent, no fly. I would like to think women should have the same right to bodily autonomy as fucking corpses, and they do not have to sustain anyone else against their will. Gestation is not an obligation, making it so is called slavery.

     

    This would be fundamentally no different than arguing that because an adolescent isn’t an adult, that the adolescent has no right to not be killed. Or that because a pre-adolescent isn’t an adolescent isn’t an adolescent, that the pre-adolescent has no right to not be killed. And so on and so forth white a child and pre-adolescent, a toddler and a child, an infant and a toddler, a neonate and an infant, a fetus and a neonate, an embryo and a fetus and, finally, a zygote and an embryo. But you would scoff as such a notion if it were applied post-natally, so explain to me why I it shouldn’t be scoffed at when applied prenatally?

     

    What? Children who are already born have, broadly speaking, been given life by a woman choosing to bring them to term. They did not develop in some hypothetical vacuum. A teenager, an infant, a toddler… they do not need someone else’s body to survive and they do not have this right. No other living, born person has the right to override another’s bodily autonomy to sustain themselves, but you are in favor of granting this unique right to ZBEFs because why? 

     

    You evidently do not understand how gods-honestly irritating it is when yet another forced-birther posits the ridiculous argument that if we are permitted to end pregnancies, then why aren’t we permitted to stab infants? The difference, is that infants have been born. Like organ donation, gestating is a gift. It is not an obligation. As I’ve said, you can’t harvest the organs of a corpse for transplant, even if it will save someone’s life, without the prior consent of the recently deceased, so assuming abortion is made illegal, why do fetuses automatically get granted that right by a third party, irrespective of the pregnant woman’s willingness? I know why. It’s not about saving babies, it’s about using pregnancy as a condition to control women. When you remove a portion of bodily autonomy from an entire class of people, you deem them second-class citizens, designated by accident of biology as baby ovens whose needs, wants, and ability to actually care for the sacred fetus once it’s here don’t matter.

     

    I’m actually quite shocked that a biologist of any sort would ever insinuate that the unborn at all stages are anything but human. I, suppose, that’s what happens when ideology gets in the way of science. Or, I should say, you mix philosophy and science. It just doesn’t work.

     

    You deliberately miss his point. Myers does not deny that human embryos are human. That is a given. Humans do not gestate other species. You are making the fallacy (which he addresses) of equating “biologically human” with “person” and “person” with “special right to override another’s autonomy”. What you are doing is granting fetuses special rights that, interestingly, no other living human has: the right to co-opt another’s body, no matter the detrimental effect on the person of the woman, which is assumed not to matter, as obviously the magnanimous anti-abortion party has decided what is best for all. This comes with the threat of death or injury from unsafe procedures, coercive adoption if you are the “right” creed, poverty, missed opportunities, slut-shaming and misery as the alternatives. Hate to keep repeating myself, but that is the way it is.

     

    How can “reproductive rights” be fundamental when not everyone is provided them?

     

    Indeed. I would like reproductive rights to be fundamental, but we have people who call themselves pro-life incrementally chipping away at that. Pro-lifers tend to believe that because women can reproduce, so they don’t need reproductive rights, because reproduction is black and white and happens in a fucking vacuum that is totally removed from anything called patriarchy. It tends to be dirty feminists like me who believe women should have a choice about bearing children, and that right is fundamental.

     

    I don’t get the mentality that describes abortion as life-changing serious business, but doesn’t apply the same thought to child-rearing, and how that impacts women for the rest of their natural, as well as the child’s. They even go as far as to insist childbearing be mandatory, as if it doesn’t effect anything and everything will be sunshine and fairy farts. Hmm. It’s almost like they are lying, and they don’t trust women to be in charge of anything. Maybe because women and children don’t really matter, only that everyone abides by their rules?

     

    I don’t remember who it was now, but (s)he stated that abortion should be legal, regardless of the effect it has on another, because women are going to have abortions anyway, so we might as well make it “safe” for them to engage in that action rather then leave it “unsafe” for them to engage in said action and possibly bring harm to themselves.

    These are your exact words, BI1984:

     

    “Yet again, anti-abortion laws kill women to the same effect that laws against stealing kill would-be thieves. If women die, it’s either because they injure themselves or they get someone to injure them.”


    You posit unwillingly pregant women as criminals who steal from another, as if the fetus is someone else’s property, just like the actual property real thieves steal. The difference is that thieves steal things that already belong to other people. Material things. That you would equate these does not surprise me – it is born of a mentality that views women and children as things, material objects that only have subjectivity when it’s convienient to offload blame onto them or use them as a tool to oppress another.

     

    The fetus is a part of the woman’s body – it requires extensive use of her body to develop. You apparently do not care if it is detrimental to the woman socially, physically, mentally, emotionally or financially to gestate this fetus, because even thinking one has a right to decide if and when they bear children has, in your world, been labeled a criminal act, and punishment for falling out of line is just. Therefore, you do not care if a woman hurts herself trying to abort illegally. You want it made unsafe to terminate. It’s the equivalent of a tyrant putting dissenter’s heads on spike to discourage the idea of speaking out against oppression. If a woman dies or is injured from an illegal abortion, that is a feature, not a bug. It sends a message to all other women that their place is to gestate or die trying, because their lives, their bodies, and the course and contents thereof, do not really belong to them, but to the patriarchy. It’s a deterrent against thinking one has bodily autonomy or the right to plan a family.

     

    Funnily enough, no it’s not. For one, there’s no such thing as a potential human, as this not only assumes that the unborn is anything other than a human being (Seriously. If the unborn aren’t human beings, then what are they?) but it also assumes that a human being can become anything other than a human being, or that something which isn’t a human being can become a human being. It can’t and they can’t.

     

    There is that fallacy again. Equating “biologically human” with “individual who has special rights to take away women’s autonomy merely because they are present”.

     

    Number two, how can abortion be a human right when it’s not afforded to all humans? I mean, last I checked, neither the unborn nor men were afforded a right to abortion, which would mean that the “right” to an abortion is a privilege, as it’s only given to females, and then only to those who can become pregnant.

     

    Don’t be obtuse. Men don’t have the right to abortion because they can’t get pregnant, so it’s irrelevant to them. Also, nobody is threatening to take them away from themselves because they biologically able to reproduce. Nobody is using men’s sperm production as a weapon to legally remove their right to decide if and when they create children. They also don’t have the lawful right to force another into an abortion because that is inevitably encroaching on the bodily autonomy of a woman, just as she has no right to the tissues, organs or other bodily items of a man without his willing consent. You are making the assumption that to be female is to be deferent to a fetus, regardless of one’s personal circumstances, or even how that would effect the eventual child once it’s born. Not pro-life. It’s anti-choice.

     

    There’s not something wrong with an action which kills human beings, just the notion that some human beings are worth less than others? Ugh, seriously? Seriously?!?!?!

     

    Don’t give me childish omgbabykillur!!eleventy! bullshit. “Just” the notion that some people (women and girls) are lesser than others is the result of patriarchy, which manifests itself as forced-birth and also as sex-selective abortion that is causing imbalances in the population of some societies. It is making the sexist problems worse for existing women, because now they are also under even more pressure to give birth (whoo, even more reproductive slavery!), and it’s seen a rise in human trafficking, crime, and sex slavery. If you really cared about female fetuses so much you wouldn’t harp on at me for pointing this out. That you do goes to show that you aren’t interested in ending sexism, you aren’t really interested in protecting life, only making women abide by the sexist rules that keep them down in the first place. Two sides of the same damn coin: it all comes down to the same line of reasoning, a woman’s worth is based on her ability as a baby oven rather than a person with needs and wants.


    Or, and stay with me here, they realize that abortion kills a human being and that no human being should arbitrarily be deprived of his or her life?

     

    Then they are entitled not to have an abortion. They are not entitled to demand the same of others. You do not have the right to deprive all women of rights that even corpses have to suit your view of how all women “should” reproduce. If you are a woman, and you know that you would never abort, regardless of how hard it could be, at that particular time, to have a child if you found yourself unexpectedly pregnant, then bully for you. I’ve pointed to other antis here: that is called making a decision based on personal autonomy. Do extend that right to other women, even if you think everyone else isn’t as special as you.

  • bornin1984

    …the light hits the wriggling baby snake… and it dawns on us that this is reaaalllly allll about the poor menz for BORN!! Whoda thunk?

     

    Considering how I’m totally for holding women to the same standard as men instead of vice versa, you should try again :)

  • bornin1984

    Isn’t it weird how when someone insists ‘it’s the principle of the thing’ quite often it turns out that the principle they’re talking about is actually the fact that they resent shelling out money?

     

    Tsk tsk tsk. I’m not sure which is worse– the fact that you’ve, as per usual, ignored my actual argument (Ignoring rather large chunks of what I’ve been typing out), or purposely misconstrued the argument to be about something it’s not. I really can’t decide (And I’m usually pretty decisive to boot!).

     

    I’ll have to take some time to think about it.

  • ahunt

    Considering how I’m totally for holding women to the same standard as men instead of vice versa, you should try again :)

     

    Fine…once again…lemme just transfer the parasite to your body…and we’ll call it a wash.

  • prochoiceferret

    Fine…once again…lemme just transfer the parasite to your body…and we’ll call it a wash.

    Hey, who knows? Maybe he’s looking for a challenge, and is ready and willing to take on pregnancy! Grow that baby like a MAN!

  • bornin1984

    Well, yes. You only need one kidney to live, so giving the other one to little Timmy won’t kill you. Thank you for doing your part to help your fellow citizen!

     

    …Yeah. So I’m pretty sure you totally misunderstood what was being said there, even after I gave an explicit example of what I was talking about (See the drowning man in the ocean example). Therefore, let me try this again, only simplified.

     

    You’re under absolutely no obligation to provide for me in order to extend my life, but you cannot do something which takes away from my ability to live. It’s actually quite simple. Or, at least, it should be, considering how many times I’ve explained this already.

     

    You were thinking that this obligation existed before the child was born. But now you’ve realized your error, and know better.

     

    Errr, did you not read what I wrote out? ;\

     

    Once again, using the man as an example, he’ll be held responsible for that which is the result of sex not necessarily because he wants to be held responsible for it, but because it exists. Birth does not bring a new entity into existence. Indeed, conception (Really, I should say fertilization, which is within itself not an instaneous process) brings a new entity into existence. Ergo, if you’re going to link a responsibility to existence it should be linked at the point where that being comes into existence– not after it.

     

    No, of course not. It’s not a foregone conclusion that the conception will result in a live, born child needing support. Heck, for a good long while, you wouldn’t even know for sure which guy to hit up for said support!

     

    Wait… Location changes one’s neediness?

     

    (And I lol’ed @ the last sentence.)

     

    I’m just a bit surprised that you’re arguing that some human beings have the right to obtain life-supporting material directly from the body of another, with or without their consent. Although Timmy is certainly happy to have this awesome power!

     

    So let me make sure I understand this correctly.

     

    You say that “no one has the right to obtain life-supporting material directly from the body of another, with or without their consent.” I point out that not only is there a difference between having to provide for and taking away from, but that consent doesn’t need to be explicit, and indeed is often times implied, as is the case of a male, who by virtue of his actions will be deemed to have consented to providing for anything that results from sex. I then ask why this shouldn’t be the case for women, which you ignored, and which whatever the other two poster’s names were (Sorry don’t remember) decided to misconstrue and change the argument to suit whatever preconceived notion that wanted it to represent.

     

    *shrugs*

     

    Also, you didn’t really address the point being made.

     

    Only if you fail to draw a distinction between supporting a child with one’s body (as in pregnancy, or organ/tissue/fluid donation) and one’s wallet. There’s a reason why we speak of body integrity, and not so much pocketbook integrity. (That’s MRA territory.)

     

    I don’t draw the distinction because it’s irrelevant, as it has no bearing on what’s in the child’s best interests (Which is why child support laws exist, and which is why abortion should be illegal).

     

    However, if you want to play this game, then I’ll play this game. You see, I’m going to get a total kick pointing this out, buuuuuuuuut the majority of abortions are done not because the woman doesn’t want to support the child with her body or are even related to issues of her health, but because she doesn’t want to provide for it financially. So does that mean that the majority of abortions should be outlawed? Or, more importantly, does that mean that men should be able to absolve themselves of aprental duties based on financial reasons, which are unrelated to whose body it is?

     

    *polite smile*

     

    Oh, I didn’t know it was okay to violate one’s rights as long as it’s only on a temporary basis. I guess people who were falsely imprisoned and then exonerated have nothing to complain about, then.

     

    Well, three things here:

     

    1.) I’ve noticed how a bunch of you guys and gals have this knack of quoting parts of a sentence and ignoring the rest. Why do you do that? It’s rather annoying.

     

    2.) A right exists that comes at the life and well-being of another (Ignoring self-defense, which states that you have the right to use equal force to defend yourself)? Really?!?!?! If that’s so, then could you explain to me why there’s no “right” to, say, rape, pillage and enslave someone else at your at your leisure?

     

    3.) And, just for the record, I’m sure you realize that the last sentence really has no bearing on anything I wrote out.

     

    So for you, pregnancy is “temporary… discomfort.” And people wonder why we say that most anti-choice advocates argue out of their own sheer ignorance….

     

    Because, much like death, pregnancy lasts forever. Oh, wait…

     

    So, tell me, who’s the ignorant one again?

     

    So poor women who can’t get an abortion, and can’t afford to keep up the “standard of care” you are prescribing, may as well be arrested as soon as they get their first bout of morning sickness. Why waste time?

     

    Only so long as we’re going to throw poor women with children who are sick and bed ridden in jail for the same thing. Otherwise, I’m gonna’ have to say no. Unless, of course, you want to throw women with children who are sick and bedridden in jail, in which case I’d totally support that as a matter of pragmatism.

     

    Many people have their own mental conception of a fantasy world. Not many folks, however, set out to make it a dystopia.

     

    I was never much into fantasy. I prefer the real world.

     

    …Errr, and totally off-topic, but I just realized that I need to feed my unicorn. I guess I’ll do that after I finish up with these responses.

     

    (I’m guessing 1984 was your favorite book? You should try The Handmaiden’s Tale. You’ll have wet dreams over that one!)

     

    1984? Ewww, no. I’ve always been quite partial to the encyclopedia myself. There’s so much information contained within (And, yes, I’m being 100% serious. Seriously!).

     

    Ah, so you’re an attorney! And this constitutes your legal advice to her. Here, let me take down your phone number in case she’s indicted for engaging in high-risk behavior while pregnant… the judge might want to send a subpoena. Which state are you registered in, by the way?

     

    My response constituted me humoring your poor attempt at sarcasm with a much better attempt at sarcasm, and getting the added benefit of having to read suffer through another rather poor attempt at sarcasm. Kudos to you!

     

    …Oh, and am I an attorney? Of course not. Why the heck would I spend thousands of dollars to go to school in order to learn how to engage in straw men, ad hominems, personal attacks and just general all around non-sequiturs. I’ve learned to do that just fine without dishing out all the money.

  • crowepps

    the majority of abortions are done not because the woman doesn’t want to support the child with her body or are even related to issues of her health, but because she doesn’t want to provide for it financially. So does that mean that the majority of abortions should be outlawed? Or, more importantly, does that mean that men should be able to absolve themselves of aprental duties based on financial reasons, which are unrelated to whose body it is?

    “the majority of abortions are done…because the woman…doesn’t want to provide for it financially”?

     

    I am aware that in studies the majority of women who have abortions say that they cannot provide for it financially, but I haven’t seen any evidence whatsoever that they do not want to do so.

     

    What is the basis for this assertion?

     

    I’ve noticed how a bunch of you guys and gals have this knack of quoting parts of a sentence and ignoring the rest. Why do you do that?

    Perhaps because your posts are overwritten.  As an example, this could have been expressed concisely as “why do you selectively quote my posts?”, 7 words instead of 28.

  • prochoiceferret

    You’re under absolutely no obligation to provide for me in order to extend my life,

    Oh, I quite agree! Just like women are under absolutely no obligation to provide for a fetus in order to extend its life.

    but you cannot do something which takes away from my ability to live. It’s actually quite simple. Or, at least, it should be, considering how many times I’ve explained this already.

    Yes, which is why you cannot refuse to allow little Timmy the use of your surplus kidney. You have a little over 24 hours to report to the organ-transplant center, citizen!

    Once again, using the man as an example, he’ll be held responsible for that which is the result of sex not necessarily because he wants to be held responsible for it, but because it exists. Birth does not bring a new entity into existence.

    I take it back. You’re clearly not an attorney after all.

    Indeed, conception (Really, I should say fertilization, which is within itself not an instaneous process) brings a new entity into existence. Ergo, if you’re going to link a responsibility to existence it should be linked at the point where that being comes into existence– not after it.

    Great! So get cracking on changing those paternal-responsibility laws, then. Until then, we’ll hold women to the same standard as men (something that you’re really fond of doing, I’ve observed), and not impose a legal responsibility on her prior to birth.

    Wait… Location changes one’s neediness?

    Ah yes, the “birth is just a change in location” meme. Which is sensible, if you completely dismiss the whole matter of the fetus taking all its life support directly from the woman’s body. This is super-easy to do if you’re a guy!

    You say that “no one has the right to obtain life-supporting material directly from the body of another, with or without their consent.” I point out that not only is there a difference between having to provide for and taking away from,

    Yes, and a pregnant woman is providing for the fetus, which—as you agree—she is under no obligation to do.

    but that consent doesn’t need to be explicit, and indeed is often times implied, as is the case of a male, who by virtue of his actions will be deemed to have consented to providing for anything that results from sex. I then ask why this shouldn’t be the case for women, which you ignored,

    No, I didn’t—I said that women are under the exact same obligation as men in this respect. If a woman gives birth to a child, and gives it to the father to raise alone, then she has to pay child support to him. ZOMG!! Equality, we has it!! I’m sure the idea of men receiving child-support checks makes you very happy.

    and which whatever the other two poster’s names were (Sorry don’t remember) decided to misconstrue and change the argument to suit whatever preconceived notion that wanted it to represent.

    You’ll have to excuse us. We have this preconceived notion that (pregnant) women are people, and that forcing them to remain pregnant if they don’t want to be is, like, really not okay. I know, sometimes we sound like a broken record on that, but believe me, lots of misogynists come to these boards to disagree. You’d be surprised!

    Also, you didn’t really address the point being made.

    Sorry. Much like my old chew toys, there wasn’t much of one left after I got through with it.

    I don’t draw the distinction because it’s irrelevant, as it has no bearing on what’s in the child’s best interests (Which is why child support laws exist, and which is why abortion should be illegal).

    Yes, of course you think the distinction is irrelevant. You don’t care about the impact of pregnancy on a woman’s body and health, and the violation that it is to be forced to carry that when you don’t want to. You say that you care about children, and yet you’re completely unconcerned with a child being raised by a woman who didn’t want one, or a woman whose resources are overextended by a new unwanted child.

     

    Thank you for coming to this site and spouting just how little regard you have for womens’ lives. Your Kafka-esque policy prescriptions serve to remind us that the anti-choice movement, at its core, is built on a desire to control womens’ sexuality.

    You see, I’m going to get a total kick pointing this out, buuuuuuuuut the majority of abortions are done not because the woman doesn’t want to support the child with her body or are even related to issues of her health, but because she doesn’t want to provide for it financially.

    So she can just give the child up for adoption, then. It’s not like late pregnancy and childbirth are a big deal for her, after all.

    So does that mean that the majority of abortions should be outlawed? Or, more importantly, does that mean that men should be able to absolve themselves of aprental duties based on financial reasons, which are unrelated to whose body it is?

    No, it means that the choice whether to abort or to carry to term belongs to the woman—because whose body it is is the entire point. (Again, if the child is born, and is not surrendered for adoption, both the mother and the father are on the hook to support it, either personally or financially. And yes, bodies have nothing to do with that, other than the corresponding DNA.)

    1.) I’ve noticed how a bunch of you guys and gals have this knack of quoting parts of a sentence and ignoring the rest. Why do you do that? It’s rather annoying.

    Because not everyone here likes to post walls-o-text, like you do.

    2.) A right exists that comes at the life and well-being of another (Ignoring self-defense, which states that you have the right to use equal force to defend yourself)? Really?!?!?! If that’s so, then could you explain to me why there’s no “right” to, say, rape, pillage and enslave someone else at your at your leisure?

    If you scroll up on this page, there’s this poster called BornIn1984 who drew a careful distinction between “not providing” (which is okay) and “taking away” (which is not). Raping and pillaging, supposedly, falls under “taking away.” He explains the dichotomy reasonably well, although he doesn’t get into why he feels pregnant women who abort are “taking away” (i.e. affirmatively killing) instead of “not providing” (i.e. declining to provide sustenance).

    3.) And, just for the record, I’m sure you realize that the last sentence really has no bearing on anything I wrote out.

    Sorry, it’s just that this general “violating someone’s rights is okay if it’s temporary” principle of yours is very interesting, and I wanted to see where else it could apply.

    Because, much like death, pregnancy lasts forever. Oh, wait… So, tell me, who’s the ignorant one again?

    I’m sorry. I know that this may come as a shock, but when you dismiss the myriad effects and consequences of pregnancy on a woman’s health and life because pregnancy itself takes a finite amount of time, that makes you the dunce.

    Only so long as we’re going to throw poor women with children who are sick and bed ridden in jail for the same thing. Otherwise, I’m gonna’ have to say no. Unless, of course, you want to throw women with children who are sick and bedridden in jail, in which case I’d totally support that as a matter of pragmatism.

    Too bad your pragmatism-matter doesn’t stop you from prescribing a legally-mandated “standard of care” on women who may not necessarily have the resources to uphold it.

    I was never much into fantasy. I prefer the real world.

    Obviously, which is why you’re doing your damdest to turn it into that dystopia you seem to be hankering after.

    1984? Ewww, no. I’ve always been quite partial to the encyclopedia myself. There’s so much information contained within (And, yes, I’m being 100% serious. Seriously!).

    Great! Read up on “feminism” and “reproductive freedom” sometime.

    My response constituted me humoring your poor attempt at sarcasm with a much better attempt at sarcasm, and getting the added benefit of having to read suffer through another rather poor attempt at sarcasm. Kudos to you!

    I really can’t take credit. You made it very easy for me.

    …Oh, and am I an attorney? Of course not. Why the heck would I spend thousands of dollars to go to school in order to learn how to engage in straw men, ad hominems, personal attacks and just general all around non-sequiturs. I’ve learned to do that just fine without dishing out all the money.

    Yep. You’re a bona fide anti-choice advocate, all right!

  • bornin1984

    You expect me to believe you think all life is precious when you define an arbitary cut-off point for bodily autonomy and the right to live one’s own life ends at the onset of (presuming hetero, obviously) sexual activity, because at some point there may be a fetus present?

     

    Did you, ummm, ignore how I’ve said on more then one occasion that there’s no such thing as a “right to bodily autonomy”, and that even if such a right does exist that it doesn’t necessarily follow that it exists unabated? If not, then I’m point that out yet again.

     

    I asked these two questions before but received no answer, so I’ll ask them again in the hopes that someone will bother answering them this time. Let’s assume that I want to punch someone in the arm, and I argue that I should be allowed to do so because it’s my body and I want to use it in any way I see fit. Are you going to up and defend me on the basis that I should be able to use my body in any way I see fit? Now how about if I want to take some drug which has the known effects of causing hallucinations and violent fits of rage. Would you argue that because it’s my body I should be able to take said drug, even though by doing so there’s a good chance I could go berserk and injure someone?

     

    Chances are you will say no, but why?

     

    Yes, it is okay to remove it, because nobody else has the right to cannabilize my organs for their benefit until they are able to survive on their own.

     

    So does this mean that, say, if technology were created tomorrow which could allow the unborn to survive outside of the womb at all times doing pregnancy, that abortion would be impermissible? Because that is the direct implication of your argument, yet somehow I have a sneaky suspicion that you would say no.

     

    Even corpses, who de facto longer need bodily autonomy, have to give consent during life to permit the harvesting of their organs after death.  Anything else is immoral and unethical, even if the recently deceased is a perfect match and their organ will save someone’s life. No consent, no fly. I would like to think women should have the same right to bodily autonomy as fucking corpses, and they do not have to sustain anyone else against their will.

     

    I’m not so sure why, but I’ve noticed a pattern here. People continue to mix up what you have to do with what you can’t do, and continue to fail to distinguish what you have to do for someone from what you can’t do to someone. Why? I don’t know, but it’s rather odd.


    Gestation is not an obligation, making it so is called slavery.

     

    Ummm… Earlier you said, and I quote, “Yes, it is okay to remove it, because nobody else has the right to cannabilize my organs for their benefit until they are able to survive on their own. (Emphasis mine)What this means is that gestation becomes an obligation once that organism is able to survive on it’s own, which means that, by your own admission, you also support slavery, and would make you a forced birther as well, as you would tell a woman who wants an abortion after that time period that she’s up the proverbial creek without a proverbial paddle. Go figure, right?

     

    What? Children who are already born have, broadly speaking, been given life by a woman choosing to bring them to term.

     

    So, someone only has worth so long as someone else deems them to have worth? Irony (And I’ll get to this point later).

     

    They did not develop in some hypothetical vacuum.

     

    Neither do the unborn.

     

    A teenager, an infant, a toddler… they do not need someone else’s body to survive and they do not have this right. No other living, born person has the right to override another’s bodily autonomy to sustain themselves, but you are in favor of granting this unique right to ZBEFs because why?

     

    Because, as you so kindly pointed out, the unborn aren’t born, and as a result are more dependent on the female then is someone who’s born. Simple to understand, no? It’s amazing how quick you are to point out differences between the born and unborn when it suits you to do so, but are quick to ignore said differences when it doesn’t.

     

    You evidently do not understand how gods-honestly irritating it is when yet another forced-birther posits the ridiculous argument that if we are permitted to end pregnancies, then why aren’t we permitted to stab infants? The difference, is that infants have been born.

     

    Well, number one, we’ve already established that by your own admission, you’re a forced-birther as well. Number two, there’s really is no difference between killing an infant and killing the unborn, as in both cases you’re killing a human being. The thing is, however, you’re trying to provide “worth” to the human based on location. But this is fundamentally no different than arguing that there’s a difference between the way one treats men and women as men are men and women are women and men are “worth” more than women, or that there’s a difference between enslaving whites and enslaving blacks, as whites are whites and blacks are blacks whites are “worth” more than blacks.

     

    Yes, as much as you might disagree, it’s exactly the same. It’s no different. You’ve just picked out some arbitrary difference in order to rationalize the action. And that, as Stone Cold Steve Austin would say, is the bottom line.

     

    Like organ donation, gestating is a gift.

     

    Ummm, what? Not killing someone is a gift? What world do you live in?

     

    It is not an obligation.

     

    According to you it is. After a certain amount of time, anyway.

     

    As I’ve said, you can’t harvest the organs of a corpse for transplant, even if it will save someone’s life, without the prior consent of the recently deceased, so assuming abortion is made illegal, why do fetuses automatically get granted that right by a third party, irrespective of the pregnant woman’s willingness?

     

    Yet again, I point out the fact that you’d do well to differentiate between what you have to do for someone and what you can’t do to someone because, as it stands, you’re acting as if a woman is merely deciding not to provide for the unborn when she has an abortion, when in actuality she’s taking away from the unborn, thereby impeding on its ability to live.

     

    But, anyway, as to answer your question, because the fetus only exists as a result of the woman’s actions (Rape nonwithstanding). That’s why.

     

    I know why. It’s not about saving babies, it’s about using pregnancy as a condition to control women. When you remove a portion of bodily autonomy from an entire class of people, you deem them second-class citizens, designated by accident of biology as baby ovens whose needs, wants, and ability to actually care for the sacred fetus once it’s here don’t matter.

     

    The pro-choice movement does itself a great disservice by continuing with the above types of argument, as they’re not only empty assertions, but they very little effect on swaying public (See the study here —> http://hlmoon.com/docs/2312_week6_reading1.pdf)

     

    But, anyway, you might want to try this again. I don’t know why you continue to fail to acknowledge this fact, but people cannot do to and with their bodies as they please– especially not if it has the potential to harm another individual. This is a fact, evidenced by laws which restrict what you can and can’t do and what actions you can and can’t engage in. Somehow arguing that laws against abortion are somehow more egregious then any other law which restricts what you can and cannot do doesn’t make much sense, as the rationale behind bans on abortion are exact the same as the rationale on bans on any other activity which has the potential to bring harm to a second, or even third-party or parties. 


    You deliberately miss his point. Myers does not deny that human embryos are human. That is a given. Humans do not gestate other species. You are making the fallacy (which he addresses) of equating “biologically human” with “person” and “person” with “special right to override another’s autonomy”. What you are doing is granting fetuses special rights that, interestingly, no other living human has: the right to co-opt another’s body, no matter the detrimental effect on the person of the woman, which is assumed not to matter, as obviously the magnanimous anti-abortion party has decided what is best for all. This comes with the threat of death or injury from unsafe procedures, coercive adoption if you are the “right” creed, poverty, missed opportunities, slut-shaming and misery as the alternatives. Hate to keep repeating myself, but that is the way it is.

     

    I didn’t miss his point at all. Not only does he state that a fertilized ovum is not a human being, and not only does he refer to it as tissue, but he goes own to say that when a fetus becomes a human being is up to to the women decide. Ignoring how much of a mockery of science this is, as he’s obviously confusing the word human being with person, and ignoring how his argument is based on ignorance, why shouldn’t, say, killing an infant be legal under the basis that the person doing the murdering doesn’t believe the infant to be a human being or person? After all, that would have been a decision made around personal beliefs, and you wouldn’t want to infringe upon someone’s beliefs to believe what they want, correct?

     

    (If you’re going to respond with “But an infant isn’t in the woman’s body!”, don’t bother, because location has no bearing on personal beliefs.)

     

    Anyway, the above argument you made requires you to define what a person is, and not only did PZ Meyers not do that, neither did you. Explain to me again how you make an argument, stating that the unborn isn’t X, yet fail to define what X is and why the unborn isn’t it? You normally don’t, as it’s very bad form. So, asking again, please define for me what a person is, for until you define what it is.

     

    …Oh, and that’s not the way it is. That’s the way you want to perceive it.


    Indeed. I would like reproductive rights to be fundamental, but we have people who call themselves pro-life incrementally chipping away at that. Pro-lifers tend to believe that because women can reproduce, so they don’t need reproductive rights, because reproduction is black and white and happens in a fucking vacuum that is totally removed from anything called patriarchy. It tends to be dirty feminists like me who believe women should have a choice about bearing children, and that right is fundamental.

     

    No. Pro-lifers believe that no human being should be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life– and most certainly not simply because someone else wants to deprive him or her of his or her life.

     

    Oh, and since you mentioned feminism, it also happens to be the dirty feminists like you who claim that women should have a choice about bearing and raising children after the fact of sex, while simultaneously claiming that no man should ever get the same benefit. It also happens to be the dirty feminists like you who scream misogyny when someone states that a woman’s “choice” should come before sex, but who fail to see how this is the standard men are held to and would be just as misandristic (Is that a word?) as it is misogynistic. It’s also the dirty feminist like you who claim that preventing a woman from having an abortion is demeaning to women, while somehow ignoring the fact that by virtue of their being fewer abortions, there will be more women in the future. And it’s also the dirty feminists like you who have made the word feminism such a, well,  dirty word. So much so, in fact, that most people today either scoff at the notion or disregard the concept all together. So, yes. Kudos! :P

     

    I don’t get the mentality that describes abortion as life-changing serious business, but doesn’t apply the same thought to child-rearing, and how that impacts women for the rest of their natural, as well as the child’s. They even go as far as to insist childbearing be mandatory, as if it doesn’t effect anything and everything will be sunshine and fairy farts. Hmm. It’s almost like they are lying, and they don’t trust women to be in charge of anything. Maybe because women and children don’t really matter, only that everyone abides by their rules?

     

    Abortion kills. Childrearing doesn’t. That’s why. If a woman wants to kill her three-year old, are you telling me that I should trust the woman to make that decision as she knows what’s best for her life? I highly, and very seriously, doubt it.

     

    And for what it’s worth childrearing would only be as mandatory as is getting pregnant and not giving your child up for adoption would be mandatory.

     

    These are your exact words, BI1984:

     

    I know exactly what I wrote out, as I wrote it.


    You posit unwillingly pregant women as criminals who steal from another, as if the fetus is someone else’s property, just like the actual property real thieves steal. The difference is that thieves steal things that already belong to other people. Material things.

     

    No, I posit that allowing a pregnant woman to have an abortion legally so she doesn’t bring harm to herself in the process to be the same as allowing a thief to steal legally so he doesn’t bring harm to himself in the process. It’s, actually, quite a simple, yet very effective, comparison. You going off on some unrelated tangent about actual property or whatever has no bearing on the actual argument. In fact, I posit the reason you won’t address the rationale behind making an action legal, regardless of the effect it has on another, is because you realize just how incredibly asinine such a rationale is.

     

    That you would equate these does not surprise me – it is born of a mentality that views women and children as things, material objects that only have subjectivity when it’s convienient to offload blame onto them or use them as a tool to oppress another.

     

    I believe you should try this again.

     

    The fetus is a part of the woman’s body – it requires extensive use of her body to develop. You apparently do not care if it is detrimental to the woman socially, physically, mentally, emotionally or financially to gestate this fetus, because even thinking one has a right to decide if and when they bear children has, in your world, been labeled a criminal act, and punishment for falling out of line is just.

     

    Social standing? Hell no. Physically? If it’s going to be shown that she’ll suffer irreparable or grave danger should she carry the pregnancy to term, okay. Mentally and emotionally? Ugh, not without a serious mental evaluation prior to obtaining an abortion. Financially? Hell no.

     

    You see, I don’t care about most of that, because most of that involves no harm to women, and are merely matters of convenience (Yes, I said convenience). Suffice to say, convenience is not an adequate reason to deprive someone of his or her life. But, anyway, I’m totally about the whole “if and when to bear children” thing, which is why I totally support a woman’s decision to not get pregnant.

     

    Therefore, you do not care if a woman hurts herself trying to abort illegally.

     

    No, I care. But I care enough about the individual the woman’s actions harm– so much so that I’m not going to make it legal to have an abortion solely because the woman wants it, as legalizing abortion would increase the incidence of abortion, which would invariably mean that more individuals are being harms as a result.

     

    You want it made unsafe to terminate.

     

    Not this again. In the U.S., abortions are “safe” not because they’re legal, but because of advancements in medical technology post-World War II. I don’t know how many times I’ve said this, but I’m getting tired of repeating myself ad nauseum only to have people ignore me.

     

    It’s the equivalent of a tyrant putting dissenter’s heads on spike to discourage the idea of speaking out against oppression. If a woman dies or is injured from an illegal abortion, that is a feature, not a bug. It sends a message to all other women that their place is to gestate or die trying, because their lives, their bodies, and the course and contents thereof, do not really belong to them, but to the patriarchy. It’s a deterrent against thinking one has bodily autonomy or the right to plan a family.

     

    Are you… Actually serious with the above? The above is really– and I mean really– bad rhetoric. It’s rather surprising to me how all your arguments essentially boil down to restrictions on abortion being anti-women, or about oppressing women, or about restricting “women’s rights” or something equally inane, while completely, utterly, and totally refusing to acknowledge the fact that people are anti-abortion not because they “hate” women, but because abortion kills a human life. I really don’t get it.

     

    But, anyway, your analogy is false. It’s more along the lines of telling one individual what they cannot do to another which, last I checked, is one of the reasons the law exists– to protect those over which it presides from having their lives or well-being infringed upon by another. And when rights conflict, negative rights trump positive rights.


    There is that fallacy again. Equating “biologically human” with “individual who has special rights to take away women’s autonomy merely because they are present”.

     

    How can it be a fallacy when you’ve yet to define what constitutes a person (Which, mind you, is central to your argument. Not mine)? It boggles the mind, really.

     

    Don’t be obtuse. Men don’t have the right to abortion because they can’t get pregnant, so it’s irrelevant to them.

     

    Human rights are rights afforded to all humans. Since men can’t get pregnant, they can’t have an abortion. Therefore, unless men aren’t humans, then abortion can’t be a human right as it’s not a “right” afforded to all humans. QED. No obtuseness involved.

     

    Also, nobody is threatening to take them away from themselves because they biologically able to reproduce. Nobody is using men’s sperm production as a weapon to legally remove their right to decide if and when they create children. They also don’t have the lawful right to force another into an abortion because that is inevitably encroaching on the bodily autonomy of a woman, just as she has no right to the tissues, organs or other bodily items of a man without his willing consent.

     

    ????????? (That means I have no idea what you’re trying to say.)

     

    You are making the assumption that to be female is to be deferent to a fetus, regardless of one’s personal circumstances, or even how that would effect the eventual child once it’s born.

     

    Well, for one, I’m making no such assumption. What I am saying, as I have said about a million times already, is that no one one has the “right” to deprive someone else of his or her life solely because they want to. Men, women or children alike. It’s not something which is only applied to women, as you somehow think it is, but rather is something applied to everyone equally.

     

    But, more importantly than that, are you telling me that it’s better to be dead than it is to be alive? Seriously? Seriously?!?!?! I’ve heard this sentiment echoed far too many times in the pro-choice community, and it’s quite honestly sickening. For a group of people who go on about how the government shouldn’t decide what’s best for women and their lives, those same people seem to have no problem in the woman dictating that same thing for someone else.


    Not pro-life. It’s anti-choice.

     

    The “choice” you fight for is the choice to kill another human being at the woman’s leisure. In that respect, I’m totally find with “anti-the-ability-of-the-woman-to-kill-another-human-being-at-her-leisure”. That’s much less of a disparaging term then you think it is.

     

    Don’t give me childish omgbabykillur!!eleventy! bullshit. “Just” the notion that some people (women and girls) are lesser than others is the result of patriarchy, which manifests itself as forced-birth and also as sex-selective abortion that is causing imbalances in the population of some societies. It is making the sexist problems worse for existing women, because now they are also under even more pressure to give birth (whoo, even more reproductive slavery!), and it’s seen a rise in human trafficking, crime, and sex slavery. If you really cared about female fetuses so much you wouldn’t harp on at me for pointing this out. That you do goes to show that you aren’t interested in ending sexism, you aren’t really interested in protecting life, only making women abide by the sexist rules that keep them down in the first place. Two sides of the same damn coin: it all comes down to the same line of reasoning, a woman’s worth is based on her ability as a baby oven rather than a person with needs and wants.

     

    I’m not really even sure where to begin with the above, but I’ll try. Ah, I know. I like how you didn’t respond to the question. Please explain to me how you deem telling someone what they cannot do to another to be worse than allowing one to kill another? Because, you know, that doesn’t make much sense at all. Your constant claims of sexism and hating women and the like are getting rather tiresome.

     

    Explain to me, please, how opposing an action which would invariably lead to more females being born, when they otherwise would have been aborted, is sexist? Indeed, it’s not. On the contrary, if you want to get down to it, supporting a woman’s ability to have an abortion is inherently sexist. Why? Because this invariably includes being allowed to have an abortion because the unborn is of the female gender, and this action is thusly defended by it being a woman’s “choice”. So who’s the one who hates women? I don’t think it’s me.

     

    Explain to me please how holding men and women to the same standard, that being that the “choice” comes before sex, and that they should both be held responsible for anything which results from that action, as being inherently sexist? If anything, the notion that women should be held to a lesser standard than the man is inherently sexist but, alas, you don’t seem to understand that. No. Instead you go on and on and on about how treating each equally would be inherently misogynistic which doesn’t make much sense, really.

     

    It just doesn’t make any sense.

     

    (And, by the way, if feminism was about treating all humans equally, it’d be called humanism.)

     

    Then they are entitled not to have an abortion. They are not entitled to demand the same of others. You do not have the right to deprive all women of rights that even corpses have to suit your view of how all women “should” reproduce. If you are a woman, and you know that you would never abort, regardless of how hard it could be, at that particular time, to have a child if you found yourself unexpectedly pregnant, then bully for you. I’ve pointed to other antis here: that is called making a decision based on personal autonomy. Do extend that right to other women, even if you think everyone else isn’t as special as you.

     

    So your argument effectively boils down to, “If you don’t like it, don’t do it, but don’t stop other people from doing it!” Ummm, yeah. That’s an empty argument. In fact, it’s just not empty. It’s asinine. Imagine the following arguments.

     

    “If you don’t rape, don’t rape anyone, but don’t stop other people from doing it!”

     

    “If you don’t like murder, don’t murder, but don’t stop other people from doing it!”

     

    “If you don’t like theft, don’t steal from anyone, but don’t stop other people from doing it!”

     

    “If you don’t like arson, don’t burn anything down, but don’t stop other people from doing it!”

     

    Etc. etc. etc., and so on and so forth. How far do you want to extend that logic? Not far, I would hope, because it’s ridiculous. We’re not talking about not engaging in an action which affects no one but the one engaging in it, but rather engaging in an action which harms another individual.

     

    At any rate, I think that’s everything.

     

    *phew*

  • ahunt

    ignore how I’ve said on more then one occasion that there’s no such thing as a “right to bodily autonomy”

     

    Well, maybe because your assertion is horseshit, rendering your longwinded screed irrelevant.

     

    Repeat: No one may commandeer your body for their own purposes against your will, Born. This is bodily autonomy…which is definitely a right you enjoy as a citizen of these United States.

  • bornin1984

    Oh, I quite agree! Just like women are under absolutely no obligation to provide for a fetus in order to extend its life.

     

    I take it you don’t  understand the difference between not extending someone’s life and ending someone’s life, huh? That’s not too terribly surprising, really.


    Yes, which is why you cannot refuse to allow little Timmy the use of your surplus kidney. You have a little over 24 hours to report to the organ-transplant center, citizen!

     

    Then don’t give it to him (Haven’t I said this before). See how that works? Probably not, but here’s hoping.

     

    I take it back. You’re clearly not an attorney after all.

     

    Of course not. I’m smart enough to not spend thousands of dollars on an otherwise useless degree.

     

    Great! So get cracking on changing those paternal-responsibility laws, then. Until then, we’ll hold women to the same standard as men (something that you’re really fond of doing, I’ve observed), and not impose a legal responsibility on her prior to birth.

     

    Too bad for you, the inequality occurs before birth. Indeed, it occurs before conception. Even before the act of sex. It occurs at the point that both the man and woman decide to have sex, but I’ve pointed this out way too many times for my own good now only to have it ignored so, I’m not going to point it out again this time.

     

    Ah yes, the “birth is just a change in location” meme. Which is sensible, if you completely dismiss the whole matter of the fetus taking all its life support directly from the woman’s body. This is super-easy to do if you’re a guy!

     

    Take notice how you didn’t answer the question. Therefore, I’ll just ask again. Does location change one’s neediness? It wasn’t a hard question, you know.

     

    (In case you’re wondering, the answer is no, though you won’t admit this.)

     

    Yes, and a pregnant woman is providing for the fetus, which—as you agree—she is under no obligation to do.

     

    No. I said she’s under no obligation to provide for, as she doesn’t have to become pregnant (Rape nonwithstanding, as per usual), not that she’s under no obligation to continue providing for once she already is. Am I, like, typing in Romanian or something?

     

    No, I didn’t—I said that women are under the exact same obligation as men in this respect. If a woman gives birth to a child, and gives it to the father to raise alone, then she has to pay child support to him. ZOMG!! Equality, we has it!! I’m sure the idea of men receiving child-support checks makes you very happy.

     

    Ummm, you do realize that women become mothers of their own volition, while a man does not necessarily become a father of his own volition, correct? I’m just wondering, because I don’t think you do, as you continue to ignore this little tidbit of information while continuing to claim some form of equality. Equality would be holding the man to the same standard as a woman (But, alas, no one would support that) or holding the woman to the same standard as men (But, alas, all the super feminists think that’s inherently discriminatory).

     

    You’ll have to excuse us. We have this preconceived notion that (pregnant) women are people, and that forcing them to remain pregnant if they don’t want to be is, like, really not okay. I know, sometimes we sound like a broken record on that, but believe me, lots of misogynists come to these boards to disagree. You’d be surprised!

     

    Wait… You support a woman’s ability to have an abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy at her whim? ‘Cuz, ugh, if you don’t, then that invariably involves forcing some woman to remain pregnant against her will, which would make you no different then me. I guess that would make you a misogynist too. Assuming, of course, you’re not for abortion-on-demand at whatever point in pregnancy.

     

    Sorry. Much like my old chew toys, there wasn’t much of one left after I got through with it.

     

    You discarded your old chew toys just like most of my post?

     

    Yes, of course you think the distinction is irrelevant. You don’t care about the impact of pregnancy on a woman’s body and health, and the violation that it is to be forced to carry that when you don’t want to. You say that you care about children, and yet you’re completely unconcerned with a child being raised by a woman who didn’t want one, or a woman whose resources are overextended by a new unwanted child.

     

    Yeah… I don’t care so much, I’ve already stated– once, twice, thrice, maybe even four times now– that if a pregnancy is going to do severe or lasting damage to the woman’s health, she should be allowed to have an abortion. Nope. I didn’t say that all all. But seeing as how the underwhelming minority of abortions are done because of the women’s health (Something like 4%), let’s focus on something more relevant, huh? Like the children.

     

    You see, I care so much about children, I say that they shouldn’t be killed because it would convenience someone else to do so. It’s no ending sense of amazement how some people seemingly argue that it’s better for someone to be dead then live a hard life. That’s so incredibly… Dumb… I’m not even sure how to address it

     

    Thank you for coming to this site and spouting just how little regard you have for womens’ lives. Your Kafka-esque policy prescriptions serve to remind us that the anti-choice movement, at its core, is built on a desire to control womens’ sexuality.

     

    I’ve never read Kafka’s stuff. And, no, at it’s core, the pro-life movement is built upon the desire to protect all human life. But, continue living in the 70’s and repeating this stuff about controlling women or whatever. It’s, actually, rather amusing, really. I guess there must be a hell of a lot of self-loathing women out there.

     

    So she can just give the child up for adoption, then. It’s not like late pregnancy and childbirth are a big deal for her, after all.

     

    Because, as we know, the majority of abortions are done for some reason related to the woman’s body or even the pregnancy in general (Wee! This is fun).

     

    No, it means that the choice whether to abort or to carry to term belongs to the woman—because whose body it is is the entire point. (Again, if the child is born, and is not surrendered for adoption, both the mother and the father are on the hook to support it, either personally or financially. And yes, bodies have nothing to do with that, other than the corresponding DNA.)

     

    So a woman should be allowed to have an abortion because it’s her body, even if she’s having an abortion for a reason totally unrelated to it being her body? Then what, pray tell, is the point of arguing that abortion should be legal based on the fact that it’s the woman’s body?

     

    And, for what it’s worth, a woman won’t get to point C unless she wants to. Not so for a man.

     

    Because not everyone here likes to post walls-o-text, like you do.

     

    Posting wall-o’-texts has very little, nothing in fact, to do with not quoting just part of a sentence. But I’m sure you knew that.

     

    If you scroll up on this page, there’s this poster called BornIn1984 who drew a careful distinction between “not providing” (which is okay) and “taking away” (which is not). Raping and pillaging, supposedly, falls under “taking away.” He explains the dichotomy reasonably well, although he doesn’t get into why he feels pregnant women who abort are “taking away” (i.e. affirmatively killing) instead of “not providing” (i.e. declining to provide sustenance).

     

    That guy is BornIn1984 (Yes, he’s a he) is pretty smart. Anyway, let me speak for him. Because, by the time a woman is pregnant, she’s already providing for the unborn. If she didn’t want to provide for it, then she shouldn’t have engaged in the action by which that individual came to exist (Rape, as always, nonwithstanding). That’s why.

     

    Sorry, it’s just that this general “violating someone’s rights is okay if it’s temporary” principle of yours is very interesting, and I wanted to see where else it could apply.

     

    No, it was actually a straw man, because you misapplied it. But I didn’t feel like typing out straw man the first time, ‘cuz I’m lazy like that.

     

    I’m sorry. I know that this may come as a shock, but when you dismiss the myriad effects and consequences of pregnancy on a woman’s health and life because pregnancy itself takes a finite amount of time, that makes you the dunce.

     

    Except– and this might have come as a shock to you– I didn’t dismiss them at all. Notice I’ve said, multiple times, that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if her health is to be negatively affected beyond that which is normally expected during a pregnancy, correct? Naw, probably not. It would help if you would, ugh, read what I, you know, bother to type out.

     

    Too bad your pragmatism-matter doesn’t stop you from prescribing a legally-mandated “standard of care” on women who may not necessarily have the resources to uphold it.

     

    …You don’t know what a standard of care is, do you?


    Obviously, which is why you’re doing your damdest to turn it into that dystopia you seem to be hankering after.

     

    Not a dystopia. Just a world in which individuals aren’t deprived of their lives based solely on the whim of another.

     

    …Wait. Would that constitute a utopia?

     

    Great! Read up on “feminism” and “reproductive freedom” sometime.

     

    Ewww. Modern day feminism is a sham and is generally met with widespread cultural opposition. It’s too bad modern day feminists can’t be like early feminists who were anti-abortion and all about equality between the sexes, instead of modern day feminists who’ve made abortion a central issue and promote equality so long as equality is in their best interest. Oh, and reproductive freedom is, at best, a misnomer.

     

    I really can’t take credit. You made it very easy for me.

     

    I’m responsible for your poor attempt at sarcasm. Man, what a bummer. My sarcasm is generally much better than what you displayed.


    Yep. You’re a bona fide anti-choice advocate, all right!

     

    It took you this long to figure that out? Well, better late then never, I say.

  • bornin1984

    Like most of the information you spread here this is wrong. You can read about living organ donations here:

     

    How does that make wrong anything I typed out?

     

    Of course you and your fellow ‘pro-life’ warriors would could never stand the pain and would never put your sorry selves out like that for someone else. We all understand that the men of the ‘pro-life’ movement are cowards and bullies and would never dream of helping someone else live or, for that matter, applying their own notions of moral obligation and responsibility to themselves.

     

    Ummm, yeah. That’s really the best way to sum up my response to that.

  • bornin1984

    Well, maybe because your assertion is horseshit, rendering your longwinded screed irrelevant.

     

    It’s not, as you say, “horseshit”. You keep asserting there’s this right, yet you cannot qualify it. The reason you cannot qualify it, is because it doesn’t exist, and if it did exist you’d end up with some rather… Odd… Things being legal.

     

    And, yes, I’m verbose. That’s just the way I am.


    Repeat: No one may commandeer your body for their own purposes against your will, Born. This is bodily autonomy…which is definitely a right you enjoy as a citizen of these United States.

     

    I feel obligated to mention something about consent not being explicit, and people not being held to parental obligations or being “forced” to care for someone else solely because they want to be. But I’ve said this many times before, and I don’t feel like repeating myself on the matter.

  • ahunt

    Obtuse much?

     

    You’ve been given numerous examples of bodily autonomy as legal right.

     

    It is a right even a corpse possesses. The fact that you cannot dispute ANY of the examples provided, while simultaneously insisting the right does not exist  tells me that you are no longer worth engaging.

  • ahunt

    Because, by the time a woman is pregnant, she’s already providing for the unborn. If she didn’t want to provide for it, then she shouldn’t have engaged in the action by which that individual came to exist

     

    Snerk. Irrelevant. If I volunteer to provide blood for someone in need on an ongoing basis, I can withdraw that provision anytime I damn well feel like it.

  • prochoiceferret

    Did you, ummm, ignore how I’ve said on more then one occasion that there’s no such thing as a “right to bodily autonomy”, and that even if such a right does exist that it doesn’t necessarily follow that it exists unabated? If not, then I’m point that out yet again.

    Ah, so you are in favor of compulsory organ and tissue donation! Little Timmy will be thrilled to hear of your compliance.

    Let’s assume that I want to punch someone in the arm, and I argue that I should be allowed to do so because it’s my body and I want to use it in any way I see fit. Are you going to up and defend me on the basis that I should be able to use my body in any way I see fit?

    No, because you may not use your body to deprive someone else of their rights. Duh.

    Now how about if I want to take some drug which has the known effects of causing hallucinations and violent fits of rage. Would you argue that because it’s my body I should be able to take said drug, even though by doing so there’s a good chance I could go berserk and injure someone?

    There may be circumstances where taking such a drug is permissible, e.g. if you remain strapped down for the trip. You are still responsible for any rights-depriving that occurs when you injure someone. And in general, deciding which drugs are legal and which are illegal is a subjective judgment call. No one is against the whole concept of taking drugs in the first place, especially when the effects are positive.

    So does this mean that, say, if technology were created tomorrow which could allow the unborn to survive outside of the womb at all times doing pregnancy, that abortion would be impermissible? Because that is the direct implication of your argument, yet somehow I have a sneaky suspicion that you would say no.

    No. (Surprise!) It simply means that abortion would not necessarily result in the death of the fetus. (This may still be unavoidable in order to remove it safely from the woman’s body.) The existence of this hypothetical technology would have no bearing on a woman’s right to abort, so I wouldn’t go running off to get that medical degree quite yet.

    I’m not so sure why, but I’ve noticed a pattern here. People continue to mix up what you have to do with what you can’t do, and continue to fail to distinguish what you have to do for someone from what you can’t do to someone. Why? I don’t know, but it’s rather odd.

    Yeah, stop doing that! Pregnant women do not “have to do for someone” what you think they do, and if/when they have an abortion, they are not “doing to someone” what you presume. The whole point of abortion is for a pregnant woman to become not-pregnant, not to kill a fetus.

    Ummm… Earlier you said, and I quote, “Yes, it is okay to remove it, because nobody else has the right to cannabilize my organs for their benefit until they are able to survive on their own. (Emphasis mine)” What this means is that gestation becomes an obligation once that organism is able to survive on it’s own, which means that, by your own admission, you also support slavery, and would make you a forced birther as well, as you would tell a woman who wants an abortion after that time period that she’s up the proverbial creek without a proverbial paddle. Go figure, right?

    You refuse to draw a distinction between biological and financial support, so of course the above “logic” makes sense to you.

    They did not develop in some hypothetical vacuum.

    Neither do the unborn.

    Ohhh, so you are finally admitting to the woman’s not-insignificant, non-passive role in gestating the fetus? Great! Even anti-choicers can learn a pro-choice trick or two, I suppose.

    Because, as you so kindly pointed out, the unborn aren’t born, and as a result are more dependent on the female then is someone who’s born. Simple to understand, no?

    Oh, yes! They are dependent on the woman in a manner (biologically) that they cannot obtain against her will. If she doesn’t want to provide this support, then it’s too bad, so sad, you’re outta here.

    It’s amazing how quick you are to point out differences between the born and unborn when it suits you to do so, but are quick to ignore said differences when it doesn’t.

    Well, given that you’re ignorant of the impact that pregnancy and childbirth have on womens’ lives, it’s not unlikely that you’re also ignorant of what differences between the born and unborn are significant to the women involved, and which ones aren’t.

    Number two, there’s really is no difference between killing an infant and killing the unborn, as in both cases you’re killing a human being.

    It’s a good thing that abortion is about a woman who doesn’t want to remain pregnant becoming not-pregnant, than about killing a fetus. All those people who are into fetus-killing will just have to get their kicks some other way.

    The thing is, however, you’re trying to provide “worth” to the human based on location. But this is fundamentally no different than arguing that there’s a difference between the way one treats men and women as men are men and women are women and men are “worth” more than women, or that there’s a difference between enslaving whites and enslaving blacks, as whites are whites and blacks are blacks whites are “worth” more than blacks.

    If you believe that the only meaningful difference between a fetus and an infant is its location with respect to its mother, then yes, you could make that ludicrous chain of logic.

    Yes, as much as you might disagree, it’s exactly the same. It’s no different. You’ve just picked out some arbitrary difference in order to rationalize the action. And that, as Stone Cold Steve Austin would say, is the bottom line.

    Since you see being pregnant or not as an “arbitrary difference,” that sure is your bottom line.

    Ummm, what? Not killing someone is a gift? What world do you live in?

    Not in the same world as little Timmy, thankfully. And he is very, very thankful for your not-killing him.

    According to you it is. After a certain amount of time, anyway.

    Financial obligation, but then, that makes no difference to you, does it? For you, writing a check every month is just as difficult and demanding as nine months of pregnancy and childbirth. (Worse, even! You have to pay child support for 18 years, which is way longer than nine months!)

    because, as it stands, you’re acting as if a woman is merely deciding not to provide for the unborn when she has an abortion, when in actuality she’s taking away from the unborn, thereby impeding on its ability to live.

    Oh, I get it! You’re saying that the body of a pregnant woman actually belongs to the fetus, so when she has an abortion, she’s “taking away” the biological support system that is the fetus’s property! Your logic totally makes sense now. What’s even better, women throughout history have been accustomed to being treated as property, so they’ll already be completely up-to-speed with the regime you want to bring about.

    But, anyway, as to answer your question, because the fetus only exists as a result of the woman’s actions (Rape nonwithstanding). That’s why.

    Oh, so it’s okay to KILL the INNOCENT HUMAN BEING inside of her as long as someone other than the woman is at fault? *Gasp!* I thought you were against the whole murdering of precious little innocent babies…

    The pro-choice movement does itself a great disservice by continuing with the above types of argument, as they’re not only empty assertions, but they very little effect on swaying public (See the study here —>

    Yes, we know there’s a lot of misogyny out there. Assertions that Black people are every bit as good and capable as White people haven’t been all that convincing, either.

    But, anyway, you might want to try this again. I don’t know why you continue to fail to acknowledge this fact, but people cannot do to and with their bodies as they please– especially not if it has the potential to harm another individual.

    The retrieval squads can be rather unpleasant to deal with, so I suggest you hurry on to your nearest organ-transplant center.

    This is a fact, evidenced by laws which restrict what you can and can’t do and what actions you can and can’t engage in.

    “Laws exist, therefore this wacky-ass law I’m proposing is justified?”

    Somehow arguing that laws against abortion are somehow more egregious then any other law which restricts what you can and cannot do doesn’t make much sense, as the rationale behind bans on abortion are exact the same as the rationale on bans on any other activity which has the potential to bring harm to a second, or even third-party or parties.

    Sure, if you don’t see the whole idea of forcing pregnant women to remain pregnant against their will as egregious.

    I didn’t miss his point at all. Not only does he state that a fertilized ovum is not a human being, and not only does he refer to it as tissue,

    So you’re saying that this…

    …is a human being?

    but he goes own to say that when a fetus becomes a human being is up to to the women decide. Ignoring how much of a mockery of science this is, as he’s obviously confusing the word human being with person,

    So what does “human being” mean, if it doesn’t mean “human person?” Does it mean having human DNA? Because man, after my owner plays with me, I get all these little human beings stuck in my fur that I have to lick and groom off…

    and ignoring how his argument is based on ignorance,

    Well, at least you found one thing in common with him.

    why shouldn’t, say, killing an infant be legal under the basis that the person doing the murdering doesn’t believe the infant to be a human being or person?

    Because the infant’s life is not dependent on something to which it does not have a right. Whether you believe it is a human being/person is immaterial—it comes down to what it has or does not have a right to.

    After all, that would have been a decision made around personal beliefs, and you wouldn’t want to infringe upon someone’s beliefs to believe what they want, correct?

    Sorry, you can’t kill me or her or that abortion doctor because of your personal beliefs. If, on the other hand, I were connected to you by a tether going into your bloodstream, and my life depended on that tether, you’d be well within your rights to cut it off—even though I would subsequently die.

    (If you’re going to respond with “But an infant isn’t in the woman’s body!”, don’t bother, because location has no bearing on personal beliefs.)

    Since you believe that childbirth is little more than a change in location, there’s no point in responding.

    Anyway, the above argument you made requires you to define what a person is, and not only did PZ Meyers not do that, neither did you. Explain to me again how you make an argument, stating that the unborn isn’t X, yet fail to define what X is and why the unborn isn’t it? You normally don’t, as it’s very bad form. So, asking again, please define for me what a person is, for until you define what it is.

    The thing is, it doesn’t matter what a person is. A fetus could be a person from the very moment of conception, and still it wouldn’t affect the woman’s right to have an abortion. Indeed, no person has the right to obtain biological life-support from another person—so what you’re really positing is not that fetuses are people, but that they are super-people, with rights above and beyond that of ordinary born people. (And I thought you right-winger-types were all against “special rights” for certain groups…)

    …Oh, and that’s not the way it is. That’s the way you want to perceive it.

    Yes, you’re doing a lot of wanting-to-perceive-it here, all right.

    No. Pro-lifers believe that no human being should be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life– and most certainly not simply because someone else wants to deprive him or her of his or her life.

    Really? Because many pro-lifers I’ve met are all about arbitrarily depriving pregnant women of life, and they sure seem like they want to deprive them of their lives….

    Oh, and since you mentioned feminism, it also happens to be the dirty feminists like you who claim that women should have a choice about bearing and raising children after the fact of sex, while simultaneously claiming that no man should ever get the same benefit.

    Oh, but men can decide not to raise the child after the fact. They still have to pay child support (sorry), but if they don’t want to be a dad, they certainly don’t have to. And who are you calling dirty? I practice impeccable hygiene, thank you very much!

    It also happens to be the dirty feminists like you who scream misogyny when someone states that a woman’s “choice” should come before sex, but who fail to see how this is the standard men are held to and would be just as misandristic (Is that a word?) as it is misogynistic.

    Women don’t have to pay child support? Since when?

    It’s also the dirty feminist like you who claim that preventing a woman from having an abortion is demeaning to women, while somehow ignoring the fact that by virtue of their being fewer abortions, there will be more women in the future.

    Violating people’s rights to increase the population! What a swell idea!

    And it’s also the dirty feminists like you who have made the word feminism such a, well, dirty word. So much so, in fact, that most people today either scoff at the notion or disregard the concept all together. So, yes. Kudos! :P

    People who don’t give a s*** about womens’ rights scoff at a movement that is all about bringing equal rights to women! Film at eleven.

    Abortion kills. Childrearing doesn’t. That’s why. If a woman wants to kill her three-year old, are you telling me that I should trust the woman to make that decision as she knows what’s best for her life? I highly, and very seriously, doubt it.

    She can’t kill the child (because it has a right to everything that it needs to live, unlike a fetus), but she can surrender it to the state. She’ll still have to pay child support, of course.

    No, I posit that allowing a pregnant woman to have an abortion legally so she doesn’t bring harm to herself in the process to be the same as allowing a thief to steal legally so he doesn’t bring harm to himself in the process.

    Yes. It clearly articulates your disregard for women dying because they can’t get abortion legally—as well as your dismissal of any legitimacy to a woman’s desire not to remain pregnant. She shouldn’t get out of being pregnant, any more than a thief should take someone else’s property.

    Social standing? Hell no. Physically? If it’s going to be shown that she’ll suffer irreparable or grave danger should she carry the pregnancy to term, okay. Mentally and emotionally? Ugh, not without a serious mental evaluation prior to obtaining an abortion. Financially? Hell no.

    What is it with men and wanting to control womens’ lives, anyway? Is it vagina envy, or something? Are you sore that you weren’t born with a clitoris, and can’t have multiple orgasms?

    You see, I don’t care about most of that, because most of that involves no harm to women, and are merely matters of convenience (Yes, I said convenience).

    We support women being in control of their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. We hope that won’t be an inconvenience to you.

    But, anyway, I’m totally about the whole “if and when to bear children” thing, which is why I totally support a woman’s decision to not get pregnant.

    Great! So you won’t mind if she has an abortion, then, in case her uterus decides to act up and contravene her decision.

    No, I care. But I care enough about the individual the woman’s actions harm– so much so that I’m not going to make it legal to have an abortion solely because the woman wants it, as legalizing abortion would increase the incidence of abortion, which would invariably mean that more individuals are being harms as a result.

    Please provide evidence for this assertion.

     

    We can tell you’re really gung-ho about reducing the incidence of abortion, because of all your tireless advocacy for comprehensive sexual education.

    Not this again. In the U.S., abortions are “safe” not because they’re legal, but because of advancements in medical technology post-World War II. I don’t know how many times I’ve said this, but I’m getting tired of repeating myself ad nauseum only to have people ignore me.

    Whoa, really? Huh. I guess I should open a heart-surgery OR in my kitchen, then, for all those folks who can’t afford to go to the big hospitals. Sure, I won’t have all the fancy technology and medicines and stuff that they do, but we’re in the U.S., so it’ll be safe!

    Are you… Actually serious with the above? The above is really– and I mean really– bad rhetoric. It’s rather surprising to me how all your arguments essentially boil down to restrictions on abortion being anti-women, or about oppressing women, or about restricting “women’s rights” or something equally inane, while completely, utterly, and totally refusing to acknowledge the fact that people are anti-abortion not because they “hate” women, but because abortion kills a human life. I really don’t get it.

    I don’t either, because earlier you were saying that abortion is okay if the woman was raped. What did the innocent little fetus ever do to deserve that?

    But, anyway, your analogy is false. It’s more along the lines of telling one individual what they cannot do to another which, last I checked, is one of the reasons the law exists– to protect those over which it presides from having their lives or well-being infringed upon by another. And when rights conflict, negative rights trump positive rights.

    So the fetus’s positive right to biological life support is trumped by the woman’s negative right to decline to provide it. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

    ????????? (That means I have no idea what you’re trying to say.)

    Of course you don’t. Women having rights to their own body doesn’t compute for you. It’s like saying “1 + 1 = fish”.

    Well, for one, I’m making no such assumption. What I am saying, as I have said about a million times already, is that no one one has the “right” to deprive someone else of his or her life solely because they want to. Men, women or children alike. It’s not something which is only applied to women, as you somehow think it is, but rather is something applied to everyone equally.

    Little Timmy is waiting. That kidney’s not going to jump out of there on its own, you know…

    But, more importantly than that, are you telling me that it’s better to be dead than it is to be alive? Seriously? Seriously?!?!?! I’ve heard this sentiment echoed far too many times in the pro-choice community, and it’s quite honestly sickening.

    You misspelled “pro-life.” Yeah, like when there’s pregnancy complications where an abortion is needed to save the woman’s life, and they say, “But why can’t you try to save both lives?” as if that were realistically possible. Rather annoying, really.

    For a group of people who go on about how the government shouldn’t decide what’s best for women and their lives, those same people seem to have no problem in the woman dictating that same thing for someone else.

    Another typo, you wrote “women” where you meant to say “men.” (That’s the only way that sentence parses, because the “someone else” is the selfsame “woman.”)

    The “choice” you fight for is the choice to kill another human being at the woman’s leisure. In that respect, I’m totally find with “anti-the-ability-of-the-woman-to-kill-another-human-being-at-her-leisure”. That’s much less of a disparaging term then you think it is.

    Wow. I guess all those women who have abortions are really no better than murderers on death row. Some of them are even raising children! Would you allow a kid to be raised by someone awaiting the electric chair??

    On the contrary, if you want to get down to it, supporting a woman’s ability to have an abortion is inherently sexist. Why? Because this invariably includes being allowed to have an abortion because the unborn is of the female gender, and this action is thusly defended by it being a woman’s “choice”. So who’s the one who hates women? I don’t think it’s me.

    Right, because banning abortion is the only way to address sex-selective abortions. It’s not like there’s any rhyme or reason to why some women would want to terminate female fetuses, after all.

    (And, by the way, if feminism was about treating all humans equally, it’d be called humanism.)

    You’re already ignorant about almost everything else, why wouldn’t you be ignorant about feminism as well?

    So your argument effectively boils down to, “If you don’t like it, don’t do it, but don’t stop other people from doing it!” Ummm, yeah. That’s an empty argument. In fact, it’s just not empty. It’s asinine.

    Of course it is, when you don’t see woman as having any sort of right to control their reproductive processes.

    At any rate, I think that’s everything.

    But I’m sure there’s a lot more ignorance and misogyny where that came from.

     

    *curls up in his little ferret-hammock, and sleeps*

  • crowepps

    What is it with men and wanting to control womens’ lives, anyway?

    Primate instinct?

    “As the debate unfolded, the rush of blood and pounding heart beneath the senator’s coat and tie spoke volumes about motivations far deeper, far older, than members of Congress ordinarily consider.  Like all humans, and indeed as is typical of the entire Primate order, the senator exhibited an intense, even obsessive, interest in the reproductive condition of other group members.  Like other high-status primates before him, he was intent on controlling when, where, and how females belonging to his group reproduced.”

    Mother Nature, Hrdy, page 5

  • prochoiceferret

    Primate instinct?

    Interesting citation, crowepps! I’m guessing the anti-choice movement won’t be too thrilled to find out that all they’re doing is acting like monkeys. (Especially those that don’t believe in evolution.)

     

    Ah, if only the abortion war could be won with a dump truck full of bananas….

  • ahunt

    and that even if such a right does exist that it doesn’t necessarily follow that it exists unabated?

     

    Move the goalposts much? 

     

    Let’s see how this works…the right of bodily autonomy exists for children, men, non-pregnant women and corpses. This right does not exist for pregnant women because sexually active women of childbearing age cede this right by having sex.

     

    Hmmm…does this mean a woman may not withdraw consent to sex in the middle of the encounter? After all, she has ceded her rights of bodily autonomy by engaging in the act in the first place.

  • princess-rot

    … for handling this for me. I’m just about sick of BI and his circular reasoning.  


    There’s no need for feminism – bodily autonomy doesn’t exist but imma make sure you don’t have it anyways because vagina! Zygotes are teh speshul and you are obligated to provide for them, because teh sex! I believe abortion kills a human life therefore I and all other like me are entitled to stick our noses into your crotch and make laws that greatly interfere with your life based on no other evidence other than that you are female and can’t be trusted! Reproductive slavery? What’s that? Having control over reproduction is the same as stabbing a toddler and makes you Hitler! Of course forcing pregnancy and devaluing women isn’t related, real women are mothers! I’ve heard of this patriarchy thing but I don’t experience it so it doesn’t exist! My viewpoint is the only objective one and if I say women who don’t want to be pregnant are soul-stealing, child murdering thieving whores they are! Mandatory motherhood blahdeblahblah… on and on fucking ad nauseam.

     

    I should have taken heed when MechaShiva posted that they just keep on working that mofo and nitpicking until everyone is just so exhausted they give up so the anti claims they’ve “won”. Won a a boatload of ire and a shipment of fail, that is.

  • crowepps

    Ah, if only the abortion war could be won with a dump truck full of bananas….

    Maybe that’s what they’re planning to buy with all that money they will no longer have to pay in child support?

  • crowepps

    the right of bodily autonomy exists for children, men, non-pregnant women and corpses.

    Obviously, fetuses ALSO have a right to bodily autonomy, more than that, a right to cannabilize the body of another to grow themselves.  So the ONLY person who lacks bodily autonomy is the uterine replicator — I mean, pregnant woman.

  • ahunt

    Oooooops!

     

    But lets keep up with this meme of women losing their right to bodily autonomy upon sexual activity.

     

    Could not birth control fall under the “abatement” question? I mean, if sexually active women automatically lose their bodily autonomy, by virtue of having sex, is it not plausible that the right to ingest chemical BC could be similarly “abated?”

  • crowepps

    I salute you.  That is an absolutely MASTERLY summary of the argument!

     

    I cannot tell you how many times over the past 30 years I have typed up this kind of verbose, manipulative crap spouting from abusive men.  At the point where I was informed that I needed to change my posting style so it was in line with requirements and then “we’d get along fine” I knew this thread was going to be pointless.

     

    Next time somebody comments that if a woman if being abused she should “just leave”, imagine hearing this kind of self-referential, you don’t know what you’re talking about, women are so stupid bullshit over every single issue that comes up, for hours and hours and hours endlessly, over days and days and understand.  She doesn’t leave because her brain has been absolutely fried by the torturous litany of insistence that black is white and up is down and he didn’t really say that and she should pay closer attention and if she wasn’t so stupid then she wouldn’t have misunderstood, blah, blah, blah.

     

    In addition, in person or on a recording there’s sort of a hypnotic up and down, whiny sing-song as they plead and coax and insist ‘you know I love you’ in a voice that’s like the hypnotic smarminess of a televangelist, switching instantly if interrupted or contradicted to bellows of rage, profanity and threats that even only ON A TAPE can cause a ‘flight or fight’ reflex in the listener.

     

    These guys are very, very, very good at crazy-making, even if they are total losers in every other aspect of their lives.

  • princess-rot

    Oops, double post fail.

  • ahunt

    and he didn’t really say that

    Born’s distinguishing debate skill: insisting that what he wrote was not what he said.

     

    Close second is the ability to reiterate ad nauseum, prompting similar responses in those of us whosebrain has been absolutely fried by the torturous litany of insistence that black is white and up is down

     

    I particularly enjoyed the repeated assertions that abortion was ever so much safer after WWII while ignoring the testimony of doctors doing their residencies in the early sisties.

     

    Now, it is just mole-whacking.

     


  • crowepps

    if sexually active women automatically lose their bodily autonomy, by virtue of having sex

    If you really, really want to be depressed by the resistance to ‘autonomy’ do a little reading on the hysterical reaction of the Catholic Church to ‘pious associations’ of religiou women, and the obsession of the Church over centuries that all women religious must properly be ‘enclosed’ – or as they call it when it applies to men, ‘imprisoned’.

  • crowepps

    While ignoring, of course, that the ‘safer’ was almost entirely an artifact of antibiotics saving women from septicemia. The death rate for appendectomies and cut fingers and ingrown toenails also plummeted around WWII, and none of them were ever illegal in the first place.

  • ahunt

    Oh Good God, crowepps…my consciousness has been raised so high, only bats and dolphins can hear it. Further depressive reading will have me shattering glass.

     

    But the point is made…denying women their legal bodily autonomy based on the potential for hot monkey love….has deeeeep roots.

  • bornin1984

    Ah, so you are in favor of compulsory organ and tissue donation! Little Timmy will be thrilled to hear of your compliance.

     

    Only to the extent that it’s already being provided.

     

    No, because you may not use your body to deprive someone else of their rights. Duh.

     

    Right. You’ve just admitted that, even if there is a such thing as a “right to bodily autonomy”, that it cannot infringe on someone else’s life or well-being. So explain to me why abortion is permissable again? Oh, I’ll skip ahead and just provide the “Because the fetus doesn’t have any rights/isn’t a person!” response and ask “Why not?”, as I just did.


    There may be circumstances where taking such a drug is permissible, e.g. if you remain strapped down for the trip. You are still responsible for any rights-depriving that occurs when you injure someone. And in general, deciding which drugs are legal and which are illegal is a subjective judgment call. No one is against the whole concept of taking drugs in the first place, especially when the effects are positive.

     

    Wouldn’t you know it, you didn’t answer the question. We’re not talking “certain circumanstances”; we’re talking broadly and in general. But since I’m such a nice guy, I’ll just save you the trouble of having to skirt around the issue, and just point out that you would say no. But why not? Quite possibly for the same reasons as above, which begets the same questions as above. I’m so totally interested in hearing your response.


    No. (Surprise!) It simply means that abortion would not necessarily result in the death of the fetus. (This may still be unavoidable in order to remove it safely from the woman’s body.) The existence of this hypothetical technology would have no bearing on a woman’s right to abort, so I wouldn’t go running off to get that medical degree quite yet.

     

    I do hope you realize that the above stated hypothetical situation is the exact same situation in place with regards to viability, correct? You do realize that, even though the fetus could survive at, say, 24 weeks, abortion is still impermissable regardless of the available medical technology which would keep it alive, correct? So explain to me why abortion is impermissable after viability again, if the ability of the unborn to live outside of the mother’s body has no bearing on her ability to an abortion?


    Yeah, stop doing that! Pregnant women do not “have to do for someone” what you think they do, and if/when they have an abortion, they are not “doing to someone” what you presume. The whole point of abortion is for a pregnant woman to become not-pregnant, not to kill a fetus.

     

    Ummm, yeah. As you will have noticed from my posts, I’ve said time and time again that a pregnant woman doesn’t have to do for anyone, but rather that she cannot impeded upon the life and well-being of another, or do something to cause that individual’s death. Glad to see you seemingly agree with what I’ve been writing out for about a bazillion posts now. It wasn’t so hard, now was it?

     

    Oh, and I just have to ask this, but women have an abortion with the expectation of becoming a parent? Last I checked, women most often have an abortion for reasons directly related to the fetus, not to being pregnant. But I’m sure you knew this.


    You refuse to draw a distinction between biological and financial support, so of course the above “logic” makes sense to you.

     

    I’m just going to point out the fact to you that the above response has aboslutely nothing to do with what you were responding to. Indeed, you flat out ignored what I was responding to, which was that by the fact that whomever I was responding to believes that abortion should be impermissable after a certain point, that that invariably involves someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant after that point to remain pregnant, which means she’s into forced birth as well.

     

    <enter shocks, awes and gasps here>

     

    Yeah, pro-choicers being the very same thing they accuse pro-lifers of being. Who wudda’ thunk it, huh?


    Ohhh, so you are finally admitting to the woman’s not-insignificant, non-passive role in gestating the fetus? Great! Even anti-choicers can learn a pro-choice trick or two, I suppose.

     

    “Finally”, huh? So I’m guessing that you only read what you want to read when you want to read it?

     

    Oh, yes! They are dependent on the woman in a manner (biologically) that they cannot obtain against her will. If she doesn’t want to provide this support, then it’s too bad, so sad, you’re outta here.

     

    The above doesn’t make much sense, for it’d be akin to saying that if a woman no longer wants to finally support her children she shouldn’t have to. Not only that, but you’re just making a statement without explaining why that is.

     

    *shrugs*

     

    I’m not so sure you’re trying anymore. Not that you ever were. But even less so now than before.

     

    (A) Well, given that you’re ignorant of the impact that pregnancy and childbirth have on womens’ lives, (B) it’s not unlikely that you’re also ignorant of what differences between the born and unborn are significant to the women involved, and which ones aren’t.

     

    On point (A), you really need to try again. On point (B), the value of someone is not predicated on whether or not someone else wants them to have value. This concept is not only incredibly asinine, but it’s abhorrent. If I don’t feel you have any significance, should I be able to kill you? Your argument, in effect, says that I should, though you would disagree, as you would argue that your value as a human being is independent on whether or not I want your life to have value. So why should it be any different for the unborn?

     

    Perhaps you don’t realize just how truly detrimental to your cause such arguments as the above are.

     

    It’s a good thing that abortion is about a woman who doesn’t want to remain pregnant becoming not-pregnant, than about killing a fetus. All those people who are into fetus-killing will just have to get their kicks some other way.

     

    Oh? So if a woman argued that her killing her infant was about no longer being a parent then it was killing a parent, that would make what she did okay? I doubt it. But, even moreso than that, saying that women have abortions not to kill the fetus but to become unpregnant, or that having an abortion is more about becoming unpregnant than it is killing the fetus, is kind of intellectually dishonest. I mean, look at the comprehensive list of reasons women have abortions (Taken from the Guttmacher institute). How many of those reasons are linked to the woman not wanting to be pregnant anymore? Now how many of those reasons are linked to the fetus and the impact it will have on her life (Either financially or socially)?

     

    Exactly.

     

    If you believe that the only meaningful difference between a fetus and an infant is its location with respect to its mother, then yes, you could make that ludicrous chain of logic.

     

    You’re trying to make abortion about the woman. It isn’t. It’s about the unborn, as if it wasn’t then there’d be nothing to abort and abortion would be a moot point. Furthermore, and I’m just pointing this out yet again, someone’s life doesn’t have value because someone else gives their life value. Amazingly enough, if I were to say that women don’t have value because of <enter factor x> here, I’d be called a misogynist and accused of sexism. I’d ask how that works, but it doesn’t (Plus I wouldn’t get a straight answer, anyway).

     

    Since you see being pregnant or not as an “arbitrary difference,” that sure is your bottom line.

     

    Perhaps you should read the posts of whom I’m directing my responses to before you jump in and misconstrue what’s being wrote out. Whomever I was responding to said that abortions should be impermissable after the unborn could live on its own, to which I pointed out that (s)he is simply assigning value to a human based on some arbitrary distinction (Location, size, stage of development, color, gender, etc. etc. etc. are all arbitrary distinctions).

     

    So, ummm, yeah. You should try again.

     

    Not in the same world as little Timmy, thankfully. And he is very, very thankful for your not-killing him.

     

    Yeah, now if only the majority of women who have abortions wouldn’t kill…

     

    Financial obligation, but then, that makes no difference to you, does it? For you, writing a check every month is just as difficult and demanding as nine months of pregnancy and childbirth. (Worse, even! You have to pay child support for 18 years, which is way longer than nine months!)

     

    Read. The. Post. Of. Who. I. Am. Responding. To.

     

    (S)he said, and I quote verbatim, “Yes, it is okay to remove it, because nobody else has the right to cannabilize my organs for their benefit until they are able to survive on their own”. (S)he went out to state that the woman is not obligated to provide her organs for the unborn. I pointed out that, according to his/her own logic, that after a certain period of time, the woman would have to do just that.

     

    And then you showed up with some totally irrelevant post which has nothing upon nothing to do with that. And coupled with a poor attempt at sarcasm, too boot!

     

    Oh, I get it! You’re saying that the body of a pregnant woman actually belongs to the fetus, so when she has an abortion, she’s “taking away” the biological support system that is the fetus’s property! Your logic totally makes sense now. What’s even better, women throughout history have been accustomed to being treated as property, so they’ll already be completely up-to-speed with the regime you want to bring about.

     

    No. But nice try. Well, not really. But an admirable one. You do realize that all the allusions to wanting to control women/hating women/misogyny/etc. are pretty pointless, correct?

     

    Oh, so it’s okay to KILL the INNOCENT HUMAN BEING inside of her as long as someone other than the woman is at fault? *Gasp!* I thought you were against the whole murdering of precious little innocent babies…

     

    A woman who is raped does not “choose” (Hah!) to engage in sex; rather, she has that act forced upon her by someone else. As a result, she cannot be held responsible for anything resulting from that act. If she winds up pregnant, it would be nice for her to carry the pregnancy to term, but she cannot be expected to do so as she had her rights (In this case, the right not to be acted against in a certain manner. Negative rights and all that) violated.

     

    Also, I kind of lol’ed @ the straw man. I don’t believe I’ve ever mentioned anything about innocence or the like. But perhaps you can find me where I have. In my old age of 25, my mind must be going.

     

    Yes, we know there’s a lot of misogyny out there. Assertions that Black people are every bit as good and capable as White people haven’t been all that convincing, either.

     

    I’m tempted to make an Obama joke, but then I’d just be a self-loathing black guy.

     

    The retrieval squads can be rather unpleasant to deal with, so I suggest you hurry on to your nearest organ-transplant center.

     

    But… I want to watch basketball. I’ll do it later.

     

    “Laws exist, therefore this wacky-ass law I’m proposing is justified?”

     

    A law which would prevent one individual from killing another at his or her leuisure would be, as you say, wack-ass? Wow. Talk about bass-ackwards.

     

    Sure, if you don’t see the whole idea of forcing pregnant women to remain pregnant against their will as egregious.

     

    Do you support abortion on demand-throughout-all-nine-months-of-pregnancy? For those are the only people who can talk about how egregious it is to force a pregnant woman to remain pregnant against their will, as if you are willing to restrict abortion at any point during the pregnancy, then you are telling a woman who wants to get an abortion after that point that they have to remain pregnant, even if it’s against their will.

     

    So you’re saying that this…

    …is a human being?

     

    No idea. It could be any placental mammal. Or even a plant. Of course, that doesn’t matter, as human beings are not human being by virtue of the way we look.

     

    So what does “human being” mean, if it doesn’t mean “human person?” Does it mean having human DNA? Because man, after my owner plays with me, I get all these little human beings stuck in my fur that I have to lick and groom off…

     

    It doesn’t mean anything, as there’s no special meaning is being human. Oh, and those are probably somatic cells stuck in your fur.

     

    Well, at least you found one thing in common with him.

     

    Oh, how witty. Not really but, hey, you get an ‘A’ for effort, which I guess doesn’t mean much to a ferret. I’d offer you a cookie for your efforts, but I don’t think that’s good ferret food. Ah well.

     

    Because the infant’s life is not dependent on something to which it does not have a right. Whether you believe it is a human being/person is immaterial—it comes down to what it has or does not have a right to.

     

    Now explain to me how the above is not begging the question? Even though this will be entertaining a gigantic straw man, can you explain to me why the unborn doesn’t have a “right” to someone else’s body?

     

    Please, don’t say because it’s not dependent on the mother, as you’d just be restating your argument and rationale over again.

     

    Sorry, you can’t kill me or her or that abortion doctor because of your personal beliefs. If, on the other hand, I were connected to you by a tether going into your bloodstream, and my life depended on that tether, you’d be well within your rights to cut it off—even though I would subsequently die.

     

    And, still, you haven’t explained why I couldn’t, not that I’d ever want to. As it stands, all you’ve said is, “Because they’re not connected to you”, but that doesn’t answer the question posed. And I know you know this. Or, at least, you should.

     

    Since you believe that childbirth is little more than a change in location, there’s no point in responding.

     

    No, it’s because I don’t like circular arguments.

     

    The thing is, it doesn’t matter what a person is. A fetus could be a person from the very moment of conception, and still it wouldn’t affect the woman’s right to have an abortion. Indeed, no person has the right to obtain biological life-support from another person—so what you’re really positing is not that fetuses are people, but that they are super-people, with rights above and beyond that of ordinary born people. (And I thought you right-winger-types were all against “special rights” for certain groups…)

     

    Apparently, you know much less about your own argument then you think you do. Read Roe v. Wade. If, indeed, following Blacknum’s rationale, the unborn are persons, then abortion is impermissible for it denies them of their lives. and the 14th Amendment says that no person shall be deprived of their life without due process of the law, which is why pro-lifers how now started with the Personhood Amendments and the like.

     

    Oh, and look. A not-so-sly attempt at an insult. I do hope you realize that (A) I’m a registered Democrat and (B) I have absolutely nothing against gay marriage.

     

    Really? Because many pro-lifers I’ve met are all about arbitrarily depriving pregnant women of life, and they sure seem like they want to deprive them of their lives….

     

    Yeah, because the majority of pro-lifers are all “a woman shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion ever”. I really do think you should get out more and meet some pro-lifers. You might actually be surprised.

     

    Oh, but men can decide not to raise the child after the fact. They still have to pay child support (sorry), but if they don’t want to be a dad, they certainly don’t have to. And who are you calling dirty? I practice impeccable hygiene, thank you very much!

     

    Who am I calling dirty? Feminists? Why? Because the person I was responding to called them dirty. That’s why. But anyway, if men have to pay child support then, no, they’re not getting a choice after the fact of sex. That’s, ugh, kind of the point, you know?

     

    Women don’t have to pay child support? Since when?

     

    Since they don’t have to have a child unless they want to. Or did you somehow forget that between sex and birth, some times this little thing called abortion happens?

     

    Violating people’s rights to increase the population! What a swell idea!

     

    Well, violating people’s perceived right to kill someone else at their leisure, thus ensuring that there are more women than would be in the future is a good thing. I mean, unless you’re saying that fewer women is a bad thing?

     

    People who don’t give a s*** about womens’ rights scoff at a movement that is all about bringing equal rights to women! Film at eleven.

     

    No. It’s because, for the most part, feminism has evolved to be centered around abortion and promoting the equality between the sexes, so long as it’s in women’s best interest to promote equality between the sexes. It, as a movement, has become very hypocritical, ignores *actual women’s issues* and labels anyone who disagrees with some position they deem important to be <enter pejorative here>. A good example of this is NOW.

     

    She can’t kill the child (because it has a right to everything that it needs to live, unlike a fetus), but she can surrender it to the state. She’ll still have to pay child support, of course.

     

    But what happened to trusting women and their decisions? If she wants to kill her child, then why not trust that she knows what she’s doing?

     

    Yes. It clearly articulates your disregard for women dying because they can’t get abortion legally—as well as your dismissal of any legitimacy to a woman’s desire not to remain pregnant. She shouldn’t get out of being pregnant, any more than a thief should take someone else’s property.

     

    Nope. I feel for any women who dies, but not enough to state that an action which has a 99.9999% death rate should be legal to prevent those odd few women from dying (And, for the record, women die from legal abortions, too). And, *meh*, to the rest. I’ve already responded to them above.

     

    What is it with men and wanting to control womens’ lives, anyway? Is it vagina envy, or something? Are you sore that you weren’t born with a clitoris, and can’t have multiple orgasms?

     

    This has nothing to do with wanting to control women’s lives. It has everything to do with preventing one segment of the population from killing another segment of the population. But, I guess it’s easier to try to frame the debate as being about “women’s rights” or whatever, so good luck with that. It’s a losing argument but, by all means, go right ahead.

     

    We support women being in control of their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. We hope that won’t be an inconvenience to you.

     

    You know… I’m actually wondering where the above slogan comes from, because I’ve seen it repeated one too many times. At any rate, no, you don’t, for you don’t give women control over their own bodies, lives or destinies always, but rather in those cases in which you think they should have control over the aforementioned things. We all know it, as if you did then you would allow women to do whatever they want to whomever they want when they want. But you don’t. So, by your own admission, your statement is false. Go figure!

     

    Please provide evidence for this assertion.

     

    Abortion isn’t like forbidden fruit, where people want it the harder it is to get. This may come as a shock for you, but people are more apt to obtain an abortion when it’s legal than when it’s illega, which is why the number of abortion rose precipitously following 1973. That wasn’t just a, you know, coincidence.

     

    We can tell you’re really gung-ho about reducing the incidence of abortion, because of all your tireless advocacy for comprehensive sexual education.

     

    Even though I don’t see how you’d know I’d do it, indeed, I do.

     

    Whoa, really? Huh. I guess I should open a heart-surgery OR in my kitchen, then, for all those folks who can’t afford to go to the big hospitals. Sure, I won’t have all the fancy technology and medicines and stuff that they do, but we’re in the U.S., so it’ll be safe!

     

    You’re not a trained doctor, nor do you have access to all the latest medical technologies.

    *hint hint, wink wink*

     

    I don’t either, because earlier you were saying that abortion is okay if the woman was raped. What did the innocent little fetus ever do to deserve that?

     

    To my knowledge, nothing. Anyway, how’s the above response relevant to what I typed out? I’m thinking it wasn’t. But that’s just a total guess, really.

     

    So the fetus’s positive right to biological life support is trumped by the woman’s negative right to decline to provide it. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

     

    Ummm… The right to life is a negative right. The right to control your body in a way you see fit is a positive right. The right to not be acted against in a certain manner is a negative right. The right to use your body in a way you see fit is trumped by the right to life and the right of one not to be acted against by you. The right to life and the right not to be acted against each other are weighed against each other, and comes down to a judgment call, in essence.

     

    You’re welcome.

     

    Of course you don’t. Women having rights to their own body doesn’t compute for you. It’s like saying “1 + 1 = fish”.

     

    Having the right to your body =/= using your body in a way which harms another. Hard to understand, I know.

     

    Little Timmy is waiting. That kidney’s not going to jump out of there on its own, you know…

     

    I’m not obligated to give him my kidneys if I don’t want to give him my kidneys ;)

     

    You misspelled “pro-life.” Yeah, like when there’s pregnancy complications where an abortion is needed to save the woman’s life, and they say, “But why can’t you try to save both lives?” as if that were realistically possible. Rather annoying, really.

     

    No, I spelled it correctly. And not this argument against. It’s not wrong for someone who’s pro-life to assert that we should try to save two lives, instead of ending one to save the other. Now, I don’t necessarily agree, solely because if the woman is going to die so too will the unborn child, but it’s not wrong.

     

    Another typo, you wrote “women” where you meant to say “men.” (That’s the only way that sentence parses, because the “someone else” is the selfsame “woman.”)

     

    No, I meant women. Apparently, it’s only wrong to decide for someone else when someone else is deciding for the woman. The woman deciding for someone else is totally acceptable.

     

    Wow. I guess all those women who have abortions are really no better than murderers on death row. Some of them are even raising children! Would you allow a kid to be raised by someone awaiting the electric chair??

     

    Ehhh, I’m tired of humoring straw men. Try again.

     

    Right, because banning abortion is the only way to address sex-selective abortions. It’s not like there’s any rhyme or reason to why some women would want to terminate female fetuses, after all.

     

    Did I say anything about banning sex-selective abortions? I’m pretty sure, 100% in fact, I didn’t.

     

    You’re already ignorant about almost everything else, why wouldn’t you be ignorant about feminism as well?

     

    You do realize that I do know what feminism is, correct? Yes, I do. I might live in the South, and I might have a Southern accent, but I’m not stupid nor am I ignorant.

     

    Of course it is, when you don’t see woman as having any sort of right to control their reproductive processes.

     

    Don’t get pregnant (*enter comment about rape here*). That’s plenty of control right there, now isn’t it?

     

    But I’m sure there’s a lot more ignorance and misogyny where that came from.

     

    *pats you on the head*

    You try so hard. Try harder, okay?

  • bornin1984

    Obtuse much?

    You’ve been given numerous examples of bodily autonomy as legal right.

    It is a right even a corpse possesses. The fact that you cannot dispute ANY of the examples provided, while simultaneously insisting the right does not exist  tells me that you are no longer worth engaging.

     

    I’m just going to copy and paste my words exactly as written in response to the corpse thing (Verbatim).

     

    I’m not so sure why, but I’ve noticed a pattern here. People continue to mix up what you have to do with what you can’t do, and continue to fail to distinguish what you have to do for someone from what you can’t do to someone. Why? I don’t know, but it’s rather odd.

     

    I haven’t been going on and on and on, making a clear distinguish between what you have to do for someone and what you can’t do to someone, for my amusement. So, one more time.

     

    A woman does not have to provide for anyone. I don’t know how many times I’ve stated this. She doesn’t have to “donate” a liver, kidney, lung, arm, leg, etc. etc. etc. to anyone if she doesn’t want to. She cannot, however, do something which impedes upon the life of another. That is, she cannot actively make their life worse. She cannot take away from them. This is the exact same standard as, yes, even a corpse, even though a corpse would have a hell of a time trying to take away from anyone. I really do get tired of repeating myself, you know. I get even more tired of repeating myself when I clearly state something one, two, three times only to have to repeat myself a fourth time.

     

    So, I think you should try again.

  • crowepps

    There is a primate tendency to harass and bully females into a cluster where the dominant male can oversee them and attempt to prevent them from breeding with anyone else. And, of course, a reciprocal primate response of the females sneaking off into the bushes with somebody the dominant male has overlooked. Reading a lot of history really makes it clear that waiting for permission from the authoritarians to ask for equal citizenship is fruitless.

     

    Just ignore the chest beating and the threats and refuse to give up your seat on the bus. Stop worrying about ‘you’re making me feel immasculated’ and go off and do your own thing. The more the ‘keep all the rights for the men movement’ bloviates about how women not wanting to go through a pregnancy is a ‘whim’, the more girls will decide trying to have a relationship with a man is hopeless and opt to become lesbians.

  • bornin1984

    and he didn’t really say that

    Born’s distinguishing debate skill: insisting that what he wrote was not what he said.

     

    No, just that what I wrote out is not what you think I wrote out.

     

    Close second is the ability to reiterate ad nauseum, prompting similar responses in those of us whosebrain has been absolutely fried by the torturous litany of insistence that black is white and up is down

     

    I don’t like repeating myself, but sometimes it’s a necessary evil.

     

    I particularly enjoyed the repeated assertions that abortion was ever so much safer after WWII while ignoring the testimony of doctors doing their residencies in the early sisties.

     

    Now, it is just mole-whacking.

     

    Because you’re not particularly good at reading what people write out.

     

    *shrugs*

     

    It’s no skin off my nose, really.

  • prochoiceferret

    I’ve never read Kafka’s stuff. And, no, at it’s core, the pro-life movement is built upon the desire to protect all human life.

    Unless, of course, you happen to have a rapist for a father, and you haven’t been born yet. Then, it’s open season on YOU!

    So a woman should be allowed to have an abortion because it’s her body, even if she’s having an abortion for a reason totally unrelated to it being her body? Then what, pray tell, is the point of arguing that abortion should be legal based on the fact that it’s the woman’s body?

    Ahh, the poor little anti-choicer thinks that women have to justify the choices they make concerning their own bodies to him! Isn’t that cuuuute?

  • crowepps

    You’re trying to make abortion about the woman. It isn’t.

    Fine, then the woman will leave and take her uterus with her, and the fetus can continue the pregnancy all by itself.

    I might live in the South, and I might have a Southern accent, but I’m not stupid nor am I ignorant.

    In your own opinion.  Couldn’t prove it by me.

  • crowepps

    Speaking of Kafkaesque, I’m trying to wrap my mind around:

    even if she’s having an abortion for a reason totally unrelated to it being her body

    How do you have an abortion for a reason totally unrelated to it being your body?  Are you RENTING a body?

  • ahunt

    A woman does not have to provide for anyone. I don’t know how many times I’ve stated this. She doesn’t have to “donate” a liver, kidney, lung, arm, leg, etc. etc. etc. to anyone if she doesn’t want to. She cannot, however, do something which impedes upon the life of another. That is, she cannot actively make their life worse. She cannot take away from them. This is the exact same standard as, yes, even a corpse, even though a corpse would have a hell of a time trying to take away from anyone. I really do get tired of repeating myself, you know. I get even more tired of repeating myself when I clearly state something one, two, three times only to have to repeat myself a fourth time.

     

    Snerk…now you have to actually lose a body part before your bodily autonomy kicks in, ladies. Who knew?

     

    And…

     

    Impedes? What, does this prohibition apply only to certain pregnant women, who are in fact unwillingly donating the use of a body that will not be returned in remotely comparable condition.

     

    Or does it apply to everyone?

  • prochoiceferret

    A woman who is raped does not “choose” (Hah!) to engage in sex; rather, she has that act forced upon her by someone else. As a result, she cannot be held responsible for anything resulting from that act. If she winds up pregnant, it would be nice for her to carry the pregnancy to term, but she cannot be expected to do so as she had her rights (In this case, the right not to be acted against in a certain manner. Negative rights and all that) violated.

    Nope, I’m not seeing an explaination of why it’s okay to violate the fetal human being’s right to life in this instance, when you’re so gung-ho about forcing pregnant women to remain pregnant because of that.

    Now explain to me how the above is not begging the question? Even though this will be entertaining a gigantic straw man, can you explain to me why the unborn doesn’t have a “right” to someone else’s body?

    Because no one, born or unborn, does. Too bad for Timmy. Of course, if you want the state to be able to force you to give up that kidney…

    This has nothing to do with wanting to control women’s lives. It has everything to do with preventing one segment of the population from killing another segment of the population.

    Unless the first segment of the population didn’t willingly debase themselves by engaging in consensual sex. Then, it’s totally cool for them to kill the second segment.

    I’m not obligated to give him my kidneys if I don’t want to give him my kidneys ;)

    Yeah! Now you’re starting to get this whole pro-choice mindset. I knew you could do it!

  • ahunt

    Just ignore the chest beating and the threats and refuse to give up your seat on the bus. Stop worrying about ‘you’re making me feel immasculated’ and go off and do your own thing. The more the ‘keep all the rights for the men movement’ bloviates about how women not wanting to go through a pregnancy is a ‘whim’, the more girls will decide trying to have a relationship with a man is hopeless and opt to become lesbians.

     

    If this your way of telling me you pull the heavy freight so “woman up,” I couldn’t ask for a nicer nudge. I’ll bag the “I’m so old” whine,  and see what I can contribute.

     

    PCF is all over the heavy artillary. Lemme just get geared up!

  • colleen

    I take it you don’t understand the difference between not extending someone’s life and ending someone’s life, huh?

    I think that we all understand that you’re desperately trying to pretend that you haven’t badly lost the argument.

  • crowepps

    At the point where people start posting that they’re not stupid and not uneducated, you might as well give up. The evidence of the POSTS THEMSELVES is supposed to clue us in to that and yet they’ve certainly failed to do so.

     

    ‘The life of the fetus is the only thing that matters’ — ‘women have an obligation not to withdraw their support if it kills someone’ — ‘unless the woman was raped’?!?

     

    That just makes absolutely NO sense at all except as ‘consent to sex is consent to pregnancy – once some man puts his sperm in there civilization requires women to respect his right to use his dick as a tool to enslave them.

     

    He’ll just say, again, that you didn’t read what he wrote, as though his posts have a hidden secret meaning contained in subliminal messages only decodeable by a possessor of testosterone.

     

    Anybody else noticed how often long, looooooong posts tend to apparently leave the readers confused? Of course, there is a slim possibility that the reason we don’t ‘understand’ what he’s saying is because he doesn’t express himself very clearly, but let’s skip over that. It could also be that the his verbosity is mind-numbing.

     

    Reminds me of the Samuel Johnson quote, “I did not have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one instead.”

  • prochoiceferret

    I think that we all understand that you’re desperately trying to pretend that you haven’t badly lost the argument.

    Yeah, this guy is great. A round-up of the highlights:

     

    • He tries to argue why a woman can’t withdraw active biological support to a fetus, while maintaining that the same reasoning wouldn’t lead to compelled organ/tissue donation. To say nothing, too, of that the “you can’t withdraw support/consent” schtick is a favorite of rapists the world over;

     

    • He sees no meaningful distinction between supporting a human organism biologically versus financially (hey, the annoyance he feels when writing child-support checks is totally analogous to morning sickness), so he uses the fact that absentee fathers are obligated to pay child support to somehow argue that women should be obligated to provide the use of their bodies to the fetus;

     

    • Naturally, he downplays the enormous physical/mental/emotional/etc. demands of pregnancy and childbirth to insignificance, calling it a “temporary inconvenience.” Oh, and childbirth is just a change in location, too, so having an abortion is completely equivalent to knifing a born infant;

     

    • He outright states that abortion “isn’t about the woman.” (I have a feeling he would get along swell with Paul Bradford!)

     

    • And best of all, he insists it all comes down to defending human life, while reminding us again and again that he supports a rape exception! You truly have to be an Olympic gold-medalist to do those kind of mental gymnastics.

     

    Of course, like crowepps said, he’s probably going to come back at us with “you didn’t understand”s or “that’s a strawman”s or “you edited out like half my post”s or “you’re really bad at sarcasm”s and just repeat his misogynistic claptrap till we’re too tired to ridicule his threadbare logic anymore.

     

    Either that, or he’ll discover Glenn Sacks’s Web site, and be so overjoyed at finding a community of like-minded men that he’ll disappear from this site for a while… at least until the next MRA raid.

  • mechashiva

    Anybody else noticed how often long, looooooong posts tend to apparently leave the readers confused? Of course, there is a slim possibility that the reason we don’t ‘understand’ what he’s saying is because he doesn’t express himself very clearly, but let’s skip over that. It could also be that the his verbosity is mind-numbing.

     

    Yeah, he’s one of those people who believes their own bullshit and just tires people out. That’s why I never bothered engaging with him. You can beat down his arguments easily enough, but he just keeps going on and on. It isn’t worth it.

  • princess-rot

    How do you have an abortion for a reason totally unrelated to it being your body?  Are you RENTING a body?

    Women, in their pure form are like poltergeists, you know. We flit in and out of different bodies, wreaking and havoc and abortion everywhere. I’ve got a body for every day of the week.

  • princess-rot

    (S)he said, and I quote verbatim, “Yes, it is okay to remove it, because nobody else has the right to cannabilize my organs for their benefit until they are able to survive on their own”. (S)he went out to state that the woman is not obligated to provide her organs for the unborn. I pointed out that, according to his/her own logic, that after a certain period of time, the woman would have to do just that.

     

    No, FFS. What I’m saying is that I, like every other cis woman, have no obligation to provide life support to any being dependent on my body for survival until it is strong enough to survive on it’s own without my assistance. Just because it CAN survive on it’s own eventually does NOT mean the woman is obliged to support it until it gets to that stage. Abortion is ALREADY illegal after viability unless there is a serious problem, and even then there are shedloads of legal hoops to jump before one can even try to get a late termination. I take this as a given, and obviously so does ProChoiceFerret since she was sarcastic to you for missing the obvious. That is the legal situation we are in now, most people know that, so why should I even mention it? I would have thought you’d be smart enough to figure that out on your own, because anyone with even a cursory knowlege of US politics knows you can’t easily obtain a late termination… but evidently I was wrong. For gods sake man, an anti-choicer recently murdered one of the only two late-term providers in the whole country. It’s been plastered all over the news.

     

    I trust that a woman who has an outside-world-viable fetus inside her has already chosen to take the fetus to that stage because she wants a child. Trusting women seems something you are incapable of doing. No, it’s just by then we largely expect by that time that the pregnant woman has chosen to have a baby, unless there is some extenuating circumstance for termination. I do wish it was easier for those who require near-term abortion to get one, but then again there is no chance of any of the states putting any faith in women. The anti-choice fantasy woman who waltzes into a clinic to abort a healthy near-term pregnancy for the lulz is an urban myth, get over it.