Rape, Violence, Abortion? Radical Right Says its All Your Fault


I was pleased to watch “The Rachel Maddow Show” Thursday night, as Rachel dedicated not just one, but two segments on the surprising number of severely anti-choice candidates running for major offices this election cycle.  As reported on the show, the story is getting very little mainstream attention, but it’s certainly a new thing to have three major Senate candidates—Sharron Angle, Rand Paul, and Ken Buck—come out not just for restricting abortions for choice, but also for criminalizing abortion in the case of threats to a woman’s health, and in the cases of rape or incest.   

Since all three candidates reluctantly allow that they might allow an abortion should they be convinced that a pregnant woman’s life is in danger (though often said restrictions are so high they are functionally death sentences for the “crime” of being pregnant, for the doctors fear that a 5 to 10 percent chance of survival might be enough to prosecute), they adamantly stand for forcing rape victims to carry the rapist’s baby to term.  Yes, even if the rapist is the father or brother of the victim.  Melissa Harris-Lacewell came on the show to offer the perspective that hard times often make the populace more open to sadistic intrusions on a woman’s right to control her own fertility.  She made some excellent points about how the increasing acceptance of forced childbirth, even for rape victims, coincides with other enthusiasms for control over reproduction, such as the new talk of repealing the 14th Amendment strictly to punish immigrant women who give birth.

I have some points I’d like to add to Melissa’s excellent commentary.  This unwillingness to extend abortion rights even to rape victims may indicate more than simply a hard line attitude about abortion, but also a negative attitude about a woman’s right to live free from violence.  As Rachel reported, the Paul campaign’s response to the issue of abortion rights for rape victims was to scold victims for not being more careful about “family planning.”  Reasonable people might be as bewildered as Rachel about this point, but sadly, I feel these kind of responses indicate an acceptance of the widespread right wing myth that rape and other forms of violence against women are something that feminists made up in their supposed mission to get men.  There’s widespread myths that rape victims are either lying about being raped or somehow brought it on themselves, and therefore if they get pregnant, they deserve to be punished for being liars or temptresses or both.

Add these stereotypes to the anti-choice fears that any exceptions to a ban would be exploited by slatterns eager to get away with being loose women, and you have a toxic brew. If you think the myth that exceptions are mainly used by liars isn’t widespread, may I remind you that 2008 presidential candidate John McCain expressed a belief that most late term abortions performed for health reasons were nothing but the patients and doctors lying to cover up abortions by choice, even though there’s not a lick of evidence to support that claim. The misogyny that prompts anti-choice beliefs tends to bring along a host of other anti-woman beliefs about how women are stupid, fickle, and deceitful by nature.

A lack of sympathy for pregnant rape victims brings up a lot more questions than just ones about a candidate’s view on reproductive rights.  For instance, I’d worry that someone who has this attitude towards pregnant rape victims might generally not take the problem of violence against women seriously. Currently, it’s political poison to avoid nominal support for legislative efforts fighting violence against women, but that doesn’t mean that office-holders are necessarily dedicated to the cause of really taking steps to improve services and law enforcement in ways that would actually fight this problem. Already this election cycle, we’ve seen an anti-choice Senator get exposed for problems in this area. Even though Senator David Vitter knew one of his aides was convicted of domestic violence, he kept him on staff and, alarmingly, as an advisor on women’s issues, including the issue of domestic violence.

Fighting violence against women and supporting reproductive rights are so intertwined that it’s really hard to separate the two.  Paul’s comments about “family planning” were illogical in really obvious ways, but they also showed a lack of understanding of how gendered violence undermines women’s ability to prevent pregnancy in the first place, often making the need for abortion rights all that more important. As Lynn Harris reported in The Nation, a new (albeit limited) study of 71 women who had suffered domestic violence reported being the victim of birth control sabotage by partners who used forced pregnancy as a way to dominate and control their victims.  If the state takes a stance of supported forced pregnancy, that only makes it that much easier for domestic abusers to hurt and control their victims.  And that, in turn, makes it that much harder for law enforcement and social services to fight the problem of domestic violence. 

In a way, I appreciate it when anti-choicers take the “no exceptions for rape” stance.  Not for the reason some give, which is that it’s at least more consistent with the belief that a fetus is a person.  (I still don’t think they consistently believe that an embryo is the same as a 5-year-old.)  But it is more consistent with the overall view that women are chattel, that their rights are unimportant, and that their bodies are objects to be controlled by men and the state.  In a strict patriarchy, rape is considered a crime against the man who controls the woman, and after the rape has happened, her status plummets in the eyes of the community.  Anti-choicers who make no exceptions for rape are being consistent with this view—since the rape victim is already ruined, there’s no reason to offer any sympathy or relief to her.  “No exceptions for rape” is indeed a consistent worldview, but it’s mainly consistent with a pro-patriarchal one.

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

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • rtguy53

    In a largely Christian society, and more specifically a “Fundamentalist Christian” atmosphere (currently, politically), is it a surprise that the issue of abortion has been, once again, brought to the surface for supposed “debate”? After all, it is an election year, and the pandering has just begun. Abortion, in whatever form it may take, will never, actually be declared totally “illegal”, for it is forever an important “talking point” wedge issue to be revisited every election cycle in an attempt to distract the voting populace from the more important “issues”. Still, we must continually oppose the extremist views on the subject lest we forget just how complicated a decision it is, for any woman, under any circumstance, to have to make the choice to abort potential human life. I am forever dedicated to the legality of the act of abortion, as morally reprehensible as it is to me personally, so that the decision to abort, or not, is made by the woman carrying said “life” in consultation, or not, with her physician and her own conscience, as difficult a decision it may be.

  • harry834

    am tossing it out there: http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=19931.0

     

    This would probably take a long time to dissect. Perhaps let it sit here for now.

     

    Anyway, the frequency of lies (whatever that might be) doesn’t change the fact that:

    a) women who tell the truth are often misbelieved

    b) the legal system’s job has always been to tell who is lying/credible and who isn’t

    c) nothing in that article justifies abortion restrictions for any woman, let alone victims of rape.

  • prowomen

    The Republican Party is a Death Panel.  Their lack of humanity is disgusting.  Because of Republican legislators, poor pregnant women are denied the right to save their own lives who have medical conditions that could result in their deaths.   

    Some serious complications from pregnancy include 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 (An obstetric fistula develops when blood supply to the tissues of the vagina and the bladder (and/or rectum) is cut off during prolonged obstructed labor. The tissues die and a hole forms through which urine and/or feces pass uncontrollably.) 

    Other permanent side effects:  future infertility, permanent disability, death.

    The men who made all the laws restricting women from making their own medical decisions will never suffer from any of the side effects of pregnancy, including death.

    No matter how low the percentage of women who will suffer or die from the side effects of pregnancy, for the women affected it’s 100 per cent and several die in America every day.  

    When a pregnancy is unwanted or harmful to a woman, a legal requirement to continue the pregnancy constitutes governmental intrusion on a woman’s right to jurisdiction over her own body, beside reckless disregard for a woman’s life, and it reduces her to the status of a nonperson.

    There’s a direct connection between the laws made by men that relegate women to the same level in our society as livestock, with men playing God to control their reproductive decisions, and the three or four women murdered and 600 sexually assaulted every day in America.  Some men believe they are entitled to treat a woman like property in whatever ways they choose, since their own government recognizes women as second-class citizens with unequal rights under the law.

    Since the side effects of just being a female are violence and death, indifference to any injustice makes women appear to be willing victims, a mindset that will be perpetuated until women demand equality of rights and refuse to accept anything less.  Until then, women can choose to vote for pro-choice political candidates, who don’t consider women to be a disposable commodity. 
  • arekushieru

    I firmly believe that anything that is truly morally reprehensible must be so across the board.  Non-consent to organ donation must also be morally reprehensible if one views abortion as such, esPECially if one wants to make laws restricting it.

     

    I also believe that they must consider that both abortion and pregnancy are moral decisions for almost ALL those women who make it or they must consider that neither is a moral choice.

     

    And that those who would restrict must either believe that both paths are difficult decisions arising from a difficult circumstance, easy decisions arising from a difficult circumstance, difficult decisions arising from an easy circumstance or easy decisions arising from an easy circumstance, also, to be consistent.

  • bamababe

    The facts are clear. Most women who engage in having an abortion do so because they did not want to have to endure the consequences for engaging in sexual activity. THIS is narcissistic and selfish. Very, very few people have abortions due to rape, incest, or the like. I think it’s 1%? Yeah, something like that:

     

    http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

     

    Women who get abortions frequently should first consider sterilizing themselves. This seems more humane, to me, than using abortion as a form of birth control… and less selfish. Or, how about actually having the respect for their bodies to wait until marriage to engage in sexual activity altogether? Oh, I know… it wouldn’t be any fun to do that, now would it.

     

    It is, at best, as equally selfish to take the life of an unborn child as it is to assume that one is selfish for not thinking that abortion should be allowed in the first place.

     

    This article also falsely assumes that the men who fathered the babies feel no pain or remorse over what the female partners have chosen to do with his child. Another extremely selfish statement completely disregarding the rights of the father. Who are you to treat men as if they do not have equal say in the fate of their child? Whom NEITHER of you officially created, might I add? Women and men BOTH can be administers of abuse. Women constantly control men by faking pregnancies. Women are not always the victims. Let’s be honest here. It is on BOTH sides equally.

     

    One problem with the radical LEFT is that they forget so many options. There are so many good people in this world! I know a really cool church that houses women who have been raped until they can have their baby, and helps them along in the adoption process. They even cover any costs associated with the program. It’s the radical leftists who are so quick to judge and look down upon a rape victim. It is the LEFT that forces women to feel that their only option is to abort their child. The only good people that I see actually doing something to help BOTH the mother and the baby are…. Republicans. Liberals just say, “Oh, that’s not my problem! Let’s just kill it and it will all go away.” The truth is, those memories will NEVER go away.

     

    I hope that, eventually, someday, I will meet a woman who wants to have a truly intellectual conversation regarding abortion. All I hear from are right-hating, one-sided, anti-child-rights, statistic skewing women with the “me, me, me” syndrome. Ones that speak and don’t listen. Ones that get in their say and then walk away from anyone who opposes their point of view. So sad.

  • crowepps

    I know a really cool church that houses women who have been raped until they can have their baby, and helps them along in the adoption process. They even cover any costs associated with the program.

    I’d be a lot more impressed by the “really cool church” if they also covered the costs for women who wanted to KEEP their babies instead of acting as a front for the adoption industry.

  • bamababe

    … oh, they do that too. The decision would, obviously, be the mother’s. If she opted for adoption or to keep the child, they would support either one. It’s not a “front” for anything. It’s called helping others.

  • prochoiceferret

    The facts are clear. Most women who engage in having an abortion do so because they did not want to have to endure the consequences for engaging in sexual activity. THIS is narcissistic and selfish.

     

    Most people who do not give away all their worldly possessions and become a beggar do so because they do not want to endure the consequences of being poor. THIS is narcissistic and selfish.

     

    Very, very few people have abortions due to rape, incest, or the like. I think it’s 1%? Yeah, something like that:

     

    Your heartfelt concern for victims of rape and incest is exemplary.

     

    Women who get abortions frequently should first consider sterilizing themselves. This seems more humane, to me, than using abortion as a form of birth control… and less selfish.

     

    Your personal opinion has been noted, and will be given the consideration that it deserves. Have a nice day!

     

    Or, how about actually having the respect for their bodies to wait until marriage to engage in sexual activity altogether? Oh, I know… it wouldn’t be any fun to do that, now would it.

     

    Oh, so you’re one of those people who believe that couples should be married just to have sex. Shame on you for destroying the sanctity of holy matrimony!

     

    It is, at best, as equally selfish to take the life of an unborn child as it is to assume that one is selfish for not thinking that abortion should be allowed in the first place.

     

    But not nearly as selfish as thinking that one has a prerogative to stick their nose into the private medical decisions of others. It’s pretty narcissistic, too.

     

    This article also falsely assumes that the men who fathered the babies feel no pain or remorse over what the female partners have chosen to do with his child.

     

    Well, they sure don’t seem to have much feeling for the woman, either way.

     

    Another extremely selfish statement completely disregarding the rights of the father. Who are you to treat men as if they do not have equal say in the fate of their child?

     

    Oh, just the supposed owners of the body charged with the physical assembly of the future child. Silly me—I should’ve known that it’s the man who owns the baby-making machine!

     

    Women and men BOTH can be administers of abuse. Women constantly control men by faking pregnancies. Women are not always the victims. Let’s be honest here. It is on BOTH sides equally.

     

    Yeah, for every man who rapes, or sexually assaults, or domestically-violates a woman, there’s a woman doing the very same thing to a man. Worse, in fact—because men are not allowed to hit girls, they can’t even fight back! All those battered-womens’ shelters should change to serve the real victims: men.

     

    It’s the radical leftists who are so quick to judge and look down upon a rape victim. It is the LEFT that forces women to feel that their only option is to abort their child.

     

    Oh, sorry, we’re all pro-choicers here. You must be looking for the pro-abortion folks; they’re just down the hall.

     

    The only good people that I see actually doing something to help BOTH the mother and the baby are…. Republicans. Liberals just say, “Oh, that’s not my problem! Let’s just kill it and it will all go away.” The truth is, those memories will NEVER go away.

     

    I think someone may have inserted those memories into you, a la Total Recall, because they sure as heck didn’t come from real events.

     

    I hope that, eventually, someday, I will meet a woman who wants to have a truly intellectual conversation regarding abortion. All I hear from are right-hating, one-sided, anti-child-rights, statistic skewing women with the “me, me, me” syndrome. Ones that speak and don’t listen. Ones that get in their say and then walk away from anyone who opposes their point of view.

     

    Yeah, good luck with that!

  • bamababe

    Ewww…. someone’s feathers are ruffled. I just love your attacks and uneducated responses. They really made me laugh. You said NOTHING that makes any sense. You are clearly a man-hating narcissist. That is all.

     

    “I think someone may have inserted those memories into you, a la Total Recall, because they sure as heck didn’t come from real events.”

    <— this… I guess you live in your own little world where people aren’t able to speak from their heart about real life events? Sorry, I have something to say and I speak the truth whether you believe it or not. You don’t know me. Don’t pretend to.

     

    *SIGH* Congratulations. You have proven every point I addressed! In one sitting. I didn’t think it could be done.

     

     

     

  • ack

    “Women who get abortions frequently should first consider sterilizing themselves.”

     

    I assume you’re a woman who has tried to obtain sterilization services? If you haven’t tried, and you haven’t had kids, have fun giving it a shot! (Sextuplet points if you can do it as a white, het, cis female, middle to upper class college educated woman.) Also, look up some stats on abortion to see who obtains repeat abortions. Might give you some insight on why it happens.

     

    “This seems more humane, to me, than using abortion as a form of birth control…”

    You’re RIGHT! OBS ALL women who have abortions weren’t on birth control. And ALL women have access to contraception and education on how to use it. And men hold no responsibility for a pregnancy at all.

     

    “Or, how about actually having the respect for their bodies to wait until marriage to engage in sexual activity altogether? Oh, I know… it wouldn’t be any fun to do that, now would it”

     

    Take a look at premarital sex stats, and then come back and talk with the people grounded in reality. Have some fun and look at actual premarital sex stats from the 50s and 60s as well. We’re all doing it, we’re just doing it younger and with the same level of non-education. Give me a choice, and I say educate everyone as soon as possible about consent, coercion, and protection and we’ll all be in a better place.

     

    “This article also falsely assumes that the men who fathered the babies feel no pain or remorse over what the female partners have chosen to do with his child.”

     

    This, I will give you. The men and boys who impregnate women and girls have a right to validated feelings about the experience. However, those feelings don’t get to trump the woman or girl’s right to decide whether or not to be pregnant. In the same way, her feelings about his pregnancy don’t get to impact the outcome against his wishes. (I’m being serious, here. When men get pregnant, I will support their right to end it when they don’t want it to continue.)


    “Women constantly control men by faking pregnancies. Women are not always the victims. Let’s be honest here. It is on BOTH sides equally.”

     

    This is a commonly held myth that is currently undergoing a lot of research. As it turns out, men and boys both place pressure on their female partners to become pregnant, actively sabotage their efforts to avoid pregnancy, and attempt to influence the outcome of pregnancies already in progress. There’s nothing “constant” about it. Women may not always be the victims, but we’re nowhere near determining equality in reproductive coercion and control.


    “The only good people that I see actually doing something to help BOTH the mother and the baby are…. Republicans. Liberals just say, “Oh, that’s not my problem! Let’s just kill it and it will all go away.” The truth is, those memories willNEVER go away.”

     

    Ok, now we’re on.

    Every legislative hearing I’ve ever viewed pits Republicans and Democrats against each other in very specific ways:

    1. Dems attempting to protect or increase funding that assists single and/or low income mothers through supporting pre-natal health, pre-school programs, health insurance for kids, education, after-school programs, and temporary assistance for needy families. (GASP! GIVING $250/mo to MOMS FOR SHOES AND FOOD AND CLOTHES!)

    2. Republicans insisting that those programs are unnecessary, full of bureaucratic waste (please look up the stats on your welfare and health care programs before you pass judgment) and restricting abortion and controceptive access.

     

    If you’re conflating programs that help women continue pregnancies with legislation that restricts abortion, I think you’ve been mislead. Please look into the language of some of the anti-choice bills and take them in context with budgetary arguments. In AZ, for instance, we simultaneously passed legislation that required health care providers who provide abortions to tell patients that state programs may be available to help them while simultaneously cutting those programs.

     

    If you really, really want to reduce the abortion rate and pass legislation to that goal, support comprehensive sex ed. Support programs that help single and low income moms raise their own kids. Support domestic violence funding. Support laws that hold perpetrators of child abuse accountable.

  • zenith15

    So, then, “Bamababe” (why does that name not surprise me somehow?), let’s say I have a history of pre-eclampsia with my pregnancies, and that I nearly died in the last one and the baby had to be delivered prematurely and DID die.  Let’s say that another pregnancy would definitely endanger my health, and MIGHT kill me. Let’s say also that I am unable to utilize the birth control pill for health reasons and  do not wish to undergo surgery to be sterilized–a choice I should have the right to make. 

     

    I assume that your answer to this situation would be that I should not EVER have sex with my spouse again to avoid pregnancy–but oh, that would be a violation of the Lord’s will, wouldn’t it? So let’s say we DO have sex and use barrier methods of birth control, but dad gum it all, somehow I get pregnant anyhow.  In your little world, I should have no right to reduce my very significant, but not certain, possibility of DYING by having an abortion. That would be “selfish”. We all know that women-folk are made to subjugate their own rights, to think only of their husbands and children and families and others around them but never of themselves–that’s “selfish”, ladies.  Why, “nice” ladies ALWAYS want babies–no matter HOW they got pregnant or what the pregnancy will do to them. If they don’t–well–they’re just “selfish”–and probably liberal too.  Ewwwww, icky.

     

    Oh, and you ask who are we to treat men as if they do not have an equal say in the fate of their child? Who am I? I am the person whose body would have to carry that child, who undergoes all the health risks associated with the pregnancy, whose employment is affected by the pregnancy and birth, who has to go through the pain and disfigurement of pregnancy and risk her life to give birth, and I am the one whom the world will stand in judgment of if I am unmarried and pregnant–not him.  And most likely, if I keep “his” baby, I will be the one with the primary responsibility to care for the child, both physically and financially (if unmarried).  I am also the one stuck with the medical bills for both myself and the baby (if unmarried).

     I don’t see any men experiencing edema, severe nausea, varicose veins, preeclampsia, placental abruption, cervical insufficiency, uterine hemorrhage, cesearean section, post partum depression/psychosis, mastitis, puerperal fever, stretch marks, etc. When they DO, they can have an “equal say”.

     

    As for that real “cool” church you know that helps out the poor lil ole pregnant gals who are doin’ the right thing by Jesus and having that baby, the other poster is absolutely correct–the church is merely acting as a broker for collecting adoptable babies for the rich white folks. 

     

    I think it’s really interesting how these WONDERFUL, helpful Republicans want everyone to HAVE THAT BABY–but then, when all the nice little healthy white babies have been adopted out, and we have  all the minority babies and health impaired babies that the rich white folks don’t want, or the babies whose young and poor mothers decided to KEEP them, suddenly it’s don’t come crawling to US for help! No, no, we don’t believe in welfare programs, health care programs, food stamps, WIC, the school lunch program, none of those “entitlement” programs–let the little buggers STARVE!  That’s teach ‘em to have sex without getting MARRIED like us good Christian folk, by golly!

     

     

  • ack

    What do they do then?

  • ack

    If a WANTED, WHITE fetus is born and two years later grows into a WHITE, WANTED toddler with autism, you need to find your own way to fund therapy. Your choice to have the kid, lady, so you better have $10k for school choice.

     

    And if, but by the grace of everyone’s loving God, you’ve got a toddler of color with autism, well… “your community” needs to come out and help you.

  • prochoiceferret

    I just love your attacks and uneducated responses. They really made me laugh. You said NOTHING that makes any sense.

     

    Yes, if you don’t accept the premise that women are full, actual-people human beings, then everything I say will sound like gibberish.

     

    You are clearly a man-hating narcissist. That is all.

     

    No, I’m a raisin-loving ferret! And many of the women on this site love the men in their lives. (And not just for their penises—although for the ones that they love like that, this is no small part of the reason!)

     

    I guess you live in your own little world where people aren’t able to speak from their heart about real life events? Sorry, I have something to say and I speak the truth whether you believe it or not. You don’t know me. Don’t pretend to.

     

    Yeah, yeah, and 9/11 was a Bush conspiracy and you have all the proof, I know.

     

    Congratulations. You have proven every point I addressed! In one sitting. I didn’t think it could be done.

     

    It’s not that hard, actually. I could get the same effect by reading numbers from a telephone book!

  • zenith15

    Really? Awwww, that’s sweet. How, exactly, would they go about this?

     

    I went through a training session at one of those oh so helpful Crisis Pregnancy Centers, who I assume offer the same type of assistance to mothers that decide to keep their babies as your “cool” church does.  They got some used baby clothes, perhaps the use of some used baby equipment, and a nice “mentor” to shepherd them through the pregnancy and birth. They also gave them “referrals” for various government aid programs–the same programs they purport to be against as good god fearing Repubs. 

     

    What they did NOT give them was financial support and assistance AFTER the baby came, a place to live after the baby came, they did not provide them with job assistance, child care, or educational funding either.  But they DID continue to hover around the edges for a few months hoping she would change her mind when she saw how tough it was going to be and “do the right thing” by giving up her baby. Once this appeared to be a definite no, they backed off for good. Sayanora mama. 

  • zenith15

    Oh, didn’t you hear what Bamababe said? If you don’t want to be eternally pregnant, you should NOT HAVE SEX, or you should STERILIZE yourself permanently. 

     

    If you proceed to ignore this kind hearted advice and go so far as to have sex anyhow, and you get pregnant, you MUST have that baby–you have NO SAY in the matter because that would be SELFISH. 

     

    And please don’t forget to give that baby up to a nice white republican god fearing couple when you are all done, ok?

  • ack

    A. You had sex.

    B. You got pregnant because you had sex and God wishes pregnancies to come of sex, even though most sex doesn’t result in pregnancy.

    C. You’re pregnant, so God wants you stay pregnant.

    D. You can’t take care of a baby/toddler/child/adolescent, so God wants you to give your baby to these nice white Christians who can’t have a baby. It’s SELFISH to not continue a pregnancy when this nice white Christian lady can’t have one.

     

    Cuz, you know, women have a responsibility to have as many kids as possible because other women want babies and can’t have them.

    WTF??!!??

     

    By that logic, it’s selfish to own a home because other people have to rent.

  • bamababe

    Seriously. Your points are very valid. Let’s discuss:

     

    “Also, look up some stats on abortion to see who obtains repeat abortions. Might give you some insight on why it happens.”

     

    Repeat abortions are not cheap. Why would someone who, potentially would have to spend thousands on abortions, not opt to simply have surgery so that they could ensure that they did not have to have another abortion? I’m not rich or anything, but I do know that I would not opt to continue to have abortion after abortion. If you have the money for multiple abortions, you should have the money to do the responsible thing.

     

    http://www.epigee.org/guide/sterile.html

     

    Average cost of 4 abortions: $2,200.00

    Average cost of tubal ligation: $2,000.00

     

    Next…

     

    This is America, and most people who are uneducated on sex or birth control choose to be. There are so many factors that could surround this rare circumstance. Maybe the parents didn’t ensure that their child was actually going to school and learning something? Either way, this statistic is minute compared to the vast majority of people that are either taught by their parents or that choose not to attend health class.

     

    Next…

     

    Premaritial sex is very common indeed. Nothing that anyone thinks or says can change this. However, IF a teen pregnancy occurs, are we to react as if the consequences should not be dealt with? I think that, if anything, teaching our children to take the easy way out and to kill their unborn child does more damage in the long run. Accountability for ones actions needs to be taught, and who knows? …. that baby might be a blessing for that family, or another family that wanted a child.

     

    Next…

     

    It is true that men don’t carry babies. But it IS true that the child is just as much his as it is hers. One should never think that a woman is the all-sufficient life giver. Any respectable woman would want to consider the thoughts of the father. I’m not saying that it is not the woman’s ultimate decision. But I AM saying that it should be brought to light just how important the man is in the healthy maturation of the fetus and child, and not just act like being pregnant has nothing to do with the father. Men have almost NO rights as to the say so of their unborn or even birthed children. Sad but true.

     

    Next…

     

    “This is a commonly held myth that is currently undergoing a lot of research. As it turns out, men and boys both place pressure on their female partners to become pregnant, actively sabotage their efforts to avoid pregnancy, and attempt to influence the outcome of pregnancies already in progress. There’s nothing “constant” about it. Women may not always be the victims, but we’re nowhere near determining equality in reproductive coercion and control.”

     

    Women do the same. They coerce their male partners to have sex, and when they are pregnant, they use that to coral the man into marriage. On this point, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I’ll end with…. sources please.

     

    Next….

     

    I’m not going to break out my resume of volunteer activities or anything, but I can say that my work in the U.S. and outside of it has not been surrounded by anyone that calls themselves a liberal. Every single person that I know that does something for the greater good is a god-loving person who abides within the guidelines of a conservative lifestyle. Maybe these are just my experiences. Maybe not. The one thing that I do know is that the data that you have stated does not include non-governmental agencies. As you should know, most conservatives are small-government. We don’t like to be controlled by our government, and likewise we choose to help people by operating OUTSIDE of it. Let’s see THOSE statistics added to the mix. Additionally, there are good and bad policy makers on both sides. Furthermore, there comes a point where enabling people to have more children so that they get a bigger check each month is a problem.

     

    Lastly…

     

    I will read the pro-life documentation. I always do. I support families in my own way. The GED class that I teach has several single moms in it. Their male conterparts are often there to support them. I admire them for what they do. They know this. They, nor their children, are at no moment unloved.

  • ack

    Why would someone who, potentially would have to spend thousands on abortions, not opt to simply have surgery so that they could ensure that they did not have to have another abortion? Repeat abortions are not cheap.  I’m not rich or anything, but I do know that I would not opt to continue to have abortion after abortion. If you have the money for multiple abortions, you should have the money to do the responsible thing.”

     

    A lot of family planning health care providers are reluctant, if not prohibited, to steralize ANYONE who is female and of child bearing age. It’s a policy in many clinics. I wish I had the citation; I’ll find it when I have more energy. Furthermore, please take into account the forced sterilizations of women of color and as a historical rule, the Native community. People in those communities have historical reasons to reject sterilization.

     

    And as a general cultural norm, women in most communities feel personal pressure that if you can have kids, you’re somehow doing wrong by choosing not to.

     

    As for the cost:

    I can find $500 to take care of an immediate, emergency issue. It might take me a few months, but I can do it.

    Finding $2k, on the other hand, for a single medical procedure that I’m going to have to travel for, isn’t an emergency, and I think I can prevent from becoming an emergency? Not high on my list of priorities.

    “This is America, and most people who are uneducated on sex or birth control choose to be.”

    Some, maybe. But most depend on the school system and community centers to provide them with the health education they need. We dumped millions into abstinence only education that leaves teens and the adults they become ill-equipped to negotiate contraceptive use, let alone use it properly when both parties agree on the method.

     

    Many depend on their parents to offer information about protecting themselves, and the vast majority of parents don’t feel comfortable having that conversation.

     

    And even if people are equipped with the necessary information and taught about how to discuss contraception and STI protection with their partner, they still might not be able to afford it.


    Very little about contraception is a true choice. I live in an urban area, where if my pharamacist refuses to give me EC I can go down the street. I can buy condoms without fear of being recognized by someone I know. If I lived in a rural area at 16, where my mom knows the people at the drug store and I don’t feel safe talking to my doctor, I’m screwed. 

     

    As for the internet: A whole lot of people don’t have access, so we can’t fall back on this.

     

    Premaritial sex is very common indeed. Nothing that anyone thinks or says can change this. However, IF a teen pregnancy occurs, are we to react as if the consequences should not be dealt with? I think that, if anything, teaching our children to take the easy way out and to kill their unborn child does more damage in the long run. Accountability for ones actions needs to be taught, and who knows? …. that baby might be a blessing for that family, or another family that wanted a child.”


    This is one area where we will inherently disagree. Pregnancy is not a punishment, nor a “consequence” of having sex. If it was, all vaginal/penile intercourse would end in pregnancy. 

     

    “But it IS true that the child is just as much his as it is hers.”

     

    Another area of inherent disagreement. After birth, as long as neither parent is abusive or neglectful to either the child or the other parent (or another child in the household), then both should have equal responsibility because both can shoulder it. Before birth, the fetus is dependent on the woman or girl in a way she/he can never be dependent on the man/boy. The man/boy isn’t asked to offer any bodily resources other than sperm to make the pregnancy continue. The woman/girl is, on the other hand, asked to offer everything.

     

    On the politics: I believe that you have come into contact with a lot of conservative people who care, especially if you’re heavily involved in volunteer work. In my experience, those Rs are r.a.r.e. I would challenge you to have conversations with your friends about distinguishing between fiscal and social conservatism, and ask which they feel more rewarded in supporting. I’m pretty sure the basic tenets of Christianity point in one direction.

     

    But on the whole, the folks who support legislatively supported social programs aimed at helping young/single/lowincome/undereducated moms are Dems. If you believe in these programs, that actually help reduce abortion rates, you might want to take a look at voting records and rethink your party affiliation. Non-profits aren’t capable of picking up the slack, even when people want them to take on that role.

  • bornin1984

    Cause the death of another?

    Sometimes I wonder whether or not the pro-choicers around here actually read the things they type out, or if they are content to live in their own world, entirely of their own fashioning.

    Also, just to point this out, Democratic leaning states have much higher abortion rates then their Republican leaning counterparts. But I suppose we can simply chalk that up to coincidence.

  • bornin1984

    See above posted.

  • zenith15

    Well, DUH. It’s much easier to access these medical services in states that support a woman’s right to choose, not to mention the fact that many women have to travel from their repressive my way or the highway Red states to a blue state to even GET a safe abortion.

     

    I wonder if those stats count all the botches or self induced abortions by women who are afraid to run the gauntlet of cross waving, hymn singing pro lifers calling them “murderer” to get into a clinic?

  • zenith15

    That’s right, Ack. We don’t want any of that there Government interferin’ in our lives by providing needy children who have devastating illnesses HEALTH CARE or anything like that, because THAT is the job of the CHURCH, dont’cha know! And the FAMILY! Why, you just trot right on over to your church and you say Pastor, I need about, oh, a million dollars to fund my toddler’s kidney transplant, or I need ten thousand dollars to pay for my toddler’s autism medications this year and his behavioral therapy so he will be able to reach his full potential. I am CERTAIN they will help you out!!!

     

    And are these parents then to say, well, even if they DON’T. that’s ok, because what with my job over at the Wal Mart and my husband’s job at quickie pickie, why, we will surely be able to easily afford that out of our pockets?  What’s that you say? Get insurance? Well, but see, my employer has a new internal rule that says they will not hire anyone under middle management status for more than 34 hours per week, so they won’t be obligated to offer them insurance.  Oh, and my husband’s employer, they DO offer insurance–but, well, see, my husband makes minimum wage and so do I, and the cost of the really really BAD insurance they offer is over $500 a month out of his check, which is about half of what he makes before taxes, and then they STILL want us to reach a 2,000 deductible every year before they pay for anything, and god knows we don’t have that, so what’s the use?

     

    Now, that is a REAL LIFE situation of people I know–one that wealthy white repubs seem to be completely unaware of. In fact, I actually heard their guru Rush limbaugh, that bastion of Christian goodness and love, state that no one but teenagers has those minimum wage jobs, and they all live at home with mom and dad, so there is NO REASON to raise minimum wage–cause those workers don’t NEED it!

  • bornin1984

    So easier access to abortion equals higher abortion rates? Since that is the case, then it also stands to reason that for as long as abortion is legal, the abortion rate will be higher then it otherwise would be, which would mean that pro-choicers simply do not care about reducing the abortion rate, for if they did they would adopt the same policies as, as they are called, anti-choice states which do have lower abortion rates. It seems silly to me to somehow state that Republicans/conservatives do not care about reducing the abortion rate when the states in which their presence is strongest have lower abortion rates then the states in which those accusing them of not caring about lowering the abortion rate have.

    On another note, Guttmacher provides some rather useful information (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/sfaa.html). It divides the U.S. into four regions: west, midwest, South and northeast. In the west census region, 18% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles, and 5% traveled more than 100 miles. In the midwest census region 19% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles and 9% traveled more than 100 miles. In the South census region 21% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles and 10% traveled more than 100 miles. And, finally, in the northeast census region, 11% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles and 3% traveled more than 100 miles. As you can see, the majority of women obtaining an abortion travel less then 100 miles to do so. Furthermore, if you were to map the 13% of counties that do have an abortion provider, you would find that said counties are more often then not in states which tilt Democrat then there are in states which tilt Republican (which you attested to earlier). If you were, then, to draw a circle with a radius of a hundred miles around said counties, you would find an abortion provider in a Red State would primarily draw residents from other Red states, and an abortion provider in a Blue state primarily from residents in Blue states. That is not to say that some abortion providers in Red states will not draw some women from Blue states and vice versa, but that the occurrence is not as pronounced as you think.

    Long story short, someone getting an abortion in New York is more-then-likely someone living within the area (i.e., the states surrounding New York), and is not someone from Alabama, or Mississippi or North Dakota. While the notion of abortion rates in Blue states being so high because of women from Red states flocking to said Blue states is a great sound bite, it is not borne out of fact. Blue states tend to have higher abortion rates because the women who live in them have abortions at a higher rate then their Red state counterparts, and that is the simple fact of the matter. And it is even funnier when you consider the fact that the west and northeast regions have the highest abortion rates, as when compared to the south and midwest regions, yet they have a fewer percentage of women traveling over a hundred miles to obtain an abortion than do the south and midwest regions.

  • ks

    Honestly, I have no issue at all with high abortion rates.  It wouldn’t bother me a bit if the abortion rate increased by 1000%, so long as those abortions were safe and not coerced.  It might give me pause, in that a high abortion rate is indicative of other problems, like reduced access to and education about contraception, resulting in more unplanned and/or unwanted pregnancies, but other than that, reducing the abortion rate is not a concern of mine at all.  Decreasing abortion rates is incidental to the real goal, which is empowering women with education about and access to reproductive services, including contraception, so that women can make informed choices about what happens to their bodies.  But decreasing abortion rates is a side effect that comes from that, but it is NOT a goal in and of itself.

     

     

  • eddie

    The idea that sterilization is easier to obtain than an abortion is ludacris. And I believe that is because women are still viewed as chattle to be bred. I was a 30 year old mother of two who wanted to have tubal. I was denied. Why? Because my insurance company said I was still in a healthy childbearing state and they couldn’t approve sterilization until I was well over the age of 35. My right to addiquate health care was denied.

    When you don’t face the fear of a LIFE ALTERING pregnancy, you cannot understand how second class that makes you.

  • ack

    Bama, you successfully derailed me from the points of the OP. This article is about victims of violence, and the rights they have regarding decisions about how to handle the victimization. Lots of other posts deal with abortion in the general population, but this addresses a very specific population. I understand that you think it’s statistically insignificant, but to the people who are affected by these policies, it’s incredibly significant. I think all women should have options, but denying options to women who have been raped, assaulted, and/or abused, particularly by the people who are supposed to love and care for them, is just cruel.

     

    Look into the work done by the Family Violence Prevention Fund dealing with domestic violence, sexual violence, and reproductive coercion.

  • ack

    Thank you for sharing your experience. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of “But this is easy! You should do this!” without taking… well… reality into account.

     

    Not to mention the fact that the article talked about people who are victims of violence, who have NO CONTROL over what happened to them. Unless Bama thinks that women should have a TL in an effort to prevent a pregnancy just in case some asshole rapes them.

  • bornin1984

    Honestly, I have no issue at all with high abortion rates.

    And neither do a sizable majority of pro-choicers, which is simply sad. Makes them seem deserving of the pro-abortion label. I guess all the talk about how no one likes abortion and how the goal is to reduce the number of abortions is just that– talk.

  • squirrely-girl

    Repeat abortions are not cheap. Why would someone who, potentially would have to spend thousands on abortions, not opt to simply have surgery so that they could ensure that they did not have to have another abortion? I’m not rich or anything, but I do know that I would not opt to continue to have abortion after abortion. If you have the money for multiple abortions, you should have the money to do the responsible thing.

     

    http://www.epigee.org/guide/sterile.html

     

    Average cost of 4 abortions: $2,200.00

    Average cost of tubal ligation: $2,000.00

     

    Because nobody really plans to have four abortions. Seriously. Could you please go find me the woman who has had four abortions and set out to do so. I’ve mentioned this in other threads, but it seems appropriate here as well… trying to come up with the funds for a single expensive medical procedure is a lot more difficult than spreading said funds out over the course of time. That (straw) woman having four abortions didn’t start herself a personal “abortion fund” and plunk down 2K, she likely scraped that money together each time with the help of family, friends, and non-profit abortion funds. 

     

    Other people have commented on the difficulty of obtaining a tubal when you’re young, fertile, and educated, particularly if you don’t have kids so I won’t elaborate too much. But I would politely suggest not making suggestions for straw women until you actually do some research into the feasibility of what you’re expecting.

     

    Next…

    While you may have gone to school in a non abstinence only sex ed era, this is not the world teens have been living in for the last decade. While there is plenty of information out there, sorting through what’s valid versus biased can be a difficult task, particularly for youth who have been systematically lied to during that school-sponsored health class.

     

    Next…

    I think that, if anything, teaching our children to take the easy way out and to kill their unborn child does more damage in the long run. Accountability for ones actions needs to be taught, and who knows? …. that baby might be a blessing for that family, or another family that wanted a child.

    I, for one, don’t consider a baby to be an appropriate “consequence” for premarital sex. Having a child doesn’t miraculously teach irresponsible teens how to be responsible. That baby could also be a drain, financially and emotionally, on young kids not ready to be parents. I love how you assume that carrying to term and handing the baby over would somehow not do damage in the long run either. :/  Just because there are some infertile people in the world who would like to have a child, doesn’t mean we punish fertile teen girls with pregnancy only to have them hand the baby over to somebody else. Women aren’t interchangeable incubators and fertile women don’t “owe” infertile couples babies. 

     

    Next…

    One should never think that a woman is the all-sufficient life giver. Any respectable woman would want to consider the thoughts of the father. I’m not saying that it is not the woman’s ultimate decision. But I AM saying that it should be brought to light just how important the man is in the healthy maturation of the fetus and child, and not just act like being pregnant has nothing to do with the father.

    Until that baby exits the uterus, the woman is, in fact, the all-sufficient life giver. And, while I greatly appreciate the role of men in child rearing, I’m not quite sure how you see the man as being so important to the “healthy maturation of the “fetus.” What exactly are men doing with that fetus that is contributing to it’s healthy maturation? Not assaulting or emotionally abusing the pregnant woman? Donating their bodies or organs for it’s development??? What? Providing financially? That’s awesome if the man is doing that, but it’s not his BODY that’s being drained and used in the construction of a new life… it’s hers.

     

    And I would argue that most respectable women DO consider the thoughts of the respectable father. That “respectable” label goes both ways. 

     

    Next…

    Women do the same. They coerce their male partners to have sex, and when they are pregnant, they use that to coral the man into marriage.

    I love how anti-choice people want it both ways. If she gets pregnant out of wedlock, there’s supposed to be a shotgun wedding and everybody should live happily ever after or she’s a whore. But oh wait… now she’s a manipulative whore that coerced him into having sex and only got pregnant to ruin his life. So which is it? I thought we were promoting marriage?! Or aren’t we? Is she a whore no matter what? 

     

    Next…

    We don’t like to be controlled by our government, and likewise we choose to help people by operating OUTSIDE of it. Let’s see THOSE statistics added to the mix. Additionally, there are good and bad policy makers on both sides. 

    I’ll be the first to agree that I don’t like being controlled by our government… and I think the government should stay out of my uterus and extricate itself from the doctor-patient relationship. You don’t get to have it both ways… you’re either for government control of private (medical) affairs or you’re against it. Ohhhh wait… or you’re just for government control of private medical affairs that you personally disagree with. Oops – I tend to forget that blatantly hypocritical, self-righteous third option. 

    Furthermore, there comes a point where enabling people to have more children so that they get a bigger check each month is a problem.

    I will agree that simply giving people cash per family member is a negative… but it’s because I see that as putting a band-aid over a necrotizing wound. Not providing people the tools they actually need to get their lives together is near pointless. Giving people poverty funds to barely feed and clothe their children doesn’t get them an education or provide child care while they work or go to school. I would also argue that, again, you want your cake and want to eat it too. A reason many poor people keep having kids is due to lack of access to effective birth control and abortion. You don’t get to bitch about poor people reproducing when you also seek to deny them the ability to prevent it or deal with it once it occurs. 

  • arekushieru

    Probably because you just presented a TOtal misrepresentation of what ProChoicers actually DO say.  We say that BOTH termination and continuation of pregnancies are moral, IF they’re NOT forced.  Let me repeat, so you don’t MISS it, this time:  IF they’re NOT forced.  The goal, after all, IS to reduce unWANted pregnancies, the ACTual STRESSor (and the situation that creates an ideal environment for force to be applied by the Pro’Life’ movement).  The fact that the number of abortions from such are reduced is just a byproduct, just as the number of continued pregnancies (from such) are reduced is just a byproduct.  So, now, how did you prove that we are all just ‘talk’?  Or that we are ‘deserving’ of the Pro-Abortion label?  I guess you could still make a case that we are, but then you would HAVE to say that we are also ‘deserving’ of the ProLife label, since I compared BOTH sides of the argument to each other, AS the ProChoice label imPLIES… (unlike most of the ProLife movement, which is actually just anti-choice).  And I don’t think you’re willing to do that… are you…?

  • prochoiceferret

    And neither do a sizable majority of pro-choicers, which is simply sad. Makes them seem deserving of the pro-abortion label.

     

    Yes, much like the American Heart Association deserves the pro-triple-bypass-surgery label, because they have no issue with lots of heart surgeries being performed.

     

    I guess all the talk about how no one likes abortion and how the goal is to reduce the number of abortions is just that– talk.

     

    You must be talking about the anti-choice side there. Over here, it’s unwanted pregnancies that get our tutus in a tizzy.

  • arekushieru

    It’s rather odd that you use such lopsided circular arguments, Born, that lead right back to the premise only you have deemed applicable to us.  “ProChoicers want easier access to abortion services which leads to higher abortion rates, thus ProChoicers don’t want to decrease the number of abortions performed, thus they want easier access to abortion services, etc….”

     

    Please read and listen carefully to what people are actually saying, next time, Born, and, if you need further clarification, read my response to your following argument before replying, as well. 

  • arekushieru

    He wasn’t comparing death to something else, OBviously.  They were comparing how one is deemed selfish to a similar method in which one is deemed selfish, again, OBviously. 

     

    The fact that death is required in some cases, here, in order for one to be able to fully exercise their rights, is NOT the inherently selfish part, if it were deemed such, then that is simply due to male misogynists imposing their own set of morals on us and jumping for joy that they will never have to deal with such a restriction.

  • arekushieru

     

    I assume you’re a woman who has tried to obtain sterilization services? If you haven’t tried, and you haven’t had kids, have fun giving it a shot! (Sextuplet points if you can do it as a white, het, cis female, middle to upper class college educated woman.) Also, look up some stats on abortion to see who obtains repeat abortions. Might give you some insight on why it happens.

     

    Oh, I know, I know!  Me, me!  They’re poor or they have children alREADy…?

  • arekushieru

    Btw, bb, 1% of those rapes that are rePORted, that is if your exTREMEly biased website didn’t skew the results totally of the map, ONCE again.  Anti-child rights?  You mean anti-EXtra-child-rights?  Why would you have any problems talking to one of those?  I would find it MUCH more difficult to discuss with the PRO-extra-child-rights-but-only-if-the-MAN-isn’t-involved-once-they-are-born-then-they-deserve-less-than-a-fetus-again (oh, wait, sorry, ProLifer is the more euphemistic version, isn’t it?) movement.

  • katwa

    Or, how about actually having the respect for their bodies to wait until marriage to engage in sexual activity altogether?

    I love the idea that marriage somehow works as a contraceptive.

  • ahunt

    One day…you will clue us as to how to insert graphics into our posts, PCF.

     

    WELL DONE!

  • ahunt

    Women do the same. They coerce their male partners to have sex, and when they are pregnant, they use that to coral the man into marriage.

     

    Almost wet myself laughing here.

     

    bamababe…research is your friend. Try it sometime.

  • ahunt

    Furthermore, there comes a point where enabling people to have more children so that they get a bigger check each month is a problem.

     

    This is outrageous bullshit…do some goddamn research before you come in here blathering rightwing talking points that were lies back when Reagan was spouting them!

  • bornin1984

    How can you possibly hope to argue against the things I type out when you do not even know your own argument? It is very annoying. At any rate, the aforementioned statement:

    We say that BOTH termination and continuation of pregnancies are moral, IF they are NOT forced.

    Is a flat out lie. It is not that hard to find a pro-choicer who will readily admit that abortion is murder, or that it is immoral, or that while they would never personally have an abortion they would not stop someone else from doing so. I mean, honestly. Solely because you are content to live in a world of your own fashioning, does not mean that your world is reality. In fact, it is far from reality. Which brings me to my next point.

    The goal, after all, IS to reduce unWANted pregnancies, the ACTual STRESSor (and the situation that creates an ideal environment for force to be applied by the Pro-Life movement). The fact that the number of abortions from such are reduced is just a byproduct, just as the number of continued pregnancies (from such) are reduced is just a byproduct.

    What??? Women tend not to abort intended/wanted pregnancies. If you reduce the number of unintended/unwanted pregnancies, the abortion rate would go down and the birth rate would go up, as more pregnancies would end in birth than abortion. To pass reducing the abortion rate off a simple byproduct of reducing the number of unintended/unwanted pregnancies is, quite frankly, humorous, at best. People want to reduce the number of unintended/unwanted pregnancies, or at least they say they want to reduce their instances, in order to reduce the abortion rate; they do not want to reduce the incidence of unintended/unwanted pregnancies just because. That is where the whole common ground rhetoric comes from. I have pointed this out to you before.

    So, now, how did you prove that we are all just talk?

    Similar pregnancy rates and higher abortion rates.

    I guess you could still make a case that we are, but then you would HAVE to say that we are also deserving of the ProLife label, since I compared BOTH sides of the argument to each other, AS the ProChoice label imPLIES… (unlike most of the ProLife movement, which is actually just anti-choice). And I don\’t think you\’re willing to do that… are you…?

    Abortion negates the existence of a life.

  • bornin1984

    You might want to go back and re-read what I wrote out. In case you do not remember, then I will quote myself verbatim:

    So easier access to abortion equals higher abortion rates? Since that is the case, then it also stands to reason that for as long as abortion is legal, the abortion rate will be higher then it otherwise would be, which would mean that pro-choicers simply do not care about reducing the abortion rate, for if they did they would adopt the same policies as, as they are called, anti-choice states which do have lower abortion rates. It seems silly to me to somehow state that Republicans/conservatives do not care about reducing the abortion rate when the states in which their presence is strongest have lower abortion rates then the states in which those accusing them of not caring about lowering the abortion rate have.

    If you want to argue against things not said, then go do it with someone else.

  • bornin1984

    Yes, much like the American Heart Association deserves the pro-triple-bypass-surgery label, because they have no issue with lots of heart surgeries being performed.

    Does the American Heart Association cause greater occurrences of instances needing triple bypass surgery? Please stop, because your witty responses lack the wit you think they have.

    You must be talking about the anti-choice side there. Over here, it\\\’s unwanted pregnancies that get our tutus in a tizzy.

    No, I think the fact that someone speaks out against abortion, or even speaks out in favor of giving birth over having an abortion, which gets your tutus in a dizzy.

  • ahunt

    Abortion negates the existence of a life

     

    Yet women go on to have other children post abortion.

     

    It is entirely likely that abortion facilitates the existance of life, as women are better positioned for motherhood later on.

  • ack

    Wanting to reduce the need for abortion is different than reducing the number of abortions. There was a post about this a few months back, I think.

  • ack

    It DOESN’T??? I was only going to marry my boyfriend because my birth control pills are expensive. Sigh. Guess I’ll just go with the generic.

  • ahunt

    It is not that hard to find a pro-choicer who will readily admit that abortion is murder or that it is immoral, or that while they would never personally have an abortion they would not stop someone else from doing so.

     

    Nothing like hedging one’s bets, huh? Nice rhetorical flourish, but pro-choicers deal with the real world…abortion is a fact of life, legally or illegally.

  • prochoiceferret

    Does the American Heart Association cause greater occurrences of instances needing triple bypass surgery?

     

    No, that would be McDonald’s. Which you could liken to right-wingers not wanting kids to know about their own bodies, and contraception. Would you like some ignorance with that?

     

    Please stop, because your witty responses lack the wit you think they have.

     

    Oh, don’t worry about it. We’re not laughing with you.

     

    No, I think the fact that someone speaks out against abortion, or even speaks out in favor of giving birth over having an abortion, which gets your tutus in a dizzy.

     

    Oh, sure, if you count anti-choicer mischief, then there’s plenty more that gets our panties in a bunch. But if they all dropped off the face of the earth, then we would concern ourselves particularly with unwanted pregnancies. Right after the mile-long conga line.

  • ahunt

    Stop it. Don’t make me whine.

  • arekushieru

    Yes, I read it, and everything I said is, inDEED, STILL applicable.  Did you not re-read the previous post I responded to, like I asked you to…?  Maybe then you’ll finally see what you’re trying to prevent yourself from seeing…?

  • arekushieru

    I guess I WAS correct when I said ProLifers regurgitate things that they are repeatedly force-fed by their so-called ‘mentors’.  Let’s see, the very defiNItion of the ProChoice movement, means that you support a woman’s right to choose for herSELF whether she conTINues or TERminates a pregnancy.  Also, since it is much easier to find a ProChoicer who espouses that particular view I, rather than the one you, put forward, it means, that this is the one place where we could, technically, use the “No true Scotsman” application and NOT have it be a fallacy.  Thus, I say that those aren’t true ProChoicers.  (Aaaannnd, before you go on to tell me that you MEANT to say that it was harder to find one to support the views I referred to, I would have thought you would have made every effort to point that out, WITH accompanying evidence, oRIginally,  rightly leaving one to wonder why you didn’t.) Unfortunately, for your PL movement, those who are anti-choice (the ones who promulgate the party line of no abortion yet fail to put their money where their mouths are, restricted freedoms and rights ONLY for women, etc, etc….) comprise almost ALL of the movement.  So, saying that one is not a true ProLifer when referring to the defiNItion of that movement, is, perhaps, true.  But when referring to the general population of the movement, you CAN’T say that. 

     

    Umm, I said not ALL women abort unwanted/unintended pregnancies.   Which is much the same as saying that not ALL women conTINue intended/wanted pregnancies.  If there are no unwanted pregnancies, the numbers of unintended continued pregnancies would absoLUTEly reach zero.  How is it so hard to understand that, again…? 

     

    Actually, yes, we do, just because.  We DID address this point, one you made, on aNOther thread, y’know….  Did you just not read it…?  Abortion is simply a symptom, just as continuation of pregnancy can simply be a symptom, of something that is unWANted.  I would have NO difficulty choosing abortion, howEVER, I WOULD have difficulty with an unplanned pregnancy.  WHY would I try to treat the SYMptoms, when it would be more effective to treat the CAUSes, which as I SAID, are the ACTual STRESSors?  Isn’t that what one normally does in a medical profession?  So, I sincerely hope that one who truly believes that treating the symptoms is the best way to effectively treat patients, like yourself, never attempts to become a doctor.  One’s disappointment in loss of patients after the first little while, I predict, would be vast. 

     

    So? That doesn’t contradict ANY of my points nor was it relevant to the topic we were discussing, so, no, you haven’t ‘proven’ anything.

     

    Continuation of a pregnancy almost certainly assures the existence of life.  And I explained HOW we, as ProCHOICers, were promoting BOTH of those things…?  If you still don’t understand what I’m saying, then, once again, the only thing I can suggest is that you go back and re-read…?

  • bornin1984

    Yet women go on to have other children post abortion.

    It is entirely likely that abortion facilitates the existance of life, as women are better positioned for motherhood later on.

    Women do not abort their final pregnancy? Besides, the point I see you glossed over, is that abortion causes there to be one less life today then there otherwise would have been.

  • bornin1984

    1.) You really have no clue what you are rambling on about. First of all, the No True Scotsman fallacy is always a fallacy, for it is an ad hoc justification. That is, when someone points out to you why your assertion is wrong, you turn around and change up your argument. In this case, you said that all pro-choicers believe that abortion is a moral decision. I pointed out that this is incorrect, as there are a sizable portion of pro-choicers who state that abortion is murder and immoral. You then turned around and claim that said people are not true pro-choicers. Yes, that really is a fallacy. Sorry. Second of all, I simply do not know what world you live in, but those people who believe that abortion is immoral yet should otherwise be legal make up a sizable portion of the pro-choice movement. It is a major talking point of those who consider themselves pro-choice. It has even been echoes, repeatedly, on this site. This is simply a case of you making an assertion which was wrong, and instead of admitting to being wrong, trying to pigeonhole everyone into one category in order to met your argumentative needs.

    2.) The abortion rate is the number of pregnancies ending in abortion per a thousand woman. The birth rate is the number of pregnancies ending in birth per a thousand woman. A greater percentage of unintended/unplanned pregnancies end in abortion than do intended/planned pregnancies. Therefore, a rising percentage of pregnancies being of the intended/planned variety would lead to a lower abortion rate, on account of fewer pregnancies ending in abortion, and a higher birth rate, on account of fewer pregnancies ending in abortion. Which is what I said prior, which you somehow failed to understand.

    3.) No, actually you did not address my response, specifically the part about people not wanting to reduce the unintended pregnancy rate just because, but rather because that would reduce the abortion rate. But, you see, the last time this was pointed out to you, you proceeded to respond with how you disagreed with the reducing-abortion-common-ground rhetoric. But just because you disagree with it, does not mean it is not something which is espoused by pro-choicers far and wide, or that it is not the central reason behind trying to reduce the instance of unplanned/unintended pregnancy.

    4.) Ah, so you jumped into a conversation that was not directed towards you, proceeded to be proven wrong and then turned around and called said point that you did not like irrelevant? Sorry, but it does not work that way. If you have pregnancy rates which are similar to those states which are consistently lambasted, and your abortion rate is higher then those states you lambaste, then that means that you are nothing but talk, for not only are you failing to reduce the abortion rate, but you are not even reducing the unintended pregnancy rate which, following your logic, is the goal of pro-choicers.

    5.) And having an abortion almost assuredly ensures the negation of a life. You somehow do not get to ignore half of the equation, Are.

  • bornin1984

    No, that would be McDonald\’s. Which you could liken to right-wingers not wanting kids to know about their own bodies, and contraception. Would you like some ignorance with that?

    So explain to me again why there is no discrepancy between pregnancy rates between pro-choice/Red states and anti-choice/Blue states? Ignorance, indeed.

  • bornin1984

    Wanting to reduce the need for abortion is different than reducing the number of abortions. There was a post about this a few months back, I think.

    If reducing the need for abortions does not entail a reduction in the abortion rate, then you are not reducing the need for abortions.

  • prochoiceferret

    Women do not abort their final pregnancy?

     

    Some do. Some don’t. Some have abortions so they can have a kid “for real” later on in life, when they’re better prepared for one. You know, the kind of thing that mature grown-ups like to do.

     

    Besides, the point I see you glossed over, is that abortion causes there to be one less life today then there otherwise would have been.

     

    So it’s kind of like abstinence, then.

  • prochoiceferret

    So explain to me again why there is no discrepancy between pregnancy rates between pro-choice/Red states and anti-choice/Blue states?

     

    Sorry, but if you want to have your ass handed to you on a statistical platter, you’ll have to talk with Jodi.

     

    Until then, feel free to entertain us by attempting to argue that comprehensive sex education and subsidized contraceptive availability increase the rate of unwanted pregnancy!

  • bornin1984

    Some do. Some don\’t. Some have abortions so they can have a kid \”for real\” later on in life, when they\’re better prepared for one. You know, the kind of thing that mature grown-ups like to do.


    Mature grown-ups take care of that which is the result of their sexual activity. Personal responsibility and all that.

    So it\’s kind of like abstinence, then.

    Abstinence causes there to be one less life tomorrow then there would be today? Well, I see English is not your primary language. Please, try harder. At, at the very least, just try.

  • arekushieru

    What is that they say about reading comprehension…?  Ah, well, I’ll translate, anyways.  I said “technically” the No True Scotsman ‘application’, which is much like the *application* of self-defense with the *technical* argument that it is not murder, is not necessarily a fallacy, because while self-defence does not fit the definition of murder neither do those ProChoicers fit the definition of ProChoice. 

     

    I only imPLIED that all ProChoicers view abortion as a moral decision AFTer you made YOUR claim.  Are you getting confused now, as well?

     

    Do you not get the idea of what the difference between a maJORity and sizable and easily found are, *yet*?

     

    Actually, no, it isn’t, unLESS they’re talking aGAINST that view.  The maJORity of the ProChoicers I or the ones my friends, acquaintances or strangers I’ve met on the street have heard speaking and talked to have stated that abortion is ALways a moral choice and that those who don’t believe so are just louder, and that that doesn’t necessarily make a majority, y’know….  And if you want to state that this is anecdotal evidence, you’re the first one to make the unsupported claim, Born, so put your money where your mouth is, ‘honey’. 

     

    As to your second point, so what?  I never said that that WASn’t the case because, as I said, this was NOT the point I was addressing, since I ALso pointed out that this would mean that the number of unintended pregnancies that are conTINued would not be addressed under that equation, but you failed to understand.  You somehow do not get to ignore half the equation, Born.  Did I just throw your words back at you?  Yes.  Were your words a lie?  Yes.  (I’ll address that AT the latter’s point, mk’?)  Are MY words a lie?  No.

     

    And just because you WISH it so, does not mean it IS something that is espoused by ProChoicers far and wide or that it is the central reason behind trying to reduce those numbers. 

     

    I actually DID address your comment, you just stubbornly refuse to recognize it (a theory which is supported by your inability to see that I didn’t just respond with how I disagreed with the abortion-common ground rhetoric).  Tell me, Born, why would I find it UNsurprising if you continue to do so even AFter you have read my above statements? 

     

    Uh, what, this IS a public board, last I checked.  ANYone can respond to anyone else’s comments.  If they get too bogged down in pettiness and aggressiveness, the mods will delete as they deem fit (and NO, I do NOT think there AREn’t cases where I have demonstrated either or both).

     

    And did you *really* just use such an ignorant statement as that?  Really?  There are PLENty of things that need to be done before the numbers of unintended pregnancies can be reduced, which should have been OBvious, and there are plenty of REASons why these things CAN’T be implemented.  And you would have to look to your OWN movement to find the answer to that….  Here’s a list for you, so you can address them:  1. Opposition to comprehensive sex ed, 2. Introduction after introduction (and many times implementation) of unworkable, anti-choice laws that only hurt women, never reduce the number of abortions, 3. Access to fundamental health care for all and 4. Blocked access to contraceptives and birth control that would preVENT the need for abortion, by attempting to introduce ‘conscience clauses’ and demonizing and shaming women for accessing these service, most especially by the Catholic Church. 

     

    So, the actual question is, where WEREn’t YOU proven wrong and who was the one who introduced something irrelevant?  I can only tell you, it WASn’t me.

     

    Finally,  I SAID I addressed both sides.  You demonstrated that you ignored half the equation when you failed to address my point about a woman who chooses to continue a pregnancy, then, when I proceeded to attempt to bring it to your atTENtion again, how you can repeatedly falsely accuse me of doing the very same thing you were doing.  *I have never had that done to me as much as you have done, Born.

  • bornin1984

    Sorry, but if you want to have your ass handed to you on a statistical platter, you\’ll have to talk with Jodi.

    It does not take a rocket science to be able to look at compiled data. Just a human, apparently.

    Until then, feel free to entertain us by attempting to argue that comprehensive sex education and subsidized contraceptive availability increase the rate of unwanted pregnancy!

    That is funny. Can you find me where I said as much? Or is this one of those patented instances where you feel compelled to obfuscate and pass yourself off as witty?

  • arekushieru

    Who do you think rocket scientists are, aliens?

     

    Yeah, well, if you read what I said in my long response to your long one, maybe you’ll see why she said that….  I don’t hold out much hope, though.

  • arekushieru

    Yup.  Or didn’t you know that if your mom and dad hadn’t had sex on the day your mom’s egg was fertilized by your dad’s sperm, you wouldn’t BE here and there might not have been anyone else to replace.  Don’t you think that if your existence had been erased there would be one less life…?  Weeiiiirrdd.

  • bornin1984

    1.) Technically, it is also a fallacy, no matter what way you try to dress it up. Please quit while you are not too far behind.

    2.) Considering how I made no claim, no you did not.

    3.) Do you not find it funny how your argument has gone from all pro-choicers believe abortion is a moral choice to only the ones you have talked to? It is nice to see you backtracking off your original assertion, even if its one step short of admitting you were wrong. At any rate, I think it is high time you venture out into the world. You just might find that your characterization of what all pro-choicers believe is just a wee bit fallacious. Oh, and for the record, I do believe you were the one to make claims regarding what all pro-choicers believe first, so you would be burdened with providing proof of that assertion. But as it is a ridiculous assertion, I will not ask you to prove it. I will simply let you save whatever face you have left and move on to something else.

    4.) You did not throw anything back at anyone. You basically typed a lot without saying anything at all. Overall rates involve both unintended/unplanned pregnancies and intended/planned pregnancies. Simply because you do not understand what you are arguing, or trying to argue against, does not mean a point was not made.

    5.) You have this knack for going off on some unrelated tangent. So much so, that not only is it hard to keep up with what you are trying to say, but to the point where you cannot seem to keep your arguments straight, and skip around like you were playing hopscotch.

    6.) At first, I was going to take the time to point out to you how states with the highest rates of abortion tend to have the most liberal of laws when it comes to sex ed, funding of abortion, funding for contraceptives and health care, and a rather large contingent of abortion clinics, but then I realized that would take me far too much time, and it was easier to direct you to the following link.

    http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/state-profiles/

    Notice how states such as New York, New Jersey and California, which have some of the highest abortion rates in the nation, are rated A- or better while states such as Mississippi, North Dakota and Kentucky are rated F and have among the lowest abortion rates in the nation? Why do you think that is, Are? I know why, but the question is do you know why?

    7.) You really have not addressed both sides in the slightest, Are. It is hard to be pro-life when you wholeheartedly support an action which is designed to end the life of another.

  • prochoiceferret

    Mature grown-ups take care of that which is the result of their sexual activity. Personal responsibility and all that.

     

    Well, duh. That’s why they can use emergency contraception, or get an abortion, or give up a child for adoption, or become a parent. Choices and all that.

     

    Abstinence causes there to be one less life tomorrow then there would be today?

     

    No, but it does cause there to be one less life today then there otherwise would have been. Which is what you said in the first place, after all.

  • jrm83

    Sadly, some of the generics are expensive too.  And of course insurance won’t cover it.

  • ks

    If reducing the need for abortions does not entail a reduction in the abortion rate, then you are not reducing the need for abortions.

     

    You’re either being willfully ignorant or you’re kind of an idiot who fails at reading comprehension and logic.

    So I’ll say it again, slowly this time, and maybe you’ll understand.  Reducing the number of abortions performed is not the goal.  Reducing the need for abortions isn’t even the goal, really.  Instead, reducing the rate of unintended and/or unwanted pregnancies is the goal.  This means that women have better education about and access to contraception, as well as the power in their personal relationships to be able to use said contraception.  Fewer unintended/unwanted pregnancies means that fewer women feel that they need to have an abortion, leading, maybe, to a reduction in the abortion rate.  Reducing the number of abortions is a side effect, because if fewer women are pregnant when they don’t want to be, then fewer women will have an abortion.  It’s even a nice side effect, because having an abortion sounds like a relatively unpleasant procedure and I can’t imagine anyone wanting to have any kind of messy and painful surgery just for shits and giggles, but it isn’t the goal.  Fewer women being pregnant when they don’t want to be is the goal.

    This does not mean that the absolute number of abortions necessarily decreases, and in fact, better access to and affordability of abortion will probably lead, at least initially, to an increase in the number of abortions performed, as women will be able to get them when they previously could not.  You also have the issue of women traveling to places where there is greater access and the fact, at least right now, that places where there is better access are places where there is a larger population.  And, on top of all that, if those of us who are pro-choice were to get our way and have a world where women’s sexual and reproductive choices were not shamed and stigmatized, then some women would have more abortions, as they would feel entitled to it, and there will always, always, be someone, somewhere, who is pregnant when she doesn’t want to be. 

    And even if the abortion rate does get reduced dramatically, there will never be a time when the need for abortions is reduced to zero, as there will (unfortunately) probably always be women who are pregnant as a result of rape, or who have a wanted pregnancy that has gone wrong, or for whatever reason decide that they can’t continue a pregnancy at that time and will need to terminate.  We don’t live in a perfect world and shit happens sometimes.

    But again, none of that is the issue, as reducing the abortion rate is a side effect of the real goal, which is reducing the number of unintended/unwanted pregnancies.

    But of course, you already know that. 

  • princess-rot

    I am waiting for the day when a wingnut comes onto here and gives us some new talking points that DO NOT boil down to: “You sullied yourself with a penis, now pay the price*, whore.” That’s the reason I didn’t respond to bama-something’s pile of privileged fail upthread, and I understand the reason for pcf’s snarky response. We’re bored of that noise.

     

    * The “price” being anything from your physical health, financial security, freedom from violence, mental wellbeing, employment, education, future, economic stability, your home and of course your bodily autonomy.

  • princess-rot

    So it’s not hard to find out that pro-choicers exist across a wide spectrum of politics and each will hold varying beliefs about pretty much everything, including abortion, except that they accept abortion is, as ahunt puts it, a fact. They understand that whether they personally like it or not is irrelevant unless their own body. You know, the very definition of “pro-choice”. Color me unsurprised. Do try a better way of playing “gotcha” next time.

  • ack

    I know, and I knew it when I responded. But sometimes, it’s just so hard not to! Especially if it’s a new commenter; I sometimes feel like maybe… juuuuust maybe… they came with good intentions and might see a little bit of reason, or gain some empathy. So much of this debate plays out in theory for people, so bringing it back to the women and girls affected by the policies might actually make a difference.

     

    (And to be honest, it’s ESPECIALLY hard to keep my hands on the mouse instead of the keyboard when I’ve spent some time drinking in the pool. :)

     

    “You sullied yourself with a penis, now pay the price, whore.” This was brilliantly phrased.

  • ack

    For clarifying this. I didn’t phrase my response very clearly, but you did.

  • ks

    Honestly, I have just about lost my patience with the willfully ignorant and stupid.  Assholes can disagree with my having the right to control who lives inside my uterus all they want, but they should at least have the integrity to admit out loud that that is what they are disagreeing with and not try to confuse the issue with all their whining about how we’re all stupid for wanting said rights and not understanding that their precious feelings and beliefs are more important than said rights.  Purposeful ignorance and pretending to be too stupid to breathe always irritate me.

  • crowepps

    while states such as Mississippi, North Dakota and Kentucky are rated F and have among the lowest abortion rates in the nation? Why do you think that is

    Now go one step further and check out the statistics on those states rated F on the poverty, domestic violence, crime, divorce and high school dropout rates — you’ll find that they receive F’s there as well.  Why do you think that is?

     

  • bornin1984

    You are either being willfully ignorant or you are kind of an idiot who fails at reading comprehension and logic.

    Before you try– yes, I said try– to call someone willfully ignorant or an idiot who fails at reading comprehension and logic, at least– at least– remember what you said less then 14 hours ago.

    So I will say it again, slowly this time, and maybe you will understand. Reducing the number of abortions performed is not the goal. Reducing the need for abortions is not even the goal, really.

    No, actually, what you said was, wanting to reduce the need for abortion is different than reducing the number of abortions, after which I pointed out to you that if the rate of something, in this case abortion, does not go down (do you even know what rates are?), that you are not reducing the need for said occurrence, you tried to change up your post. Which brings me to my next point. You cannot reduce the need for something without also reducing its occurrence, for if you do not reduce its occurrence, you are not reducing the need for it. It is as simple as that.

    Let us use the framework you have set up and assume that, this year, there will be a thousand pregnancies, half of which are planned/intended and the other half which are unplanned/unintended. Now let us also assume that half of all unplanned/unintended pregnancies are aborted, while just 1/50th of all planned/intended pregnancies are aborted. That means that, of the one-thousand pregnancies, five-hundred were unplanned/unintended, with 250 ending in abortion, while the other five-hundred were planned/intended, with only ten ending in abortion. That would mean that 260 out of 1,000 pregnancies end in abortion (26%). Now, let us also assume that two years from now, the number of unplanned/unintended pregnancies gets cut in half, thus reducing the need for abortion, while the number of planned/intended pregnancies stay the same. Let us also assume that the percentage of pregnancies, both unplanned/planned and unintended/intended, stay the same. That would mean that in two years, there would be 750 pregnancies, five-hundred of which would be planned/intended and 250 of which would be unplanned/unintended. Assuming half of all unplanned/unintended pregnancies are aborted, that means that 125 of the aforementioned pregnancy types will be aborted, while only ten of the planned/intended pregnancies would be aborted (1/50th). That would mean that, in two years, 135 out of 750 pregnancies end in abortion (18%). That is an 8% decrease in the abortion rate.

    You see, I said nothing about absolute numbers. All of my posts talk about the rates. The absolute number of abortions means nothing, for a thousand woman out of a population of 10,000 women in a year is preferable to a hundred women in a population of 200 women obtaining an abortion per year, even though the absolute number of women obtaining in abortion in the former population is a ten times larger than the latter. That is the point which far too many people here have willingly glossed over. There is no way for the rate of abortion to go up while reducing the need for abortion, as you say, by preventing unplanned/unintended pregnancies unless there is an increase in the rate of abortions regarding planned/intended pregnancies. But that is an absurd assumption. That is the simple fact of the matter.

    Now, to get back on topic.

    But again, none of that is the issue, as reducing the abortion rate is a side effect of the real goal, which is reducing the number of unintended/unwanted pregnancies.

    Look, this is a cop-out that I get tired of reading. An unintended/unplanned pregnancy is forever an unintended/unplanned pregnancy. An unwanted pregnancy is forever an unwanted pregnancy. Yet, on this very site, there are articles upon articles upon articles written about how pregnant woman should be given X in order to, for lack of a better word, entice them to go through with their pregnancy. And in the comment sections of those very articles, you have people going on and on and on about how conservatives/radicals/the religious right/etc. do not care about reducing the abortion rate, because they oppose measures aimed at specifically reducing the abortion rate. And this is simply one example upon many. At the end of the day, the goal is to reduce the abortion rate. Even though I hate making absolute statements, absolutely no one would care about unintended pregnancy rates if abortion were not an issue.

  • bornin1984

    Now go one step further and check out the statistics on those states rated F on the poverty, domestic violence, crime, divorce and high school dropout rates — you will find that they receive F\’s there as well. Why do you think that is?

    All right. I will play based on a cursory look at the states I provided.

    New York, New Jersey and California are ranked 22nd, 26th and 14th, respectively, for violent crimes. Mississippi, North Dakota and Kentucky are ranked 31st, 49th and 40th, respectively (http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html).

    85.4% of people in New York graduate from high school, 87.6% of people in New Jersey graduate from high school and 81.3% of people graduate from high school in California. Conversely, 83.0% of people graduate in Mississippi graduate from high school, 89.5% of people in North Dakota graduate from high school and 81.8% of people in Kentucky graduate from high school (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/cps2004/tab13.pdf).

    When it comes to substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect, New York has a rate of 19.1, New Jersey has a rate of 4.4 and California has a rate of 9.1. Conversely, when it comes to substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect, Mississippi has a rate of 10.4, North Dakota has a rate of 9.0 and Kentucky has a rate of 18.1 (http://www.everychildmatters.org/images/stories/pdf/can_charts/CAN_charts_substantiated_cases_state.pdf).

    I do not terribly care to humor the divorce and poverty rate clips, for first because divorce really has no bearing on abortion rates, and the second because the poverty rate is based on a national basket of goods, and does not take into account that someone who makes $20K in Mississippi is much better off then they are if they made $20K in California.

  • crowepps

     An unintended/unplanned pregnancy is forever an unintended/unplanned pregnancy.  An unwanted pregnancy is forever an unwanted pregnancy.

    One of these things is not like the other.

     

    Certainly it is impossible to get in a time machine and go back and plan so that an unintended pregnancy becomes a planned pregnancy, however, a pregnancy that is unwanted because of economic or social barriers (can’t afford doctor/boyfriend has said he doesn’t want to get married) can indeed become a wanted pregnancy if those underlying barriers are removed.  Just as a for-instance, a woman who has an unplanned pregnancy may not ‘want’ it because she doesn’t have the economic means to PAY FOR the medical care necessary during pregnancy.

  • Vaginal delivery without complication = $6,200

  • Vaginal delivery with complication = $8,200

  • C-section without complication = $11,500

  • C-section with complication = $15,500

  • doctors may bundle their fee for services before, during and after a birth. This all-inclusive fee may involve some tests as well. Again, this cost is widely variable, but fees of $1,500 or more are not uncommon.

  • http://www.revolutionhealth.com/healthy-living/pregnancy/planning-pregnancy/financial-planning/cost-prenatal-care-delivery

    If her boyfriend says ‘let’s get married and my insurance will cover everything’ then the pregnancy could BECOME wanted because the problem was not ‘I don’t want to have this child’ but ‘I can’t afford to PAY FOR having a child’.

     

    When Denali KidCare was created in Alaska, and started covering prenatal and obstetric care for low-income women, the abortion rate went down one-third even though no other actions regarding abortion were taken at all.  Pregnancies which MIGHT have been unwanted without the financial help were completed because medical care was provided and funded.  Personally I think that’s a win-win for everybody involved.  I don’t think any woman should have to get an abortion because it is CHEAPER than prenatal and obstetric care.

  • colleen

    I do not terribly care to humor the divorce and poverty rate clips, for first because divorce really has no bearing on abortion rates, and the second because the poverty rate is based on a national basket of goods, and does not take into account that someone who makes $20K in Mississippi is much better off then they are if they made $20K in California.

    Why not test this out by getting a divorce and moving to Mississippi?

  • princess-rot

    I get what you mean about new commenters, that hope that although they may go away with a flea in their ear, they’ll learn something, particularly the notion that the personal is indeed political. A lot of the time they just come here to argue. I don’t know why. I don’t troll conservative blogs in the vain hope they’ll all become radical feminists.

    (And to be honest, it’s ESPECIALLY hard to keep my hands on the mouse instead of the keyboard when I’ve spent some time drinking in the pool. :)

    Oh, how nice. I’ve spent most of today swearing at the rusting underbelly of my aging car, and I’m on graveyard shift tonight, too. Drink one on my behalf, will you? In fact, have three.

  • crowepps

    The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence [which declared criminal prohibitions on same-sex sodomy to be unconstitutional], when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce “profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles” through the criminal code. 539 US at 571. The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.” Id (citing Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v Casey, 505 US 833, 850, (1992)). “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O’Connor, J, concurring). http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/09/marriage/index.html

    Edited to include link to all 138 pages of the decision at:

    https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

  • prochoiceferret

    You cannot reduce the need for something without also reducing its occurrence, for if you do not reduce its occurrence, you are not reducing the need for it. It is as simple as that.

     

    Except that the number of abortions performed at present understates the actual demand, because not everyone who needs an abortion for one reason or another is able to get it.

     

    Sorry that our efforts to help people avoid unwanted pregnancies isn’t bringing down the abortion rate as fast as you’d like—perhaps if you laid off the whole preventing-women-from-getting-abortions schtick, you’d see a nicer-looking drop.

     

    you have people going on and on and on about how conservatives/radicals/the religious right/etc. do not care about reducing the abortion rate, because they oppose measures aimed at specifically reducing the abortion rate.

     

    Yeah, that doesn’t seem very logical.

     

    At the end of the day, the goal is to reduce the abortion rate.

     

    Your goal, maybe.

     

    Even though I hate making absolute statements, absolutely no one would care about unintended pregnancy rates if abortion were not an issue.

     

    Sorry, but your absolute statement is surrounded by counterexamples. I should know. I’m one of them.

  • bornin1984

    Except that the number of abortions performed at present understates the actual demand, because not everyone who needs an abortion for one reason or another is able to get it.

    There are two problems here: Number one, the number of abortions performed are a direct function of the number of abortions supplied, not the number of abortions demanded. Within the U.S., the market is more or less in equilibrium with supply equaling demand. Number two, demand is a direct function of price. If the demand for abortion is understated, it is because abortions are not free and cost money. Making abortions free, of course, would simply cause demand for them to go up, but I suppose that would not bother you any.

    Sorry that our efforts to help people avoid unwanted pregnancies isn\’t bringing down the abortion rate as fast as you\’d like—perhaps if you laid off the whole preventing-women-from-getting-abortions schtick, you\’d see a nicer-looking drop.

    Except states in which the pro-choice presence is strongest do not have lower pregnancy rates then their pro-life counterparts, and they have higher abortion rates. I understand why you continue to ignore this point, no matter how many times I point it out, but you would do well to not ignore it. Also, on a side note, did you know that a fewer percentage of unintended pregnancies end in abortion today then they did a decade ago or even more?

    Yeah, that doesn\’t seem very logical.

    Neither does quoting part of a sentence.

    Your goal, maybe.

    And the stated goals of millions of people.

    Sorry, but your absolute statement is surrounded by counterexamples. I should know. I\’m one of them.

    I also hate to point this out, but you are most definitely not as witty as you think you are.

  • prochoiceferret

    Number one, the number of abortions performed are a direct function of the number of abortions supplied, not the number of abortions demanded. Within the U.S., the market is more or less in equilibrium with supply equaling demand.

     

    More proof that anti-choice advocacy rots your brain. What if one were to make a similar assertion regarding a different medical procedure where demand outstrips supply?

     

    Number one, the number of organ transplants performed are a direct function of the number of organ transplants supplied, not the number of organ transplants demanded. Within the U.S., the market is more or less in equilibrium with supply equaling demand.

     

    I suppose in BornIn1984’s little fantasy-land, no one would die or be disabled by a failing organ, because hey, everybody who needs one can already get it!

     

    Number two, demand is a direct function of price. If the demand for abortion is understated, it is because abortions are not free and cost money. Making abortions free, of course, would simply cause demand for them to go up, but I suppose that would not bother you any.

     

    Also, poor people infected with HIV would have no desire whatsoever for effective retroviral medication, because hey, it’s expensive!

     

    Except states in which the pro-choice presence is strongest do not have lower pregnancy rates then their pro-life counterparts, and they have higher abortion rates.

     

    Some states in BornIn1984’s fantasy-U.S. would have no hospitals, and thereby no emergency room visits nor reported illnesses! Who would’ve thought that the health-care system itself was what made people sick?

     

    Also, on a side note, did you know that a fewer percentage of unintended pregnancies end in abortion today then they did a decade ago or even more?

     

    How easy is it to get an abortion today compared to a decade ago?

     

    And the stated goals of millions of people.

     

    They sure seem to like stating their goals more than taking concrete steps to make them reality.

     

    I also hate to point this out, but you are most definitely not as witty as you think you are.

     

    I don’t think it’s normal for the butt of a joke to believe otherwise.

  • bornin1984

    More proof that anti-choice advocacy rots your brain. What if one were to make a similar assertion regarding a different medical procedure where demand outstrips supply?

    Number one, the number of organ transplants performed are a direct function of the number of organ transplants supplied, not the number of organ transplants demanded. Within the U.S., the market is more or less in equilibrium with supply equaling demand.

    I suppose in BornIn1984\’s little fantasy-land, no one would die or be disabled by a failing organ, because hey, everybody who needs one can already get it!

    I quoted that whole thing for future reference. Anyway, if X + 1 people demand an organ transplant, yet there are only X amount of organs available, then only X amount of organ transplants will be performed. Why? Because the number of of organ transplants performed is constrained by the number of organs available which, funnily enough, fits nicely into my original point, which you failed miserably at trying to refute. Although, in fairness, it is pretty hard to compare having an abortion to an organ transplant, as in the case of abortion, all you need is someone willing to perform one for you, or hand you a pill, while in the case of an organ transplant, you not only need to find someone to perform it for you, but you also need a spare organ. But I am sure you knew that.

    Also, poor people infected with HIV would have no desire whatsoever for effective retroviral medication, because hey, it\’s expensive!

    Life-saving, or even life-prolonging goods, are price inelastic, but I am sure you knew this.

    Some states in BornIn1984\’s fantasy-U.S. would have no hospitals, and thereby no emergency room visits nor reported illnesses! Who would\’ve thought that the health-care system itself was what made people sick?

    Your willingness to obfuscate is quite staggering, it really is.

    How easy is it to get an abortion today compared to a decade ago?

    Much easier, considering the fact that RU-486 was made legal in the United States in 2000 and has increasingly been accounting for a growing percentage of abortions. But I am sure you knew this, much like you know everything else.

    They sure seem to like stating their goals more than taking concrete steps to make them reality.

    And this is where I would point out to you that the states you lambaste have lower abortion rates then the ones you laude, but you will thusly ignore the point, as you have time and time again, and obfuscate, so why should I waste my time?

    I don\’t think it\’s normal for the butt of a joke to believe otherwise.

    Considering the fact that you would not know irony even if it slapped you in the face, I doubt you would know what normal is or is not.

  • prochoiceferret

    I quoted that whole thing for future reference. Anyway, if X + 1 people demand an organ transplant, yet there are only X amount of organs available, then only X amount of organ transplants will be performed. Why? Because the number of of organ transplants performed is constrained by the number of organs available which, funnily enough, fits nicely into my original point, which you failed miserably at trying to refute.

     

    No, I succeeded, actually. Remember this part?

     

    Within the U.S., the market is more or less in equilibrium with supply equaling demand.

     

    What do you think the +1 in your little algebra-thing represents?

     

    If this is the best you can do to argue in favor of abortion, you may as well start groveling to your future pro-choice overlords now!

     

    Although, in fairness, it is pretty hard to compare having an abortion to an organ transplant, as in the case of abortion, all you need is someone willing to perform one for you, or hand you a pill, while in the case of an organ transplant, you not only need to find someone to perform it for you, but you also need a spare organ. But I am sure you knew that.

     

    Oh, of course. It’s just the demand-versus-supply aspect of it that makes your reasoning sound like a bad Lewis Carroll knockoff.

     

    Life-saving, or even life-prolonging goods, are price inelastic, but I am sure you knew this.

     

    Does that mean that people who can’t afford them don’t count as demand?

     

    Your willingness to obfuscate is quite staggering, it really is.

     

    A bit of dizziness may be expected, but that’s nothing to worry about. It’s only your paper-thin arguments that are being beaten into the ground, not your physical person.

     

    Much easier, considering the fact that RU-486 was made legal in the United States in 2000 and has increasingly been accounting for a growing percentage of abortions. But I am sure you knew this, much like you know everything else.

     

    “It is a prescription drug, but it is not available to the public through pharmacies; its distribution is restricted to specially qualified licensed physicians”

     

    Which is great, if you happen to live near one of these “qualified licensed physicians,” who tend to work out of those facilities you call “abortion clinics.” Which there are fewer of today than there were ten years ago, last I checked.

     

    And this is where I would point out to you that the states you lambaste have lower abortion rates then the ones you laude, but you will thusly ignore the point

     

    No, but you’ll continue to insist that cutting supply is the same thing as cutting demand, even though it makes you look dumb.

     

    Why don’t you just argue, “Women are dumb, we need to control their uteruses or else civilization will fall apart into one massive orgy!”? Then you would come across as bigoted, but at least halfway mentally competent. (Well… at least it wouldn’t be any worse.)

     

    Considering the fact that you would not know irony even if it slapped you in the face, I doubt you would know what normal is or is not.

     

    You may be a neophyte when it comes to insults, but you sure are better at it than the whole trying-to-defend-anti-choiceness thing!

  • crowepps

    If this is the best you can do to argue in favor of abortion, you may as well start groveling to your future pro-choice overlords now!

    Oh, the horror, the horror — those pro-choice overlords insisting that people actually be provided with all the facts, then consider those facts in light of their own circumstances and beliefs and make their own individual decisions!  Without theocrats and authoritarians telling everyone what they can do it’ll be the end of civilization!  Or perhaps the beginning of one.

  • squirrely-girl

    Without theocrats and authoritarians telling everyone what they can do it’ll be the end of civilization! 

     

    So I’m starting to wonder if this would be the end of civilization for some people… namely the people that absolutely have to have somebody telling them exactly what to do or not to do. As weird as it sounds, some people fear freedom and don’t know what to do with themselves when they’re able to make their own choices… institutionalized people for example.

  • crowepps

    It certainly seems to me like it would be a lot easier to provide professional behavioral therapy to those who fear having to make choices and take responsibility for them than it would be to try to get the OTHER 90% of people penned up in the little boxes the xenophobic authoritarians insist are necessary to prevent anyone being ‘different’.

  • pinkerton

    Republicans not only want to do away with all abortions, but many of them want to do away with contraceptives.  Leave it to them to want to add many more people to an already grossly over-populated world.  They also depend upon a largely under-educated populace in order to get their half-witted beliefs across.  There’s something very strange about a bunch of mostly old geezers who rail against govt. interference, yet want to crawl into a woman’s uterus and protect that little embryo even if it got there via a rape.  BTW, 1% of the American female population of child-bearing age is a very large number not to be dismissed by those who can’t understand statistics.  They claim they just love babies, yet AZ republicans shut down the KidCare program designed to help poor kids there; I guess republicans love kids as long as they don’t cost anything.  You can’t logically say no to govt. interference and then tell women what they can and can’t do about family planning. 

  • colleen

    There’s something very strange about a bunch of mostly old geezers who rail against govt. interference, yet want to crawl into a woman’s uterus and protect that little embryo even if it got there via a rape.

    Note how the resident right wingers who posted on this thread managed to repeatedly demonstrate the validity of the title.

  • bornin1984

    Please notice how Are said all pro-choicers believe X. Any reason why you are not taking issue with the fact that she made an incorrect statement, rather then the fact that I corrected her incorrect statement?

  • bornin1984

    No, I succeeded, actually. Remember this part?

    No, actually you did not succeed. Remember this part?

    What if one were to make a similar assertion regarding a different medical procedure where demand outstrips supply?

    Well, you obviously do not, because not only did you fail to note that if you make a similar assertion regarding a situation where demand outstrips supply that, one, you would be talking about a situation in which demand outstrips supply and, two, it would not change the fact that the number of abortions, or I should say organ transplants, since you mentioned it, performed would be a direct function of their supply, as there is no way to perform as many organ transplants as needed, as demand exceeds supply (X < X + 1), which is what I said.

    What do you think the +1 in your little algebra-thing represents?

    The fact that the number of organ transplants demanded exceeds the supply or organs available, and as a result only as many transplants as there are organs can be performed. Which fits nicely into my original point.

    If this is the best you can do to argue in favor of abortion, you may as well start groveling to your future pro-choice overlords now!

    Well, not only did I not know it was an argument in favor of abortion, but I did not know that younger generations were more pro-choice then pro-life. Odd.

    Oh, of course. It\’s just the demand-versus-supply aspect of it that makes your reasoning sound like a bad Lewis Carroll knockoff.

    Within the United States, the demand for abortion does not exceed the supply. If anything, supply slightly exceeds demand, which is why more abortion clinics close then open, why there are fewer clinics open today then there were twenty years ago and why you do not have to schedule an abortion weeks in advance just to hope to be able to put on the list for one.

    Does that mean that people who can\’t afford them don\’t count as demand?

    It means the demand for them are the same regardless of their price. Did you not pass high school economics? Also, to nip this in the bud, the demand for abortion is price elastic. If the cost of an abortion goes up, fewer people demand one if they face an unintended/unplanned pregnancy. If their cost goes down, more people demand one if they face an unintended/unplanned pregnancy.

    If abortions are made more costly, there will be fewer of them. Abortions, in other words, follow the law of demand. To be sure, the substitute for an abortion is a newborn baby in the maternity ward, and this is not the desired outcome in a large number of cases. But even though the demand for abortions may be less sensitive to price than, say, the demand for shoes, we nevertheless expect the number of abortions to fall as their price goes up. Only the magnitude of the effect is in question.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj18n1/cj18n1-9.pdf

    A bit of dizziness may be expected, but that\’s nothing to worry about. It\’s only your paper-thin arguments that are being beaten into the ground, not your physical person.

    I cannot help you being delusional.

    Which is great, if you happen to live near one of these \”qualified licensed physicians,\” who tend to work out of those facilities you call \”abortion clinics.\” Which there are fewer of today than there were ten years ago, last I checked.

    If you are going to do use Wikipedia as a source, do me a favor and make sure to read the whole thing.

    Medical abortions voluntarily reported to the CDC by 47 states (excluding California, Louisiana, and New Hampshire) as a percentage of total abortions in the United States have increased every year since the approval of mifepristone: 1.0% in 2000, 2.9% in 2001, 5.2% in 2002, 7.9% in 2003, 9.3% in 2004, 9.9% in 2005, 10.6% in 2006 (15.9% of those at less than 9 weeks gestation).

    Which is exactly what I said.

    No, but you\’ll continue to insist that cutting supply is the same thing as cutting demand, even though it makes you look dumb.

    I also cannot help the fact that you never seemed to pass highschool economics. Anti-choice, as you call them, states try to restrict the supply of abortion as well as lower the demand for them (or, at least, not increase the demand for them). Pro-choice states do the opposite. Take New York, for example, which allows low-income women eligible for state medical assistance for general health care to obtain public funds to pay for medically necessary abortion services, those being abortions being necessary to prevent, diagnose, correct, or cure conditions in the person that cause acute suffering, endanger life, result in illness or infirmity, interfere with a person\’s capacity for normal activity, or threaten some significant handicap (i.e., pretty much any reason). That has the effect of driving the cost of an abortion down (to zero or close to it), which increases demand for them. Of course, those are the kinds of laws pro-choicers would like to pass and often try to get passed and you laude.

    When it comes to supply and demand in regards to abortion, you have no Earthly idea what you are talking about, which makes it funny when you try to call someone else dumb.

    Why don\’t you just argue, \”Women are dumb, we need to control their uteruses or else civilization will fall apart into one massive orgy!\”? Then you would come across as bigoted, but at least halfway mentally competent. (Well… at least it wouldn\’t be any worse.)

    Because then I would be arguing what you want me to argue.

    You may be a neophyte when it comes to insults, but you sure are better at it than the whole trying-to-defend-anti-choiceness thing!

    I have no need to insult you. You do a good job of that yourself. At any rate, feel free to demonstrate to us all how witty you are not by coming up with some pseudo-funny responses to the above typed out.

  • prochoiceferret

    The fact that the number of organ transplants demanded exceeds the supply or organs available, and as a result only as many transplants as there are organs can be performed. Which fits nicely into my original point.

     

    So, by your logic, Scott Roeder single-handedly reduced the demand for late-term abortions!

     

    If this is the best you can do to argue in favor of abortion, you may as well start groveling to your future pro-choice overlords now!

    Well, not only did I not know it was an argument in favor of abortion, but I did not know that younger generations were more pro-choice then pro-life. Odd.

     

    Heh, I made a little booboo there—should be “in favor of anti-choice-ness.” It happens sometimes. But if you don’t believe that women will continue to gain in rights and equity with time, then, well, the pro-choice overlords of the future won’t look kindly on that.

     

    Within the United States, the demand for abortion does not exceed the supply. If anything, supply slightly exceeds demand, which is why more abortion clinics close then open,

     

    To which I can scarcely find a better reply than,

     

    I cannot help you being delusional.

     

    Not to mention misogynistic, and a meanie in general.

     

    If the cost of an abortion goes up, fewer people demand one if they face an unintended/unplanned pregnancy. If their cost goes down, more people demand one if they face an unintended/unplanned pregnancy.

     

    Obviously, abortion-price sticker shock makes pregnant women want to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term. Heck, price ‘em high enough, and you could make those pregnancies into wanted ones in the first place!

     

    If you are going to do use Wikipedia as a source, do me a favor and make sure to read the whole thing.

     

    So if there were only ten abortions performed in the U.S. every year, but they were all performed via RU486 (100%), then hey! Abortion access would be a piece of cake, wouldn’t it?

     

    Anti-choice, as you call them, states try to restrict the supply of abortion as well as lower the demand for them (or, at least, not increase the demand for them).

     

    Except for supporting abstinence-only sex education. And not subsidizing contraceptives. And cutting funding for prenatal care, WIC programs and child care. (They kind of like to shoot themselves in the foot, there…)

     

    That has the effect of driving the cost of an abortion down (to zero or close to it), which increases demand for them. Of course, those are the kinds of laws pro-choicers would like to pass and often try to get passed and you laude.

     

    Man, we’d better not pass dental-care subsidies, lest the demand for root-canal surgeries increase through the roof!

     

    When it comes to supply and demand in regards to abortion, you have no Earthly idea what you are talking about, which makes it funny when you try to call someone else dumb.

     

    Maybe you could lobby for cigarettes to be made illegal. Then, with the stroke of a pen,  BAM! Zero demand for smokes.

  • arekushieru

    Please do notice that she DIDn’t contradict me.  I believe we were arguing about force vs NOT forced (Orrr… did you forget that?).  I DID say, “If they’re not forced”, after all, which means we are talking about a woman CHOOsing these options for herself, thus the topic IS about the morality of choice vs force, NOThing else.  Then, conTINuing on the topic, I applied the types of ProChoicers I believed you MUST have been talking about (because I thought you were trying to remain in accordance with the topic and your position, you understand) to it.  And came up with those who believe that the immorality of forced gestation is outweighed by what they perceive to be the immorality of abortion and that is NOT a ProChoicer.  HowEVER, a ProChoicer CAN be one who beLIEVES it is immoral and/or murder, but, at the same time, they are also one who believes it is up to the woman that makes that decision, because, to them, the immorality of abortion is FAR outweighed by the immorality of forced gestation.  And why is the immorality of abortion outweighed by this, why, because its moRALity outweighs the moRALity of forced gestation.  And why would this be…?  PLEASE do try to stay on topic when answering this question…. 

  • freetobe

    How dare you come here and call women selfish!!!It is you fat headed men who are the selfish ones.

    Women have been mens slaves since the beggining of time. We have been beaten,burned at the stake,stoned,burned with acid,raped until we bled,sodomized,cooked,cleaned,worked until our bones ached, bore your children and millions have died for it  no pay, underpayed,and you men have the gall to say we women are the selfish ones to want to be able to have control over something so simple as our own bodily functions that have nothing to do with you or the government or the church or the pope and his cronies or anyone damnit!!

    How DARE YOU!! and yes I am mad and I will not stand for it by you or any other man telling me what I can or cannot do with my life and you will not shame me or tell me I am less than anymore. I will not bow to you or any other man ever ever you will have to kill me first!!!

    if you men hate us women so much and it sure seems like you do then why not kill us all at birth and be done with us. You monsters are not worth it at all!!

    You have bled us to death and you have no empathy because you men are not capable of it!! Screw you all take your pope and your b ibles and shove it where the sun don’t shine!! You”ll not get a drop of blood or tears from me ever! You want respect of god almighty than EARN IT!!!

  • arekushieru

    This is not a men-bashing site.  There are men on here who support the right to choose.  As I said, the selfish one is the patriarchy, and IT is the one that guides the socialization of society’s children from birth on. 

     

    Besides, before there were patriarchal societies there were matriarchal (or rather gylaneous) societies.  

  • freetobe

    for speaking my mind! I have had it with the male kind ok. I have a right to free speech it is still legal at least the last time I looked. if you don’t like what I say then ban me I don’t care. i speak my mind I have earned it for the crap i have put up with from men over the years. i am a survivor and a fighter for my rights till the day I die.

     

    No offense to the good men if there are any.

  • arekushieru

    Let me clarify:  I am 100% ProChoice.  I believe that a woman can choose to terminate or continue a pregnancy at any point in gestation for any reason and there is no immorality involved in it, for me.  Yet I believe that my father is a good man.  He, too, is 100% ProChoice.  Just as my brother is.  Just as any of the ProChoice men who post on here are.  I DO get quite passionate about this subject.  But it is the anti-choicers (all the men AND women of the so-called ProLife movement who fight to take away the human rights all should enjoy without fear of reprisal from just one segment of the population [women]), that bear the brunt of it, and, as they are representatives of the patriarchal paradigm, rightly so. 

  • freetobe

    and I was addressing my comment to Bama originally he said women were selfish and it struck a bad cord with me.

    I know there was one good man my father also, although he was a strict Catholic I still loved and respected him always will.

    I do understand not all men are controlling of women and I meant of our bodiy functions. Anti-choicers or as I call them anti-women group ,and the women are worse!

    Patriarchal means” men rule” though it is just a fancier word.

  • bornin1984

    You said that all pro-choicers believe that abortion is a moral choice, as long as it is not forced. That is false and will forever be false unless some apocalyptic event wipes out every pro-choicer who does not fit neatly into your categorization, as force or unforced there are a sizable number of pro-choicers who will tell you that abortion is immoral. All the excuses and side-stepping of what you said is not going to change that one bit.

    And a fallacy is still a fallacy no matter what way you try to dress it up.

  • bornin1984

    So, by your logic, Scott Roeder single-handedly reduced the demand for late-term abortions!

    To quote myself:

    The number of abortions performed are a direct function of the number of abortions supplied, not the number of abortions demanded.

    Please obfuscate more. It is amusing :)

    Heh, I made a little booboo there—should be \”in favor of anti-choice-ness.\” It happens sometimes. But if you don\’t believe that women will continue to gain in rights and equity with time, then, well, the pro-choice overlords of the future won\’t look kindly on that.

    What pro-choice overlords? Do you mean the ones who will not be born on account of being aborted? Those overlords?

    To which I can scarcely find a better reply than…
    …Not to mention misogynistic, and a meanie in general.

    The reason you cannot find a response to it, is because you cannot make a response which does not bolster my point. If the demand for abortion exceeds the supply, over time we should get more clinics to correct that imbalance, not fewer.

    Obviously, abortion-price sticker shock makes pregnant women want to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term. Heck, price \’em high enough, and you could make those pregnancies into wanted ones in the first place!

    Indeed you could. But so few women would obtain abortions, that the abortion industry would go bankrupt, so it will never happen.

    So if there were only ten abortions performed in the U.S. every year, but they were all performed via RU486 (100%), then hey! Abortion access would be a piece of cake, wouldn\’t it?

    As when compared to when there was no RU-486, of course.

    Except for supporting abstinence-only sex education. And not subsidizing contraceptives. And cutting funding for prenatal care, WIC programs and child care. (They kind of like to shoot themselves in the foot, there…)

    In the grand scheme of things, none of that actually matters, because in the end you still end up with similar pregnancy rates between Red and Blue states. What matters is attitudes, and the more socially acceptable abortion is, the greater the chance the woman will abort. It is really no simpler than that.

    Man, we\’d better not pass dental-care subsidies, lest the demand for root-canal surgeries increase through the roof!

    No idea, really. But you can look it up.

    Maybe you could lobby for cigarettes to be made illegal. Then, with the stroke of a pen, BAM! Zero demand for smokes.

    Or a much lesser demand then you would have otherwise.

  • princess-rot

    No, Are simply stated that a core tenet of pro-choice philosophy is that abortion or pregnancy should not be forced and a woman should be able to choose what is best for her regardless of anyone else’s personal morals. You know, like being Christian requires belief in Jesus. It’s in the damn name.

  • bornin1984

    I am going to play this darn game. Are said, and I quote verbatim:

    We say that BOTH termination and continuation of pregnancies are moral (B), IF they are NOT forced (A).

    That is a simple conditional taking the form if A then B. That statement can only be true under one of three circumstances– if A is true and B is true, if A is false and B is true or if A is false and B is false. It cannot be true if A is true and B is false, and B is false if either the fact that a pro-choicer considers termination immoral or the continuation of a pregnancy immoral is false. And since, by your own admission, pro-choicers exist across a wide spectrum of politics and each will hold varying beliefs about pretty much everything, including abortion, then B is false because not every pro-choicer believes that abortion is a moral choice. Which is precisely the point I made, and what you tried to take issue with instead of the person who made the incorrect statement. The propensity of some to run to the defense of others (usually pro-choicers running to defend pro-choicers)no matter how wrong they are is amusing.

    At any rate, there you go.

  • vashra

    I have difficulty even wrapping my mind around the faulty logic that could lead anyone to think that a staunch right-winger supporting zero-tolerance protections for *innocent* life somehow equates to being lax or in favor of violence towards women. As a general rule, if we let the right-wingers have their unrestricted way with obvious criminals, there’d be a lot fewer rapes for us to worry about. Dead men don’t make repeat offenders. Leaving aside this silliness, let us examine the crux of the fault in logic that even makes a woman *want* to abort her baby fathered through rape.

     

    Take a deep breath….put your hands over your abdomen…now repeat after me:

     

    “My baby didn’t rape me”

    “My baby didn’t rape me”

    “My baby didn’t rape me”

     

    He’s already made you a victim.

     

    You weren’t strong enough to fight him off, you weren’t fast enough to get away, you weren’t smart enough to avoid the danger…evil really does win a round now and then.

     

    Are you really going to let him make you a murderer too? Because HE won’t be hurt when you kill that baby.

     

    Does he also have the power to *make* you be not strong enough to love an innocent child, not fast enough on your feet to at least think through putting it up for adoption, and not smart enough to separate the 2nd VICTIM of the rape from the perpetrator?

     

    You didn’t – and couldn’t – do *anything* to “deserve” to be raped.

    Your baby hasn’t – and couldn’t – do *anything* to *deserve* to be killed.

     

    Raping you was all about him.

    His wants.

    His needs.

    His power.

     

    What is aborting your baby all about?

  • saltyc

    Raping you was all about him.

    His wants.

    His needs.

    His power.

    What is aborting your baby all about?

    You are comparing a woman’s choice to determine her own future with a rapists’ motives. The evil is in you, my friend.

  • prochoiceferret

    Raping you was all about him.

    His wants.

    His needs.

    His power.

     

    What is aborting your baby all about?

     

    The fact that my body belongs to me, thank you very much.

     

    What is telling victims of rape that they must carry the resulting pregnancies to term whether they want to or not all about?

  • vashra

    Evil broken down to simplicity is nothing more than aggrevated selfishness. One of the most pervasive truths of evil is that by its very nature, it affords to its victims the opportunity to engage in some other evil in order to spread itself. A person who feels wronged by the racist practices of one manager at work feels “entitled” to steal from the entire company, a man who is cut off while trying to get a parking space feels “justified” when he keys the car that parked in his place, a woman who endures the horror of rape thinks its “ok” to take the “easy way out” and cut the life within her out of her womb. Evil begets evil, and usually the degree of evil rises as the contagion spreads.

     

    Based on penalty for the crime, most societies seem to think murder is a worse crime than rape…yet so many are so quick to allow the occurrence of one to give license to the other. The woman was forced into the rape. Everything about how she conducts herself after that is a matter of her choice.

     

    So yes, I *am* comapring a woman’s CHOICE to *destroy* the life and future of another human being to a man’s CHOICE to violate a woman’s liberty of body and mind and intimacy. That woman isn’t just determining *her* future. She’s determining her future *and* the future of another living being.

    My goddaughter’s parents could be hit by a bus and I could find myself the sudden custodian of a child. Do I throw her in front of another bus to avoid the months of inconvenience to my life that would result if I at least took the time to find her parents other than myself? Things happen to us all the time that aren’t fair and that mess with our plans for our own future.

    But this hypothetical woman *can* recover from being raped *and* from being pregnant with a child she doesn’t want, without having to murder anyone.

     

    Her baby can *never* recover from being murdered. Death is forever.

     

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    So yes, I *am* comapring a woman’s CHOICE to *destroy* the life and future of another human being to a man’s CHOICE to violate a woman’s liberty of body and mind and intimacy.

     

    I wish all anti-choicers were as sociopathic and obviously lacking in empathy as you. Then the pro-choice movement would win overnight, because everyone would be repulsed by the disgusting excuses for human beings that make up the other side.

  • vashra

    You accuse me of a lack of empathy and call me a sociopath…Only one of us is condemning a person who has committed no crime of any kind to death by default. I am just extending my empathy to *all* of the victims of the rape.

     

  • ahunt

    Hmmm….how is a zygote the “victim” of rape? Please be specific, V.

  • ack

    I, like the OP, can understand the consistency of not making exceptions for rape. That doesn’t make it any less cruel to the rape victim.

     

    /Takes a deep breath, places hands on abdomen

     

    If the asshole who raped me had also impregnated me, I would have had an abortion.

    If the asshole who raped me had also impregnated me, I would have had an abortion.

    If the asshole who raped me had also impregnated me, I would have had an abortion.

     

    You may think that would have made me a murderer. I disagree. I don’t think that abortion is the same as strangling a 5 year old, first of all. But I also believe that one of the most important parts of healing from rape or sexual assault is the victim’s ability to make choices about what happens next. Being guilted, shamed, or forced into carrying a pregnancy resulting from that violent act would have landed me in an institution. Knowing that doesn’t mean I’m weak. It doesn’t give him any more power than he already took. I think that enduring 9 months of pregnancy would have actually given him MORE power. Every bout of morning sickness, every sleepless night, every craving, would have been his power over me.

     

    And being guilted, shamed, or forced into continuing the pregnancy would mean that the people who were supposed to support me in the aftermath chose instead to take my power once again.

     

    Some women choose to go full term after a rape. Some don’t. We have absolutely no right to judge either of those choices as inherently superior or inferior, because we have absolutely no idea what’s best for that woman. She does.

  • wendy-banks

    Me too! Before I had my daughter, I asked SEVERAL doctors to sterilize me, the answer was an unequivocal NO. One even refused to give me a IUD. And I cannot take BC pills (they make me violently ill)

  • ack

    “My goddaughter’s parents could be hit by a bus and I could find myself the sudden custodian of a child. Do I throw her in front of another bus to avoid the months of inconvenience to my life that would result if I at least took the time to find her parents other than myself?”

     

    Pregnancy is not an incovenience. An inconvenience is needing to stop at a different store to get the brand of soap I like. 

     

    “But this hypothetical woman *can* recover from being raped *and* from being pregnant with a child she doesn’t want, without having to murder anyone.”

     

    There is no “hypothetical woman.” She exists. She knows what is best for her. If she chooses to continue a pregnancy, that’s her choice, and it is what she thinks is best for her. If she chooses to have an abortion, that’s her choice, and it’s what she thinks is best for her.

  • prochoiceferret

    I, like the OP, can understand the consistency of not making exceptions for rape. That doesn’t make it any less cruel to the rape victim.

     

    I’ve always thought this is the Achilles heel of the anti-choice movement. There is no good answer that they can give to the issue of abortion after rape-induced pregnancy:

     

    If they allow it, they have something that may be politically viable. But you can then rub their noses in the blatant double-standard, and it becomes obvious that the much-ballyhooed goal of “saving babies” is secondary to the real aim of punishing those dirty, dirty sluts.

     

    If they don’t allow it, they’re pro-rapist monsters with no moral credibility to stand on. You don’t even have to argue with them then—the sheer callousness and lack of basic human decency in the “consistent” position is the most potent argument against it.

     

    It’s like the “strange game” in the WarGames movie. The only winning move is not to play.

  • ack

    Either you think all fetuses are important and therefore abortion should not be allowed in any case, or you think some fetuses are less important than the women housing them, and those women should be allowed to have an abortion. It reveals an intense inconsistency in ideology.

     

    From a political perspective, it’s a lose/lose. I’m still confused as to how either argument continues to hold water.

  • squirrely-girl

    The only winning move is not to play.

     

    Or allow for individual differences via choice.

  • squirrely-girl


    Did they all miss the day of school life where you learn there can be more than one interpretation or experience? 

     

    Raping you was all about him.

    His wants.

    His needs.

    His power.

     

    What is aborting your baby all about?

     

    Well, the short answer to that question is that it would wholly depend on the specific woman in question. Using research design and methodology to further elaborate… much the same as all human beings, how an individual woman responds to the trauma of rape or pregnancy in general is oft dependent on her specific life situation (both actual and perceived), past and current physical and mental health, and occasional random error variables. So to assume that one [absolute] answer would suffice for the above question is rather limited in reasoning skills. 

     

    “My baby didn’t rape me”

     

    Ummm… let’s hope not. And pregnancies aren’t babies. And that ZBEF is going to completely hijack her body and life for a minimum of next 9 months. 

     

    Similarly, some rape survivors who have opted to carry to term have reported that they were relatively fine with the decision (“making lemons out of lemonade” type thing) until the quickening… when they started having post traumatic flashbacks and felt raped all over again… from the inside out. Having had a child myself, the quickening is weird. I thought I’d wrapped my head around the “using my body to create another life” concept… until it started moving. Prior to kicks and movements, my understanding of this process was rather abstract and limited by the reality that I’d never had anything in my body that I didn’t feel like I had some control over or to which I had consented. And fetal movements aren’t exactly controllable.

     

    Quite frankly, for all of the pains, discomfort, and “inconvenience” I suffered for my uncomplicated, unplanned but not unwanted pregnancy… I can’t even begin to understand what those experiences would have been like if I was pregnant from rape and didn’t want to be pregnant. For a woman whose body has already been violated once, having her body hijacked for another 9 months should be her choice… not her punishment. To expect, coerce, or otherwise force a woman into any pregnancy related decisions following rape due to your own personal moral or religious beliefs… is morally repugnant. And I believe people like that should be forced to wear shirts that say, “I expect rape victims to bear their rapists’ child because of MY fundamentalist religious or moral beliefs.”

     

     

  • squirrely-girl

    or you think some fetuses are less important than the women housing them, and those women should be allowed to have an abortion.

    Well… there is that whole, “the only moral abortion is MY abortion” crowd. 

  • squirrely-girl

    So does that line of reasoning also extend post-birth? As in, are actual children born of rape forever “victims of rape?” 

  • prochoiceferret

    From a political perspective, it’s a lose/lose. I’m still confused as to how either argument continues to hold water.

     

    People have a lot more capacity for cognitive dissonance than straight-up cruelty. They’ll tell you, “Oh, but only 2% of women getting abortions now were raped anyway, so it’s no big deal.” They can rationalize it as an “imperfect solution.”

     

    Not that that stops me from taunting them with lines like, “Oh, so it’s okay to kill some innocent lives, then?” Which is an even more perilous lose/lose….

  • prochoiceferret

    To expect, coerce, or otherwise force a woman into any pregnancy related decisions following rape due to your own personal moral or religious beliefs… is morally repugnant.

     

    I would describe it as “only slightly better than having raped the woman yourself in the first place.”

     

    And I believe people like that should be forced to wear shirts that say, “I expect rape victims to bear their rapists’ child because of MY fundamentalist religious or moral beliefs.”

     

    Heck, with all the crowing Vashra’s been doing, you’d think she’d be happy to wear such a shirt willingly!

  • dausuul

    A fetus is not a person. The comparison is laughable.

  • littleblue

    you weren’t smart enough to avoid the danger…                   

     

     

    How does one do that, exactly?  No, seriously.  How?                   

  • ack

    Stay sober. Don’t go home with anyone you don’t know well. Don’t go home with anyone you know well. Don’t go home with anyone. Fight back. Don’t fight back. Don’t walk alone at night. Keep your key between your knuckles. Stay sober. Don’t wear short skirts. Don’t wear overalls. Don’t wear tight jeans. Wear tight jeans. Don’t have long hair. Check your backseat. Check under your car. Lock your doors and your windows. Don’t consent to any sexual activity. Buy a gun. Don’t buy a gun. Have a man’s voice on your answering machine. Stay sober. Be aware of your surroundings. Pretend your talking on your cell phone. Don’t talk to strangers. Walk with confidence.  Don’t kiss men. Don’t kiss women. Don’t be a big dirty whore. Stay sober.

  • vashra

    I cannot imagine anyone, given the advance choice, who would *choose* to be conceived via a rape. So, the child conceived in such a fashion *is* a victim. Her mother is unlikely to want her, it’s probable that she’d be less desirable for adoption than other children if her conception status is known, and I fully believe that in many human cultures, she absolutely *would* suffer some degree of stigma throughout life if the details of her conception were widely known, just as many rape victims still endure.

     

    Having said that, I don’t think it’s *likely* that such a child would “always” be a victim, because it’s not terribly likely that the situation would ever be told to the child, let alone publically shared.

    A woman who was raped isn’t *always* a victim either. Some of you may be early enough along in your healing to feel otherwise, and I’m sorry for your pain, but to define yourself forever by something done forcibly to you is to let your attacker live rent-free in your head and your heart. I was raped. I was victimized. But I generally do not say “I was a victim” let alone “I am a victim” — because that makes the action my own, and it *wasn’t*.

    I will stick to passive-voice statements clearly indicating my lack of (willing) participation in those events. In English, there’s no way to even say “raped” that makes the victim the subject rather than the object. It *can’t* be any part of *my* fault, because it can’t be any part of *my* action.

    I was a rape victim for the roughly thirty four minutes it took my attacker to rape me (that particular estimation of time stuck in my mind from the police report). After that, I was an injured terrifed teenager needing healing of body and mind. Some months (body), and years (mind) later, I *am* simply a woman, actual and whole. Was I forever changed? Maybe. I wrote blonde haired blue eyed Caucasian men flatly off my list of possible husbands (and I may have been just a bit disturbed to see my husband’s photos as a “toe-headed” youth despite his nearly black hair now). I do not live in fear, but I live more cautiously, and I live no longer believing that evil only moves about in the cover of night or is only acted out by strangers (I knew my attacker). But if anyone were to call me a victim *now* I would be looking around for the current emergency.

    Could the quickening of pregnancy make one relive a rape? Certainly. But so could pain during a car crash, a related song on the radio, or the scent of a specific men’s cologne. None of that justifies the murder of a third party — the child conceived — who did nothing wrong. And for the record, had the bastard who raped me gotten me pregnant, I would have put it up for adoption.

    So let’s hash out the abortion argument that is so tightly tied to this one.

    The difference between strangling a five year old and aborting a fetus is that in the USA at least it’s currently still illegal to pay a doctor to strangle your five year old for you.

    A human pregnancy *is* a person. The ONLY thing that a human pregnancy can ever develop into is a human being. If that process is halted, by injury, by mutation, by the death of the mother, by miscarriage, or by abortion…then a HUMAN BEING has died, and a human life has been lost.

    I find *zero* difference between declaring a human baby in the natural zygote stage of its life cycle to be somehow “not a person” or declaring someone who happens to have naturally dark skin to be “not a person” by virtue of melanin content. In both cases, you are *REdefining* a natural, inescapable, unchosen, and integral part of that person as the very quality used to invalidate the person’s fundamental rights as a human being.

    I also see the argument that “a fetus cannot care for itself therefore it is not a person” as exactly the argument necessary for us to round up everyone in America who is currently on welfare and give them the choice between going off welfare or going before a firing squad. After all, there’s not much *functional* difference between can’t and won’t.

    Both of these arguments *seem* so extreme as to be absurd.

    But I assure you, we can *already* go to the rural areas of Tamil Nadu and pay someone to kill our five year old daughters for us (they might look at us funny if we asked them to kill a boy child, but I suspect they’d still take our money). Though by the age of five, they’d be more likely to offer to buy her – human trafficking of young females is a big industry there. It’s technically a crime to sell or kill your girl children, yet it’s still happening there.

    We don’t have to go any further than Great Britain to find the story of Sarah Capewell. This mother carried her almost 22 week old baby from area to area of the hospital, *begging* anyone to help her, only to be told that because he had been born just 48 hours before the “official” date of “fetus viability” that he was to be given no help. It took the child hours to die in her arms, condemed to die not by unaidable health problems, nor by anyone’s wish to abort the baby, but simply by the troublesome date of its birth.

    You speak to me of the holes in my logic.

    But *your* logic gives us stories like that from the Rosano Calabro hospital in Italy. A mother there, in her first pregnancy, decided to abort her baby at 22 *weeks* pregnant after being told it *might* be born with a disability. The doctors somehow managed to botch the abortion, and it took the child almost two days to die. What I find most laughable (and sad) is that the Italian minister of health said “this would be a case of deliberate abandonment of a seriously premature neonate, possibly also with some form of disability, an act contrary to any sense of human compassion but also of any accepted professional medical practice”. … I find it laughable because this is the same minister of health that didn’t so much as blink an eye that a woman wanted to, or could, mete out a death sentence for her 22 week old baby in the form of an “abortion” in the first place. She even went on to say “We must remember that a baby, once born, is an Italian citizen equal to all the others, and is entitled to all fundamental rights, including the right to health and therefore to be given full support.” Apparently it’s fine to murder the child, so long as you do it relatively quickly, but can no one among you understand that the only thing that changed the status of this particular dead baby from “worthless aborted fetus” to “precious Italian citizen” was a very literal accident of birth? When labels slide that easily between two such diametrically opposed states – there is something very wrong.

    These exemplify the hoops you have to jump through in order to reclassify life itself so a fetus or a zygote does not count, to shift the focus away from the object (the baby being aborted) onto the subject (the mother choosing to abort that baby), to demonize your opposers by calling us “anti-choice” instead of “pro-life,” to make the evil act of another (the rape) a worthy act to condemn an innocent (the child conceived) to death.

  • ack

    My response had nothing to do with where I am in my healing process. I know where I was then, and where I am now, and while a lot of things might be triggering for victims, forcing, guilting, or shaming them to complete a pregnancy after experiencing that is cruel. 

     

    I do appreciate your consistency in principle, though.

     

    But your comparison of being on TANF to being a fetus is absurd.

  • squirrely-girl


    Her mother is unlikely to want her, it’s probable that she’d be less desirable for adoption than other children if her conception status is known, and I fully believe that in many human cultures, she absolutely *would* suffer some degree of stigma throughout life if the details of her conception were widely known, just as many rape victims still endure.

    But of course, the rape survivor should totally HAVE this child… because YOU think she should. Right? So what’s your support plan for all of these unwanted children of rape? Were YOU planning to adopt them? Were YOU planning to start funds to care for them and provide for their therapy? Do we make an orphanage for rape babies? <– btw this is a reality in some cultures.

    A woman who was raped isn’t *always* a victim either. Some of you may be early enough along in your healing to feel otherwise, and I’m sorry for your pain, but to define yourself forever by something done forcibly to you is to let your attacker live rent-free in your head and your heart.

    I would tend to agree and this is definitely something that therapy works towards. But I’ll also add that even if a woman gives her child up for adoption most women will forever define a part of herself in terms of having had a child. In this case, her rapist’s child. So in this sense, yes, she could define herself forever by something done forcibly to her.

     

    Likewise, being forced into carrying that pregnancy to term would be a further violation on her body. Do you just not see that connection? Expecting/Coercing/Forcing rape victims to carry to term = violating their bodily autonomy yet again… for YOUR personal wants, wishes, and desires. 

    (I knew my attacker).

    Most women do. And many women don’t report their rape because the person is in their social circle. Which means many women conceiving from that type of attack could be forced to interact with that man on a regular basis and would have even less of a desire to carry that pregnancy to term. 

    And for the record, had the bastard who raped me gotten me pregnant, I would have put it up for adoption.

    That’s awesome and I DO commend you for your strength and resolve in the face of adversity and trauma. But going the adoption route would have been your choice... notice that part where you said, “I would” not “Somebody else would have made/expected/coerced.”

     

    It also wasn’t lost on me that you called the pregnancy an “it.” Does this mean you think rape babies are somehow lesser?

     

    Also, saying you’d do something and actually being presented with that exact situation and making said choice are two very different things… just saying. And quite frankly not everybody is going to make the choices that YOU would. That’s called human nature and normal distribution. One size/choice does NOT fit all. Sorry, but you don’t get to hold the rest of the world to YOUR personal moral standards. 

     

    A human pregnancy *is* a person. The ONLY thing that a human pregnancy can ever develop into is a human being. If that process is halted, by injury, by mutation, by the death of the mother, by miscarriage, or by abortion…then a HUMAN BEING has died, and a human life has been lost.

    I find *zero* difference between declaring a human baby in the natural zygote stage of its life cycle to be somehow “not a person” or declaring someone who happens to have naturally dark skin to be “not a person” by virtue of melanin content.

     

    I’m glad you have strong convictions… but if you were hoping to convince us to side with you based on the above argument, you’ll continue to bang your head against a wall. Many of us here disagree with that premise. There IS a difference between a mass of dividing cells, embryos, an early stage fetus and an ACTUAL LIVING, BREATHING, SENTIENT HUMAN BEING. And we disagree that aborting a 6 week pregnancy is somehow equivalent to killing a 5-year-old child. It’s okay if you disagree. It is. That’s the inherent beauty of pro-choice. If you don’t approve of abortion… don’t have one. 

    to demonize your opposers by calling us “anti-choice” instead of “pro-life,

    I’ll start calling your side pro-life when you fight for and support ALL life (ala raising all of those children of rape that apparently nobody wants, providing for mothers and their children post-natally, not supporting the death penalty, becoming vegans, etc.)… not just seek to deny women access to abortion. Until then, you’re anti-choice in my book. 

  • squirrely-girl

    Basically stay indoors all the time and never come in contact with men?

  • ack

    They can break into your house.

  • arekushieru

    Abortion is NOT murder.  Murder IS illegal killing with malice aforethought.

     

    As several people have pointed out to you pregnancies are NOT babies.  Pregnancies aren’t even fetuses.  Pregnancies ARE implantation of the fetal plaCENta into the uterus.  Since abortion IS the termination of a pregnancy, you can’t even say that the intent and focus of abortion is fetal death OR the fetus.  And in order to BE classified as murder, you would have to classify the fetal placenta as human life.  And, in this case, if you are going to argue that it IS, anyways, then you would have to call all those who perform assisted suicide, murderers, to their face, as you have done to women who abort, here.

     

    If you are not going to punish a woman for having a uterus (and, thus, not  agree with the topic), then you’ll have to realize that aforethought can ONLY play a part when a woman deliberately gets pregnant so she can have an abortion.  Which NO woman does.  If you think so, then prove it, beFORE making such false declarative statements.

     

    And the majority of women would have to have an abortion because they HATE pregnancy, if they were doing it out of malice.  But they don’t.  Most women who have had abortions had children already.  AND they do it because they know that the future child will not have a good life.  AND many women continue pregnancies so they can have the ‘perfect little punching bag’ (as Pink so eloquently put it), later on. 

     

    I believe a fetus is human life.  Which is WHY I’m ProChoice.  I believe that NO human should have more rights than any other human.  No one BORN (indisputable human beings) has the right to co-opt my organs against my wishes, not Even to save their lives, why should the unborn?  Hmmm…?

     

    Btw, if a fetus is a human being, so are parasitic twins and fetus in fetu.  So, are you going to deny that these are persons?  If so, you have just done what you accused US of doing.  Denying personhood status to human life,  based on what they look like, even though you would have to grant them personhood status using the EXACT SAME logic that you used to grant feoti personhood. 

     

    Black people were denied personhood status, yes.  But they were denied personhood status in exactly the same manner that ProLIFERS want to deny WOMEN personhood status.  If they are persons with full rights and full autonomy, then WHY are women the ONLY ones that these others feel free to strip rights, freedoms and autonomy FROM???  They want to grant extra rights to a specific group of humans (in the case of slavery, white people and in the case of pregnancy, feoti) while denying rights to another segment of humans (in the case of slavery, black people, and in the case of pregnancy, women).

     

    Btw, if forced gestation isn’t a crime, then neither is rape, nor is the latter an immoral act.  You equate the shorter duration, less physically harming and life threatening act, in and of itself, when forced, with immorality yet equate the longer duration, FAR more physically damaging and life-threatening act, in and of itself, when forced, with moRALity, after all.  The ONLY things that are equally damaging are the mental health issues arising from both, alTHOUGH, even when NOT forced, pregnancy can STILL lead to mental health issues.  Or, have you never heard of PPD/S? 

  • bornin1984

    I\’m glad you have strong convictions… but if you were hoping to convince us to side with you based on the above argument, you\’ll continue to bang your head against a wall. Many of us here disagree with that premise. There IS a difference between a mass of dividing cells, embryos, an early stage fetus and an ACTUAL LIVING, BREATHING, SENTIENT HUMAN BEING. And we disagree that aborting a 6 week pregnancy is somehow equivalent to killing a 5-year-old child. It\’s okay if you disagree. It is. That\’s the inherent beauty of pro-choice. If you don\’t approve of abortion… don\’t have one.

    And the above is why, in the end, pro-choicers will lose– because they ignore any and all kind of factual scientific evidence that makes their assertions wrong, instead passing off said arguments off as merely personal opinions while projecting their personal opinions onto someone else. It is maddening, but funny at the same time. The inherent beauty of pro-choice is that it is predicated on willful ignorance. Luckily for us non-pro-choicers, though, future generations are less likely to be as willfully ignorant as pro-choicers would like them to be.

    Anyway, to bite at the above post, if someone stops breathing, are they no longer human? If someone has to be hooked up to a respirator, are they no longer human? If someone is injected with 100 cc of anesthesia, are they no longer human? Unless your answer to those questions is a yes, then the criteria you are using to somehow deny the unborn equal status under the law are being selectively applied.

  • squirrely-girl

     

    Anyway, to bite at the above post, if someone stops breathing, are they no longer human? If someone has to be hooked up to a respirator, are they no longer human? If someone is injected with 100 cc of anesthesia, are they no longer human?

    This has been addressed to other trolls at length in previous threads. Short answer – no. Notice the part where I designated all three (living, breathing, and sentient) as qualities for life… not just one. A person on a respirator is still alive and sentient. A person under anesthesia is still alive and breathing. Exceptions such as these are exactly why I list all three. When you lose all three… yes, I don’t really consider you “person” any more. But, rewording my criteria to fit your limited understanding is a great example of selective application. 

     

    Similarly, there is a big difference between losing the capacity for one or all of these three at some point and never having actually had any of those three to begin with. Early pregnancies don’t breathe, aren’t “alive” (but for the grace of “living” off of somebody else’s bodily life support), and absolutely aren’t sentient. And given the pregnancy “failure rate” many pregnancies will NEVER achieve these three qualities.

     

    Crazy but true, I’m not actually holding a ZBEF to any higher standard than I hold everybody else. 

  • vashra

    Well yes…as someone on TANF can choose to take steps to find aid elsewhere, but a fetus is 100% absolutely helpless and dependent.

  • vashra

    “A person on a respirator is still alive and sentient. A person under anesthesia is still alive and breathing. Exceptions such as these are exactly why I list all three. When you lose all three… yes, I don’t really consider you “person” any more.”

     

    Exeptions such as hese are exactly why you list all three…really?

     

    What you are saying is that the exception in case one (a person on a respirator who apparently doesn’t posses the ability to keep himselff alive) does NOT invalidate that person’s humanity.

     

    The exception in case two (a person under anesthesia who is unlikely to *display* the qualities of sentience) is NOT in a state that invalidates his humanity.

     

    But suddenly…with the zygote/fetus — the ONLY example where this temporary lack of the three required qualities is 1) entirely natural and 2) normally temporary…suddenly NOW it’s time to use these circumstances to invalidate the person’s status entirely.  But I suggest that you try walking into an ICU and unplugging all the non-responsive patients and see how many cases of murder you’re charged with before being certain you’re right.

     

    Further, you mention a difference between losing a capacity vs. never having had them. But who are you to make that declaration? A child who is born entirely blind is not (in most civilized cultures) considered any less a person than someone who has an accident and becomes blind.

     

    Pregnancies require oxygen from inception. I’ll give you the fact that the zygote does not have (or require) lungs. But neither do fish, frogs, or paramecium, yet no scientist worth her Ph.D. is trying to reclassify any of those as “not alive.”

     

    Pregnancies at every stage up to birth absolutely *are* dependent on the mother (or technology or a combination of both). But there are no small number of lifeforms on earth which are entirely parasitic in nature, yet again, no one is trying to reclassify these as “not life.”

     

    The argument of sentience is moot, as sentience is not a requirement for LIFE in any scientific definition of the term…and so to demand that a human multi celled organism in its larval stage (a human zygote) must display sentience in order to be deemed alive, but every other single and multi celled lifeform on earth need not…is simply very fuzzy logic covered in veritable dust bunnies of convolution and manipulation in order to make your position appear more solid. A Danaus plexippus is a Danaus plexippus from fertilized egg to larva to pupa to catterpillar to butterfly. The rules don’t change when dealing with a Homo sapien.

     

     

    • squirrely-girl

      But I suggest that you try walking into an ICU and unplugging all the non-responsive patients and see how many cases of murder you’re charged with before being certain you’re right.

      Wow, I wonder how the State of Texas keeps getting away with it…

       

      Also, in this example, you’re ass-uming that I would be the one unplugging machines. You are wrong. Again, I don’t give two shits what other people do with their bodies. “Live” on machines or don’t. Have an abortion or don’t. I just get a little cranky when people try to tell others what to do with their bodies. 

      Further, you mention a difference between losing a capacity vs. never having had them. But who are you to make that declaration? A child who is born entirely blind is not (in most civilized cultures) considered any less a person than someone who has an accident and becomes blind.

       

      We’re talking about blindness now? By the way, it’s not just me making these declarations. From a medical perspective, individuals with accidental blindness are generally suitable candidates for transplant whereas those with congenital blindness are not. Think of it as a situation of broken hardware rather than corrupt software. Similarly, from a psychological perspective people tend to mourn the loss of sight more than never having it at all because the person who could see knows what they’re missing while a person born without sight will never have that frame of reference. 

       

      Pregnancies require oxygen from inception. I’ll give you the fact that the zygote does not have (or require) lungs. But neither do fish, frogs, or paramecium, yet no scientist worth her Ph.D. is trying to reclassify any of those as “not alive.”

       

      I didn’t say they don’t need oxygen, I’m saying if they can’t breathe on their own, they don’t have a “right” to oxygen from somebody else’s body if they don’t want to provide it. 

      Pregnancies at every stage up to birth absolutely *are* dependent on the mother (or technology or a combination of both). But there are no small number of lifeforms on earth which are entirely parasitic in nature, yet again, no one is trying to reclassify these as “not life.”

      But plenty of those parasites are regularly subject to extermination at the whim or health needs of the host. And in these case nobody seems to be telling the host they have an obligation to keep the parasite alive. Short of some kind of malicious attack by weirdos, if you’re covered in leaches it’s because you were someplace they could get to you… are you now obligated to let them suck on you for as long as they want? Similarly, if you develop a tape worm or get an intestinal parasite it’s because YOU ate or drank something it was in… now that it’s set up it’s happy home in your body are you now obligated to nourish it? This life is absolutely dependent on you and obviously it’s your fault it’s in there to begin with. 

      The argument of sentience is moot, as sentience is not a requirement for LIFE in any scientific definition of the term…and so to demand that a human multi celled organism in its larval stage (a human zygote) must display sentience in order to be deemed alive, but every other single and multi celled lifeform on earth need not…is simply very fuzzy logic covered in veritable dust bunnies of convolution and manipulation in order to make your position appear more solid.

      Again, I tossed in living and breathing for a reason :/  Ultimately a life form lacking in these things doesn’t just get to usurp the body of another without their consent.

       

      When well over 90% of abortions occur within the first trimester, any argument against a woman’s right to choose at this point tends to involve very fuzzy logic covered in veritable dust bunnies of convolution and manipulation.

  • prochoiceferret

    But suddenly…with the zygote/fetus — the ONLY example where this temporary lack of the three required qualities is 1) entirely natural and 2) normally temporary…suddenly NOW it’s time to use these circumstances to invalidate the person’s status entirely.

     

    Vashra, all this academic discussion about what a zygote/fetus is and isn’t is interesting and all, but it’s irrelevant to the question of abortion. Even if the thing were fully developed and sentient and aware and just like any other human being (except for size), that still doesn’t give it the right to life support from the body of a woman without her consent.

     

    Now, if you believe that people should have the right to life-supporting/saving biological support from other peoples’ bodies, then you’re free to argue that. I don’t think many folks are going to go for the mandatory organ donations, however.

  • bornin1984

    This has been addressed to other trolls at length in previous threads. Short answer – no. Notice the part where I designated all three (living, breathing, and sentient) as qualities for life… not just one. A person on a respirator is still alive and sentient. A person under anesthesia is still alive and breathing. Exceptions such as these are exactly why I list all three. When you lose all three… yes, I don\’t really consider you \”person\” any more. But, rewording my criteria to fit your limited understanding is a great example of selective application.

    You said you worked at a college, correct? If so, then you should go over to the philosophy department and have someone explain logical conjunctions to you. Your argument is written out in one of three ways, all the same:

    [(A & B) & C]
    [(A & C) & B]
    [A & (B & C)]

    If A, B and C are the three are qualities for being a human, then A, B and C all have to be true for someone, as per your definition, to be a human. If just one of those statements is false, then your entire statement is false, for the only way conjunctive (Not sure that is a word) statements are true is if both parts of the compound statement are true. By your own logic, if someone is not alive, they are not a human. If they do not breathe, then they are not a human. If they are not sentient, then they are not a human. What is odd is that in the same breath you tell me that all are the qualities for being a human, you turn around and argue that you only need to, at the very least, satisfy one of those criteria to be a human instead of all of them, but that would beg the question as to why you only need to satisfy one of those criteria, and not all three, or not some other criteria. At any rate, before you go and tell someone they have limited understanding, perhaps you should make sure you understand what you write out and what others write out for you.

    Similarly, there is a big difference between losing the capacity for one or all of these three at some point and never having actually had any of those three to begin with.

    No, there really is not. Let us focus on sentience. If I ask you what the difference is between the unborn who will not be sentient for six months and someone who suffers a severe accident and loses his/her sentience for six months, you will tell me the difference is that the unborn has never been sentient while the guy or girl who suffers the serious accident was sentient in the past. If I were to make the same argument, only this time instead of someone who suffers a serious accident and loses their sentience for a stated period of time, use someone who suffers a serious accident and loses their sentience forever, and ask you the difference between the two, you would undoubtedly give the same response you gave before. If I then asked you whether or not the individual who will never be sentient again should be kept alive indefinitely, you will tell me no because that individual has no hope of being sentient in the future. But this begs the question as to why that individual should not be kept alive under the basis that (s)he will never be sentient again, but the unborn should not be kept alive under the basis that they will be sentient in the future even though they will be, much like the individual in the first example who suffers a serious accident but temporarily loses sentience would be kept alive. You will then say because unlike the unborn who has never been sentient but will be sentient in the future, the individual in the first example was sentient at one point in time and will be sentient in the future. Of course, this makes no sense. If, for example, a baby is born before it is sentient, I doubt you would argue that it has less of a right to live then someone a baby born after it is sentient. You see, whether or not someone was sentient in the past is irrelevant to whether or not they are kept alive. What matters then, by your own logic, is whether or not they will be sentient in the future.

    As a result, you really have no argument, as you are simply making up a different set of criteria for the unborn when it suits you to do so, and that just so happens to be when you are trying to rationalize abortion.

    Early pregnancies don\’t breathe, aren\’t \”alive\” (but for the grace of \”living\” off of somebody else\’s bodily life support), and absolutely aren\’t sentient. And given the pregnancy \”failure rate\” many pregnancies will NEVER achieve these three qualities.

    I am not even going to focus on the breathing nor sentient thing, because they are irrelevant and do not matter one lick. Instead, I am going to focus on the claim that the unborn are not alive. Now, I want to make sure I understand this correctly. You invent a definition for what it means to be alive, and then claim that the unborn are not alive because they do not meet that criteria? This is an ad hoc justification at its worst.

    Crazy but true, I\’m not actually holding a ZBEF to any higher standard than I hold everybody else.

    No, you are not. You are holding the unborn to a different standard then everyone else when it suits you to do so, and there is no getting around this. You are welcome to try to come up with a response to the above typed out, but I have a sneaky feeling that you will not. At the end of the day, you have no argument.

    Late edit. Sorry. Wanted to make a few things clearer.

    • squirrely-girl

      … this took me a minute, I’ve been working my way back through the threads/entries I’ve missed. Yay for dissertating :) Lemme know if I’ve missed any.

      As a result, you really have no argument, as you are simply making up a different set of criteria for the unborn when it suits you to do so, and that just so happens to be when you are trying to rationalize abortion…

      Nope, same criteria I’ve been using since I started posting here.  Again, I would highly recommend reading old threads around here rather than continuing to spout the absolutist assertions. I mean, it’s one thing for you to say, “I read them but I don’t understand them.” It’s another thing entirely when it appears you can’t even be bothered to do your homework. 

       

      …and then claim that the unborn are not alive because they do not meet that criteria?

       

      Again, do you read what you write? I’m not the one calling them “unborn.” Do you really not get that you make my point for me every time you use that word? Even you are acknowledging a difference. 

      You invent a definition for what it means to be alive…

      I didn’t “invent” those criteria… these are fairly standard criteria. 

      I am not even going to focus on the breathing nor sentient thing, because they are irrelevant and do not matter one lick.

      Of course you’re going to “ignore” and  decry as “irrelevant” the issues you just don’t want to discuss, focus on one issue that you think you have a leg to stand on and then harp according to YOUR absolutist definitions and interpretations. At least you kind of acknowledged it this time…

      If I then asked you whether or not the individual who will never be sentient again should be kept alive indefinitely, you will tell me no because that individual has no hope of being sentient in the future. But this begs the question as to why that individual should not be kept alive under the basis that (s)he will never be sentient again, but the unborn should not be kept alive under the basis that they will be sentient in the future even though they will be, much like the individual in the first example who suffers a serious accident but temporarily loses sentience would be kept alive. You will then say because unlike the unborn who has never been sentient but will be sentient in the future, the individual in the first example was sentient at one point in time and will be sentient in the future. Of course, this makes no sense. If, for example, a baby is born before it is sentient, I doubt you would argue that it has less of a right to live then someone a baby born after it is sentient.

      I thought you were ignoring sentience? Again, way to assume I even care what that person does with their body in the first place. If they “want” to live (well more like if their family wants them to “live”) that’s perfectly fine with me. “Live” away! I would say if a baby is born before it’s sentient it’s going to have a hell of a lot more issues than the ability to perceive… 

       

      I’ve also begun to realize I’m rather fluent in troll.

      No, you are not. You are holding the unborn to a different standard then everyone else when it suits you to do so, and there is no getting around this. You are welcome to try to come up with a response to the above typed out, but I have a sneaky feeling that you will not. At the end of the day, you have no argument.

      Translated:

      I still don’t understand that whole ‘fetus is inherently no more special or important than the woman’ thing so I’m just going to say you’re wrong. But just to make sure I still feel superior I’m going to be dismissive and make useless challenges… double dog dare!

       

      Response:

      A ZBEF doesn’t have the right to use somebody’s body as a personal life support system anymore than any other “person” does. So, no, same standard being applied to all potential lives. 

  • vashra

    “Abortion is NOT murder.  Murder IS illegal killing with malice aforethought.”

     

    Malice: Ill will. — Well let’s see, you aren’t exactly wishing the child a long and happy life now are you? In fact, you’ve declared it either isn’t a person or else isn’t as much a person as you are. You’ve decided  that its wants needs and desires (most of which cannot be determined) either do not matter or do not matter as much as your own. And lastly, you’ve made yourself comfortable with being unable to obtain the child’s consent to be aborted. That’s pretty darn brutal. In fact, if we at *any* point knock out the pins of your redefined “non-life/non-person” status, we get right back to an unmitigated and unconsentual act of violence performed by one person on another person *who has no choice*.

     

    “As several people have pointed out to you pregnancies are NOT babies.  Pregnancies aren’t even fetuses. 

     

    A pregnancy isn’t technically a baby. Ok fine. And a child isn’t an adult, a man isn’t a woman, a Caucasian isn’t an Asian, and an American isn’t an Australian. None of these variations in humanity make any of those people NOT people.

     

    “Pregnancies ARE implantation of the fetal plaCENta into the uterus.”

    Yes. A HUMAN fetal placenta, containing 46 chromosomes which are *distinct* in combination from is parents, and supporting a living HUMAN blastocyst containing well over 100 differentiating cells. We don’t have the tech to abort zygotes. The human being has to reach the blastocyst stage and be ejected from the fallopian tube to the uterus before we can chemically poison it to death or scrape it out and destroy it. Placentas are simply an organ grown by the baby for the purpose of attaching to the mother. If there’s no baby in blastocyst form, the placenta never develops, let alone attaches (and the zygote dies and the woman miscarries).

    Now if you wish to say that human beings at this stage of their lives are technically parasitic to the mother, I’d not disagree, but it’s still alive, and it’s still human. By day 10 it will be developing blood cells wholly distinct from the mother. By day 18 it will have a fully functional and separate heartbeat. At six weeks it will have it’s own distinct brainwaves visible on EEG and will show non-reflex based stimulus response  — most abortions in the US are performed *after* this point by the way. However, the beneficial effects of hCG and Oxytocin on a woman’s body (to name just two) and the fact that the child does not absorb nutrients so as to be a detriment to the host, nor does the child excrete waste in a way that sickens the host, may indicate the relationship is scientifically symbiotic rather than parasitic.

     

    “Since abortion IS the termination of a pregnancy, you can’t even say that the intent and focus of abortion is fetal death OR the fetus.  And in order to BE classified as murder, you would have to classify the fetal placenta as human life.”

     

    The placenta is no more or less “human life” than your heart. You cannot live without your heart, someone else’s heart, or an artificial heart/other mechanical substitute. I cannot get away with stabbing you through the heart (most likely fatal) by saying that my intent and focus was to scrape out your heart, not to kill you. There is no placenta without a living human multicelled blastocyst attached to it. There is no way to remove or detach a placenta from a woman’s uterus (yet) without killing that human blastocyst. Anyone who told you diffrently *lied* to you.

     

    “And, in this case, if you are going to argue that it IS, anyways, then you would have to call all those who perform assisted suicide, murderers, to their face, as you have done to women who abort, here.”

     

    Gee…kinda like the single biggest glaring difference between rape and sex is the consent of all parties involved, the biggest difference between murder and assisted suicide is the consent of all parties involved.

     

    I snipped your bit about the whole planning to get pregnant in order to get an abortion bit because this reply is too long already. But the agreed unplanned nature of the pregnancy doesn’t change the planned nature of the abortion. Women can only speak with relative certainty of the life of the child with *them* — they have no way to know with any degree of certainty that the child would not be just fine with adoptive parent(s). The rest of that paragraph had zero bearing on the discussion.

    >>I believe a fetus is human life.  Which is WHY I’m ProChoice.  I believe that NO human should have more rights than any other human.<<

     

    Then you condemn yourself: until such time as science makes it *possible* for there to be an alternative, aborting a pregnancy at any stage IS giving you more rights than the child has. YOU are being given the right to decide if that child lives or dies…or if it’s even a child (since you don’t count back any earlier than fetus) at all.

     

    No one BORN (indisputable human beings) has the right to co-opt my organs against my wishes, not Even to save their lives, why should the unborn?  Hmmm…?

     

    Imagine a new technology: You are determined to be a “perfect heart donor” for a child with a heart defect. Without you, this child is dead – period. There’s no one else, and no artificial tech that can do the job. The price of this new technology is that you will be severely physically altered for nine months. You will gain weight, you will be tired, sore, hungry, fatigued, etc. It’s *going* to mess with your schedule and your life. And you have to deal with all of this – the huge decision of whether or not you wish to go through all this to help this child live — about 72 hours after having just been raped. You’ve got about a month to make up your mind, but then the doctors really need an answer.

     

    If you agree, you will be given a shot that will allow your body to grow a second heart over nine months that can be removed and implanted into the child. After it’s all over, you never have to see the child again, and she won’t even know who you were unless you wish it. Remember – you just *happen* to be the ONLY viable donor discovered (some dna screening or something, it’s fantasy to create an analogy).

     

    Could you let this child die? Does the fact that the child is your rapist’s daughter affect your decision? Does it matter if the child is only a fetus in the womb of the rapist’s sister?

     

    If, given the freedom of choice, you would *choose* to save the life of this child, my only question is WHY? What makes the sci-fi fetus worthy of your mercy, but the rape-conceived fetus worthy of your death sentence? Don’t tell me it’s your lack of choice — because you didn’t *choose* to be the only possible donor for the dying hypothetical child, anymore than one would choose to become pregnant from a rape. But that part’s over and the die is cast. Now the child exists and it IS your choice, surgery or not….abortion or not.

     

    “so are parasitic twins and fetus in fetu.”

     

    In these cases, we *completely* lack the technology (yet) to save all the lives involved. The best case scenarios we can manage are *going* to result in some loss of human life and it’s tragic. But it doesn’t apply to the conversation at hand.

    “Denying personhood status to human life,  based on what they look like, even though you would have to grant them personhood status using the EXACT SAME logic that you used to grant feoti personhood.”

    Nope. Just saying that we lack the tech to save everyone involved. It happens, and it’s tragic, and I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of the people making such decisions.

    “They want to grant extra rights to a specific group of humans (in the case of slavery, white people and in the case of pregnancy, feoti) while denying rights to another segment of humans (in the case of slavery, black people, and in the case of pregnancy, women).”
    Life is not an *extra* right, dear.
    You brew up the tech so that women who don’t want their pregnancies can pop them into a machine and be done with it without it killing the baby and I’ll be all for it.

     

    “Btw, if forced gestation isn’t a crime, then neither is rape, nor is the latter an immoral act.  You equate the shorter duration, less physically harming and life threatening act, in and of itself, when forced, with immorality yet equate the longer duration, FAR more physically damaging and life-threatening act, in and of itself, when forced, with moRALity, after all.”

     

    Indeed. Because the fact that the condition of being pregnant was *forced* on the woman by the rapist, changes nothing about the *child’s* RIGHT to LIFE. Had the rapist also broken both the woman’s legs, she’d be forced to go about in a wheel chair for a considerable amount of time too – but we don’t blame the wheelchair.  Also pregnancy just isn’t that dangerous. I don’t know what kind of wacky stories you’ve been reading, but humanity has been pumping out babies for almost 3 million years now and God or Gaia or the accidents of selective breeding have left us with women pretty well designed to handle the job. No one’s life is protected by allowing a rape. No one dies if the rape doesn’t happen or isn’t completed. No one *innocent* is killed if the rape is prevented or interrupted early. Apples. Oranges.

    “The ONLY things that are equally damaging are the mental health issues arising from both, alTHOUGH, even when NOT forced, pregnancy can STILL lead to mental health issues.  Or, have you never heard of PPD/S?”
    And those would be oppossums. Not really worthy of argument. One does not (in normal circumstances) kill a human being to avoid the possibility that one will be depressed or suicidal about one’s life with said human being later.

     

    I’m all for new technology. I think if there’s a NON-kill-the-innocent-baby/fetus/zygote way to see to it that a raped woman (or any other woman for that matter) doesn’t *have* to deal with getting pregnant when she doesn’t want to be that’s absolutely grand. The “plan-B” emergency contraception pill is a good start, but until they can show me clinical studies verifying that it won’t destroy a zygote, I wouldn’t use it.

     

    But what we’ve got now is leaving a woman to spend her post-abortion life saying “I didn’t *really* kill another human being…it wasn’t alive, it wasn’t human…” when every bit of scientific data now available proves otherwise. Even Roe (from Roe v. Wade) has reversed her position.

     

    That rapist may have provided the sperm, but he did NOT create the life in the woman’s womb. She didn’t either. Alone and separate, neither of their gametes would survive or develop into anything other than dead protein strands.  Sticking entirely to a scientific worldview that still holds some moral concept of innocent human life as valuable, the fact that it’s there and we’ve no alternative *demands* it be entitled to the same opportunities for continued life as any other human being. Looking at more spiritual concepts for the origin of life, perhaps it *should* bring to mind the question of why any Deity figure would “foist” a tiny helpless life on a woman in such a fashion. Surely it’s not for some sick prurient need to see her suffer further, or to watch her kill the child for its father’s cruelty. Most folk don’t believe in Deities like *that*…. Personally, I prefer the simple morality of humanism:

    The child is alive (scientifically provable at any stage) even if it is curerntly insentient. We as a society have deemed all humanity to be equally viable and equally entitled to life. Therefore as there is currently NO viable alternative for the child, it *should* be carried to term by the mother. Period.

     

     

  • arekushieru

    Vashra, such illogic.

     

    I’m not wishing on them a short and sad life, either.  Is THAT ill-will?  I thought not.  I guess you just don’t think of the other side of the coin, all the time…?   

     

    <<You’ve decided  that its wants needs and desires (most of which cannot be determined) either do not matter or do not matter as much as your own.>>

     

    Because it doesn’t HAVE wants, needs or desires.  Or, are you going to say that a flea has wants, needs and desires, now?

     

    <<And lastly, you’ve made yourself comfortable with being unable to obtain the child’s consent to be aborted. That’s pretty darn brutal.>>

     

    You’ve made yourself comfortable with being unable to obtain the *fetus’* consent to be birthed, into a sad, unwanted, unloved, brutal world and, most probable, continuous ward of the state.  THAT’S pretty darn brutal. 

     

    I will continue with this later, because it’s bedtime for me, where I am, now.

     

  • princess-rot

    You weren’t strong enough to fight him off, you weren’t fast enough to get away, you weren’t smart enough to avoid the danger…evil really does win a round now and then.

     Are you really going to let him make you a murderer too? Because HE won’t be hurt when you kill that baby.

    Wow, straight-up fucking victim blaming. And here I was, hoping against all hope that a wingnut would come here and give us some new arguments that are not essentially “You allowed yourself to be sullied by a penis, therefore you give up all your rights, you don’t deserve bodily autonomy and you must pay the price, whore.”

  • princess-rot

    You’re all about “evil begets evil” but you do not seem to grasp that a child borne of rape, or even borne of consensual sex, to someone who would have rather have had an abortion but couldn’t because of legality, money, outside pressures or inability to access safe abortion treatment will probably suffer. It could grow up feeling unwanted, unloved, maybe even abused or neglected and maybe repeat the same pattern it’s mother went through. Also consider the high instance of illegal, unsafe abortion and resulting death and mutilation among women in countries where abortion is prohibited or outright banned. How could you say one thing and forget that it cuts the other way also?

     

    I am not saying this will always be the case, some women do choose to complete, but the key word there is choose. They wanted that, for whatever reason. Abuse and hardship, though, are certainly more likely when you clearly state it is women’s moral duty to have children whatever the cost – you are potentially damning women, children and other members of their families to emotional hardship, abuse, poverty, unemployment, mental ill-health and economic insecurity in the name of “pro-life” self-righteousness.

     

    To avoid things like this happening, we work to combat rape culture and give women a choice about whether to complete a pregnancy. It isn’t about “hurting” a rapist by proxy, which is just weird and I am inclined to believe you care more about the rapist than his victim or the child. It isn’t about privileging one life over another – that is far too simplistic.

     

    Your “damned if you, damned if you don’t, the world is inherently violent rarrrr” may sound good in a Machiavellian sort of way, but unlike revolutionary political science it is not helpful or productive. It doesn’t actually help anyone. We acknowlege that oppressions exist in the world and therefore a core tenet of pro-choice idealogy is belief in freedom of choice. Ergo, one size fits all does not work.

  • arekushieru

    I may be able to finish this, if not it WILL be continued later.

     

    If you are going to call a fetus a person, you HAVE to call parasitic twins and fetus in fetu, persons.  Do you get it, NOW? 

    Here is a link to a site that confirms that the fetal placenta carries only a haploid set of chromosomes from the sperm:  http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Sexual_Reproduction.html#allograft 

    So, you are wrong, here, too. 

     

    Actually, we DO have the technology to flush out a blastocyst, etc, etc….  And they either prevent conception or implantation.  Which is NOT an abortion.  Sorry.

     

    I’m sorry, but the earliest signs of EEG were detected at EIGHTEEN weeks NOT six.

     

    The placenta is no more or less “human life” than your heart. You cannot live without your heart, someone else’s heart, or an artificial heart/other mechanical substitute. I cannot get away with stabbing you through the heart (most likely fatal) by saying that my intent and focus was to scrape out your heart, not to kill you. There is no placenta without a living human multicelled blastocyst attached to it. There is no way to remove or detach a placenta from a woman’s uterus (yet) without killing that human blastocyst. Anyone who told you diffrently *lied* to you

     

     

    I’m sorry, you call doctors who take people off life support killers?  Do you not know what killing means?  Cause of death.  Do the doctors say that removal of the life support caused death?  No.  They give the MEDICALLY relevant reason.  Brain failure.  Wrong again, eh? 

    • vashra

      At only 40 days after fertilization electrical waves as measured by the EEG can be recorded from the baby’s brain, indicating brain functioning47.

       47. Hamlin, H. (1964), “Life or Death by EEG,” Journal of the American Medical Association, October 12, 113.

  • bornin1984

    Nope, same criteria I\’ve been using since I started posting here. Again, I would highly recommend reading old threads around here rather than continuing to spout the absolutist assertions. I mean, it\’s one thing for you to say, \”I read them but I don\’t understand them.\” It\’s another thing entirely when it appears you can\\\’t even be bothered to do your homework.

    I said you use a different set of criteria when arguing abortion, not that you have argued differently then you have in the past, as if you applied your logic unilaterally, you would arrive at some absurd conclusions. Well, not so much absurd as sickening.

    Again, do you read what you write? I\’m not the one calling them \”unborn.\” Do you really not get that you make my point for me every time you use that word? Even you are acknowledging a difference.

    They are called the unborn (more specifically a zygote, an embryo or a fetus), just like someone who is one years of age is referred to as a baby, or a one year old a toddler or a thirteen year old a teenager, etc.. There is no point being made for you, unless your point is that we give different names to humans based on their stage of life.

    I didn\’t \”invent\” those criteria… these are fairly standard criteria.

    Where are they standard criteria? Not in any biology book I have ever read.

    Living organisms are fascinating to most people. Most of us are fascinated by large, warm fuzzies (raccoons, horses, pandas) while others find delight in small wonders (small animals and plant-like algae in pond water). Whatever your taste in creature fascination, the following list of attributes apply to all organisms. The attributes below are common to all life and reflect the basic needs of acquiring energy, reproducing, and exchanging material with the environment to sustain these and other activities.

    1. Living Organisms Reproduce. There are two means of reproduction, asexual and sexual. Asexual reproduction is a common and widespread phenomenon characterizing most fungi and protists and many plants and animals. Multi-cellular organisms reproduce asexually through fragmentation of the parent body & subsequent mitotic growth of the fragment that recreates a new individual that is a genetic clone of the original (recall plant cuttings from home). The cloned cells originating from a single parent differentiate to form the tissues and organs of the new individual. For single-celled life, cell division alone (mitosis) is the means of asexual reproduction–one cell divides into two and each goes its separate way becoming a new individual, no, or little, cell differentiation is required. Sexual Reproduction is a bit more complex than asexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction requires the formation of a new single-celled stage, the zygote. Two single-celled gametes unite in the process of fertilization to form the zygote. Prior to the next generation of sexually produced offspring, meiosis is required to reduce the chromosome number from the diploid to the haploid state. Thus, sexual reproduction consists of two required events: 1) meiosis, and 2) fusion of sex cells or gametes, e.g. egg & sperm, through an event called fertilization. Chapters 7 and 8 explore reproduction and inheritance.

    2. Living Organisms are Composed of Chemicals. Life is formed from carbon based chemicals, i.e. organic chemicals. For example, the DNA of your genes and the amino acids of your muscle proteins are all carbon based molecules. The chemicals that comprise life are basically the same between different organisms. Because these chemicals are dominated by Carbon, they are called organic chemicals. The same organic structure of DNA is common to all life and the same can be said of many carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins. Chapter 2 explores these and other organic molecules in more detail.

    3. Living Organisms Acquire Materials and Energy. All organisms are made of matter, i.e. chemicals, and energy is required to assimilate these chemicals in the form of the individual. Acquiring energy and materials is accomplished through many series of energy transformations as life transfers energy from one form to another. The chemical reactions that accomplish these energy transformations are collectively referred to as metabolism – chemical reactions within an organism that transfers energy, ex. cellular respiration (ATP production) & photosynthesis (carbohydrate production from carbon dioxide and light energy; i.e., organic molecules are formed from carbon dioxide under the power of light). Chapters 4, 5, & 6 explore these topics in more detail.

    4. Living Organisms Sense & Respond to Environmental Stimuli. The environmental stimulus may come from outside the body (ex. touch a hot iron and you respond with quick withdrawal) or from inside the body (ex. blood sugar levels rise and insulin, which lowers blood sugar, is released in response). The state of a stable internal environment being maintained by various mechanisms is called homeostasis.

    5. Living Organisms Have the Capacity to Mutate and genetic mutations are the fundamental basis of evolutionary change as driven by natural selection – thanks to the slightly error prone DNA replication process, gene mutations are inevitable. Whether the resulting allele produced by a mutation becomes more frequent through differential reproductive success (natural selection) is situational. Our coverage of Evolution explores this topic in more detail. Of note, ancient mutations have lead to the formation of two distinct cell types among living organisms, prokaryotic cells and eukaryotic cells. Prokaryotic cells not only lack a nucleus but they also belong only to bacteria. Eukaryotic cells typically have a nucleus and characterize all life except bacteria.

    6. Life exhibits organization at many levels [see Fig. 1.1]. An underlying theme in the study of biology flows from this understanding, that we can learn more about the whole by reducing it to its component parts. This idea is known as reductionism. Yet, we acknowledge the existence of emergent properties – properties emerge at higher levels of organization that cannot be predicted based on knowledge of the parts alone.

    subatomic part -> atom -> molecule ->cell parts -> tissues -> organs -> organ systems -> individuals -> populations -> communities -> ecosystems

    http://www.una.edu/faculty/pgdavison/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm

    Which of those criteria do the unborn not meet? I see nothing about sentience nor breathing nor independent existence or anything else of the sort, which would not make any sense, as using those as criteria most insects would not be alive (they have fairly simple nervous systems and cannot feel pain), nor would most plants or fungi be alive, as they do not breathe nor would, and I hate to make the comparison, many organisms on the planet, as they are parasitic in nature and exist solely because they live off of their host. Therefore, I really would like to know who treats the things you iterated as standard criteria for life.

    Of course you\’re going to \”ignore\” and decry as \”irrelevant\” the issues you just don\’t want to discuss, focus on one issue that you think you have a leg to stand on and then harp according to YOUR absolutist definitions and interpretations. At least you kind of acknowledged it this time…

    Yes, I will decry the use of concepts that are irrelevant to how we, say, define life, as they are. You can scream about absolutism all you want, but it is what it is.

    I thought you were ignoring sentience?

    Yes, after I explained to you why it was irrelevant.

    Again, way to assume I even care what that person does with their body in the first place. If they \”want\” to live (well more like if their family wants them to \”live\”) that\’s perfectly fine with me. \”Live\” away! I would say if a baby is born before it\’s sentient it\’s going to have a hell of a lot more issues than the ability to perceive…

    I would like to point out that you did not address most of what you quoted, probably because you cannot do so without pointing out the inconsistencies when it comes to applying your argument.

    A ZBEF doesn\’t have the right to use somebody\’s body as a personal life support system anymore than any other \”person\” does. So, no, same standard being applied to all potential lives.

    It does if it is past the point of viability.

  • squirrely-girl

    I see nothing about sentience nor breathing,

     

    3. Living Organisms Acquire Materials and Energy. –> pretty sure breathing (acquiring oxygen) falls in this category

    4. Living Organisms Sense & Respond to Environmental Stimuli. –> what do you think sentience is?

     

    FYI, just because they don’t use the same exact words, doesn’t mean the concept isn’t the same. That’s called reading comprehension.


    Apparently you exert as much effort reading the material you post as you do reading what other people post. 

    What about this?

    Yet, we acknowledge the existence of emergent properties – properties emerge at higher levels of organization that cannot be predicted based on knowledge of the parts alone.

    Did you read that as well? I’m rather curious as to how you interpret it…

     

    It does if it is past the point of viability.

    I, too, see a distinction after viability and I’m absolutely certain I’ve made that point repeatedly (well over 90%…). Barring life/health of the woman and fetal conditions incompatible with life I’m not supportive of late term abortions… yet like all medical procedures that don’t involve my body, I defer to the medical professionals and patient involved to make those informed decisions rather than narcissistically believing I could ever have ONE answer to all situations. 

     

    But then again, you haven’t been arguing against late term procedures,  you’ve been arguing against ALL abortion. 

  • bornin1984

    Apparently you exert as much effort reading the material you post as you do reading what other people post.

    1.) Living things do not necessarily need to breathe in order to acquire oxygen. Take cells, for instance, where oxygen passes into the cell by way of diffusion. In the case of the unborn, oxygen passes through the umbilical cord. Plants, which need CO2 rather than oxygen, absorb CO2 through their roots, leaves and stems. Breathing is merely one type of mechanism through which living things take in nutrients, in this case, essential compounds or elements. It is not the end-all-be-all, as most living organisms do not breathe at all.

    2.) Sentience is the ability to perceive subjectively. That is not the same as responding to external stimuli. You are conflating definitions. For example, if you plant a seed in a pot and stick the pot in a dark place with only a crack of light entering that space from a specific angle, that seed will sprout and grow towards the light. Does that mean plants are sentient? The unborn demonstrate certain reflex actions at various stages of their development, long before they can feel pain. Does that mean they are sentient as well?

    Did you read that as well? I\’m rather curious as to how you interpret it…

    Simply because, say, a human is more complex then, say, a protozoan, you cannot say that the human is more alive than the protozoan. They are both equally alive, as they both exhibit certain properties integral of life. Reductionism has its limitations, as sometimes the whole really is more then the sum of its parts.

    I, too, see a distinction after viability and I\’m absolutely certain I\’ve made that point repeatedly (well over 90%…). Barring life/health of the woman and fetal conditions incompatible with life I\’m not supportive of late term abortions… yet like all medical procedures that don\’t involve my body, I defer to the medical professionals and patient involved to make those informed decisions rather than narcissistically believing I could ever have ONE answer to all situations.

    Then your original assertion, by your own admission, is false because you do believe that the unborn, at some point in time, does have the right to use the woman as a support system, which was the point being set of the be proven.

    But then again, you haven\’t been arguing against late term procedures, you\\\’ve been arguing against ALL abortion.

    Not all. Most.

  • squirrely-girl

    First, breathing is how humans acquire oxygen and as far as I can remember, we were discussing abortion of human fetuses not other species. Besides that I think you’re really stretching for an argument, I also don’t think it really negates anything I’m saying. The ZBEF requires oxygen and cannot acquire this independently with it’s own bodily processes and relies entirely on the woman’s body to acquire said oxygen. 

    The unborn demonstrate certain reflex actions at various stages of their development, long before they can feel pain. Does that mean they are sentient as well?

    No, but it does support my argument that (generally speaking) before viability that ZBEF is not the same as a “person.”

     

    Then your original assertion, by your own admission, is false because you do believe that the unborn, at some point in time, does have the right to use the woman as a support system, which was the point being set of the be proven.

     

    I’ve stated my position numerous times in a plethora of threads here… but just for shits and giggles let me break it down yet again…

     

    Let’s use (traditional model) roller coasters as an analogy for my thoughts on abortion. There are numerous points in the pre-ride that a potential rider can decide to exit the ride, no harm no foul. Sure the person bought a ticket, waited in line, anticipated and maybe even wanted to ride, but for whatever reason they got out of line/got in the car but changed their mind before the bars dropped on the seat. Once the person is sitting in the car and the bar has dropped the ride can only be stopped by the master ride conductor. It’s not all that common, but it does happen (people having panic attacks, trying to get loose from the lap belts/bars, spitting or throwing things, uber-belligerent or drunk riders, master conductor thinks a rider is too small or being coerced and wants to double check, etc.). The roller coaster can generally be stopped by the master conductor all the way up to the free-fall point. However, after this point, unless the ride breaks, the only way off is at the end of the ride. 

     

    This is pretty much how I view viability. I don’t care if people get out of line or “walk through” the car to the other platform – it’s their choice and it’s not hurting me or anybody else one bit. Similarly, during the first trimester I don’t particularly care that women are obtaining abortions. I just don’t. It isn’t actually hurting me or anybody else one bit. Second trimester? Ehhh… I’m considerably more uncomfortable with the “idea” but obviously these happen. I just wouldn’t want it to be common. Which, at somewhere between 5 and 10%, I really don’t think it is. At any rate, at this point there should be an overriding reason and a trained master ride conductor, in this case a physician that specializes in this particular area, should be heavily involved in this decision/approval process. And, barring unscrupulous or unethical physicians (which occur in EVERY medical specialty), I feel like this is the system we have in place. Beyond the free fall/viability the only real way off the ride is mechanical/ride failure or the end/childbirth.

     

    However… the amusement park is legally obligated to make those exits available and clearly marked and they aren’t allowed to block the exits or restrict exiting the ride until a certain point. I think abortion should be treated the same way. Alas, it’s one thing for me to say that abortion should be readily accessible in the first trimester… in practical application it’s an entirely different issue when some state and local governments do everything they can to prevent “exiting” at the time it is safest and the least cost or risk associated with it. THIS IS WRONG.  

     

    Try to not misinterpret what I’m saying here… I’m not a “fan” of abortion. I had an unplanned pregnancy and chose to carry to term. I made adjustments in my life and it’s worked out so far. But I’m not so self-involved to believe my experience (as a white, married, doctoral student with a strong family support system nearby) is in ANY way representative of ALL women. I’d love to live in a happy, pony, rainbow land where abortion was neither needed or desired. Similarly, in my HPRL there would also be no need or desire for illicit substances. But we don’t live in that world (yet… I can dream) and if we’ve learned anything from history, banning or severely limiting “vices” generally just results in the creation of a black market for that vice. While some people are more than happy to see this happen, I’m unwilling to risk women’s lives or health to appease the delicate/judgmental moral natures of the AC/PL crowd. 

     

    So yes, I believe that at some point, for which I am more than happy accept “viability” as the standard, a women does have some obligation to carry the pregnancy  to term. Guess what? The overwhelming majority of women already do this. And for the exceptions that exist, again, I defer to the medical professionals and the guidelines established by Roe v. Wade. I wholeheartedly believe that the decision in Roe v. Wade was about the closest we’ll ever come to a reasonable compromise on this issue. It’s not perfect, but nothing conceived by the mind of man[kind] ever is. And until all humans are created and gestated in mechanical bubbles of some sort, there is entirely too much individual variation to have absolutist policies. To pretend otherwise is just ignorant. 

     

    Not all. Most.

    Exceptions being?

  • bornin1984

    First, breathing is how humans acquire oxygen and as far as I can remember, we were discussing abortion of human fetuses not other species. Besides that I think you\’re really stretching for an argument, I also don\’t think it really negates anything I\’m saying. The ZBEF requires oxygen and cannot acquire this independently with it\’s own bodily processes and relies entirely on the woman\’s body to acquire said oxygen.

    No. Breathing is how humans who are born acquire oxygen. The unborn do not need to breathe in the traditional sense, so they do not. To claim that the unborn are not alive because they do not breathe as someone who is born breathes, or to assert that being is a requirement of being alive when not all living organisms breathe, is fallacious. No one is stretching for an argument. You really do not understand the thing you are trying to argue.

    No, but it does support my argument that (generally speaking) before viability that ZBEF is not the same as a \”person.\”

    No, it does not. Since you were treating responding to stimuli and sentience as the same, then because the unborn respond to stimuli, they are sentient, which means they cannot be aborted. There is no use in changing your argument now.

    Long quote that I am too lazy to quote

    Yes, I realize what you wrote out the first time. What I am telling you, is that you are contradicting yourself.

    Let us say we have Woman X and Unborn Y. You say that Unborn Y does not have a right to use the body of Woman X if Woman X does not want to allow Unborn Y it use her body, yet you turn around and say that Unborn Y, once it passes viability, should be able to use her body even if it is against her wishes.

    Those two statements are incongruent, as they cannot both be true. Furthermore, if you can say that Woman X can be made to do something at Point X, then she can also be made to do something at Point A, as neither is more of a violation than the other. That is the, well, point. You cannot argue that a woman has an absolute right to her body, and then turn around and argue that her right to her body can be violated once the unborn reaches a certain stage of development, for there is nothing which says that her right to her body cannot be violated at any point during pregnancy because of some moral distinction regarding the unborn, and not just the point you find significant. There really is no way around this. It is like looking at ladder and trying to decide which rung on that ladder is more important than the other. No matter what way you decide, you would be basing that on individual personal opinion.

    Just imagine if our laws were constructed the way you want our abortion laws to be constructed. People would be free to do anything they want so long as they do not violate their own moral principles. That is wrong, and incredibly foolish. Someone could, in effect, break into your house and rob you blind so long as they think an action is moral or that you do not really deserve the items in your house. Someone could steal your car because they want it and because they think you would be reckless and crash it. And so on and so forth. Yes, those are absurd examples, but they highlight the problem with basing policy off on
    individual personal opinion.

    Exceptions being?

    If she is going to die, definitely.

  • colleen

    Which demonstrates quite well why I’ve learned to disbelieve anything that ‘pro-lifers’ present as ‘fact’ or ‘science’. Well, that and the fact that a 40 day old embryo cannot be said to have a brain.

    http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm

  • vashra

    You want the right to choose life for *yourselves*, and you want to deny that same right to someone else who has *NO* choice of any kind but to depend on you for that same life for nine months. You don’t see any contradiction or double standard in that desire. I’m probably not going to be the one to make you see it. I’m honestly not sure that even Deity could do so, (if It exists and were so inclined). So I am leaving this argument defeated, knowing you will not see, but still trying to show you the dark and dangerous transition of thought that allows you to transmit such cruel hatred and such cold indifference onto an innocent child.

     

    When my attacker said “you scream and I swear I’ll cut you in half,” I took him at his word. He slapped me so hard my ears rang. I didn’t grow up in the best world, and I’d been hit before – but not like that. In that moment, I realized that every other man or boy who had *ever* hit me had been — consciously or unconsciously — holding back. Here was someone who was clearly willing to extend to me the full measure of his potential strength towards doing me violence. I am fairly certain that I could have provoked him to kill me.

     

    And yet, nothing that had ever happened to me, and nothing that madman would do to me, made me really *want* to die. I am simply too old to understand the modern teen’s angst-ridden “I want to end it all” mentality. I wanted to live. I wanted to survive. I wanted to live even though I was already considered “less” than some people in my culture because I was half-British and half-Indian. I wanted to live even though I knew being raped would mean was was now “ruined” for marriage in the eyes of most who would have had me before (no wonder I married an American). I wanted to survive even though my past and been poor and uncertain and my future wasn’t looking any better.

     

    So think back to those moments when you decided that it was more important to you that you LIVE than anything else that was happening. Is the *possible chance* that tomorrow will start a downward spiral of a truly torturous awful life for you *really* enough to make you want to end it all today? Or do you still cling to life, whatever its circumstances, in the hope that it may be as good or better than it is now? Yet so many hold up the possibility of a negative future as an entirely rational reason to kill an unborn child. We live in the nuclear age: by the argument of what is negatively possible we should all stop breeding entirely.

     

    Of this much I am certain: *Almost* 100% of you (I always leave open the option that I’m wrong) want to live and would be *very* upset if that right were taken away by the selfish choice of another. None of you would want to hear about how you didn’t have the “right” to continue to live at the expense of another’s support, financial or physical.

     

    Nearly every last one of you would expect the local hospital to shell out emergency services to keep you alive, whether you could pay for them or not. That’s your RIGHT after all — to keep this thing you desire — to stay alive. I suspect that in some odd fantasy circumstance where you could only continue to live if someone else’s life were severely restricted for nine months, you’d be pushing for your rights still, not defending their rights to refuse you.

     

    Like the people in my culture who flatly declare a mixed race woman is “less” than other women and a raped woman is “ruined,” you declare these babies to be something *universally* undesirable, unwanted…somehow tainted or unclean. These “unwanted” babies don’t deserve these rights you so possessively cleave to for yourselves…not because we are sure *they* don’t want those rights, but because you don’t want to extend the support required to provide them. Your rationalization for their lack of deservingness really boils down to the fact that they cannot express or defend their desire. Consent becomes a non-issue as consent is not required from a non-person. We kill animals all the time. We exterminate germs without any thought at all.

     

    The fetus is a parasite like a louse, the zygote is a clump of cells like a germ. This is the same dehumanizing mentality that cleared the consciences of the men who brutalized us so that they felt no revulsion at what they would do. You talk about the babies (or the parties defending the babies) “forcing” it’s needs upon the mother, while wholly ignoring that the babies (and those defending them) HAVE NO OTHER OPTION — not no other *easy* option, not no other “better” option – NO OTHER OPTION. It’s literally a choice between being a “parasite” in mummie’s womb for nine months or DEATH. So you declare the mother superior to the child, or the child to be a parasite, or the child to be not a child, or the non-child to be not alive. You dehumanise that baby any way you have to so you can swallow down the deed without getting HUMAN blood on your hands. It makes me weep.

     

    Sometimes I wish some God-figure would step in and cause some miracle so we could hear the wishes of the souls in those tiny bodies. But then, in a moment of agnosticism, I suspect that such a God would hold back from that very “gift” out of mercy … for I cannot imagine which nightmare scenario would be worse:

    Being able to “hear” a pre-born child plead to you for its life, or finding out that your own “I don’t want you – you’re a rape baby, there’s something *wrong* with you” attitudes had sufficiently crushed another being’s soul to the point that it would truly welcome such an early and violent death.

     

    So I leave you with this atheistic secular prophecy: I guarantee you that a society which cannot inspire enough selflessness in a mother such that she embraces the life in her womb at least long enough to grant it entry to the world is *never* going to evolve into a society where rape just does not happen. If you want to ever have the one, you will have to grow up enough to see the obligation for the other.

  • squirrely-girl

    Are you really citing material from 1964 to support your claims? You do realize we’ve made a few advances in the last 50 years of medicine right?