Fetuses as Slaves? I Don’t Think So


Recently, the Denver Daily News ran a story with the headline Are Fetuses Like Slaves?  The article covered Personhood Colorado’s announcement of their ballot initiative campaign strategy, which includes comparing fetuses to slaves. Colorado’s “personhood” ballot measure proposes an amendment to the state constitution that would apply the term ‘person’ as used in those provisions of the Colorado Constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law, to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.  Personhood Colorado held a news conference to reveal their campaign strategy where they played their radio ad featuring the voice of an actor playing a slave speaking in support of the proposed “personhood” amendment.

In the radio spot, the fictional slave George Stevens says,

 “I’m George Stevens and I’m a person. I was held as property as a child. Even before my birth I was called a slave in an America you wouldn’t recognize. But folks like you helped me escape North to freedom and in 1864, I joined the infantry to fight for my country. I fought so all slaves would be recognized as persons, not property. And we won.

But today in Colorado, there are still people called property – children – just like I was. And that America you thought you wouldn’t recognize is all around you and these children are being killed.  This November, vote “yes” on Amendment 62. Amendment 62 declares unborn children persons, not property. And that’s the America I fought for. So visit PersonhoodColorado.com and in November, vote “yes” on 62. It’s the right thing to do.”

This move by Personhood Colorado continues the anti-choice tactic du jour of co-opting Black American history in an attempt to make a case against women’s reproductive rights.  From a “documentary” that declares that the most dangerous place for a Black baby is in a Black woman’s womb to the recent anti-choice “Freedom Rides” that traced the route of the famed Civil Rights Freedom Rides of the early 1960’s, those opposed to reproductive justice are attempting to re-writing Black history to serve their cause.

It would be easy to dismiss this call for fetal emancipation.  The radio ad itself is laughable and it fails to explain Amendment 62 to an electorate that already rejected fetal “personhood” in 2008.  However, this tactic of co-opting Black American history to attack reproductive rights cannot go unanswered even when the execution is flawed. 

When organizations opposed to reproductive rights promote a “documentary” that makes the charge that the most dangerous place for a Black baby is in a Black woman’s womb, they are attacking Black women’s capacity to parent and make health care decisions.  Under the guise of protecting life, these groups are making a full frontal attack that promotes the dangerous lie that Black women are unfit, uncaring and selfish. 

When anti-choice groups mount “Freedom Rides” to promote their anti-choice message, they are attempting to rewrite one of the most important moments in Civil Rights history.  In the early 1960’s, activists risked their lives to test whether interstate buses were desegregated as required by law.  Those activists traveled on Freedom Rides because rights without access are rights in name only, a point that these anti-choice groups conveniently ignore as they travel the same route trying to gather support for the denial of access to reproductive health care.

Now there is an attempt to define a fetus as a slave, which begs the question – who is the master?  Who would Amendment 62 emancipate fetal slaves from?  That’s right – women.  In the world of fetal “personhood” women are slave masters and our reproductive rights hold the fetus in bondage.  That is the latest false claim currently floating out in the atmosphere, sent forth through the voice of a fictional slave in a radio ad.  The reality is that Amendment 62 will not bring about fetal emancipation – this so-called “personhood” initiative would grant the government complete control over women’s bodies. 

Amendment 62 isn’t the second coming of The Emancipation Proclamation.  Rather, this amendment would make government the master and women slaves.  That’s what my ancestors and so many other Americans fought against.

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

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

Follow Pamela Merritt on twitter: @SharkFu

  • kevin-rahe

    “However, this tactic of co-opting Black American history to attack reproductive rights…”

    Except that that’s not what it is.  The role eugenics has played and continues to play in the push for abortion in this country is quite clear.  Black babies are targeted by the abortion industry.

  • invalid-0

    Yeah.  I (surprise) agree with Kevin.   There’s no question that the same people that fought for your “reproductive justice” also were heavily invested in eradicating and/or controlling the birth rate of the black population.  Black women and other minorities still obtain abortions at much higher rates than the white population.  Abortion clinics are mostly found in minority communities.

     

    Whether this is motivated (still) motivated by hate for minorities is certainly not a definite, it remains a threat to the population.  But the fact remains that for an unborn black baby, survival chances are unbelievably low in this country.  Dr. Alveda King (MLK’s niece) makes this point often in her pro-life speeches.

  • squirrely-girl

    But the fact remains that for an unborn black baby, survival chances are unbelievably low in this country.

    What about the survival chances of born black babies? 

  • colleen

    What about the survival chances of born black babies?

    The ‘pro-life’ movement does not concern itself with the post born.

  • sayna

    “…they are attacking Black women’s capacity to parent and make health care decisions.”

    Exactly.

    It’s like they don’t realize–or, more likely, don’t care–that what they’re proposing is forcing women to give birth against their will.

    Pretty ironic that the side literally fighting for forced labor is the one comparing the other position to slavery. I’d laugh if I wasn’t so disgusted by them spitting on the graves of real people who suffered the atrocity of slavery.

  • sayna

    You seem pretty confident in making that claim, so I’m sure you have some sources to back it up. I’ll wait.

  • squirrely-girl

    Black babies are targeted by the abortion industry.

    Wow, I learn something every day… cause I was sitting here under the impression that black babies were targeted by the judicial system and prison industry. //end snark

  • squirrely-girl

    Slaves = too stupid to take care of themselves so they were “protected” by white masters.

     

    Modern black women = too stupid to make decisions about their reproductive health so they need to be “protected” by white masters.

  • carolyninthecity

    If abortion clinics are mostly found in minority communities, wouldn’t that have more to do with the fact that Planned Parenthoods offer many services at low cost or for free, and minority communities tend to be low-income, and would have a greater need for cheap reproductive services? If abortion rates are higher among these populations I think it makes more sense that it’s a result of a lack of education/financial barriers/cultural stigmas etc.. in obtaining birth control- rather then clinics “targeting” black and hispanic communities. That seems a little paranoid. In fact I’m fairly certain all evidence points to the former.

    I think people get Margaret Sanger’s problematic history with eugenics confused with planned parenthood’s actual mission and purpose.

    Also just as a side note, I find the term “abortion industry” a little humerous.

  • prochoicekatie

    The most striking similarity to me is how slaves were quite literally “bred” to make more slaves. Black female slaves were treated like property, like chattel, and forced to bear children they knew would face a lifetime of slavery. And these women would desperately try to avoid these pregnancies. They wanted the freedom to choose when and how to bring children into a world they wanted their children to thrive in. This amendment would send us BACK to those times, taking the freedom of women to decide when and how to become pregnant away from them (considering how it will also affect hormonal birth control and IVF).

    Telling people when and how to start families with a complete disregard for their privacy and their knowledge (as I consider myself to be the foremost expert on MYSELF) is what this amendment will do. It frees no one.

  • chelley

    This article about Colorodo just shows how sick America is.  this is laughable in Canada and all west european countries.  and new england states. oh yeah and most of s. fl. and California. 

     

          This topic has been discussed at nusium,  an embryo is not a person for the millionth and one time.

  • truitt

    Fantastic piece as usual Pamela, thanks so much! The racist slavery argument makes no sense in relation to so-called “personhood” but still must be refuted.

    For folks in Colorado looking to get involved in defeating the so-called “Personhood” Amendment, Choice USA is partnering with local organizations to train folks on the issues, teach important organizing skills, and connect them with local organizations doing this work. For more info and to register go here: http://www.choiceusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=340&Itemid=214

  • bornin1984

    Woman are allowed to treat the unborn as property. How is that any different to slavery?

  • bornin1984

    See above

  • squirrely-girl

    “unborn” = inside the woman’s body

    slaves = separate, living, breathing, sentient beings not inside other people’s bodies

    Generally speaking most people treat things inside their bodies as their property… not just women.

  • bornin1984

    That is an inconsequential distinction and I am sure you know this. If you can treat someone as property based on location, then you can do it for any reason, race included. You just make the slavery comparison stronger when you assert that humans, at any time, can be considered to be property.

    And, please, not with the separate, living, breathing, sentient beings again. It was wrong the first time you said it, it was even more wrong you did not apply it unilaterally to all humans (two people pointed this out to you simultaneously in the same thread) and it is still wrong today. You are just making self-serving distinctions in order to define the unborn out of rights held by any other human. That is no different than the people who argued that slaves were less than any other human on the basis of their skin color or intellect or that women were inferior to men on the basis of being women. It is striking how quick you are to forget this.

    Edit: I forgot to add that some people here seemingly forgot that Blacks are among the least, if not the least, approving racial demographic when it comes to abortion (Hispanics might be less approving, though I do not think they are).

  • squirrely-girl

    I love how you attempt to dismiss the inside of a person’s body as “location.” It really does say a lot about you. Your tendency of frequently dismissing concepts of bodily autonomy as “inconsequential” doesn’t exactly highlight your advanced reasoning skills, but rather your disconnected understanding of people, lack of empathy, and, I would suggest, a tendency toward Asperger’s. 

     

    YOU may consider whether or nothing something is INSIDE OF (and leaching off of) YOUR BODY to be “inconsequential” but I am quite certain most other people see a distinction. When you can figure out a way to put a living person inside of another living person’s body we can keep having this “location/distinction/property” discussion. Until then I’m going to continue to see you as morally and cognitively deficient. 

     

    By the way, born children are no less considered “property” of their parents after their born. Likewise, using your “mere location” idea, why can’t I just take one of your kidneys to help a dying child? 

  • bornin1984

    I love how you attempt to dismiss the inside of a person\’s body as \”location.\” It really does say a lot about you.

    It says that I am not willing to define someone out of rights solely because of where they are.

    YOU may consider whether or nothing something is INSIDE OF (and leaching off of) YOUR BODY to be \”inconsequential\” but I am quite certain most other people see a distinction. When you can figure out a way to put a living person inside of another living person\’s body we can keep having this \”location/distinction/property\” discussion. Until then I\’m going to continue to see you as morally and cognitively deficient.

    I see. So the one who argues that no one should be able to deprive someone else out of his or her life is morally deficient when compared to someone who believes the opposite, and the one who points out that distinctions such as size, location, stage of development, race, sex, etc., are irrelevant to how we treat another human being is cognitively deficient when compared to someone who argues differently? And yet pro-choicers scratch their head in amazement and wonder why as time passes fewer and fewer people are comfortable with the idea of abortion and are willing to label themselves pro-choice. Oh, and I am quite sure that most people do not view where someone is as important to whether or not that individual has the right to not be killed and that the number of people who believe this to be in the minority.

    By the way, born children are no less considered \”property\” of their parents after their born. Likewise, using your \”mere location\” idea, why can\’t I just take one of your kidneys to help a dying child?

    Because a born child is born.

  • squirrely-girl

    It says that I am not willing to define someone out of rights solely because of where they are.

    I think you are just avoiding or really don’t understand what I’m saying. The inside of a woman’s uterus is not exactly a “location” where “somebody” can just “be.” That whole principle of two things can’t occupy the same space at the same time. Until that ZBEF exits that woman’s body, it is, in effect, her body. 

     

    Presenting your argument as an issue of “location” implies that if the ZBEF were somewhere else they could have rights. But even if I were to remove that ZBEF, intact, prior to the point of viability, those “rights” were for naught wouldn’t you say? If you wish to circumvent these issues of biology and physics, feel free to invent an artificial womb to gestate unwanted ZBEFs and cover all of the costs. 

     

    And frankly, we “define people out of rights” solely because of where they are all the time. For example, we deny people rights when they’re in prison (guilty until proven innocent doesn’t make a difference in how the jail or prison actually treats you) and from state to state (how can gay people marry in one state but not others?).

     

    Because a born child is born.

    So born children are property, but “unborn” children aren’t?

  • bornin1984

    I think you are just avoiding or really don\’t understand what I\’m saying. The inside of a woman\’s uterus is not exactly a \”location\” where \”somebody\” can just \”be.\” That whole principle of two things can\’t occupy the same space at the same time. Until that ZBEF exits that woman\’s body, it is, in effect, her body.

    Presenting your argument as an issue of \”location\” implies that if the ZBEF were somewhere else they could have rights. But even if I were to remove that ZBEF, intact, prior to the point of viability, those \”rights\” were for naught wouldn\’t you say? If you wish to circumvent these issues of biology and physics, feel free to invent an artificial womb to gestate unwanted ZBEFs and cover all of the costs.

    Personal beliefs do not trump a scientific fact, and it is a fact that the unborn is not her body in any way, shape or form. The unborn and the woman do not occupy the same space, unless you are going to argue that a woman occupies her own uterus, which would not make any sense unless you are going to start arguing dualism, which is a problem within itself as you would have to assume that the woman exists outside of herself. At any rate, inside of the woman or outside of the woman is a matter of location. According to you, someone born at 22-weeks has more rights than someone who is still inside of the woman at 22-weeks, solely because one is outside and one is inside. That, no matter what way you try to dress it up, is a matter of location, as there is no difference otherwise between the two. Your arguments are not based on biology or physics. They are based, well, personal beliefs.

    And frankly, we \”define people out of rights\” solely because of where they are all the time. For example, we deny people rights when they\’re in prison (guilty until proven innocent doesn\’t make a difference in how the jail or prison actually treats you) and from state to state (how can gay people marry in one state but not others?).

    People in prison do not get defined out of rights solely because said people exist. They have to do something, and even then they still have the most basic of rights. Of which the unborn, mind you, has none.

    So born children are property, but \”unborn\” children aren\’t?

    No.

  • invalid-0

    It’s better. Why?

  • invalid-0

    The ‘pro-life’ movement does not concern itself with the post born.

    Citation and/or admission of BS needed.

  • squirrely-girl

    Citation? 

  • invalid-0

    AXIOM #1: An embryonic human being, or a fetal human being is a human being.  (i.e. the “unborn”)

     

    AXIOM #2: “Persons” have a right to life under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

     

    AXIOM #3: Therefore, for a pro-choice person, either (A) the unborn are non-person human beings; or (B) are indeed persons that otherwise have no rights under the 14th Amendment

     

    The author refuses to face an important fact here.  She is assuming that she is right on the issue of abortion.  It dismisses, without considering, the pro-life argument.  Our goal is to endow 14th Amendment protection upon the unborn – a concept intimately related to the abolition of slavery.

     

    If we are wrong, it is because:

    (A) the unborn are non-person human beings, which requires an interpretation of the 14th Amendment nonetheless; or

    (B) the unborn otherwise do not deserve the protection of the 14th Amendment.

     

    I put the question to you, pro-choicers, if the unborn are not persons… and they are not property… then what third category exists of which they can be defined?

     

    I’d like to remind our listeners that there is absolutely no legal precedent for the notion that dependence upon another for life gives a license to kill to the person being depended upon.  Such an idea is based on shaky logic, if at all, and certainly not based on American legal theory.

  • julie-watkins

    I put the question to you, pro-choicers, if the unborn are not persons… and they are not property… then what third category exists of which they can be defined?

    I believe the fetus is a “potential person”. If [attempting to] give birth (give life) is an obligation, not a gift, then society is treating women and poor people as 2nd class, and I don’t believe women and poor people should be treated by Society as 2nd class, by definition. I believe this because Nature is sexist & Society shouldn’t enforce that sexism by treating pregnant women as community property. I believe it is unjust to put a higher burden (“tax”) on women and poor people than men and the elites. I believe that declaring “ZBEFs are People” is the equivalent (considering Nature’s know propensity of being very inefficient of conceptions, whereas evolution usually selects for efficiency in other areas of species physiology) of declaring that square pegs should be put in round holes, even though putting round pegs into round holes would be simpler. I think the evidence of nature is that “good outcomes” is much more important than “every conception is important”.

  • ldan

    Personal beliefs do not trump a scientific fact, and it is a fact that the unborn is not her body in any way, shape or form. The unborn and the woman do not occupy the same space, unless you are going to argue that a woman occupies her own uterus, which would not make any sense unless you are going to start arguing dualism, which is a problem within itself as you would have to assume that the woman exists outside of herself.

     

    Does a woman not occupy her own body, including her uterus, or are we using completely different definitions of ‘occupy’ here? You’re basically setting aside space _inside someone’s body_ as being separate from them.

    So, can I rent out space in your abdominal cavity to store a few things? I mean, it’s not like you’re occupying that space, according to your argument.

    I mean sure razor blades occupying a stomach is an unhealthy thing for the person surrounding that stomach, but since that person organ wasn’t actually occupying it, it’s sort of odd that the side effects bother them so much.

     

    At any rate, inside of the woman or outside of the woman is a matter of location. According to you, someone born at 22-weeks has more rights than someone who is still inside of the woman at 22-weeks, solely because one is outside and one is inside. That, no matter what way you try to dress it up, is a matter of location, as there is no difference otherwise between the two. Your arguments are not based on biology or physics. They are based, well, personal beliefs.

     

    Someone born at 22-weeks very likely has no rights because they’re dead. Survival is pretty unlikely for a fetus that young. Which gets to the point that nobody is actually arguing rights based on location. That 22 week fetus has similar rights to a baby sitting happily outside of a uterus. Those rights do not include the right to demand the use of someone else’s body for survival. Yes, a born child is dependent on adults to survive. This is very different from requiring an adult to grow them, molecule by molecule, from the substance of their own body.

    Giving rights to a fetus equal to those of a born person creates a direct conflict between the fetus’ right to life and the woman’s right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. Why do anti-choicers believe that the fetus automatically wins this conflict? And how does denying a woman her rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness not equate to making that woman a slave to the fetus?

     

  • plume-assassine

    It’s interesting how the anti-choice crowd totally ignores this part of the article, “The reality is that Amendment 62 will not bring about fetal emancipation – this so-called ‘personhood’ initiative would grant the government complete control over women’s bodies…Amendment 62 isn’t the second coming of The Emancipation Proclamation.  Rather, this amendment would make government the master and women slaves.”   Remember, you are advocating for state-sanctioned forced births. Women faced with an unwanted pregnancy would become nothing but incubators for the state. It’s disturbing to me how so many of you self-identify with a z/e/f but are unable to see that the WOMAN is the only actualized person involved.

     

    I could see how restricting access to abortion could be comparable to slavery. You would essentially be making women a slave to the natural functioning of her body, to the sole functioning of an incubator, unable to control her own biological destiny, and reproductive life. You would be condemning all sexually active women of reproductive age to be potential baby-makers at any time, whether they like it or not.

     

    Please stop comparing fetuses to slaves. It is absolutely ludicrous that this even needs to be explained. The z/e/f’s condition is that it exists inside of a full-grown person and depends on that person’s body for development. The slaves as born adult people did not exist solely inside of a person’s body and did not physically depend on a person’s body for development and continued existence. The anti-choice crowd can’t seem to get it through their heads that an autonomous child/adult person is not comparable to a developing embryo physically attached to a full-grown woman. It is totally insulting for you to imply that having an abortion is morally comparable to owning slaves.

     

     Furthermore, by comparing abortion to Black genocide or saying that fetuses are “slaves,” then you are directly insulting the intelligence and autonomy of African American/Black women who have made the decision to abort on their own terms. They are not being coerced or forced into choosing abortion as some part of a grand conspiracy theory scheme of the state. The truth is that the fertility rate of the African American community rests at 2.2 (children per woman) compared to 2.0 for “white” Americans. By 2042-2050, non-white ethnicity groups will be more prominent (in the US) than the white population. And that’s a good thing. Frankly, I’m sick of the idea that America is this white male Christian corporate playground. 

     

    You wonder why there are more family planning and abortion facilities in non-white neighborhoods? Due to the ingrained racism that is still prevalent in this nation, the African American community experiences gross economic disparity to this day. As a result, this disparity also greatly affects family planning. Why? Because family planning requires economic resources. Family planning requires insurance to pay for a doctor, to pay for contraception from that doctor, to pay for a car to get to the doctor, to pay for car insurance to drive that car, to pay for condoms, to pay for an abortion, and to pay for the gas that will get you to that clinic which is probably way out of town. African American women are clearly at a great disadvantage. Because of the racist and classist principles that still corrupt our society, they do not have access to the money or access to education for family planning. That is exactly why they are more at risk for already having a big family and wanting an abortion. And that is why you might see more clinics in traditionally black neighborhoods, because they are there to help African American women and mothers choose to take control of their own lives and reproductive health… with family planning that is cheap (or free) and close to home.

     

     

     So, there’s really no weight to this “abortion as genocide” theory that the anti-choicers like to throw around either. Not to mention how hyerbolic Maafa 21. Would you look a Holocaust survivor in the eye and tell her that her experience in a concentration camp, watching her family and friends die, is comparable to that of a woman choosing a safe and legal abortion for an unwanted pregnancy?

     

  • prochoiceferret

    AXIOM #1: An embryonic human being, or a fetal human being is a human being.  (i.e. the “unborn”)

     

    Kind of like how a pine cone, or an embryonic pine tree is a pine tree. (i.e. the “ungerminated”)

     

    AXIOM #2: “Persons” have a right to life under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

     

    You may want to read the 14th Amendment again, because that’s not what it says.

     

    AXIOM #3: Therefore, for a pro-choice person, either (A) the unborn are non-person human beings; or (B) are indeed persons that otherwise have no rights under the 14th Amendment

     

    Incorrect. Pro-choicers may believe both or neither of those things. They just believe that whatever is inside the woman, it doesn’t have the right to stay there without the woman’s consent.

     

    The author refuses to face an important fact here.  She is assuming that she is right on the issue of abortion.  It dismisses, without considering, the pro-life argument.

     

    The argument that women should be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term? Yeah, sorry about neglecting that one.

     

    I’d like to remind our listeners that there is absolutely no legal precedent for the notion that dependence upon another for life gives a license to kill to the person being depended upon.

     

    Well, duh. You don’t get to be Jane Bond by becoming pregnant.

     

    More relevantly, however, there is absolutely no legal precedent for a person to be compelled to provide or continue providing biological life support to another person, even if the second person’s life depends on it. And that’s a good thing, unless you’re a fan of forced organ and tissue donation.

  • invalid-0
  • bornin1984

    Does a woman not occupy her own body, including her uterus, or are we using completely different definitions of \’occupy\’ here?

    Not unless she exists before she exists, or exists separate from herself. Look up the concept of dualism.

    You\’re basically setting aside space _inside someone\’s body_ as being separate from them.

    Because it is. Your argument is akin to arguing that because, say, you are inside of a house that you belong to that house or that because furniture is inside of a house that furniture belongs to that house. You, of course, can see the problem there.

    So, can I rent out space in your abdominal cavity to store a few things? I mean, it\’s not like you\’re occupying that space, according to your argument.

    Indeed, that is not my argument at all.

    I mean sure razor blades occupying a stomach is an unhealthy thing for the person surrounding that stomach, but since that person organ wasn\’t actually occupying it, it\’s sort of odd that the side effects bother them so much.

    Does the body specifically accommodate the razor blade?

    Someone born at 22-weeks very likely has no rights because they\’re dead. Survival is pretty unlikely for a fetus that young. Which gets to the point that nobody is actually arguing rights based on location.

    Actually, it does not, because the reason I specifically mentioned 22 weeks is that some people born at 22 weeks do survive, and I highly doubt that you would argue that someone born at 22 weeks should either be left to die or to be killed. However, you would argue differently if that child was still inside of the woman, which means that your argument is one based on location. After all, if it was not, then why would you assert that the child born at 22 weeks has more of a right to live then the one who is still unborn at 22 weeks?

    That 22 week fetus has similar rights to a baby sitting happily outside of a uterus. Those rights do not include the right to demand the use of someone else\’s body for survival. Yes, a born child is dependent on adults to survive. This is very different from requiring an adult to grow them, molecule by molecule, from the substance of their own body.

    So you are back to arguing that someone can be argued out of rights based on location? That is fundamentally no different than arguing that someone can be defined out of rights based on size, gender, race, stage of development, mental capacity, etc., as these are all arbitrary distinctions which someone made up that simply do not matter when it comes how we treat one another. If I, for example, were to argue that women should not have the same rights as men on the basis that they are women, can you imagine how many people here would call me a misogynist? Yet those very same people turn around and make equally as arbitrary distinctions when it comes to the unborn and why they should not be granted the same rights as everyone else. Humans are humans. Period.

    On a slightly related note, I do believe Elizabeth Cady Stanton said it best when she wrote:

    When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we wish.

    Giving rights to a fetus equal to those of a born person creates a direct conflict between the fetus\’ right to life and the woman\’s right to liberty and pursuit of happiness. Why do anti-choicers believe that the fetus automatically wins this conflict? And how does denying a woman her rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness not equate to making that woman a slave to the fetus?

    I am sure John Locke is rolling around in his grave to find out that you put liberty ahead of life, as believed that the right to property could not trump the liberty of another, and the liberty of one could not trump the life of another. At any rate, if the liberty of one comes before the life of another, then explain to me why murder is illegal? Laws against murder restrict the liberty of one individual in order to protect the life of another. Since you, apparently, find this to be abhorrent, then why are you not out protesting said laws? Or do you only find it abhorrent to restrict liberty in favor of protecting life when it comes to abortion? It really does boggle the mind when I hear a pro-choicer go on about how preventing one from killing another is giving more rights to the one who would otherwise be killed. That is not giving more rights to anyone. That is affording everyone the same manner of protections afforded to all humans.

  • dausuul

    AXIOM #1: An embryonic human being, or a fetal human being is a human being.  (i.e. the “unborn”).”

    BZZZZZZT!!! Wrong answer.

    An embryo or early-stage fetus is not a human being. It’s a lump of cells weighing a bare fraction of an ounce, with no more humanity than my fingernail clippings. Human beings have thoughts and feelings, which arise from a developed brain.

    You’re weighing the rights of real live women against the rights of a hypothetical person-that-might-come-to-be.

  • invalid-0

    Kind of like how a pine cone, or an embryonic pine tree is a pine tree.

    Yes.  It never changes what it is.  It just grows and develops.  Is this a difficult concept?

    You may want to read the 14th Amendment again, because that’s not what it says.

    Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Section 4: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.  Where’s your confusion?

    They just believe that whatever is inside the woman, it doesn’t have the right to stay there without the woman’s consent.

    See below, on legal precedent.

    no legal precedent for a person to be compelled to provide or continue providing biological life support to another person, even if the second person’s life depends on it

    No legal precedent?  Then what the hell did Roe v. Wade overturn?

  • prochoiceferret

    Yes.  It never changes what it is.  It just grows and develops.  Is this a difficult concept?

     

    Anti-choicer logic: Zygotes are human beings, pine cones are pine trees. Got it.

     

    Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Section 4: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.  Where’s your confusion?

     

    The way you interpret that to mean an inviolable “right to life” that somehow negates a woman’s right to an abortion. The whole point of an abortion is to end a pregnancy, not to kill a “person.” Are you seriously going to argue that person A’s rights must be upheld even if it egregiously violates person B’s rights?

     

    (Oh, wait. Yes, you are. That’s what the anti-choice movement has been doing from day one.)

     

    No legal precedent?  Then what the hell did Roe v. Wade overturn?

     

    Something that is no longer legal precedent. Or do you consider Dred Scott to still be valid for the purposes of legal adjudication?

  • colleen

    Your argument is akin to arguing that because, say, you are inside of a house that you belong to that house or that because furniture is inside of a house that furniture belongs to that house. You, of course, can see the problem there.

    So, in this tortured metaphor, the ‘furniture’ is an embryo and someone else’s uterus is a ‘house’?

  • squirrely-girl

    The unborn and the woman do not occupy the same space, unless you are going to argue that a woman occupies her own uterus…

    No, I was leaning more toward the woman “being” a sum of her parts with the ZBEF occupying her space. Your argument seemingly disconnects the woman from her body and assumes the woman is just some inconsequential parts that don’t affect her or don’t belong to her. You can make up some cute metaphors or analogies using inanimate objects, but if you want to stop sounding like a psychopath, maybe you should come up with an example using real people’s bodies.

    According to you, someone born at 22-weeks has more rights than someone who is still inside of the woman at 22-weeks, solely because one is outside and one is inside.

    That’s a rather simplistic interpretation. Actually, past viability I would argue that a fetus has more rights than a child born at 22 weeks, given the limitations on abortion. A child born at 22-weeks will have incredibly low survival odds and they have the right to life-saving measures, but they don’t suddenly have the right to use another person’s body for life support. Past viability, barring life/health of the woman, a fetus does have the “right” to do so. In the interests of forced “equality”, maybe a solution to this disconnect would be to have women who want abortions past viability to have c-sections instead and the AC/PL crowd pay for the care of these babies. Hell, a 50/50 odds ratio of survival has to be better than guaranteed death right? And the AC/PL crowd would fall all over themselves to save them right? Oh crap, I forgot that whole part where late term abortions are already overwhelmingly performed for life/health of the mother and fetal conditions that are incompatible with life. 

     

    And reducing your position to inside v. outside completely ignores the fact that the ZBEF is both attached to and draining the body of the woman. If the ZBEF were just magically floating in liquid it could (in theory) be moved elsewhere.

     

    You might want to reconsider this statement: 

    People in prison do not get defined out of rights solely because said people exist. They have to do something, and even then they still have the most basic of rights.

    I didn’t realize we were arguing about said people “existing.” I thought we were arguing location. Because “existing” sounds awfully like my argument that a uterus isn’t actually a location. Prison is a location. And you do realize people are falsely accused and that plenty of innocent people go to jail, right?

     

    What do you consider the “most basic” of rights? Given the rape epidemic in American jails and prisons I would strongly disagree that the most basic of rights are being protected.

     

  • colleen

    Yes. It never changes what it is. It just grows and develops. Is this a difficult concept?

    It’s perfectly understandable if you believe women are the spiritual equivalent of soil, that “growing and developing” does not = “change” and that DNA is all that is necessary to value a zygote over the life, health personal goals, conscience, personal beliefs and bodily sovereignty of all women.

  • squirrely-girl

    That tortured metaphor is also animatizing objects as though a house could own anything. That poor metaphor also likens furniture to a fetus when the furniture generally improves the value and condition of the house and isn’t physically connected to the housing infrastructure and doesn’t drain it’s system. 

     

    I’d prefer to see some analogies and metaphors using the insides of people’s bodies. 

  • colleen

    I’d prefer to see some analogies and metaphors using the insides of people’s bodies.

    Yes, the inside of the human scrotum, for instance. Is it necessary? Who does it belong to?

  • ldan

    If you’re heading into dualism, yes, we’re using different definitions of occupy. If you think that sofa is to house as uterus (or any organ) is to a woman’s body, you’re using quite a few different definitions in there somewhere. I think removing a sofa from a house is a lot less problematic than removing an organ from someone’s body, to voice the least of my objections to that analogy.

     

    Since we’re using different definitions and it isn’t really core to the debate, I’m dropping the philosophical discussion of mind/body connection/occuption/ownership for now.

     

     

    So you are back to arguing that someone can be argued out of rights based on location?

     

    Hmm, no. I argued that you’re granting greater rights…apparently based on location. I’m not sure what it is about “Those rights do not include the right to demand the use of someone else’s body for survival.” you are construing as saying that rights are dependent upon location. I made no mention of location. I’d say the same thing if the fetus were plugged into a woman’s back or attached to the inside of a marsupial-like pouch, or any other method of attachment that would allow the requisite drain of resources needed to build their body.

     

    I give as much weight to Locke as to any other historical figure, so I don’t much care that he’s rolling in his grave. Murder in self defense is legal…so apparently there are places where liberty trumps life. The liberty to not donate blood, bone marrow, kidneys, or the use of any of my other bodily parts are some more examples.

     

    In the specific case of abortion, the fetus is also a risk to the woman’s life. So now we have two entities that you consider to have equal rights. Both threaten the essential rights of the other. Why do the fetus’ rights trump the woman’s?

     

    Abortion means that women are provided the same manner of protections afforded to all persons to preserve their rights to life, liberty, etc.

     

     

     

     

     

  • bajeckabean

    So, I’m a mom with a 2 1/2 year old kid. Love her to death. But no one can tell me that she was a separate, living entity when she was a mere zygote in my uterus. She was part of me and the placenta that was created to support that growth was an organ OF MINE. It was all part of me, not separate, not living in some other location, but residing in me just as a teeny parasite would.

     

    Go read your Bibles, crazy Christians.

    Exodus 21.13

    “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.”

    Exodus 21.22

    “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”


    Payment for property, not death because even the Bible clearly recognizes a distinction between the “unborn” and a live human being.

  • bornin1984

    No, I was leaning more toward the woman \”being\” a sum of her parts with the ZBEF occupying her space. Your argument seemingly disconnects the woman from her body and assumes the woman is just some inconsequential parts that don\’t affect her or don\’t belong to her. You can make up some cute metaphors or analogies using inanimate objects, but if you want to stop sounding like a psychopath, maybe you should come up with an example using real people\’s bodies.

    All right. Since you constantly want to turn this into some kind of philosophical debate, then I will play your game as I do every so often.

    If a woman is the sum of her parts, then this means that the individual parts themselves are not her, but rather come together to make her. What this means, in effect, is that while a hand is not a woman, it is part of a woman, yet a woman without a hand is still a woman. Similarly, while a uterus is not a woman, it is part of a woman, yet a woman without a uterus is still a woman (or do you disagree?). For a woman to occupy her own uterus, the woman would have to exist before the parts making the woman come together. This is dualism, which I am guessing is a concept you are not familiar with, and it is absurd, for then a woman would not be the sum of her parts, but rather would be the result of some kind of paradoxical existence (existing before the parts which make her come together).

    The fact that my analogy used an inanimate object is inconsequential. Inanimate or animate object, it does not matter. The fact that you continue to harp on that shows that you do not understand what you are arguing against. Therefore, you need to stop relying on psuedo-philosophical concepts, which you yourself do not understand, and defer to science, of which the latter under no circumstances ever states that the unborn is a part of the body of the woman which. Of course, you are not going to do that because science contradicts your claim that the unborn is a part of the woman, so I guess we are stuck playing the philosophy game. Which I am fine with, seeing as how I double-majored in philosophy.

    That\’s a rather simplistic interpretation. Actually, past viability I would argue that a fetus has more rights than a child born at 22 weeks, given the limitations on abortion. A child born at 22-weeks will have incredibly low survival odds and they have the right to life-saving measures, but they don\’t suddenly have the right to use another person\’s body for life support. Past viability, barring life/health of the woman, a fetus does have the \”right\” to do so. In the interests of forced \”equality\”, maybe a solution to this disconnect would be to have women who want abortions past viability to have c-sections instead and the AC/PL crowd pay for the care of these babies. Hell, a 50/50 odds ratio of survival has to be better than guaranteed death right? And the AC/PL crowd would fall all over themselves to save them right? Oh crap, I forgot that whole part where late term abortions are already overwhelmingly performed for life/health of the mother and fetal conditions that are incompatible with life.

    I really do not understand why you bother typing a lot just to say the very same thing I said your argument boils down to– denying the unborn equal treatment because of location (which, for the record, you conveniently ignored). You say a 22-week old fetus who is born prematurely should be protected because it has a low-survival rate if it does not, but the same thing applied to a 22-week old fetus who is still in the unborn state. That is, they should be protected because if not they have a low survival rate. But you will not apply this same standard to the unborn. Why not? Because they are unborn. This makes zero sense. Pre-viability, you will deem any child which is born prematurely to have a right to life and to be given medical attention in order to save its life, but you do not extend the same argument to the unborn. There really is no way to get around this, though it is amusing to see you try.

    Do you really not see the problem with your argument?

    And reducing your position to inside v. outside completely ignores the fact that the ZBEF is both attached to and draining the body of the woman. If the ZBEF were just magically floating in liquid it could (in theory) be moved elsewhere.

    If the unborn was just magically floating in liquid and had no effect on the woman at all, I know as well as you know that you would still argue that the woman should be able to have an abortion. Considering the fact that the majority of abortions are not performed for any reason relating to negative effects on the body of the woman, you are going to have a hard time arguing differently while holding a straight face.

    I didn\’t realize we were arguing about said people \”existing.\” I thought we were arguing location. Because \”existing\” sounds awfully like my argument that a uterus isn\’t actually a location. Prison is a location. And you do realize people are falsely accused and that plenty of innocent people go to jail, right?

    The unborn are where they are because they exist. People in jail are in jail not because they exist, but because they did something to be put in jail. The fact that people are falsely accused does not make my assertion false. It means that sometimes people are falsely accused.

    What do you consider the \”most basic\” of rights? Given the rape epidemic in American jails and prisons I would strongly disagree that the most basic of rights are being protected.

    Whether or not those rights are always protected does not mean that they do not have them, because they do.

  • bornin1984

    That tortured metaphor is also animatizing objects as though a house could own anything. That poor metaphor also likens furniture to a fetus when the furniture generally improves the value and condition of the house and isn\’t physically connected to the housing infrastructure and doesn\’t drain it\’s system.

    There is nothing wrong with that tortured metaphor which, for the record is not a metaphor, but an analogy, as it highlights the patent absurdness of claiming that something inside of something else belongs to that thing solely because it is inside of it. Your claims of a false analogy do not really work because analogies, by virtue of being analogies, are not exactly the same. None of your contentions make the analogy false because they do not change the actual analogy.

    Before you decide to act like you are younger than me with your claims of fail, make sure that which you claim is a fail, actually is. Kind of like the above quoted.

  • jayn

    as it highlights the patent absurdness of claiming that something inside of something else belongs to that thing solely because it is inside of it.

     

    A sofa that is inside my house does not necessarily belong to me.  However, I have every right to remove said sofa from my premises, regardless of if it’s mine or not.

  • bornin1984

    Since you are not willing to play the philosophy game, then I will drop it.

    Hmm, no. I argued that you\’re granting greater rights…apparently based on location. I\’m not sure what it is about \”Those rights do not include the right to demand the use of someone else\’s body for survival.\” you are construing as saying that rights are dependent upon location. I made no mention of location. I\’d say the same thing if the fetus were plugged into a woman\’s back or attached to the inside of a marsupial-like pouch, or any other method of attachment that would allow the requisite drain of resources needed to build their body.

    Because the unborn are only connected to the woman via the umbilical cord -> placenta, which occurs inside of the body of the woman. However, let us focus solely on the claim that no one has the right to demand the use of the body of someone else for survival. Taken at face value, that argument would mean that there is an absolute right to abortion. The problem– well, not so much a problem with that argument as its application– is that only a minority of pro-choicers actually take such a stance. I now NARAL does and I know NOW does, and I think on this site I know PCF does and I think Are does. But for the majority of people who use such a line, I would be willing to bet that they disagree with abortion-on-demand-without-apology (I am looking at SG in particular). Therefore, the question is that if you (not you, specifically) believe that no one has the right to use the body of another for sustenance, yet you do not support an absolute right to abortion, then how can you say that no one has the right to use the body of another for sustenance, when claiming that abortion should be illegal at any time for any reason would mean that there is said right?

    I give as much weight to Locke as to any other historical figure, so I don\’t much care that he\’s rolling in his grave. Murder in self defense is legal…so apparently there are places where liberty trumps life. The liberty to not donate blood, bone marrow, kidneys, or the use of any of my other bodily parts are some more examples.

    Murder in self-defense is not murder. It is justifiable homicide, and only if you use the same amount of force as someone is exerting against your. If I punch you in the arm, and you shoot me in the head, you are going to jail for murder because you used excessive force. The only place where liberty, or the right to property, is put ahead of the right to life is abortion. The only place.

    In the specific case of abortion, the fetus is also a risk to the woman\’s life. So now we have two entities that you consider to have equal rights. Both threaten the essential rights of the other. Why do the fetus\’ rights trump the woman\’s?

    Because the majority of pregnancies do not pose a health risk to the mother. As I have pointed out on numerous occassions, the majority of abortions are not done because of health risks. They are usually done for reasons of convenience (do not want to be a mother, want to finish school, relationship problems, cannot afford, etc.). Why should an action which almost always results in the death of the unborn be legal, when pregnancy rarely causes any lasting effects in the woman?

    Abortion means that women are provided the same manner of protections afforded to all persons to preserve their rights to life, liberty, etc.

    No, it does not. It means that women are able to deprive someone of their life because they want to, which is an egregious violation of pretty much basic humanity.

  • janine

    There is also labor induction, which also stops the fetus from using the womans body for sustenance.

  • jayn

    They are usually done for reasons of convenience (do not want to be a mother, want to finish school, relationship problems, cannot afford, etc.).

     

    Wanting to gain an education, stay out of poverty, just control the course of one’s life in general, are matters of bleeping convenience?   Way to trivialise the lives of women there, bud.

     

    And do you REALLY think that being unable to finish school, or being forced into motherhood or poverty, don’t have any lasting effects on a woman?  Physically, probably not, but I’d consider that a minor issue compared to the others.

  • ack

    This is the most deplorable part of their analogy. The cognitive dissonance required to equate fetuses to slaves while ignoring the fact that forced pregnancy and childbirth was an integral part of the experience of female slaves astounds me. But then, as white people, they get to pretty much define everyone’s experiences as it relates to or benefits their privilege.

  • marshamarshamarsha

    I had to wait for my password to be reset; now I can’t see Kevin’s earlier comment that artificial contraceptives “are not and never were intended to prevent someone from having any children at all…” and that they were only legalized for “married couples.”

     

    I want to see documentation, Kevin. I don’t think you have knowledge of what was in the minds of the scientists in their labs as they worked to create a better way to stop unwanted pregnancies. But, if you have some citations (not from anti-choice websites), I’d like to read the documents.  Words are cheap and easily tossed out; facts are harder to come by. 

     

    And it’s actually OKAY for someone to not have “any children at all.”

     

     

  • bornin1984

    So, I\’m a mom with a 2 1/2 year old kid. Love her to death. But no one can tell me that she was a separate, living entity when she was a mere zygote in my uterus. She was part of me and the placenta that was created to support that growth was an organ OF MINE. It was all part of me, not separate, not living in some other location, but residing in me just as a teeny parasite would.

    Well, science could, but as is the norm around here you would probably ignore it all the same.

  • bornin1984

    Please stop comparing fetuses to slaves. It is absolutely ludicrous that this even needs to be explained. The z/e/f\\\’s condition is that it exists inside of a full-grown person and depends on that person\’s body for development. The slaves as born adult people did not exist solely inside of a person\’s body and did not physically depend on a person\’s body for development and continued existence. The anti-choice crowd can\’t seem to get it through their heads that an autonomous child/adult person is not comparable to a developing embryo physically attached to a full-grown woman. It is totally insulting for you to imply that having an abortion is morally comparable to owning slaves.

    Do you know what is ludicrous? The fact that people treat their assertions as self-evident, and then proceed to make an argument based on a self-evident statement which not only is not all that self-evident, but is entirely self-serving. The anti-slavery movement was an outgrowth of enlightenment thinking. Enlightenment thinking did not seek to differentiate humans based on arbitrary distinctions. Indeed, it argued that all humans should have the same basic rights, that no one should be deprived of their rights and that the government had a duty to recognize the basic rights of everyone under its jurisdiction. It is amazing how some pro-choicers are quick to forget this, and try to justify why abortion is anything unlike slavery based on the types of distinctions that englightenment type thinking eschewed. Man or woman, it does not matter. Young or old, it does not matter. Black or white, it does not matter. Born or unborn, it does not matter. These are nothing more than distinctions separating one group of humans from another group of humans. None of these matter when it comes to affording, or even recognizing, the basic rights of an individual. Anyway, as to your comment on what is insulting, see below.

    So, there\’s really no weight to this \”abortion as genocide\” theory that the anti-choicers like to throw around either. Not to mention how hyerbolic Maafa 21. Would you look a Holocaust survivor in the eye and tell her that her experience in a concentration camp, watching her family and friends die, is comparable to that of a woman choosing a safe and legal abortion for an unwanted pregnancy?

    If we are going to play this game, then in the same vein would you look someone in the face who suffers from multiple physical and mental problems because they were aborted yet survived and tell them that their plight is any different than the plight of, say, a Holocaust survivor (And, for the record, there are Holocaust survivors in the pro-life movement). I doubt you would, because it is a lot easier to say how abortion should be legal and how it is not that bad until you meet someone who survived an attempted abortion and suffers because someone, at some time, decided that they were less-than-human or less deserving of the same rights as any other human.

    The only one who could possibly be insulted by that is the person having the abortion. Most certainly, the one being aborted would not find it insulting in the slightest.

  • plume-assassine

    Oh, you mean arbitrary distinctions like…hmm… being phsyically attached and developing inside of a full-grown being? Do you think an enlightened society would force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will? Do you think an enlightened society would tell a woman that the undeveloped human, the zyogte/embryo/fetus growing inside of her, trumps her rights, and is more important than HER personhood? Why don’t you take a look at some of the countries with the strictest anti-abortion laws on record and tell me how much they were influenced by the Enlightement movement. (Here’s a hint: they weren’t.)

    If we are going to play this game, then in the same vein would you look someone in the face who suffers from multiple physical and mental problems because they were aborted yet survived and tell them that their plight is any different than the plight of, say, a Holocaust survivor (And, for the record, there are Holocaust survivors in the pro-life movement). I doubt you would, because it is a lot easier to say how abortion should be legal and how it is not that bad until you meet someone who survived an attempted abortion and suffers because someone, at some time, decided that they were less-than-human or less deserving of the same rights as any other human.

     

    This is not a “game” to me.

    Do you have any idea how rare it is to survive an abortion? We are talking about abortions performed at 25+ weeks, which is already an extremely rare procedure of itself, and usually only performed if there are extreme fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. There are only a HANDFUL of reported cases that contradict this in which the fetus survives into adulthood.

    And yes, If I met such an adult “survivor” who thinks that abortion is comparable to the Holocaust, I would tell them that they are wrong. Unlike a Holocaust survivor, they do not have any memory of what they endured and if they suffer at all in the present then it is not the result of a government-run program to target and exterminate a particular race of people. A zygote/embryo/fetus is not a people, race, or person. It is intellectually dishonest to compare an undeveloped human embryo to say, an adult Jewish woman who survived Auschwitz.

    Finally, an adult survivor of abortion should understand that their extremely rare condition — although unfortunate and most likely the result of medical malpractice — cannot be used as a platform to make abortion illegal, because it would mean the common death and suffering of thousands of women.

     

     because someone, at some time, decided that they were less-than-human or less deserving of the same rights as any other human.

     

    So, all the rights of a DEVELOPED PERSON (the woman) go out the door just because she is pregnant with a POTENTIAL-person? Do you not see how forced pregnancy and forced childbirth are human rights violations? If you want to talk about slavery, let’s talk about the objectification of woman via reproductive control, let’s talk about how anti-choicers such as yourself see women as vessels. I notice that you cleanly ignore all the points in my first post about how the slavery analogy applies more to the woman than the fetus. “I could see how restricting access to abortion could be comparable to slavery. You would essentially be making women a slave to the natural functioning of her body, to the sole functioning of an incubator, unable to control her own biological destiny, and reproductive life. You would be condemning all sexually active women of reproductive age to be potential baby-makers at any time, whether they like it or not.”

     

    I question your hideous distortion of “enlightenment” when you believe that a developing embryo is more of a person,  and more deserving of rights than an adult woman.

  • bornin1984

    Oh, you mean arbitrary distinctions like…hmm… being phsyically attached and developing inside of a full-grown being?

    Indeed I do. Location does not make one less human.

    Do you think an enlightened society would force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will?


    An enlightened society would protect the rights of all individuals.

    Do you think an enlightened society would tell a woman that the undeveloped human, the zyogte/embryo/fetus growing inside of her, trumps her rights, and is more important than HER personhood?

    I did not know the relationship between a woman and her unborn child was adversarial. I suppose you simply have to make it so in order to try to argue your point. At any rate, I will get to this a bit below, so hold on tight.

    Why don\’t you take a look at some of the countries with the strictest anti-abortion laws on record and tell me how much they were influenced by the Enlightement movement. (Here\’s a hint: they weren\’t.)

    Central and South America, as a whole, have the strictest laws on abortion because of the American Convention on Human rights. And now you know.

    Do you have any idea how rare it is to survive an abortion? We are talking about abortions performed at 25+ weeks, which is already an extremely rare procedure of itself, and usually only performed if there are extreme fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. There are only a HANDFUL of reported cases that contradict this in which the fetus survives into adulthood.

    One case or a million cases, it does not matter. The number of people affected by an occurrence is inconsequential to that actual occurrence. If the Holocaust only affected one person, would that make it any less of a tragedy than it really was? If only one woman was raped per year, would that make it any less of a tragedy than it is now? I really want to know.

    And yes, If I met such an adult \”survivor\” who thinks that abortion is comparable to the Holocaust, I would tell them that they are wrong. Unlike a Holocaust survivor, they do not have any memory of what they endured and if they suffer at all in the present then it is not the result of a government-run program to target and exterminate a particular race of people. A zygote/embryo/fetus is not a people, race, or person.

    Are you telling me that it is okay, or less of an evil, to do to someone who cannot remember being done ill to than it is to do to someone who can and would remember being done ill to? I would hope not because it is, on its face, ridiculous. If tomorrow, the government institutes a policy in which anyone under a year old can be tortured and killed at the leisure of their legal guardians, would that suddenly be less of a crime then say doing the same to someone who an adult because, should someone survive, they would not remember such an occurrence twenty or thirty years later if they were less than a year old when they were done to, whereas the adult would? Or would you treat the two as equal? If you treat the two as equal, then you cannot use the fact that someone does not remember being done ill too as a reason to state that it is not as bad as doing to someone who will remember.

    A zygote/embryo/fetus is not a people, race, or person.

    Oh? So what are they? Please do not tell me nothing, because nothing is hard to conceptualize, not to mention it is a cop-out. The unborn have to be something.

    It is intellectually dishonest to compare an undeveloped human embryo to say, an adult Jewish woman who survived Auschwitz.

    So, then in the same vein, would it be intellectually dishonest to compare a teenager to an adult or an infant to a teenager or any stage of development to the one preceeding it? Keeping in line with your rationale, would it therefore be intellectualy dishonest to compare an underveloped child who survived Auschwitz to a fully developed adult who survived Auschwitz? Or would you say that stage of development is irrelevant? If you say that stage of development is irrelevant, then you have no basis upon which to say you cannot compare killing someone when they are fifty to killing someone when they are six to killing someone when they are unborn. In the end, you are killing a human being, albeit at different stages of development. There is no difference between killing you today, killing you tomorrow, killing you yesterday and killing you before you were born. The end result is the same.

    Finally, an adult survivor of abortion should understand that their extremely rare condition cannot be used as a platform to make abortion illegal, because it would mean the common death and suffering of thousands of women.

    Say what? Someone who survives an abortion should realize that abortion should still be legal because if it was not then women might end up dead because they deliberately brought harm to themselves by trying to obtain an illegal abortion? I am just going to say it now, but that makes no sense, and is the epitome of callousness. There is really no other way to describe the notion that one should be allowed to do to another because, if they are not, then they might harm themselves in the process– especially when you consider the fact that in every other instance outside of abortion, society would probably committ said person to a mental institute or put them on suicide watch instead of facilitate their actions and allow them to bring harm to another.

    So, all the rights of a DEVELOPED PERSON (the woman) go out the door just because she is pregnant with a POTENTIAL-person?

    What right would she be losing? Her right to liberty? Her right to property? Sorry, but there is no right to liberty nor property that comes at the expense of another. I cannot kill you an an expression of my liberty, as your right to life trumps my right to liberty, nor can I enslave you as your right to liberty trumps my right to property. It should be the same with abortion. The simple fact that abortion is the only place in which the right to life is placed secondary or even tertiary to the right to liberty and property speaks volumes as to just how egregious a violation it truly is.

    Do you not see how forced pregnancy and forced childbirth are human rights violations?

    Unless one is raped, there is no such thing as a forced pregnancy as the woman has to actively do something for that pregnancy to occur. She does not simply wake up one day to magically find out she is pregnant. It boggles the mind how you speak of human rights violation, when you are probably promulgating one of the biggest human rights violations ever.

    If you want to talk about slavery, let\’s talk about the objectification of woman via reproductive control, let\’s talk about how anti-choicers such as yourself see women as vessels.

    The above response, as is usually done around here, somehow makes abortion out to be a pro-life vs. woman issue, even though the majority of women would disagree with the pro-choice position and align themselves with the pro-life position (I guess that would make pro-life pro-women and pro-choice anti-women). Solely because you want to try to frame the abortion debate in a way which makes the opposing side out to be misogynists, reality says differently. Abortion is a human rights issue, in which one party (the unborn) is being them.

    And, no, not even a majority of women, whom you do not speak for, by the way, would agree with you.

    I notice that you cleanly ignore all the points in my first post about how the slavery analogy applies more to the woman than the fetus. I could see how restricting access to abortion could be comparable to slavery. You would essentially be making women a slave to the natural functioning of her body, to the sole functioning of an incubator, unable to control her own biological destiny, and reproductive life. You would be condemning all sexually active women of reproductive age to be potential baby-makers at any time, whether they like it or not.

    No, actually, I did not. However, I will respond.

    Slaves were slaves by circumstance. Either they were taken prisoner in war, or stolen away from their homes, and held against their wills, either to be sold or made to work for their captor or they were born into it. Slaves had zero choice in the matter, as they were slaves not because they wanted to be, but because someone else wanted them to be. To even begin to argue that laws against abortion are akin to slavery, you would first have to ignore the fact that 90%+ of pregnancies are not forced upon the woman. You would seriously have to ignore the fact that, in the overwhelming majority of instances, woman only become pregnant because of their own actions, whereas slaves are made slaves regardless of their own actions. No, really. If we want to take your assertion at face value and apply it unilaterally, then child support is slavery, as is paying for your credit card bill, as in both of those cases one is being made to do something that might not want to do, even though they are only being made to do so because of their actions (in the former case, making a child, while in the latter charging things to their credit card). But that is ridiculous, right? Well, it is no more ridiculous then your assertion. And then you would have to ignore the fact that if laws against abortion, which would exist to prevent one party (the woman) from killing another (the unborn) constitute slavery, then any law which prevents one party from killing another would also, by proxy, be slavery, for they would restrict what someone could do. No, really. Again taking your assertion at face value, if Joe is not allowed to kill Jane, then that constitutes slavery. Of course, I can anticipate you trying to point out that the comparison is invalid because Jane is not living off of Joe, but I will just point out to you that the comparison is valid, because laws against abortion are predicated on the notion that everyone has the right to not be killed without due cause, much like any law against murder. So there we have it. Your argument is that laws against abortion would constitute slavery because it would make women responsible to that which causes her pregnancy (the unborn)– an argument you do not apply anywhere else mind you– unlike actual slaves who were made slaves through actions no fault of their own. Does that make any sense to you? Obviously, that is a rhetorical question because it, apparently, does, stupifyingly enough.

    But you know what? That is not even the worst of it. Aside from the fact that you seem to be under the mistaken impression that, like a period which is a naturally occurring bodily function (usually anyway), pregnancy simply happens to the woman whether she wants it to or not, and aside from the fact that you seem to be under the mistaken impression that women can not not get pregnant, and that the only way they can have control over their reproductive destinies is to have access to abortion (because control cannot be exerted prior to being pregnant, apparently), I have to say that I find it mildly humorous that you have no problem in advocating for the very same things you decry. For example, on one hand, you decry making life decisions for the woman, yet you turn around and say that the woman should be able to make life decisions for the unborn. On one hand, you say that no one should decide whether or not the woman should give birth or not, or remain pregnant or not, yet you turn right around and argue that the woman should be able to decide whether or not the unborn lives or not. On one hand, you argue that only the woman should be able to decide how to live her life, but when it comes to the unborn you refuse to grant it the same consideration. To say that the irony is lost upon you would be the understatement of the millenia. It really would.

    That is why abortion is frequently compared to slavery. Slaves were treated as property and they had no choice in the matter. In fact, their choice was negated by someone else, typically their owner. It is exactly the same with the unborn. Not only are the unborn treated as property, but their choice in the matter of completely negated. If we were being honest with ourselves, how many of the unborn aborted over the past 37 years do you really think would have wanted to be aborted if you could have asked them? That is a rhetorical question, because I know that you will not answer it truthfully. It is something to think about, though.

    At any rate, please feel free to refute any of the above. In fact, I want you to, I really do.

    I question your hideous distortion of \”enlightenment\” when you believe that a developing embryo is more of a person, and more deserving of rights than an adult woman.

    My hideous distortion of enlightenment is not so hideous. In fact, it is far less hideous than is defining a portion of the population out of rights held by another portion of the population on the basis that they are less developed. That is fundamentally no different than defining a portion of the population out of rights held by another because of the color of their skin or gender, both of which have been done in the past. In fact, it is exactly the same, which is why this is so ironic. It is nothing short of amazing how those groups discriminated against in one fashion forget this and turn around and discriminate against another group in the same fashion they were once discriminated again. At any rate, the only people who believe that one group should have more rights than another group are pro-choicers. No pro-lifer believes this, much to the consternation of pro-choicers. Rather pro-lifers believe that everyone should have equal rights, which also entails a right to life. Luckily for us, the notion of equal rights is progressive. Unluckily for you, the notion that some humans are more valuable or important than others is not.

  • princess-rot

    Don’t forget, squirrely girl, you are just a “location” for the much-superior fetus, which may grow up to be male and therefore worthy. If it’s female like me or you, well… it’s inherently defective and will need to be controlled, especially when it reaches breeding age, but at least it’s existence can be used to oppress you by keeping you from following the path you wanted to take in life. I mean, who cares? If you and the brat have to live in poverty it’ll be a lesson to you and by extension all uterus-carriers that you don’t get to own or define your own body or life.

  • invalid-0

    Anti-choicer logic: Zygotes are human beings, pine cones are pine trees. Got it.

    A zygote is a stage of life of a human being.  I suppose that’s logic.  It’s mostly science, though.  Pine cones are not pine trees – those are two different stages in the life of the pine.  Just like a zygote is not a toddler, or an adult.  I think you understand, but you’re trying to blur the issue for some reason.

    you interpret that to mean an inviolable “right to life”

    Yes, well, I do.  Certainly, if you are a person, the state may not take it away.  Also, you and I have inviolable rights to our lives.  If the proposition that the unborn are persons is true (refer to Axioms 2 and 3), then it deserves the equal protection of the law under the fourteenth amendment, which in our case includes an inviolable right to life.

    Are you seriously going to argue that person A’s rights must be upheld even if it egregiously violates person B’s rights?

    Seeing as how you have referred to both the fetus and the mother here as persons, absolutely! In fact, that’s what you’re arguing too, friend.

    Or do you consider Dred Scott to still be valid for the purposes of legal adjudication?

    Valid? No. Precedent? Yes. Don’t forget that I’M the one advocating for radical change in the laws, and as such the onus is not on me to establish that my view is firmly entrenched in current laws.  My argument is that Roe v. Wade was wrong – that IT had no legal precedent.  Further, it violates the fourteenth amendment, as we have discussed ad nauseam above.

    Finally, as a point of pure interest, and not to argue for its validity – but Dred Scott has never been overruled.  The Court has hypothesized often that certain developments (the 14th amendment, Brown v. Board) have poked holes in it, but it has never been explicitly stated to be overruled.

  • beenthere72

    I’d like to meet a Jewish Holocaust survivor in the pro-life movement.   Introduce us?

  • undrgrndgirl

    however…if you bother to look at the tables…you will notice one glaring omission: the “Numbers do not include private physicians’ procedures.” white women, are far more likely to go to a privagte physician’s office for an abortion because they are far more likely to have insurance that will cover it…

    i also noticed some serious selecitve use of the data in comments above; this study shows that even in circumstances where private physician data is not available; white women still have over half of all abortions…

  • prochoiceferret

    A zygote is a stage of life of a human being.  I suppose that’s logic.  It’s mostly science, though.  Pine cones are not pine trees – those are two different stages in the life of the pine.  Just like a zygote is not a toddler, or an adult.  I think you understand, but you’re trying to blur the issue for some reason.

     

    Oh, okay. So when you say “human being,” you’re not using the term in the way most people use it, to refer to another person that they can actually interact with.

     

    Thus, a statement like “How can you just throw an innocent human being into the trash?” loses the impact it would otherwise have, because that happens thousands of times every day when women dispose of their used tampons, which is no big deal.

     

    I’ll keep that in mind for future anti-choice reference!

     

    Yes, well, I do.  Certainly, if you are a person, the state may not take it away.  Also, you and I have inviolable rights to our lives.  If the proposition that the unborn are persons is true (refer to Axioms 2 and 3), then it deserves the equal protection of the law under the fourteenth amendment, which in our case includes an inviolable right to life.

     

    I’m sure that people on death row, home invaders shot in self-defense, and the family of Terry Schiavo would be very interested in your novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

     

    Seeing as how you have referred to both the fetus and the mother here as persons, absolutely! In fact, that’s what you’re arguing too, friend.

     

    I might do some crazy things sometimes, but denying women agency over their own bodies and thereby egregiously violating their human rights is not one of them. Sorry if I got your hopes up.

     

    Valid? No. Precedent? Yes. Don’t forget that I’M the one advocating for radical change in the laws, and as such the onus is not on me to establish that my view is firmly entrenched in current laws.

     

    Oh, okay. I thought you were saying that law already existed to carry out your nefarious anti-choice intents.

     

    My argument is that Roe v. Wade was wrong – that IT had no legal precedent.  Further, it violates the fourteenth amendment, as we have discussed ad nauseam above.

     

    On the Internet, everyone’s a constitutional lawyer!

  • hz

    Abortion being compared to slavery is ridiculous and insulting to everyone who was ever enslaved.  A “pro-life” person may think abortion is a great injustice, but to compare it slavery is to repurpose the suffering of others for political agenda.  Must everything always be compared to the Holocaust, slavery, or Sept 11 in an effort to get a rise out of people?  And as for the “pro-life” commenters who are like “but- but- but Black people are targeted for abortion, eugenics, Sanger, etc”- even if that point were true, is it necessary to compare it to slavery?  When it comes to the African American community is that the only experience that defines them and the only way you feel you can connect with them and get the message across?

     

    Ms. Merritt is right on point.

  • arekushieru

    Actually, science DOESn’t.  Please do tell me where science says that a fetus can survive at 12 weeks upon separation from the uterus, as in the separately LIVing entity, that was referred to by the poster you responded to…?  Thought not….

  • arekushieru

    Gisella Perl was a woman who performed abortions for Jewish women so that they wouldn’t be sent to the gas chambers by Hitler and his ilk.  They were all just as anti-choice as the so-called Pro-“lifers” of today.

  • arekushieru

    But the fact that organ recipients reside outSIDE of someone’s body, DOES?  That’s what you Pro-Lifers like to purport.  Because you just WON’T grant them the same right to life that you would grant feoti.  Because, of course, that would infringe on YOUR rights (how dare they), not another’s (how DARE they not let me do that), eh?  Thus, YOU are the ones who like to base something on location.  WE base it on USage of one’s body.  Don’t worry, I know anti-choicers such as yourself will NEVER get it, because that would mean you would have to admit that you are wrong and that you DO just regurgitate the stuff you are told, without addressing the actual ISSUE (such as your ludicrous posting about a man being able to kill a woman named Jill, even though she ISn’t infringing on HIS rights the way a FETUS is).  Btw, if you are basing this on dependance (AS I pointed out in an earlier post), IF you think the right to life IS based on it, then you would have to grant BAbies, ACTual babies, more of a right to life than other organ recipients, because they currently have the SAME right to life that everyone else has, but you don’t.  

     

    <<woman only become pregnant because of their own actions>>

     

    What is WITH anti-choicers hypocrisy and misogyny?  Right there, you based a woman’s rights on something you, yourSELF, described as a ‘location’.  She has a uterus.  Should women be imprisoned by their bodies just beCAUSE they have a uterus?  No.  Is she responsible for the creation of that uterus and its function within her body?  No.  Should she be denied freedoms and rights just because she has one?  No.  Should she be denied the right to give ONGOING consent to usage just because she has a uterus, an organ that it seems I must remind you is comPLETEly different (AS you should HAVE known) from the one that is an initiator of that process?  No.  Should she be forced to accept that she is the ONLY one who CAN be punished (please, look THAT word up as well, before whining that you’re not trying to punish anyone) with a retributive action for engaging in consensual sex just beCAUSE she has a uterus?  No.   Then WHY do you claim that should be done?  HyPOCrisy and misogyny. 

     

    Do you not know what the word ongoing means…?  If you don’t, LOOK IT UP!

  • fatherfrankpavone

    When Dr. Alveda King and I started discussing the idea of the Pro-Life Freedom Rides, we were not attempting to rewrite history. We were using history to make a point in the present: Abortion is the greatest civil rights violation of our time. We chose to ride because the pro-life movement is just that, a movement.  Our aim is not to curtail rights but to extend rights to the most powerless class of human beings: Babies in the womb. The protesters who greeted us in Atlanta on our first Freedom Ride chanted “Trust black women.” It’s not black women we mistrust. It’s the abortionists who deliberately set up their killing centers in minority neighborhoods. Planned Parenthood was founded by a eugenicist, and it has not shed its racist roots. We will continue to ride to spread these truths, and we invite you to ride along with us.

     

    Father Frank Pavone

    National director, Priests for Life

    http://www.priestsforlife.org

    http://www.prolifefreedomrides.com

     

     

     

     

  • squirrely-girl

    I think the most amusing part of your comments are that I do have a son. Too bad for the AC/PL side, he’s being raised to be respectful of women and supportive of choice, like his dad. :)

  • ahunt

    It’s not black women we mistrust.

     

    Right. Because African American women have no agency, no will, no opinions and no aspirations for their own lives. So stupid and weak are these women, that the very presence of a  Planned Parenthood clinic in their neighborhood FORCES these women to choose an abortion.

     

    Spare us.

  • cc

    It would be funny if it weren’t so sick. A representative of the oldest men’s club on earth is telling black women that they’re too stupid and too child-like to resist the siren song of Planned Parenthood. The Catholic church lost its battle to keep white women barefoot and pregnant and now they’re trying to lay a guilt trip on black women about how abortion is a genocide of black children. The Catholic Church, like the wealthy interests that it has historically served, needs its compliant underclass (think poor families living on garbage dumps in Rio and Manila) and they’re running out of compliant baby making women. Planned Parenthood serves the poor and the working poor (of all races) and now “Father” Pavone and his pals are trying to tell these women that the reproductive freedom, which Planned Parenthood provides, is a bad thing and that having more unplanned pregancies is a good thing. Margaret Sanger worked to establish black maternity hospitals in the days when black women could not access white hospitals. She was a close friend of WEB DuBois. She knew, first hand, that poverty was directly related to the kind of unfettered reproduction that the Catholic church endorses. Pavone and company claim that because many Planned Parenthood clinics are in inner cities, it’s  a nefarious plot to “kill” black babies when the reality is that the location of the clinics is convenient for the population that they serve.  But this new meme, that Planned Parenthood is preying upon black women, is disgusting; as it implies that black women are just silly creatures who can’t make their own reproductive decisions. This infantilization of black women (and black people) is straight out of the plantation days. It’s not surprising that a representative of a group that sees women as subservient to men would be a part of this twisted world view. Until women of all races and classes can control their reproductive organs, there will be no real freedom. It’s time “Father” Pavone and “holy mother church” realize this.

  • wholearmor

    When abortion (child killing) is once again illegal, women will once again be more careful not to become pregnant.

  • ldan

    Because the unborn are only connected to the woman via the umbilical cord -> placenta, which occurs inside of the body of the woman.

    Well yes, it is. Ignoring that fact for the sake of abstract philosophy is one of those areas where philosophy wanders off into areas that may be intellectually interesting but useless as a way to decide things in the world as it is. I did mention that my opinion would be the same if the fetus were attached to the outside of the woman. It would also be the same if they sat in a jar and sucked the molecules needed to build themselves via some quantum/psychic method as yet undescribed.

     

    However, let us focus solely on the claim that no one has the right to demand the use of the body of someone else for survival. Taken at face value, that argument would mean that there is an absolute right to abortion. The problem– well, not so much a problem with that argument as its application– is that only a minority of pro-choicers actually take such a stance. I now NARAL does and I know NOW does, and I think on this site I know PCF does and I think Are does. But for the majority of people who use such a line, I would be willing to bet that they disagree with abortion-on-demand-without-apology (I am looking at SG in particular). Therefore, the question is that if you (not you, specifically) believe that no one has the right to use the body of another for sustenance, yet you do not support an absolute right to abortion, then how can you say that no one has the right to use the body of another for sustenance, when claiming that abortion should be illegal at any time for any reason would mean that there is said right?

    I’m actually of the camp that is fine with such an absolute right. I’m fine with it because I trust women and I trust the reality of pregnancy and the decisions of actual pregnant women. Philosophically, it’s possible for women to go through 8 months of pregnancy and change their minds, thus leading me to start poking at the nuance of whether society at large has an interest or a right to prevent that. In reality, abortions in the third trimester category are a tiny minority of abortions performed, and the overwhelming majority of that minority are done due to emergent threats to the woman’s health, discoveries about the health of the fetus, or because the woman was unable to procure an earlier abortion due to the obstacles to access that are currently in vogue.  Even if I were of the frequently seen opinion that abortions should be easily available in the first trimester, looked at a bit more closely in the second, and only available for certain circumstances in the third, the vast majority of abortions already fit that model.

     

    Then, there’s the matter of my energy and ability to affect the world. Even if I felt that a tiny minority of that tiny minority of late term abortions were slaughtering innocent 8-month-old almost-born children, I’m more interested in putting my energy toward the far larger number of actually born people who suffer from a variety of abuses worldwide every day rather than spend it on a miniscule number of preborns who aren’t even aware of their own existence. I can actually have a useful effect upon real suffering that way instead of butting into horrifically painful decisions and adding to the suffering of the women making them.

     

    Murder in self-defense is not murder. 

     

    Neither is abortion if we’re going to use the legal meaning of murder. No matter how often anti-choice protesters shout it, abortion is no more murder than killing in self defense is.

     

    Because the majority of pregnancies do not pose a health risk to the mother.

    And there is no way to know for certain ahead of time which ones are and are not going to be a risk. Some risks show up at and after birth. I have a right to decide how much risk I’m willing to take.

     

    As I have pointed out on numerous occassions, the majority of abortions are not done because of health risks. They are usually done for reasons of convenience (do not want to be a mother, want to finish school, relationship problems, cannot afford, etc.). Why should an action which almost always results in the death of the unborn be legal, when pregnancy rarely causes any lasting effects in the woman?

    First, zero mothers I know would agree that pregnancy rarely causes lasting effects. In fact, it 100% always creates lasting effects. First, the woman’s body is never the same, period. There are significant physical changes that never return to the pre-childbirth state. The severity of this varies from woman to woman. Add in the emotional and psychologic effects of pregnancy and childbirth, regardless of whethre one raises the child or gives it up.

     

    Next, why is the significant derailment of things like making a better life for oneself, getting an education, etc. considered trivial when we’re talking about pregnant women? How is being unable to afford taking care of a child trivial?

     

    Basically this argument comes down to trivializing the life, health, and aspirations of women in favor of the life of a potential human.

     

    In the end, it really seems that the fact that you define the unborn as a person from conception and I do not makes all arguments boil down to an impasse that I’m not going to have time to keep throwing arguments at as life will keep me from the internet for a good while.

     

     

     

     

     

  • marshamarshamarsha

    Mr/Ms “wholearmoor” [of god]: Do you know that pregnancy can occur even when a woman is using birth control, as birth control fails? And I dislike your insinuation that WOMEN are responsible for birth control, not men. Can’t wait to see those women suffer, can you? WWJD? Not sound like you, I bet.

    Mr. Pavone: It’s disgraceful and anti-human that your church gives you the title of “father,” then forbids you to actually BE one.  If you are not willing to have sex and a family, you should not enter this discussion, as it does not concern you – you are NO ONE’S “father.” You are ABSOLUTELY misrepresenting Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, as the organization was begun because poor women BEGGED Ms Sanger for help preventing the birth of children they couldn’t feed. Clinics in poor neighborhoods? Wealthy neighborhoods have covenants & restrictions – NIMBY (not in my backyard), you know. Better to be closer to the poor, so they can afford to get there.  Because AS WE ALL KNOW, the wealthy can, will and HAVE traveled any distance, even overseas, to have abortions.

     

  • wholearmor

    Just stating a simple fact, MarshaMarshaMarsha.  By the way, women are responsible for birth control.  It’s called keeping their legs together.  I can’t help it if most women are too stupid to realize that most men are just using them as sex objects for their own selfish desires.  They just think of women as things, you know, like what you think of preborn children.   

    Edit: After all, men don’t have to deal with getting the abortion, do they.  Women do.  Women are being used over and over and over again and don’t even realize it.  Some “reproductive freedom” that turns out to be, eh?

  • squirrely-girl

    Wouldn’t this actually mean men are responsible for birth control? It’s called keeping their dick in their pants. Unless you think most men are too stupid to control their sexual urges. If that’s the case, I’m thinking maybe we should forcibly sterilize men at puberty to help them control those urges. Problem solved right?

     

    By the way, in your explanation of human nature it’s apparently okay for men to treat women like objects but not okay for women to treat ZBEFs as objects. Interesting critical thinking skills there.

  • pilar608

    This means that you’re totally cool if my husband never has sex with me again?  Because we don’t want children, and the implications of your “bitch shoulda kept her legs shut” position is first, that I am a slut for having sex with my husband and second, that I should deny him (and myself!) sex lest my birth control fails.

     

    Does this still mean that my husband is using my over and over and over again?

  • wholearmor

    Nice language, squirrely girl.  Typical liberal. 

    Actually, if a woman says no and a man forces himself on her, it’s called rape.  Get a clue. 

    Where’d I say it’s OK for men to treat women like things?  It’s deplorable.  It’s just a simple fact that it happens and women allow it to happen to them. And then women are the ones who have to go through the abortion while that same guy is using some other woman. What a great lifestyle that is. 

  • wholearmor

    Go back and read my post, pilar608.  I said most, not all, and more great language from a typical liberal.

    If your birth control destroys a fertilized embryo, then you killed your and your husband’s child.  Way to go.

    Sex can conceive a child, who is innocent and doesn’t deserve to be killed for any reason.  It’s really not complicated.  If you don’t want to become pregnant, don’t have sex, unless you can figure out a way to prevent it that doesn’t kill the newly-formed child in your womb. 

     

  • squirrely-girl

    It’s just a simple fact that it happens and women allow it to happen to them.

    Maybe you just don’t realize that you’re blaming women for men’s actions and maybe you do. I learned very early on in life that I have control over one person’s actions… mine. People do not actually have control over other people’s actions. 

    Where’d I say it’s OK for men to treat women like things? 

    It’s just a simple fact that it happens…

    By saying something “just happens” but not expecting change or working toward that change yourself, you are a complacent bystander in said happenings and are indirectly acknowledging they are OK. By normalizing something you say it’s okay. Only after being called out on your statement did you stop to call it deplorable. 

     

    So if it’s women’s fault if they get taken advantage of by men, whose fault is it if a woman gets pregnant on purpose to take advantage of the guy? 

     

  • wholearmor

    Blaming women for men’s actions? Do men force women’s legs apart?  If so, as I said earlier, it’s rape and, thankfully, against the law but not punished properly at all, unfortunately.  I believe rape should be punishable by swift, painful execution.  If it’s not a rape, then the woman allowed the man to do it.

    You don’t know what I do or don’t do to work for change.  I also didn’t say it’s normal, I said it’s a fact it happens.  You really should try harder not to put words in my mouth.  Everyone can see that’s exactly what you’re doing.  I wasn’t called out on anything.  I never said it was OK for men to think of women as things (unless you can find it and post it in your reply, which you can’t because it doesn’t exist). 

    You really didn’t ask that, did you?  It’s obviously the woman’s fault if she gets pregnant on purpose to take advantage of the guy. 

    Unless a woman is raped, it’s always her fault if she becomes pregnant because she allowd the sex to occur.  And if a woman is raped, the innocent child still shouldn’t be killed for the crime of his father.

  • squirrely-girl

    Thought so. Typical misogynist. ;)

    It’s obviously the woman’s fault if she gets pregnant on purpose to take advantage of the guy. 

    Unless a woman is raped, it’s always her fault if she becomes pregnant because she allowd the sex to occur. 

     

    Wouldn’t it also be the man’s fault because he allowed the sex to occur as well? I mean, unless of course she raped him, he was certainly a willing party and sperm provider. Last time I checked most men understand how sperm works and do have a choice where they put their penis. Hell, unless he chose to properly use a condom or had a vasectomy, I’m pretty sure HE’S obviously at fault for any woman he gets pregnant. Crazy how that responsibility for pregnancy works both ways. 

     

  • ahunt

    Wow…pregnancy as punishment for spreading womanly legs.

    Guess Obama had it had it right the first time.

  • wholearmor

    Pregnancy is only punishment if you’re too selfish to believe what it really is, a blessing.

  • wholearmor

    Slavery, Holocaust, Abortion.  Two Down.  One To Go

    That’s a bumper sticker on my car and it’s right on point.

  • squirrely-girl

    You do realize child sex trafficking (a form of slavery) is at an all time high in this country right? And the Holocaust was but one genocide… several more of which have occurred since and one still going on in Darfur right now. 

  • ahunt

    Snerk…yah, so if a woman is so selfish as to consider an unwanted pregnancy a nightmare that will inflict enormous pain and hardship on her, she is being punished. Wanted pregnancies are a blessing.

    Got it.

  • wholearmor

    How dumb can a woman be to become pregnant when she doesn’t want to be?

  • squirrely-girl

    How dumb can a man be to not keep his dick in his pants (wear a condom or get a vasectomy) if he doesn’t want to get a woman pregnant?

  • pilar608

    What you’re saying is until we can talk a doctor into sterilizing healthy childless adults (hint:  they don’t like doing that), my husband and I shouldn’t have vaginal intercourse.  Which means none of that for us until I’m post-menopausal, so you want a married couple to be celibate for the next 15 years, give or take?  Really?  Or would you prefer that we develop a proclivity for sodomy?  Sperm can’t meet egg if it’s in the anus.  

     

    So, by preventing ovulation, my BC kills “my husband’s child”?  He’ll be very surprised when I tell him that–but then, I don’t think he thinks that a fertilized egg is a person anymore than I do.  So, in your opinion, should my husband and I also start planning funerals every time I have my period?  You know, just in case there was a person (i.e., fertilized egg) in there?

  • marshamarshamarsha

    Mr/Ms wholearmor [of god]:  The CRUDE language you used is EXTREMELY DEMEANING to women: “By the way, women are responsible for birth control.  It’s called keeping their legs together.”

    The reverse is true, too, so why didn’t you say it? Men are responsible for keeping their penises in their pants. If men didn’t “stick it out every chance they can find,” women wouldn’t get pregnant. Period. MEN are responsible for birth control.

    Women and men are sexual beings and there is nothing inherently shameful about sex, until people like yourself begin using nasty little words to describe the act of intercourse. I feel if a woman close to you were raped, you would have trouble believing the veracity of her story and would feel repulsed as you pictured her “with her legs spread” for some man.

    Last, wholearmor [of god], the New Testament, which I assume you use, lays a great responsibility for RESPECTING women squarely on MEN. If you wouldn’t describe yourself in salacious, lewd terms, you shouldn’t describe a woman that way.

  • wholearmor

    Just as dumb as the woman.

  • goatini

    True, in the RCC of Mr Pavone and his slavish fanboy followers of misogynist regressives Ratzinger and Wojtyła.  Women have no rights in their Machiavellian cult of power and wealth, hence there is nothing TO curtail.  

     

    Women have NO worth in this Vatican cult save as breeders.  The vaunted “pedestal” on which they place women is nothing more than a bloody altar of human sacrifice when they are no longer useful as breeders.   And if we dare to exercise discernment and heed our calling to Holy Orders, those who would welcome us to serve are condemned as grave criminals, sinners equal in evil to pederasts and other abusers of innocent children.  

     

    When those of us who truly love the Church either rid it of the selfish, power-hungry misogynist vermin, or set out en masse on a truer course more like that of Jesus the Christ and his first disciple, Mary of Magdala, such vile naked hatred of women will be left to radical Islam and other “fundamentalists” of all stripes, and to what is left of the radical false Catholics like Pavone and his ilk.

     

    And as for Alveda King and her embarrassingly insincere and thoroughly venal hijacking of Dr. King’s mission, I’ll let Sojourner Truth deliver the message:

     

    “Then that little man in black there, he says women can’t have as much rights as men, ’cause Christ wasn’t a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.”

     

  • squirrely-girl

    Now was that so hard?

     

    Now that we’ve established everybody is to blame, maybe we could move on to the part where we try to actually fix the issue of unplanned pregnancies through education and prevention. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    wholearmor wrong. Giant fail! What exactly is your point? Misogyny award?

  • wholearmor

    What I’m saying is, if you become pregnant, don’t kill the innocent child.  As I mentioned before, if you don’t want to become pregnant, don’t have sex unless you can figure out a way to prevent it without killing the little human being in your womb. If your husband believes there’s such a thing as a human fertilized egg, then he needs to take a biology lesson.  When the egg is fertilized, it’s a new, unique human being who never existed before and will never exist again.  If it’s a fertilized egg, then we’re all fertilized eggs.  Just because your husband doesn’t believe that doesn’t mean it’s not true.  It just means he can justify killing the unborn child if he feels like it. 

    A memorial service and funeral is always the right thing to do for a deceased human being unless you’re not bright enough to believe they were a human being.

  • invalid-0

    Are you being serious, or can I laugh?

  • rebellious-grrl

    pillar608, great point. I’m in the same place.

  • wholearmor

    If a man takes his penis out of his pants, the woman can tell him she doesn’t want it and he has to abide by her wishes or it’s a rape if he forces himself on her.

    Sex outside of marriage is inherently shameful.

    So what have I said that would indicate I don’t believe men should respect women?  The fact is, if a woman doesn’t want to have sex, the man has to comply.  In what way have I described women that is not accurate?

  • wholearmor

    I said both are dumb for having sex if they don’t want a pregnancy.  Only the woman is to blame if it happens because she allowed it unless she was raped. There is a difference between being the one to blame and being party to two dumb actions, hers and his.

  • wholearmor

    My point is, everyone knows what causes pregnancy.  If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex or figure out a way to prevent it by not killing the child.  If you do become pregnant, don’t kill the innocent child. That’s my point. You were an innocent preborn child in your mother’s womb at one time, sucking your thumb, playing with your toes, learning your mom’s voice. You were allowed to live. How hypocritical it is to wish death on another.  

  • rebellious-grrl

    As I mentioned before, if you don’t want to become pregnant, don’t have sex

    We (women) should boycott any sexual act that involves sperm until full reproductive rights for women are obtained. Seriously.

     

     

  • invalid-0

    that happens thousands of times every day when women dispose of their used tampons

    If that’s the case, we’ll call the deaths less avoidable, not intentional, perhaps.  But I don’t see how that makes the zygote any less of a human being.  Focus, ferret.

    I’m sure that people on death row, home invaders shot in self-defense, and the family of Terry Schiavo would be very interested in your novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

    It’s hardly novel.  Death row inmates receive 14th amendment due process (theoretically – I disagree with capital punishment).  Home invaders do not have life deprived of the state, and they receive equal protection of the law, so the 14th amendment is not implicated, and Terry Schiavo was a ridiculous tragedy and shouldn’t have happened.  But she should have also received protection.

    I thought you were saying that law already existed to carry out your nefarious anti-choice intents.

    You thought that my (nefarious?) intentions already were manifested in current law? Is that true or are you just not paying attention to what you say?

    On the Internet, everyone’s a constitutional lawyer!

    Or, I am.

  • prochoiceferret

    If that’s the case, we’ll call the deaths less avoidable, not intentional, perhaps.  But I don’t see how that makes the zygote any less of a human being.

     

    Yes, we know that you have this weird definition of “human being” that includes single-celled organisms. That’s why we don’t take you seriously.

     

    It’s hardly novel.  Death row inmates receive 14th amendment due process (theoretically – I disagree with capital punishment).  Home invaders do not have life deprived of the state, and they receive equal protection of the law, so the 14th amendment is not implicated,

     

    Same with abortion. No one has the right to biological life support off the body of another person—that can be cut off at any time. See? Nice and simple!

  • ahunt

    Speaking from experience, I can tell you that earnest prevention efforts did not stop #3 arriving 11.5 months after #2. 

     

    The physical toll was enormous, particularly considering my husband’s employment kept him away from home 1/2 the year.

     

    Hey, we’re walking, talking proof that the best efforts fail.

     

    But if you are seriously suggesting that each sex act is consent to pregnancy, then you have no difficulty with wives refusing to have sex with their husbands unless the wife is willing to be pregnant…correct?

  • squirrely-girl

    So why can’t the man keep his penis in his pants in the first place?

  • wholearmor

    Or unless they can figure out a way to prevent pregnancy without killing a preborn child.

  • rebellious-grrl

    So what have I said that would indicate I don’t believe men should respect women?  

     

    Pretty much everything you’ve said.

    Boycott.

  • squirrely-girl

    … but apparently you can’t make the stupid thing drink.

     

    I said both are dumb…

    Only the woman is to blame…

    Oh I get it now… you can only blame the pregnant woman cause she’s the only one you can actually tell had that dirty, dirty sex. Yah know, children and individuals with limited cognitive capacity do tend to focus solely on appearance and often times have difficulty understanding things they cannot see. 

     

    It’s okay wholearmor, you can keep those evil woman thoughts if you want. You just keep telling yourself teh dirty womenz are to blame and your world will be okay and all the problems of the world will be solved. ;)

  • prochoiceferret

    Or unless they can figure out a way to prevent pregnancy without killing a preborn child.

     

    Sorry, but women have the right to an abortion. Sorry if this is an inconvenience to you.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Boycott/Don’t have sex with anti-choice men. Keeping it simple for ya whole-armor.

  • ahunt

    Correct

     

    Heh…You need to do me a big honking favor, and go troll some MRA sites with this POV.

     

    Please. And report back.

  • marshamarshamarsha

    Mr/Ms whole armor [of god], My grandfather used to preach that women were “Jezebels.” His descriptions became a bit crude, like yours, as if he could well imagine the “painted women” exciting poor, defenseless men.

    You have described women “opening their legs” to entice men to have sex. It is crude language and you are quite aware that it is. You know that is a sleazy description of a perfectly NORMAL human function, an enjoyable and desirable human function! Humans have sexual desire.  If sex is so disgusting, why didn’t God make us simply divide, like amoebas?

    You have described YOUR ideal world, where people abide by your narrow interpretation of acceptable sexual behavior. However, you can’t HAVE your ideal world! None of us can dictate how others act. You will never stop humans from having sex when THEY want to, not when YOU think they should (in marriage, or as we call it in America, “serial monogamy”). An unwanted pregnancy does not have to end in an unwanted baby just because YOU believe it must. Birth control fails. Fathers rape daughters. So sometimes people are going to want an abortion. Better aborted than abused. Perhaps YOU think “better abused than aborted.” People say life is sacred, even if you are starved and beaten daily.

    Picture MY ideal world, where every abortion clinic protestor would go to a Social Services office, adopt an unwanted 10-year old, then go home to write big checks to support sex ed & birth control and for abused children everywhere. There are children right NOW being tied up in the basement by their “parents.” Find them and CARE about them, FORGET fertilized eggs in wombs all over the world that are not your business.

  • wholearmor

    I blame the pregnant woman because the sex could not have occured without her permission, unless she was raped.  When you can say that, then I’ll know you get it. 

    When there is sex out of wedlock, without rape, both the woman and man are dirty, not just the woman. 

  • wholearmor

    Sorry, I don’t know that child sex trafficking is at an all-time high, but I wouldn’t doubt it.  When you place so little value on human beings that they can be killed in the womb, it’s no wonder the value of all human beings decreases. Take the elderly for example. Can you say euthanasia?  Some of the people that pushed for that when they were younger are victims of it now in other countries.

    But nice straw man.  You and everyone else here knows which type of slavery I’m talking about.

  • squirrely-girl

    The sex could not have occurred if the man didn’t pull his penis out in the first place.

  • ahunt

    Okay, we’re done…and just for the record, you are beyond vile.

  • prochoiceferret

    You and everyone else here knows which type of slavery I’m talking about.

     

    Yes, the slavery of women being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. (Which is actually something that happened to female slaves back in the day, when the Master wanted more slaves. Isn’t that horrible?)

  • plume-assassine

    Indeed I do. Location does not make one less human.

    I can’t believe you are still arguing that a woman’s uterus is a public location, essentially public domain! A uterus, as a part of a person, does not qualify as a public location.

     

    There is nothing ethical about forcing one person to offer the internal use of their body for the survival of another being. For instance, a person can opt to donate blood or organs for the survival of someone else, but any sane individual would agree that they do not have a moral obligation to do so. Your idea that the uterus is a public location makes even less sense if you realize that we are not even talking about an actualized person at all. We are not arguing about whether a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human or not. It is biologically human in the same sense that my muscle tissue is biologically human. It has its own DNA in the same sense that a tumor can have its own DNA. It is a developing human, but that does not make it an actualized person with rights while its continued existence depends on being physically attached to an adult woman. Until science can give us an artificial uterus, independent of any person’s body, then my position on this will not change.

     

    In response to my question, “Do you think an enlightened society would force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will?” you wrote,

    An enlightened society would protect the rights of all individuals.

     

    So, essentially, your answer is “Yes!” You balk at my implications that your arguments are misogynistic in nature, but you can’t seem to understand that forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is a violation of human rights.

     

    I did not know the relationship between a woman and her unborn child was adversarial. I suppose you simply have to make it so in order to try to argue your point. At any rate, I will get to this a bit below, so hold on tight.

     

    Hahaha, okay… right, because every woman wants to have children! Any woman lacking maternal instinct or any desire to be pregnant is wrong and IF she accidentally gets pregnant, then she should be forced to carry to term anyway because that POTENTIAL person is more important than she, the ACTUALIZED person. –(This is how your reasoning sounds to me.) Yes, the relationship between a woman and an unwanted pregnancy can be “adversarial!” A woman who does NOT want to be pregnant and does not want children may feel that the developing zygote/embryo/fetus inside of her is leeching off of her and in some cases she will do anything to get rid of it. Anyone who remembers the years before Roe v. Wade can attest to this. Anyone who lives in a country with strict anti-abortion laws knows this. There are women who would rather risk their own death (by performing an unsafe abortion on themselves) or even commit suicide than be forced to remain pregnant or have children. If you are a man, or if you are a woman who has never met an adamantly childfree woman who takes every precaution to avoid pregnancy, or have never met a transgender individual (specifically a gay FTM) who does not want children, then you will never understand the reality of this fear.

     

    Central and South America, as a whole, have the strictest laws on abortion because of the American Convention on Human rights. And now you know.

    This does not mean that they are inspired by the Enlightenment. El Salvador and Chile also have a history (and present) of great civil unrest, high rates of murder, rampant rape and violence against women, normalized drug and gang related violence, and poverty. Oh, but it’s okay because they “protect life from conception” and jail women who seek abortion or contraception — such Enlightenment thinking! ugh. Give me a freakin’ break.

     

    One case or a million cases, it does not matter. The number of people affected by an occurrence is inconsequential to that actual occurrence … … Someone who survives an abortion should realize that abortion should still be legal because if it was not then women might end up dead because they deliberately brought harm to themselves by trying to obtain an illegal abortion?

    Yes. From a “greatest good for the greatest number” perspective, this makes sense and it is not callous. A handful of cases of disadvantaged adults who survived abortions VS. Thousands of women dying/suffering as a result of illegal abortion—- I would choose legal abortion.  And, no, but not all women in such a situation deliberately inflict harm on themselves by trying to obtain an illegal abortion. Some will die because of natural complications. Others will suffer from psychological or social complications.

     

    Many people think that abortion should only be available before viability, but I still think the rarer late-term abortions should be safe & legal for obvious reasons of protecting the health of the woman, as well as respecting her decision to terminate a pregnancy if the fetus has a condition that is incompatible with life (such as anencephaly).

     

     

    Are you telling me that it is okay, or less of an evil, to do to someone who cannot remember being done ill to than it is to do to someone who can and would remember being done ill to?

    No. What I’m telling you is that although such an extreme case you present is unfortunate, it was not the wish of the woman or the doctor to inflict long-term suffering on an adult individual. What was intended was the abortion of a fetus that was not expected to survive and a fetus does not qualify as an actualized person. And, finally, comparing abortion to the Holocaust does not work because abortion is not a government-run program to kill a group of actualized-persons based on race, class, sexuality, political beliefs, or ethnicity.

     

    What right would she be losing? … I cannot kill you as an expression of my liberty, as your right to life trumps my right to liberty,…

     

    Faced with an unwanted pregnancy and forced to carry to term against her will, a woman could expect to lose her right to bodily autonomy, to happiness, to self-determination, free-will, possibly her life, and, yes, liberty. You must realize that these are at least tacit rights granted to a woman (even though some not written into law) and that such rights can not and should not be trumped by the continued development of a human embryo. Otherwise, granting more importance to the “life” of a developing human embryo over the rights and wishes of a woman reveals you to be a misogynist. Furthermore, the scenario you propose (“I cannot kill you as an expression of my liberty…”) completely falls apart; obviously you don’t have the right to kill me because: a) I am not subsisting off of you/living inside of your body as a z/e/f, and I as an adult, I am an actualized person and not a potential-person.

     

    Unless one is raped, there is no such thing as a forced pregnancy as the woman has to actively do something for that pregnancy to occur. She does not simply wake up one day to magically find out she is pregnant. It boggles the mind how you speak of human rights violation, when you are probably promulgating one of the biggest human rights violations ever.

     

    Wow, just wow. Once again, You balk at any implication that the anti-choice position is misogynistic, but then you come along and spout this kind of nonsense and expect me to take you seriously.

     

    So, By your reasoning – (and this is how it sounds to me although there’s a small chance I’m wrong. I do not mean to intentionally misrepresent your argument):

     Every sexually-active woman (even if she is religious about her method of contraception) must first and foremost consider herself a potential mother, because pregnancy is always a possibility, no matter how minute a possibility it may be that her birth control should fail. And if pregnant, she must always accept and embrace it, no matter what. There’s no such thing as a mistake! If she regrets getting pregnant, regrets having sex, or finds out she can’t be pregnant any longer, then too BAD, she must endure the consequences of being a “slut.” Childbirth then becomes punishment.

     

     Knowing that she – as a sexually active woman – could be the potential vessel at any time for the almighty zygote, then she must take folic acid supplements for her entire life and always act with caution as though she is pregnant (yes some people actually believe this). If she has a problem with being pregnant, then she shouldn’t have sex, ever, OR she should get sterilized. In essence, the looming possibility of unwanted pregnancy trumps a woman’s desire for a healthy sex life or her choice to be childfree for whatever reason… because abortion as a last safeguard is no longer an option. And I don’t think I even need to tell you how nearly impossible it is for a childless or childfree-by-choice woman under 30 to get sterilized, because people like you seem to think that all women want and NEED to be mothers or that women NEED to have more children than they personally want.

     —

    So, yes, this is where forced pregnancy/forced childbirth comes from, even with every precaution taken, even when rape isn’t involved. That is most likely your position and that is why I imply that your position objectifies women.

     

     Oh, and for the record, I am not one of those people who adopts the double standard of “men shouldn’t have sex unless they expect to foster children/be a father.” I think that is equally demeaning on par with your belief that women should keep their legs closed unless they want children.

     

    And, no, not even a majority of women, whom you do not speak for, by the way, would agree with you.

    And YOU do speak for them? Yeeeah… No. I beg to differ. A majority of women ARE pro-choice. And I do speak for them, whether they want 0 children or 15; whether they were raped and choose to abort, or if they were raped and choose to give birth; whether they had sex and their contraception failed or if they knowingly had sex without any contraception at all — I believe in their choice to give birth or to obtain an abortion.

     

    All that you have to say to women is paternalistic noise.

     

    WALL OF TEXT ABOUT FETUSES AND SLAVERY

    Gee, thanks for your response! However, you are still ignoring the fact that slaves are people, women are people, and “”the unborn”” are not people. The humanity of the woman is ALWAYS greater than the humanity of a developing zygote/embryo/fetus. That is why you are incapable of understanding my point of view. Also, I am going to ignore all of your strawmen arguments about how “logically you must think child support is slavery and so is paying your credit card bill”, because they only reflect the ridiculousness of your OWN nonsense assertions about slavery. A woman’s body is her own property and that fetus is part of and attached to her physical body. So, yes, until viable and until it is born, then that is her property. That does not mean that a fetus is a slave. To be considered a slave, you must consider a z/e/f a person. I do not. That is why it disgusts pro-choicers that you try to co-opt the pre-Civil War abolitionist movement or the Civil Rights movement because you think that a fetus has the same level of humanity as an actualized, sentient person of that era.

     

    Aside from the fact that you seem to be under the mistaken impression that, like a period which is a naturally occurring bodily function (usually anyway), pregnancy simply happens to the woman whether she wants it to or not, and aside from the fact that you seem to be under the mistaken impression that women can not not get pregnant, and that the only way they can have control over their reproductive destinies is to have access to abortion (because control cannot be exerted prior to being pregnant, apparently),

     

    Wow, another strawman! Excuse me, but where in the world did I ever say that I don’t advocate for contraception methods aside from abortion? Don’t put words in my mouth. I never once implied that access to abortion is the only way to control one’s reproductive destiny. But it is one of them and one of the most important. I never implied that women “magically get pregnant.” My position is that contraception methods can FAIL and abstinence-only methods can FAIL. Even tubal ligation can fail. Vasectomies can fail. Mistakes happen. Rape happens. I NEVER implied that women don’t take precaution before sex to prevent unwanted pregnancy. I know women who have been extremely fastidious about their contraception – even women who have IUD’s – who became pregnant, and needed an abortion.

    In future debates on this site, I suggest that you avoid intentionally misrepresenting the argument of the other side, because it only makes YOU look like the naive & ignorant party, (although you really want to project that on me.)

     

    I have to say that I find it mildly humorous that you have no problem in advocating for the very same things you decry. For example, on one hand, you decry making life decisions for the woman, yet you turn around and say that the woman should be able to make life decisions for the unborn.

    The only reason you find it humorous is because you are incapable of understanding that the woman is the only actualized person in the scenario, not the “”unborn,”” and therefore she is the only one who has the right to make decisions about her pregnancy.

     

    If we were being honest with ourselves, how many of the unborn aborted over the past 37 years do you really think would have wanted to be aborted if you could have asked them?

    HAHA… if I could have asked them? As though that’s even a realistic option?? Right, because embryos are fully-formed sapient humans who can talk and they have opinions and are capable of choosing whether they want to be born or be miscarried or be aborted.

     

    Rather pro-lifers believe that everyone should have equal rights, which also entails a right to life.

    Equal rights, but women be damned. Oh, and I wonder if your so-called “right to life” position is consistent across the board…

     

    You know, it was greeeat talking to you, but I’m done here. You are never going to convince me of anything because your position and beliefs are so in conflict with reality that it’s almost surreal. It must be great fun for you to troll pro-choice websites. So, go ahead and respond if you want, but unless you present some really solid arguments, then I’m done.

  • cc

    According to Father Pavone’s church, a woman who is married must comply with her husband’s wishes. And In Father Pavone’s world, and the world of anti-choicers like the above, women would not even be allowed to use contraception so it’s a no win for the woman who “opens her legs.” (Don’t ya love the misogyny of that phrase which I see all too often on right wing blogs and seemingly uttered by right wing “Christian” males). And “sex outside of marriage is inherently shameful.” Spare me your tired, archaic, and stupid religious sentiments. That’s the kind of stinking thinking that led to the shaming and exploitation of women who had children outside of marriage – cuz they “opened their legs.” Yeah, right.

  • invalid-0

    Weird definition?  Ok.

    It is your position then that the zygote is not a stage of life of a human being?  You can joke up a storm, but I haven’t heard a definitive statement from you.  Say it if you believe it: “the zygote is not a stage of life of a human being”

    No one has the right to biological life support off the body of another person—that can be cut off at any time.

    Except that’s not what abortion is.  In abortion, you don’t remove life support.  You kill.

  • prochoicekatie

    Precedent for forcing someone to biologically support another human being?

    Why yes, this has been taken up in a court of law. An individual promised bone marrow – necessary to save the life the of the recipient – and then backed out. The recipient, desperately dependent on said donation, took the donor to court. He indicated that a relationship of biological support had been agreed upon, and that the donor did not have the right to back out of said agreement.

    Turns out, the donor did have the right to back out. The courts indicated that no individual should be forced into a medical procedure or situation for the life of another despite the necessity of the other to live. 

    SO, the liberty of one individual was put above the LIFE of another. This is based upon the premise that by denying the donor liberty, you were in fact denying him LIFE all the same as Mr. Locke himself, and many others, have so eloquently articulated. 

    “Give me liberty or give me death.”

    While this case remains in a specific state’s jurisprudence, because it was not appealed, it highlights the principle that regardless of biological dependency, women are the arbiters  of their bodies. Period. 

    Furthermore, the premise that life begins at conception is not actually up for discussion. Yes, something is living at conception. Lots of other things are living – amoeba, bacteria, plants, pigs, dogs, algae – I think you get my point. The premise of discussion is when that life deserves rights. It is based on the SUBJECTIVE and not OBJECTIVE value we place on that life. For example, pigs are ALIVE, and sentient – much more so than zygotes – and we kill and eat them all the time. I am not arguing for vegetarianism, I am simply indicating that people have placed a SUBJECTIVE value on their life. And to further illustrate my point, we don’t all agree on this value. Hence why some people are in fact vegetarians.

    People do not disagree that something is living at conception – cell division begins, we all know that. People disagree on the SUBJECTIVE value placed at that point. Most Americans DO NOT AGREE on when a zygote, or fetus, obtains the subjective value of an individual person in the sense of when rights should be given. For some, it’s conception, for some, it’s implantation. For some, it’s viability, for some, it is in fact when the fetus is not biologically dependent on the mother. 

    My point is, if we can admit that value is SUBJECTIVE and that we don’t agree, we probably shouldn’t make law that assign that value for everyone across the board. If you believe that the SUBJECTIVE value hits that critical point at conception, then don’t have an abortion. However, just as I don’t advocate that we all accept the subjective value vegetarians place on the known to be sentient pig, we shouldn’t all have to accept the subjective value another places on the zygote.

    Furthermore, as demonstrated above, even if you believe the subjective value criteria has been met – for you personally – the courts have demonstrated the no human being should be forced to biologically support another human being. Even if the other human being’s life depends on it.

  • prochoiceferret

    It is your position then that the zygote is not a stage of life of a human being?  You can joke up a storm, but I haven’t heard a definitive statement from you.  Say it if you believe it: “the zygote is not a stage of life of a human being”

     

    No thank you, I’d rather say, “Human beings are not single-celled organisms.” As reported in the esteemed medical journal, Duh.

     

    Not that it matters, anyway, given your evident lack of concern for all the innocent human beings dying a “less avoidable, not intentional” death by tampon. How can you not feel for all those poor souls, denied even a proper burial? Don’t you think something should be done??

     

    Except that’s not what abortion is.  In abortion, you don’t remove life support.  You kill.

     

    Death tends to be the result of removing life support. The fact that the fetus can’t sustain itself is why the woman has an abortion, and not induced labor. Everything else about the procedure is to get the fetus out without harm to the woman.

     

    If abortion were about killing the fetus, the woman could save a lot of time and money just by throwing herself down a stairway. (Which, where abortion is illegal, unwantedly pregnant women sometimes do!)

  • squirrely-girl

    Would it make you feel better if they just removed the placenta and clipped the umbilical cord and then waited until nature took it’s course?

  • bornin1984

    I can\’t believe you are still arguing that a woman\’s uterus is a public location, essentially public domain! A uterus, as a part of a person, does not qualify as a public location.

    Odd. Where on Earth did you read anything of the sort?

    There is nothing ethical about forcing one person to offer the internal use of their body for the survival of another being. For instance, a person can opt to donate blood or organs for the survival of someone else, but any sane individual would agree that they do not have a moral obligation to do so. Your idea that the uterus is a public location makes even less sense if you realize that we are not even talking about an actualized person at all. We are not arguing about whether a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human or not. It is biologically human in the same sense that my muscle tissue is biologically human. It has its own DNA in the same sense that a tumor can have its own DNA. It is a developing human, but that does not make it an actualized person with rights while its continued existence depends on being physically attached to an adult woman. Until science can give us an artificial uterus, independent of any person\’s body, then my position on this will not change.

    All right.

    1.) I have noticed a common theme with pro-choicers. They, for whatever reason, seem unwilling to distinguish between doing to someone and failing to do for someone. So let me put forth this example. If I were to walk into a room and unplug someone from life support, do you believe that is fundamentally different than me walking into a room and stabbing that person in their chest? Obviously, you would say no, but this is your assertion as it relates to abortion. You not only fail to distinguish between the two actions, but you also assert that preventing someone from engaging in the former action is forcing her into an action. It is not. As she is already pregnant, it is, if anything, forcing her to continue that pregnancy.

    2.) To assert that the ZEF is biologically human in the same sense that tissue or even a tumor is biologically human, you would also have to assert that at some point in time in human history tissue and/or a tumor has magically grown into what you perceive as a human being. This, of course, is a ridiculous assertion, not to mention an affront to science, because it has never happened, as tissue is always tissue while a tumor is always a tumor. Both tissue and tumors are a collection of somatic cells. They are not the whole themselves nor are they stages of human development. The opposite is true of the ZEF.

    3.) What do you mean it is not an actualized person? Well, why not? What stops the unborn from being persons under the law? If I had to guess, chances are that you will conflate the legal definition of the word person (one who has standing under the law) with the philosophical definition of the word person (what it means to be human) in order to argue why the unborn should not, without realizing that it is as fallacious as arguing that in order to be blue (sad) one must also be blue (the color).

    In response to my question, \”Do you think an enlightened society would force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will?\” you wrote…

    …So, essentially, your answer is \”Yes!\” You balk at my implications that your arguments are misogynistic in nature, but you can\’t seem to understand that forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is a violation of human rights.

    Oh, look. The M word. I have to say that I did not see that coming. Only in the mind of someone who is extremely out of touch with reality does that which prevents one from acting against another, or in this case a law which prevents the woman from acting against the unborn, constitute misogyny.

    Hahaha, okay… right, because every woman wants to have children! Any woman lacking maternal instinct or any desire to be pregnant is wrong and IF she accidentally gets pregnant, then she should be forced to carry to term anyway because that POTENTIAL person is more important than she, the ACTUALIZED person. –(This is how your reasoning sounds to me.) Yes, the relationship between a woman and an unwanted pregnancy can be \”adversarial!\” A woman who does NOT want to be pregnant and does not want children may feel that the developing zygote/embryo/fetus inside of her is leeching off of her and in some cases she will do anything to get rid of it. Anyone who remembers the years before Roe v. Wade can attest to this. Anyone who lives in a country with strict anti-abortion laws knows this. There are women who would rather risk their own death (by performing an unsafe abortion on themselves) or even commit suicide than be forced to remain pregnant or have children. If you are a man, or if you are a woman who has never met an adamantly childfree woman who takes every precaution to avoid pregnancy, or have never met a transgender individual (specifically a gay FTM) who does not want children, then you will never understand the reality of this fear.

    All right. Here we go again.

    1.) Your argument, in essence, is that it is wrong to force a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy because she is an, as you say, actual person while the unborn is a potential person. But to that, as any normal guy or girl would, I will simply ask how you came to that conclusion. And chances are you will either tell me:

    -Because SCOTUS says so, which does not explain why the unborn are not persons (plus it somehow assumes that whatever SCOTUS says matches reality, in which case a tomato is a vegetable) or
    -Because the woman is either sentient or living or breathing or feeling or any other criteria of the sort, to which I will point out to you that corporations meet none of the aforementioned criteria, yet still have the protections of personhood.

    Neither of which argument holds up to scrutiny. But you are free to humor the question.

    2.) I said this once before and I will say it again. The only situation in which one is allowed to do to another because, if they are not, they might injure themselves is abortion. Nowhere else is this true, as in every other case said individual would either be confined, detained or otherwise committed to a mental institute and given a mental evaluation.

    This does not mean that they are inspired by the Enlightenment. El Salvador and Chile also have a history (and present) of great civil unrest, high rates of murder, rampant rape and violence against women, normalized drug and gang related violence, and poverty. Oh, but it\’s okay because they \”protect life from conception\” and jail women who seek abortion or contraception — such Enlightenment thinking! ugh. Give me a freakin\’ break.

    Okay. So I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you did not go and look up the document, correct? For if you had, you would have known that it was. To turn around after not reading the document and try to argue that the document was not based on thinking borne out of the Enlightenment because said aforementioned countries experience internal problems, which is true of any country, is ridiculous, and is nothing more than a feeble attempt at trying to cover the fact of you being wrong. So, please, give ME a break.

    Yes. From a \”greatest good for the greatest number\” perspective, this makes sense and it is not callous. A handful of cases of disadvantaged adults who survived abortions VS. Thousands of women dying/suffering as a result of illegal abortion—- I would choose legal abortion.

    Number one, no it does not, because utilitarianism is stupid. If, for example, society would be better off by enslaving 4% of the population than it would be if it did not, then based on utilitarianism society should enslave that 4% of the population. And if that 4% of the population happens to be pregnant women, then oh well, because society is better off. Now what are the chances you would disagree with that? Number two, for whatever reason, I noticed that you ignored the fact that whether one or two or one million or two million people are affected by an occurrence is inconsequential to that actual occurrence. An action is not judged based on its frequency, but rather the effect it has on another. Killing one person is not less of an evil than killing two people nor is raping one woman is not less of an evil than raping two women.

    No. What I\’m telling you is that although such an extreme case you present is unfortunate, it was not the wish of the woman or the doctor to inflict long-term suffering on an adult individual. What was intended was the abortion of a fetus that was not expected to survive and a fetus does not qualify as an actualized person. And, finally, comparing abortion to the Holocaust does not work because abortion is not a government-run program to kill a group of actualized-persons based on race, class, sexuality, political beliefs, or ethnicity.

    I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Not only is it better if the intent is to kill than it is to injure or maim, but the two are different because one is government sponsored while the other is only government sanctioned? How, on Earth, did you come to that conclusion? What is the difference is someone is maim, injured or killed if the government merely allows that action to occur rather than actively causes that action to occur? Neither is fundamentally different, as both have the same effects.

    Also, you should realize that during the Holocaust, no persons were killed as everyone killed was deemed a non-person, or are you going to ignore this fact because it shows how groups have been systematically defined out of rights held by the whole on the basis of them being non-persons by claiming that those killed during the Holocause were persons by your definition, even though your definition had no effect on them being considered non-persons? Or will you acknowledge the fact that personhood has been, and continues to be used, as a way to define on set of humans out of basic rights and protections afforded to another group of humans?

    Faced with an unwanted pregnancy and forced to carry to term against her will, a woman could expect to lose her right to bodily autonomy, to happiness, to self-determination, free-will, possibly her life, and, yes, liberty. You must realize that these are at least tacit rights granted to a woman (even though some not written into law) and that such rights can not and should not be trumped by the continued development of a human embryo. Otherwise, granting more importance to the \”life\” of a developing human embryo over the rights and wishes of a woman reveals you to be a misogynist. Furthermore, the scenario you propose (\”I cannot kill you as an expression of my liberty…\”) completely falls apart; obviously you don\’t have the right to kill me because: a) I am not subsisting off of you/living inside of your body as a z/e/f, and I as an adult, I am an actualized person and not a potential-person.

    What?

    My analogy does not fall apart. Last I checked, you cannot kill a fetus at 25 weeks gestational age even though it is subsisting off the woman/living inside of her body. The only reason that can be so, as per your logic, is because it is a person, and since it is a person then the fact that it is subsisting off the woman/living inside of her body is irrelevant. In fact, since the woman cannot abort the unborn then at her leisure, then whatever rights the woman is assumed to have also become irrelevant, because they are trumped by the rights of the unborn to not be killed. Ironically enough, that would mean that anyone who does not support abortion-on-demand whenever the woman requests it is also a misogynist because it would require putting the rights of the unborn over the rights of the woman.

    Also, before I forget, explain to me why the unborn are not actualized persons again?

    Long quote.

    Or she could just not have sex if she does not want to be a mother. Yes, it really is that simple. All of the obfuscating and failed sarcasm in the world will not change this fact.

    You see, I realize that this is a hard concept for some of the older people here, but actions have consequences. Pregnancy is a natural consequent of sex. If you cannot handle the prospect of being a parent, then do not have sex. It really is not a hard concept. It is one of the reasons why fewer teens and younger adults have sex today than they did in the past. Personal responsibility and all that. It is amazing to me how, generally speaking, the people who eschew such a notion are generally older, as if people are seemingly incapable of controlling themselves.

    Oh, and for the record, I am not one of those people who adopts the double standard of \”men shouldn\’t have sex unless they expect to foster children/be a father.\” I think that is equally demeaning on par with your belief that women should keep their legs closed unless they want children.

    That is good to hear. I can expect you to start fighting against the mandatory child support laws, correct?

    And YOU do speak for them? Yeeeah… No. I beg to differ. A majority of women ARE pro-choice. And I do speak for them, whether they want 0 children or 15; whether they were raped and choose to abort, or if they were raped and choose to give birth; whether they had sex and their contraception failed or if they knowingly had sex without any contraception at all — I believe in their choice to give birth or to obtain an abortion.

    For the 2009 to 2010 calendar year, 48% of women consider themselves pro-choice, 45% pro-life and 8% have no opinion (http://www.gallup.com/poll/128036/new-normal-abortion-americans-pro-life.aspx#2). I guess you can chalk that up to being mistaken. It really does amuse me how often pro-choicers like to go on about women this and misogyny that without even realizing that they, themselves, do not even speak for the majority of women.

    All that you have to say to women is paternalistic noise.

    Really? Because it seems to me that your view is in the minority and off-putting to even most of the people you claim to speak for. But the radical never really believes they are a radical, so it is a wasted endeavour trying to point this out.

    Gee, thanks for your response! However, you are still ignoring the fact that slaves are people, women are people, and \”\”the unborn\”\” are not people.

    It boggles the mind as to how you ignore history. Remember a time when women did not have the full protections of being a person under the law? Less than a hundred years ago, I remember there being this little debate in a country to the north of the U.S. in which they could not decide whether or not women were persons under the law. I wonder how well you would have accepted the woman-are-not-people rhetoric then?

    The humanity of the woman is ALWAYS greater than the humanity of a developing zygote/embryo/fetus. That is why you are incapable of understanding my point of view.

    Your point of view is that some humans are inherently worth more than another. Forgive me for finding such an argument utterly repulsive. Just imagine if we were to apply the same rationale to women? How many people here would then scream misogyny? A whole lot of them, which is why this is so ironic.

    Also, I am going to ignore all of your strawmen arguments about how \”logically you must think child support is slavery and so is paying your credit card bill\”, because they only reflect the ridiculousness of your OWN nonsense assertions about slavery.

    It is not a straw man. It is a reductio ad absurdum. You claimed that it is slavery to force someone to do something that they might not want to do, even if it is a result of their own actions. That argument does not suddenly become a straw man when applied elsewhere. If it seems ridiculous applied to something else, it is because it is ridiculous in actuality. That is why the reductio ad absurdum is a great rhetorical tool. Ignoring arguments you do not like does not make them go away, nor do they make them fallacious.

    A woman\’s body is her own property and that fetus is part of and attached to her physical body. So, yes, until viable and until it is born, then that is her property. That does not mean that a fetus is a slave.

    Assuming that the woman owns her body and anything attached to it, then the unborn is her property until the moment it is born as viability does not deattach the unborn from its mother. Therefore, abortion should be legal throughout all of pregnancy, as the woman owns the unborn by virtue of it being attached to her body. But you disagree with said assertion, which means that some part of your argument is incorrect (either the fact that the unborn belongs to the woman or that abortion should be restricted at any time for any reason).

    To be considered a slave, you must consider a z/e/f a person. I do not.

    Ummm, no. I am not even so sure how you came to the above conclusion. But I will bite, because I really want to know.

    That is why it disgusts pro-choicers that you try to co-opt the pre-Civil War abolitionist movement or the Civil Rights movement because you think that a fetus has the same level of humanity as an actualized, sentient person of that era.

    Hmmm… Walk into the Black community and see how many people disagree with the slavery-abortion comparison. I will tell you now that you will not find many. And on a side note, I did not know that sentience was a major arguing point in the slave debate.

    Wow, another strawman! Excuse me, but where in the world did I ever say that I don\’t advocate for contraception methods aside from abortion? Don\’t put words in my mouth. I never once implied that access to abortion is the only way to control one\’s reproductive destiny. But it is one of them and one of the most important. I never implied that women \”magically get pregnant.\” My position is that contraception methods can FAIL and abstinence-only methods can FAIL. Even tubal ligation can fail. Vasectomies can fail. Mistakes happen. Rape happens. I NEVER implied that women don\’t take precaution before sex to prevent unwanted pregnancy. I know women who have been extremely fastidious about their contraception – even women who have IUD\’s – who became pregnant, and needed an abortion.

    I would like to point out to you, as I did above, that it is not a straw man. Number one, I dare you to find me where I said you did not advocate for contraceptive methods aside from abortion. Of course, as I did not say that, you cannot find it. Number two, you are backtracking. You said that without abortion a woman would not be able to control her own biological destiny and reproductive life, yet above you turn around and admit that without abortion she could still control her own biological destiny and reproductive life. Unfortunately, you tried to qualify that by asserting that it is one of the most important ways of controlling her own biological destiny and reproductive life, which would mean that it is not the only way as you first asserted, which is false seeing as how the majority of women do not obtain an abortion in their lifetimes.

    In future debates on this site, I suggest that you avoid intentionally misrepresenting the argument of the other side, because it only makes YOU look like the naive & ignorant party, (although you really want to project that on me.)

    Before you start accusing people of engaging in straw men, actually learn what a straw man is, and do not accuse people of stating things that are clearly not written out anywhere.

    The only reason you find it humorous is because you are incapable of understanding that the woman is the only actualized person in the scenario, not the \”\”unborn,\”\” and therefore she is the only one who has the right to make decisions about her pregnancy.

    And why is the unborn not a person? It is a fairly simple question, really.

    HAHA… if I could have asked them? As though that\’s even a realistic option?? Right, because embryos are fully-formed sapient humans who can talk and they have opinions and are capable of choosing whether they want to be born or be miscarried or be aborted.

    As a newborn baby if it would like to be killed and see what answer you get. No one would assume that the child in question would like to be killed though. I am sure you see the point, so there is no need to continue on.

    Equal rights, but women be damned. Oh, and I wonder if your so-called \”right to life\” position is consistent across the board…

    There is a right to kill at your leisure?

    You know, it was greeeat talking to you, but I\’m done here. You are never going to convince me of anything because your position and beliefs are so in conflict with reality that it\’s almost surreal. It must be great fun for you to troll pro-choice websites. So, go ahead and respond if you want, but unless you present some really solid arguments, then I\’m done.

    Correction. I will never convince you of anything, because you would rather hold to your preconceived notions than to admit you are wrong, which you are. I mean, really. As it stands, you most certainly cannot defend the base of your argument (explain why the unborn are not persons) and in the end you just call every argument you cannot respond to either a fallacy or misogynistic in nature while assuming that your argument is somehow indicative of the views of women as a whole.

  • ack

    Like we did before abortion was legal, we’ll just find other ways to do it. Most of them will be unsafe. I hope that the googler will help to increase safety. So, do you fall on the, “I disagree with abortion, but it’s going to happen anyway and I hope it’s safe,” side, or do you fall on the, “I disagree with abortion, and I don’t care what happens if it’s illegal and women die,” side? (These are obs separate from those of us who think that abortion should be legal and therefore safe, period.)

  • prochoiceferret

    Odd. Where on Earth did you read anything of the sort?

     

    Wow, you wrote a whole wall o’ text about how women should be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term!

     

    Of course, this is ridiculous, even if the brainfuzz induced by all that anti-choice verbiage might make it seem a bit less so. Women own their bodies, after all. I realize that this may be inconvenient for you, but you’ll just have to act like a grown-up and accept it. If you wish to indulge your fantasies of controlling female reproductive systems, I would suggest taking up mouse breeding as a hobby.

  • ack

    Pregnancy is the only result I can expect when I have sex?

     

    I’ll keep that in mind the next time I participate in mind-blowing, protected fornication with my boyfriend. And when I don’t get pregnant, I’ll try really hard to reconcile that fact with the thousands of other times I have had sex and pregnancy wasn’t a result. Somewhere in there, according to anti-contraceptive folks, there should have been a pregnancy. There wasn’t.

     

    But mostly I’ll just laugh at the “BUT YOU HAD SEX!!!111!!!” argument, which fails to take into account the centuries of sex that didn’t lead to pregnancy and pregnancies that led to termination. The really unfortunate part is that we don’t get to blame it on witches anymore. The fortunate part is that the internet might actually help get termination methods to the women who need them most.

  • ack

    What are you talking about?

  • prochoiceferret

    Pregnancy is the only result I can expect when I have sex?

     

    Well, I suppose if it were really bad sex… without love, nor cuddling, nor caresses, nor massive gigantic earth-shaking squirty orgasms. Oh, and without any form of protection, either.

     

    Which would appear to be what anti-choicers are used to, on the vanishingly rare occasion that anyone wants to have sex with them.

  • ack

    Who is “we” in this quotation? Who the fuck feels they have the right to “mistrust” anyone?

  • bornin1984

    So if women own their bodies, then who owns the body of the unborn? I do believe this will be the second time I asked you this. I just hope that this time, you will not ignore the question, which you tend to do when your faux-wit fails to help you. Though, I have to say, it is amusing.

  • prochoiceferret

    So if women own their bodies, then who owns the body of the unborn?

     

    A) The woman

    B) The unborn person himself/herself

    C) The state

    D) God

    E) It doesn’t matter—none of the above answers is a valid basis to deprive women of ownership of their own bodies and thus their right to an abortion

     

    I’m sorry that women owning their bodies is so distressing to you. If it makes you feel any better, you do own your body too. And if a weird little creature started growing inside you, and you didn’t want it there, you would be within your rights to have it removed too. Although, given that you don’t like abortion very much, you may be inclined not to do so.

     

    [Tapeworm!]

     

    (You wouldn’t abort this little cutie, would you?)

  • bornin1984

    So it is wrong to deprive the woman of ownership over her own body but not the unborn of ownership over its own body? Explain to me why you discount self-ownership only as it relates to the unborn, and not as it relates to the woman again? Explain to me again why the fact that the woman owns her body does not deprive the unborn of the right to its own body. I ask, because I missed your explanation of the latter two issues on account of you not giving one.

    No, really. I want to hear your explanation so I can count the number of hoops you have to jump through to rationalize this.

  • jayn

    It doesn’t matter if the fetus has ownership over itself or not–it has no RIGHT to be in my body.  I get to decide if I want to let it stay there or not.

  • pilar608

    Explain to me again why the fact that the woman owns her body does not deprive the unborn of the right to its own body.


    It does, at least if you take the view that a z/e/f is a person and thus has competing rights.  The thing is, no one has the right to use someone else’s body against that person’s will.  No one.  If your child will die without, say, a liver transplant, and you’re the only match, the state cannot force you to donate part of your liver.  We don’t mandate blood donations.  We don’t even mandate that organs be taken from corpses for donation to people who will die without those organs.  It does not matter–does not matter–if the z/e/f will die without the support of its mother’s body.  It still cannot use her body without her consent.

     

    (Blockquote doesn’t seem to work in Chrome.  Anyone know why, or of a work around?)

  • pilar608

    Or in other words, yes I should be having a memorial service every time I have withdrawal bleeding.  Does this also apply to fertile, sexually active women who are not on hormonal birth control?  After all, they are far, far more likely to be shedding a “unique human being” every month, since they’re actually releasing eggs that could be fertilized.

     

    You seem to be under the erroneous impression that hormonal birth control “kills” a fertilized egg.  BC works by stopping ovulation.  This means that there is no egg released.  Without an egg, there is nothing for sperm to fertilize.  Ergo, no “unique human being” is created.  

     

    There is the argument that BC makes it more difficult for a fertilized egg to implant; however, there is no evidence that this is actually the case. 

  • jan

    Since I am not, nor have ever been or desired to be married, (my current boyfriend wants to marry me, and I love him deeply, and he is a PROGRESSIVE man, so it may be in my future) all sex that I have had has been outside of marriage.  It is only shameful in your opinion and other mysogynists who think like you; that women should not have sex and it is shameful for her to do so outside of marriage.  My boyfriend and I enjoy sex more than we ever have, I am thankfully in menopause so sex for me has never been better as I don’t have to deal with birth control anymore. :  )  I have never become pregnant in my lifetime thankfully, because I learned about birth control in my teens thanks to Planned Parenthood and great sex ed in my school.  I never needed an abortion but would have had one if I had gotten pregnant due to birth control failure because I did not want children and knew that from an early age.  I had other just as valid dreams.  Pro-choice is the only way for women…sorry of that bursts your bubble of them only being good for being breeding mares and slaves to men in a male dominated marriage. A blastocyst, zygote, embryo, and fetus is not, nor will ever be, a person, as long as attatched to another human being which you seem to conveniently forget…a WOMAN.  It is a developing and POTENTIAL human.  Personhood requires seperation in BIRTH.  That is when a birth certificate announces that a HUMAN BEING was BORN. : )   That is basic Biology 101, and you can tell you never had that course because your ignorance about women and their bodies shows BIG TIME and you should be embarrassed and ashamed about how little you know.  It appears that you have had too much exposure to your Patriarichal church,  and not enough exposure to real life.  I think it is kind of sad.  

  • prochoiceferret

    Explain to me again why the fact that the woman owns her body does not deprive the unborn of the right to its own body. I ask, because I missed your explanation of the latter two issues on account of you not giving one.

     

    Jayn and pilar608 have answered your question nicely. Owning your own body doesn’t mean you get a free pass to other people’s guts. The closest you can get is your local supermarket’s meat section.

     

    If you have future questions on whether some random issue can deprive women of their right to an abortion, you can use this handy template:

     

    Q: Does the fact that __________ mean that women shouldn’t have the right to an abortion?

     

    A: No, sorry. Please find more productive things to do with your life than ask pointless questions.

     

    It’s like having your very own virtual pro-choice ferret to answer all your anti-choice musings!

  • prochoiceferret

    Since I am not, nor have ever been or desired to be married, (my current boyfriend wants to marry me, and I love him deeply, and he is a PROGRESSIVE man, so it may be in my future) all sex that I have had has been outside of marriage.

     

    Oh, I’m sure you’ll remember how shameful it is… somewhere between the fourth and fifth multiple orgasm.

     

    If you can hear yourself think over the screaming, that is.

  • bornin1984

    Jayn and pilar608 have answered your question nicely. Owning your own body doesn\’t mean you get a free pass to other people\’s guts. The closest you can get is your local supermarket\’s meat section.

    Actually, they did not. You cannot exactly repeat the line about needing on-going consent when on-going consent or not, there comes a point in time where the wants of the woman will be deemed as irrelevant to whether or not the unborn has a right to use her body. But I have pointed this out so many times, yet it gets ignored all the same, I wonder why I bother.

  • bornin1984

    It does, at least if you take the view that a z/e/f is a person and thus has competing rights. The thing is, no one has the right to use someone else\’s body against that person\’s will. No one. If your child will die without, say, a liver transplant, and you\’re the only match, the state cannot force you to donate part of your liver. We don\\\’t mandate blood donations. We don\’t even mandate that organs be taken from corpses for donation to people who will die without those organs. It does not matter–does not matter–if the z/e/f will die without the support of its mother\’s body. It still cannot use her body without her consent.

    I answer this enough, so one more time cannot hurt.

    If no one has the right to use the body of someone else for sustenance without the consent of that individual, then abortion-on-demand should be legal for all nine months as the unborn does not have the right to use the body of the woman without the ongoing consent of the woman. However, abortion is not legal for all nine months of pregnancy, and will be restricted after a certain time even if the woman no longer wants to be pregnant. In other words, she will be made to continue her pregnancy even if she does not consent to do so. Long-story short, the above assertion is false, so stop using the line about how no one has the right to use the body of someone else even against the will of that person. It is deathly untrue, and there is no way to get around this. You simply cannot assert how someone cannot demand, say, X of the woman while ignoring the fact that the unborn can demand X of the woman at a given point in time.

    Anyway, since the assertion is untrue, then it cannot be used to explain why the fact that the woman owns her body does not deprive the unborn of the right to its own body. So, to ask yet again, why does the fact that the woman owns her body not deprive of the unborn of the right to its own body?

  • janine

    Labor induction is illegal?

  • prochoiceferret

    Actually, they did not. You cannot exactly repeat the line about needing on-going consent when on-going consent or not, there comes a point in time where the wants of the woman will be deemed as irrelevant to whether or not the unborn has a right to use her body. But I have pointed this out so many times, yet it gets ignored all the same, I wonder why I bother.

     

    Yes, abortion in the late stages of pregnancy is a lot more expensive and risky to the woman. Thank you for pointing that out.

     

    Of course, it’s ridiculous to suggest that this fact in some way means that the woman doesn’t have the right to an abortion. It just means that medical standards exist. Shocking, I know—you can’t just walk into a hospital and have them do crazy surgery on you upon request.

  • bornin1984

    Yes, abortion in the late stages of pregnancy is a lot more expensive and risky to the woman. Thank you for pointing that out.

    Of course, it\’s ridiculous to suggest that this fact in some way means that the woman doesn\’t have the right to an abortion. It just means that medical standards exist. Shocking, I know—you can\’t just walk into a hospital and have them do crazy surgery on you upon request.

    The reason late-term abortions are generally are illegal, and the reason for those medical standards, as you want to put them, is not because they are expensive or risky, but because it will be deemed that the unborn has a right to live, regardless of the wishes of the mothers (I believe you might want to read Roe v. Wade and that whole state has an interest in regulating abortion the third trimester thing). Anyway, please tell me what month the woman no longer own her body? :)

    I think you may want to try harder.

  • bornin1984

    I purposely ignored the question before, but since you want to ask it again then let me respond to your question with a question. What the difference between a, for lack of a better word, early-term labor induction and an abortion?

  • janine

    in response to what you’d previously commented.

    At fetal viability, induction of labor is not abortion as the fetus is capable of life outside of the woman.  Yet even though abortion might have some restrictions then I don’t know of a law against labor induction. There is more than one way to terminate a late term pregnancy.

  • jayn

    The reason late-term abortions are generally are illegal, and the reason for those medical standards, as you want to put them, is not because they are expensive or risky, but because it will be deemed that the unborn has a right to live, regardless of the wishes of the mothers

     

    You probably already know this, but some of us here disagree with that logic.  I can perhaps see an argument for induction vs. abortion later on, since that that point lethal force is not always necessary to remove the fetus, but either way a woman should have the right to end a pregnancy she no longer wants to continue.

  • prolifeunity

    Ms Merritt,

    You speak of “reproductive freedom” and “anti-choice”, yet never discuss what we are talking about.  Women use abortion to kill their unborn children, future women and men, not frogs or snails.

    I can’t believe the black population doesn’t recognize their race is heading toward extinction in America because of abortion.  Every second black pregnancy results in the death of the child through abortion.  The birth rate of the black population is only .9.  A 2.1 birth rate is required just to maintain a stable population.  Do the math.  In the not-too-distant future, the African-American population will be erradicated through self-population (yes, making up my own word there) control.  Over 18 million blacks have been killed by their mothers in the last 37 years.  There are only 39 million blacks in America today.  Almost 1/3 of the entire black population of America has been killed in the womb in just 37 years.

    Compared this to the thousands who were killed during the days of American slavery.

    You tell me, which is worse, slavery or abortion?

    Peter Shinn
    President
    Pro-Life Unity

    http://prolifeunity.com

  • squirrely-girl

    Black birth rate is .9 my ass.

     

    U.S. Birth Rate: Still Fueling Population Growth?

    22 March 2007, 1:00 PM EDT

    Thank you for taking part in this PRB online discussion. The number of questions submitted exceeded our ability to answer them in the allotted time. If there is a question you would like Ms. Kent to answer, please e-mail her at: mkent@prb.org.

     

    Philip C. Chinn:

    What are the current fertility rates by racial and or ethnic groups?

    Mary Mederios Kent:

    The total fertility rate (TFR) or average number of children per woman given current birth rates– was 2.1 children per woman in 2005. Among racial and ethnic groups, the TFR for highest for Hispanics at 2.9 children per woman, compared with 1.8 for non-Hispanic whites, 2.0 for non-Hispanic blacks, 1.9 for Asian and Pacific Islanders, and 1.7 for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

     

    Among Hispanics, the rates are highest for Mexicans and Central Americans—who are our fastest growing Hispanic groups. 

     

    http://discuss.prb.org/content/interview/detail/1172/

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    The reason late-term abortions are generally are illegal, and the reason for those medical standards, as you want to put them, is not because they are expensive or risky, but because it will be deemed that the unborn has a right to live, regardless of the wishes of the mothers (I believe you might want to read Roe v. Wade and that whole state has an interest in regulating abortion the third trimester thing).

     

    Why yes, current U.S. law on abortion isn’t ideal. Given that most pregnant women don’t willy-nilly decide in the eighth month that they no longer want to be pregnant, however, this isn’t such a big deal in practice. (Yes, I know, women are all flighty and whimsical and indecisive and get a hankering to abort a week before their due date and all, but in practice, this doesn’t happen. Kind of like how anyone can just grab all the ketchup packets at a McDonald’s, yet no one ever really does.)

     

    Anyway, please tell me what month the woman no longer own her body? :)

     

    If you’re that impatient, I would suggest buying a blow-up doll.

  • crowepps

    So, to ask yet again, why does the fact that the woman owns her body not deprive of the unborn of the right to its own body?

    Abortion does not violate the right of an ‘unborn’ to its own body, in which it continues to be contained when it is removed together with the placenta.  The unborn does not have a special and unique right to have its own body in somebody ELSE’S body or to coopt someone else’s organ systems to its own use.  The woman in whose body it is or was contained is not a field of soil or a life support system but a person and therefore, if unwilling to have it remain, has a right to evict it.  The fact that medical science can’t keep it alive afterwards isn’t her problem.

     

  • bornin1984

    Abortion does not violate the right of an \’unborn\’ to its own body, in which it continues to be contained when it is removed together with the placenta. The unborn does not have a special and unique right to have its own body in somebody ELSE\’S body or to coopt someone else\’s organ systems to its own use. The woman in whose body it is or was contained is not a field of soil or a life support system but a person and therefore, if unwilling to have it remain, has a right to evict it. The fact that medical science can\’t keep it alive afterwards isn\’t her problem.

    Yes, because depriving someone of their life does not deprive them of the right to own their own body, in which case I suppose me killing you would not be depriving you of ownership of your body, seeing as how I would not be doing to you something that you might not want done to yourself.

  • bornin1984

    Why yes, current U.S. law on abortion isn\’t ideal. Given that most pregnant women don\’t willy-nilly decide in the eighth month that they no longer want to be pregnant, however, this isn\’t such a big deal in practice. (Yes, I know, women are all flighty and whimsical and indecisive and get a hankering to abort a week before their due date and all, but in practice, this doesn\’t happen. Kind of like how anyone can just grab all the ketchup packets at a McDonald\’s, yet no one ever really does.)

    So in order to make your point, you ignore that which does not conform to your views, and instead choose to argue practice instead of principle? That does not make much sense, even for you. You say that you are okay with late-term abortions being illegal because there are so few of them, but would you apply that logic to early-term abortions as well? If, for example, there was as many early-term abortions as late-term abortions, would you thusly not argue against restrictions on abortions on the basis that abortions are so few in practice? I do not think you would. So why argue differently here?

  • jayn

    in which case I suppose me killing you would not be depriving you of ownership of your body,

     

    If you were just killing a person for the hell of it, yeah that would be wrong.  If you killed someone because they were trying to force themselves upon you, however, then you would be defending your own bodily ownerships.  In the case of abortion, there are no non-lethal means of doing so.

  • bornin1984

    You probably already know this, but some of us here disagree with that logic. I can perhaps see an argument for induction vs. abortion later on, since that that point lethal force is not always necessary to remove the fetus, but either way a woman should have the right to end a pregnancy she no longer wants to continue.

    And even within pro-choice quarters, that is a minority view, so good luck with it. At any rate, that, however, does not change the fact that the unborn, at some point in time, does have the right to use the body of the woman regardless of what the woman wants, which makes the original assertion I was responding to false.

    Also, I did not feel like making a completely separate response for this (in response to the other poster), but early labor does not typically get induced simple because the woman does not want to be pregnant, or even labor induced for that reason post-viability, as there is little difference between that action and an abortion as the unborn will almost assuredly die. Any doctor who induces labor early just because and has the child die as a result subjects himself to having his practitioner license or whatever it is either revoked or suspended or (s)he subjected to fine and or penalty.

    Edit: Let me clear something up. When I say early, I do not mean before labor induces naturally, but before her due date or close to it.

  • jan

    I laughed so hard on THAT one!  Yes, it is quite blissful not having to worry about a wayward sperm…LOL   Am I am sooo bad to never have felt an ounce of guilt for having great sex?? I don’t think so!  We are like frigging teenagers…

  • jayn

    Okay, point that I don’t think your’e getting–you’re asking us to defend laws that we don’t actually support.  I’m not going to argue with you on these laws existing, because obviously they do–however, I’m not going to defend them either.

     

    Regardless of what the ‘majority pro-choice view’ is, we’re arguing from personal beliefs.  The answer you’re looking for doesn’t exist within my ideological framework, and not within the frameworks of others here either it seems.

  • jan

    Are just sooo jealous of us women having great sex, and they have, well, their hand.  You think that is why they want to punish women who don’t want to be pregnant by wishing unwanted pregnancies on them, you know, as punishment for having sex without a certificate and matrimonial bondage? LOL

  • prochoiceferret

    So in order to make your point, you ignore that which does not conform to your views, and instead choose to argue practice instead of principle? That does not make much sense, even for you. You say that you are okay with late-term abortions being illegal because there are so few of them, but would you apply that logic to early-term abortions as well? If, for example, there was as many early-term abortions as late-term abortions, would you thusly not argue against restrictions on abortions on the basis that abortions are so few in practice? I do not think you would. So why argue differently here?

     

    Yes, if reality were different, then the argument would be different, too. This sort of thing can happen when your arguments are reality-based—just FYI, since you obviously don’t have a whole lot of experience with them. For example, if women didn’t gestate offspring within their bodies, but laid eggs instead, then they would only have the right to an “abortion” up until the point that they laid the egg. Since they don’t, however, I don’t make that argument.

     

    It may be a bit more work than conjuring up an argument from verses in an old book or whatever, but it tends to yield better real-world results.

  • jan

    and saying that abortion is worse than slavery is your argument for black women to not have abortions when they DON’T WANT TO BE PREGNANT, you are a complete and utter moron who does not live in the real world.  When abortion was illegal, who do you think died by the thousands of back alley butchery the most?  Poor BLACK WOMEN, thats who.  Many who already had children and couldn’t afford another mouth to feed.  Many who felt trapped at even the thought of another unwanted pregnancy.  Why don’t you care about the gang violence and young black males dying on violent streets?  Oh thats right, you only care about fetuses; because it makes slaves of women to carry one that they don’t want, and it is obvious that you hate women.  Slavery is worse, because it happened to a real, sentinent, living, breathing person who was BORN and actually existed in the real world, and is not even comparable to an undeveloped parasite ( which is what it is when it is not wanted) growing in another person’s (yes, a woman IS a PERSON) BODY.  If you can’t see that, Mr. SMUG anti-choice, then you make me SICK.

  • crowepps

    If you actually did kill someone, that would not transfer the ownership of their body to someone else, and that is not what the criminal charge would read, but instead something about ‘unlawfully deprived on life’ (as opposed to lawfully doing so).

     

    That’s why your argument becomes strained when you try to assert that there is an equivalent violation of ‘fetal right to its own body’ when what you are actually concerned about is that the fetus will die when removed from the person providing its life support.

     

    I believe I do understand the point you are trying to make — you believe that because the woman as life support system is NECESSARY for continued fetal life and development, that imposes an obligation on her to continue being life support both when she simply does not wish to do so or when she cannot safely physically continue to do so without impacts on her health, although as I understand your position, you do allow her the right of self-defense if her life is actually in imminent danger.

     

    You have not, however, explained just why it is that the creation and production of any PARTICULAR fetus is more valuable to society than whatever she may be choosing to do with her time instead of being pregnant.  We’re not exactly short on babies, after all, or global populations wouldn’t be increasing at this rate.

     

    Are you arguing that:

    Nobody should ever kill anybody?

    It’s okay for men to kill people but women should not?

    No woman should be able to choose to kill a conceptus (but doctors as objective third parties can remove them when medically necessary)?

    No woman should WANT to kill a conceptus because women shouldn’t be ‘selfish’ (although that’s okay for men)?

    That the chances of getting a male child is such a plus to society that is worth the minior loss of killing any females who may be ‘used up’ in the process because that’s what females are for?

    That women who participate in sex, even if they are raped, must ‘pay the price’ for that participation because sex is ‘immoral’ for women (but okay for men)?

  • prochoiceferret

    At any rate, that, however, does not change the fact that the unborn, at some point in time, does have the right to use the body of the woman regardless of what the woman wants, which makes the original assertion I was responding to false.

     

    So let me see if I understand your argument:

     

    Current U.S. law can restrict or prohibit elective abortion after a certain late stage in pregnancy… therefore women don’t own their own bodies, and all abortions should be illegal.

     

    I suppose if you have enough Ph.D.s in philosophy, arguments like that may seem sensible. Around here, however, they don’t not hold no water with us plain-spoken folk.

  • colleen

    I suppose if you have enough Ph.D.s in philosophy, arguments like that may seem sensible. Around here, however, they don’t not hold no water with us plain-spoken folk.

    This guy may have passed philosophy 101 and one quarter of logic. I would be surprised if he made a ‘C’ at a good university. The world is full of spoiled kids bristling with poorly expressed and ill considered opinions who took a beginning philosophy course and try to use it to bludgeon folks with.
    This guy does NOT have a PhD in anything, much less philosophy.

  • crowepps

    The whole point of Roe v Wade setting the third trimester (when abortions are very rarely done and usually in cases of a NONviable fetus) is that is the point at which the fetus can be delivered and live on its own.  At that point the woman can have the fetus removed from her body by delivering it and it will be fine.  This is not an instance in which she “no longer own[s] her own body” but instead the point where the fetus no longer needs to use it at all.

     

    Your argument seems to be that because the fetus has ‘rights’ eventually then it must always have had the exact same rights fails to recognize that the fetus changes as it develops, that there are both qualitative and quantitative differences between fertilized eggs and children, and that there is an immense and recognizable difference between nonviable and viable.

     

    Moral questions can only have black and white answers when they are being considered philosphically.  When philosophizing about morality it is easy to reach absolute conclusions, since the costs and suffering resulting from them can be shifted to other people and won’t impact the philosopher.

     

    There isn’t any problem for you if your moral conclusions increase the number of women dead from pregnancy from 600 to 6,000, 60,000 or even 600,000 a year — you’re not a woman and it’ll never be your neck on the line.  What do you care if a bunch of strangers die?

  • janine

    Viability means the fetus will assuredly die?  When did the definition of viability change?  Also, there is cesarean removal too, in addition to labor induction, where NICU staff/equipment can be present during the surgery.  Otherwise you are talking about non-viability which I wasn’t addressing at all.  I also wasn’t referring to typical versus non-typical…..I was simply addressing your assumption that legal restrictions on abortion, which come into play later, is the *right* of the fetus to use her body even if she doesn’t want it to.  There are simply multiple ways to terminate a later term pregnancy, not just abortion. 

  • pilar608

    Thank you for your reply.  I get really frustrated when guys (and it’s always guys) barge in here and start arguing like they’re in debate club, or like they’re medieval scholars arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  They either don’t understand or don’t care that it’s our lives we’re talking about–that it’s our ability to determine the direction of our own lives that’s at stake when they want to play word games with reproductive choice.

     

    Real life doesn’t get to be all wrapped up in pretty, air-tight arguments like a debate club argument or a philosophy paper.  You can’t just follow a philosophical point to its logical conclusion, at least as it relates to things like abortion, because somewhere in there you’re going to run into the human realities of a situation, places where people’s lives and circumstances matter more than the sheer consistency of a philosophical point.  

     

    /end rant.

  • pilar608

    Abortion is currently restricted by law; you are correct.   Current abortion law, IIRC, is based on the privacy rights of a woman.  I believe that abortion rights are rooted in the much more basic right to bodily autonomy.  This means that if a woman wants to end a pregnancy in the third trimester, I believe that she should be allowed to do so, whether by induction of labor or C-section or abortion.  I don’t agree with the current law, so I don’t know how you expect me to work with current abortion law to argue my beliefs about abortion.

  • bornin1984

    So let me see if I understand your argument:

    Current U.S. law can restrict or prohibit elective abortion after a certain late stage in pregnancy… therefore women don\’t own their own bodies, and all abortions should be illegal.

    Funny. I do believe the original assertion I was responding to was, and I quote verbatim:

    The thing is, no one has the right to use someone else\’s body against that person\’s will. No one.

    Of which the fact that there are restrictions on late-term abortions prove false. Long-story short, you understand wrong. As reading never really was your forte, though, I forgive you.

  • bornin1984

    Viability means the fetus will assuredly die? When did the definition of viability change? Also, there is cesarean removal too, in addition to labor induction, where NICU staff/equipment can be present during the surgery. Otherwise you are talking about non-viability which I wasn\’t addressing at all. I also wasn\’t referring to typical versus non-typical…..I was simply addressing your assumption that legal restrictions on abortion, which come into play later, is the *right* of the fetus to use her body even if she doesn\’t want it to. There are simply multiple ways to terminate a later term pregnancy, not just abortion.

    Viability is the place at which the fetus can survive outside of the womb. Not the place that it will. Generally speaking, the further away from full-term you get, the less the chance of survival and the more the chance of birth defects. Anyway, I see you did not respond to the fact that most doctors simply will not perform a labor induction because the woman wants to (this practice has been exceedingly rare), and any doctor who does so and the unborn dies as a result is liable to lose their license to practice. There are guidelines regarding induction of labor.

    Labor is induced to cause a pregnant woman’s cervix to thin out and open to prepare for the vaginal birth of her baby. Labor may be induced if the health of the woman or the baby is at risk. Whether your labor will be induced depends on the condition of you and your baby, how far along the pregnancy is, the status of your cervix, and other factors. Unless a problem occurs, labor induction is not done before 39 weeks of pregnancy. Reasons for inducing labor may include one or more of the following conditions:

    * Your pregnancy is postterm (more than 42 weeks).
    * You have high blood pressure caused by your pregnancy.
    * You have health problems that could harm you or your baby.
    * You have an infection in the uterus.
    * You have placental abruption (the placenta has begun to separate from the inner wall of the uterus before the baby is born). You may have your baby by cesarean birth in this situation.
    * You have premature rupture of membranes (your water has broken too early).

    There may be other reasons why labor induction may be needed. For instance, your labor may be induced if you are at term and live a far distance from the hospital or if you are at risk for rapid delivery.

    http://www.acog.org/publications/patient_education/bp154.cfm

  • crowepps

    Having labor induced is not rare at all.  It happens 20% of the time.  Is your argument that it’s okay for the doctor to do it for his own reasons but wrong for the woman to request it for her own reasons?

    In 2006, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 1 in 5 births in the United States was induced. This rate more than doubled from 1990.

     

    http://www.babycenter.com/0_inducing-labor_173.bc

  • crowepps

     They either don’t understand or don’t care that it’s our lives we’re talking about

    I agree, and I vote for “don’t care”.

  • bornin1984

    The whole point of Roe v Wade setting the third trimester (when abortions are very rarely done and usually in cases of a NONviable fetus) is that is the point at which the fetus can be delivered and live on its own. At that point the woman can have the fetus removed from her body by delivering it and it will be fine. This is not an instance in which she \”no longer own[s] her own body\” but instead the point where the fetus no longer needs to use it at all.

    Your argument seems to be that because the fetus has \’rights\’ eventually then it must always have had the exact same rights fails to recognize that the fetus changes as it develops, that there are both qualitative and quantitative differences between fertilized eggs and children, and that there is an immense and recognizable difference between nonviable and viable.

    All right. I, as I usually do, will bite. Viability is determined by medical technology. Just to reiterate a point one retired Supreme Court Justice made when she said that improvements in medical technology would push the limits of viability towards the beginning of pregnancy. Indeed, let us say that tomorrow new technology comes out which allows viability to be pushed back to 20 weeks. Would you argue that abortions post 20 weeks should be illegal? Now what about if technology came out which allowed the unborn to be safely delivered at 10 weeks? How about 5 weeks? What about at any gestational age? Would you then argue that abortion is flatly impermissible? Of course you would not, which makes one wonder what the talk over viability is. I am sure that even if viability was pushed back to, say, 22 weeks, that some women would still march around with their Protect 24 weeks! signs.

    All this talk about recognizing the qualitative and quantitative differences between fertilized eggs and children is fluff. An adolescent is not an adult. A toddler is not an adolescent. Am infant is not a toddler. And a newborn is not an infant. The question is so what? There are qualitative (I seriously have no idea what quantitative differences there are between stages of development, unless you are going to start making differences based on size and weight) between every stage of development and the one preceding it, yet the only stage of development I see you making differences between are those prior to being a newborn, none afterwards. Why not?

    Moral questions can only have black and white answers when they are being considered philosphically. When philosophizing about morality it is easy to reach absolute conclusions, since the costs and suffering resulting from them can be shifted to other people and won\’t impact the philosopher.

    There isn\’t any problem for you if your moral conclusions increase the number of women dead from pregnancy from 600 to 6,000, 60,000 or even 600,000 a year — you\’re not a woman and it\’ll never be your neck on the line. What do you care if a bunch of strangers die?

    And how would my argument be any different if I was a woman? The answer is that it would not be. Try not to play the gender card, as it does not work, especially when you consider that your view is a minority view even among women. But you will not care about that.

  • crowepps

    The very youngest holocaust survivors are now in their 70’s. Don’t think it would be kind of annoying to elderly people to have the cope with strangers who want to meet them mostly so they can make points in a debate that has nothing to do the concerns of the survivors themselves?

  • bornin1984

    I really wish you would read what people write out. Please find me where I said anything about rarity in any of my posts. I said that labor does not get induced early, as there is no difference between an early-term labor induction and an abortion. Labor is not induced just because the woman does not feel like being pregnant anymore.

  • prochoiceferret

    Of which the fact that there are restrictions on late-term abortions prove false.

     

    Why yes, current U.S. law on abortion isn’t ideal.

     

    Long-story short, you understand wrong.

     

    Oh, so you’re not trying to make up some half-assed argument that abortion should be illegal based on present-day U.S. laws regarding same. My bad.

  • prochoiceferret

    Viability is determined by medical technology. Just to reiterate a point one retired Supreme Court Justice made when she said that improvements in medical technology would push the limits of viability towards the beginning of pregnancy.

     

    Great! Let’s wait until this magical fantasy Matrix-like fetus-incubator thing is invented, and we’ll talk with Ms. Retired Supreme Court Justice then. Until then, we’ll continue doing the abortion thing with U.S. law holding off restrictions until the third trimester.

     

    There are qualitative (I seriously have no idea what quantitative differences there are between stages of development, unless you are going to start making differences based on size and weight) between every stage of development and the one preceding it, yet the only stage of development I see you making differences between are those prior to being a newborn, none afterwards. Why not?

     

    I see that your memory is a little unreliable, so I’ve put together this small resource for you. Print it out on an index card or Post-It(tm) note, and place it somewhere near your monitor for reference:

     

    BORNIN1984’S ABORTION DISCUSSION CHEAT SHEET

     

    Before birth = grown woman’s body is involved (pregnancy)

     

    After birth = child’s body is self-sustaining; woman’s/mother’s body is no longer involved

     

    This will help remind you that pregnancy requires the involvement of a woman, who is not the fetus/child in question. Anytime you begin to feel confused, just glance at this “cheat sheet” in case you’ve forgotten about the woman again. (You know, the one that the fetus is inside of, prior to birth. Not talking about a female fetus here!)

     

    And how would my argument be any different if I was a woman? The answer is that it would not be.

     

    It certainly wouldn’t have to be, given that you could confidentially have an abortion if you ever felt you needed one, and continue spouting anti-choice claptrap the very next day!

  • prochoiceferret

    Over 18 million blacks have been killed by their mothers in the last 37 years.  There are only 39 million blacks in America today.  Almost 1/3 of the entire black population of America has been killed in the womb in just 37 years.

     

    Have you asked some of these women why they decided to have abortions? Or are you only capable of understanding big, scary-sounding numbers?

     

    You tell me, which is worse, slavery or abortion?

     

    Slavery. Because blacks didn’t have a choice in the matter.

  • prolifeunity

    The actual number should read 1.9, not .9.  I apologize for the error.

  • janine

    Roe put this distinction at the 3rd trimester for late term abortion.  Prior to this later term of pregnancy, there is the “grey area” late in the second….though in Webster when the state adopts a “presumption of viability” against abortion during that timeframe, the doctor can perform tests to obtain actual data to rebut/confirm that presumption to make an actual viability determination.

     

    I don’t see why I need to respond to why “most doctors” might chose not to induce labor (or cesarean for that matter)…its not about frequency.  As I previously did respond – I’m not concerned with what is typical.  I have no idea how many women have actually requested it either…so what?   On the guidelines did you notice that they are written broadly enough that there is “other reasons” listed for induction which the doctor can use for his professional judgement?  PCF and Jayn were arguing for medical guidance and you rejected that in favor of the law.  Now you want to argue based on medical guidance instead?

  • prolifeunity

    I added a correction to the black TFR rate.  The actual number should read 1.9, not .9.  I apologize for the error.

    The rest of my comment is still valid.

    Peter

  • prolifeunity

    You say “Slavery is worse, because it happened to a real, sentinent, living, breathing person who was BORN and actually existed in the real world, and is not even comparable to an undeveloped parasite”

    An unborn person is a real person.  That person has unique DNA and will develop into an adult. 

    You refer to a person in the womb as a parasite.  I pray you never tell your children that they were just parasites.  To make such a comparison is inhuman.

    You also make the comment “another mouth to feed”.  You acknowledge a person in the womb is a person yet you don’t have a problem killing that person if she is unwanted.

     

    Then you refer to pregnancy as slavery.  I don’t doubt that being pregnant is a committment and a responsibility, but slavery?  That’s going way too far.

     

    What if the government decides you are “not wanted”?  Should you then be considered a parasite & erradicated?  Why should a parent only be able to decide a child is a parasite in the womb?  After all, as you say, if there is “another mouth to feed” & she is to expensive to care for, why not kill your daughter after she is born?  What is the difference between 5 minutes inside or 5 minutes outside of the womb?

     

    Peter

  • prolifeunity

    Unborn blacks certainly don’t have a choice.  Almost every second pregnancy in the black population results in the killing of that innocent child.  Almost 1/3 of the black population has been wiped out in 37 years.  That doesn’t have an effect on you?

  • squirrely-girl

    So the black birth rate is STILL higher than the white birth rate… why aren’t you concerned with all of those white babies that are being aborted?

  • prochoiceferret

    Almost every second pregnancy in the black population results in the killing of that innocent child.  Almost 1/3 of the black population has been wiped out in 37 years.  That doesn’t have an effect on you?

     

    No, because I am not one of those pregnant black women who took stock of the circumstances they were in (which tend not to be all that great for African-Americans), and used their own perfectly capable judgment to choose to have an abortion.

     

    I suppose you believe the way to have black women beget more black babies is to deny them any other alternative. And I can understand why. That approach certainly worked well for the white plantation owners back in the old days.

  • bornin1984

    Great! Let\’s wait until this magical fantasy Matrix-like fetus-incubator thing is invented, and we\’ll talk with Ms. Retired Supreme Court Justice then. Until then, we\’ll continue doing the abortion thing with U.S. law holding off restrictions until the third trimester.

    And why would we have to wait?

    I see that your memory is a little unreliable, so I\’ve put together this small resource for you. Print it out on an index card or Post-It(tm) note, and place it somewhere near your monitor for reference:…

    …This will help remind you that pregnancy requires the involvement of a woman, who is not the fetus/child in question. Anytime you begin to feel confused, just glance at this \”cheat sheet\” in case you\’ve forgotten about the woman again. (You know, the one that the fetus is inside of, prior to birth. Not talking about a female fetus here!)

    Speaking of an unreliable memory, do you not remember what was typed out less than a day prior? Anyway, not that you will care or anything, as you never really seem to care, but I would like to point out that you did not point out any qualitative/quantitative differences between the born/unborn, but instead chose to argue, as you always do, that the woman owns her body. It is kind of hard to make a qualitative/quantitative difference between the born and unborn when you ignore the unborn all together.

    It certainly wouldn\’t have to be, given that you could confidentially have an abortion if you ever felt you needed one, and continue spouting anti-choice claptrap the very next day!

    So you mean I could be a hypocrite? Reading over the comments on this site, I would say I would need to be pro-choice for that. And with that being said, it must really pain you to know that, for all your talk about woman hating and the like, that even women as a whole seem to eschew the things you say. If you do not speak for the majority of Americans, much less women, then would that not make you the radical? :)

  • prochoiceferret

    The actual number should read 1.9, not .9.  I apologize for the error.

     

    Hmm. Makes one wonder what other egregious errors there might be in your whole “abortion = slavery” argument…

  • bornin1984

    Yes, if reality were different, then the argument would be different, too. This sort of thing can happen when your arguments are reality-based—just FYI, since you obviously don\’t have a whole lot of experience with them. For example, if women didn\’t gestate offspring within their bodies, but laid eggs instead, then they would only have the right to an \”abortion\” up until the point that they laid the egg. Since they don\’t, however, I don\’t make that argument.

    So your arguments on based not on principle, but fact? Somehow I doubt that. Please notice how you did not answer my question, which was not a trick question in the slightest. If, say, next year there were only a thousand early term abortions, which is about the same number of late-term abortion that occur each year, would you give up your support for abortion access? Well, considering how you believe that late-term abortions should be legal even though they are few in number, even though you are somehow arguing that it is not a big deal that they are illegal because they are few in number, I doubt that you would argue that early-term abortions should be illegal because they were few in number. Fact based argument indeed.

    It may be a bit more work than conjuring up an argument from verses in an old book or whatever, but it tends to yield better real-world results.

    Speaking of yielding better results, how is the pro-choice movement doing these days? Oh, wait. They are still going on about misogyny and the like.

  • bornin1984

    Why yes, current U.S. law on abortion isn\’t ideal.

    Which does not change the fact that it still renders the assertion false.

    Oh, so you\’re not trying to make up some half-assed argument that abortion should be illegal based on present-day U.S. laws regarding same. My bad.

    Just pointing out that, much to the consternation of pro-choicers, many of the lines they like to use are false. But it is much easier to ignore those things which prove your argument false than it is to acknowledge them. Your bad indeed.

  • bornin1984

    Slavery. Because blacks didn\’t have a choice in the matter.

    Neither do the unborn.

  • squirrely-girl

    An unborn person is a real person.  That person has unique DNA and will develop into an adult. 

     

    I just think it’s cute when the AC/PL side completely ignores the concepts of miscarriage, stillbirth, and conditions incompatible with life. You may want to use the word “will,” but there are absolutely no guarantees.

    You refer to a person in the womb as a parasite.  I pray you never tell your children that they were just parasites.  To make such a comparison is inhuman.

    With regard to reproduction, pregnancy, and childbirth, I plan to be accurate and honest with my son. He may have been a parasite on my body at one time, but it was a relationship I willingly bore. 

     

    par·a·site

    [par-uh-sahyt]

    –noun
    1.an organism that lives on or in an organism of another 
    species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
    The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it.
    2.a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from 
     another or others without giving any useful or proper return, 
     as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

     

    To make such a comparison is scientifically accurate. 

    Then you refer to pregnancy as slavery.  I don’t doubt that being pregnant is a committment and a responsibility, but slavery?  That’s going way too far.

    Isn’t it just amazing how people liken situations to their bodies being used against their will to slavery. Darn them! But of course it’s perfectly fine to compare abortion to slavery, right? Hmmmm…

     

    What is the difference between 5 minutes inside or 5 minutes outside of the womb?

    Again, you seem more than happy to ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions are obtained within the FIRST trimester. So that “5 minutes” doesn’t make ANY difference with an 11-week embryo… unless of course you think it’s going to survive on it’s own at that point.

  • squirrely-girl

    … because choices require some cognitive functioning? Non-persons don’t make choices for anything. Did that “unborn” have a choice as to which family is was born into? Did it have a choice as to what sex it would be? Did it have ANY choices? (Hint – no) So why would it suddenly get to have choice over this issue?

  • prochoiceferret

    If, say, next year there were only a thousand early term abortions, which is about the same number of late-term abortion that occur each year, would you give up your support for abortion access?

     

    As long as there are women who need it to protect their bodies, health, sanity, and lives, no. Sorry if I got your hopes up.

     

    Speaking of yielding better results, how is the pro-choice movement doing these days? Oh, wait. They are still going on about misogyny and the like.

     

    Yes, kind of like how Amnesty International is still going on about human rights and the like.

  • prochoiceferret

    Which does not change the fact that it still renders the assertion false.

     

    I suppose if you could get a draconian enough law passed, you could also render the assertion “women are human beings” false too!

     

    Just pointing out that, much to the consternation of pro-choicers, many of the lines they like to use are false. But it is much easier to ignore those things which prove your argument false than it is to acknowledge them.

     

    Yes, anti-choicers disagree with assertions like “zygotes are not people” and “women cannot be compelled to give life support to another organism against their will.” I kind of thought this was obvious. But thanks for pointing it out!

  • janine

     

    Physicians who do what they refer to as “early term labor induction” (e.g. 37 weeks is considered “early term” by many) do not consider what they provide, that intends on live birth, to be abortion (nor do they consider it an abortion that just happens to meet the 3rd trimester criteria).  Same for C-sections.  Medical procedures always have risk, even with induction at 40 weeks.  When a patient is in the last trimester and needing an actual abortion as they cannot attempt live delivery, doctors who are not trained in the more complicated methods of 3rd trimester abortion send patients to the few remaining 3rd trimester abortion doctors instead.  

     

  • jan

    You are a simpleton who just doesn’t get it that women will not be held captive to soemthing inside of her body using her organs against her will.  I hope in your next life you come back as a woman with an unwanted pregnacy and few resources just so you get to understand…until then, as a man you will never understand ( and in your case, care) what women go through when they don’t want to be pregnant.  A blob of tissue does NOT equal a person, especially when it is attatched to another human being.  over 93% of abortions happen in the first 6 weeks, so there is no living, breathing, sentinent person there.

  • jan

    You are a simpleton who just doesn’t get it that women will not be held captive to soemthing inside of her body using her organs against her will.  I hope in your next life you come back as a woman with an unwanted pregnacy and few resources just so you get to understand…until then, as a man you will never understand ( and in your case, care) what women go through when they don’t want to be pregnant.  A blob of tissue does NOT equal a person, especially when it is attatched to another human being.  over 93% of abortions happen in the first 6 weeks, so there is no living, breathing, sentinent person there.

  • ack

    And how amazing are you, squirrely?

  • ack

    Watch the hearings and votes on abortion related legislation. The Senate will be the most interesting. Then watch the votes on the budget, while those Senators who disapprove of abortion also cut programs for pre-natal health, temporary assistance for needy families, kick 43,000 children off of health care (later reinstated after public outcry), and axe education budgets. 

     

    It would be funny if it wasn’t real.

  • ack

    Anyone read Feministe? I think wholearmor is campaigning for the Top Troll Award. It’s an honor, really. One of the previous contenders accused pro-choicers of killing 1/3 of his potential friends, and of killing “fully born children before they are born.”

     

    But…. wrong site, dude. I’m sure Jill will give you a fair hearing for the contest.

  • ack

    I wonder sometimes if anti-choice people are super supportive of masturbation. In my experience, anti-choicers are against it. But you’d think, from a cognitive standpoint, that they would be in favor of safe and awesome solo experiences involving toys, and egalitarian, respectful porn and erotica. (Rare, but it exists.)

     

    I do think that the solo stuff needs to be varied and in moderation, because you can unwillingly become dependent on a movement or image to get off. No one wants to orgasm ONLY if the person is moving to the left and wearing a linen shirt.

  • squirrely-girl

    Just a little :)

  • squirrely-girl

    There you still have the problem of women not procreating. I mean, women are still getting their happy time on, but they’re even less dependent on men at that point. Plus, with a decent bedside companion, she’s absolutely wasting those eggs every month. I think that goes against that general “control women’s sexuality” credo. 

     

    Not to mention the “evils” of the stores where those items are purchased (I recommend the Internet). 

     

    It’s a no-win situation for women and their sexuality.

     

    Edited to add – however, heterosexual women who masturbate within a relationship report having more satisfying sexual relationships with their significant others (win-win)

  • equalist

    I’ve been avoiding the wall o text responses here, but this one caught my eye and I had to respond.

    Or she could just not have sex if she does not want to be a mother. Yes, it really is that simple. All of the obfuscating and failed sarcasm in the world will not change this fact.

    You see, I realize that this is a hard concept for some of the older people here, but actions have consequences. Pregnancy is a natural consequent of sex. If you cannot handle the prospect of being a parent, then do not have sex. It really is not a hard concept. It is one of the reasons why fewer teens and younger adults have sex today than they did in the past. Personal responsibility and all that. It is amazing to me how, generally speaking, the people who eschew such a notion are generally older, as if people are seemingly incapable of controlling themselves.

    So essentially, you’re telling women of childbearing age, that regardless of their personal situation or relationship status, if they don’t want to be pregnant, then they should NEVER EVER EVER EVER have sex, even with their husbands?  Want to bond in your relationship with your spouse?  Want to comfort yourself or your spouse? Want to enjoy all of the benefits that come from a relationship with a spouse?  Want to enjoy the stress relieving and health benefits of healthy sexual relationships in adults?  Good for you!  Don’t want to have to raise a child should birth control fail?  Too bad, so sad, it’s one or the other lady.  I’d be willing to bet though that you’re one of those types that’s all in support of right of a husband to cheat on his wife or leave her if she refuses to have sex with him. 

  • equalist

    Personally I’m in favor of euthenasia as an end to suffering for the terminally ill.  Why is it that the family pet has more right to dignity in death and an avoidance of suffering than grandma does?  I’ve seen friends and family members battling end stage cancer and other terminal illnesses.  I’ve seen the parents of friends screaming in pain and begging for death when the morphine stops working anymore and still forced to hang on for days, weeks, or even months in a neverending state of pain, but when Fluffy gets cancer and the point arrives that she can’t walk anymore, control her bodily functions or that she’s clearly in pain, it’s off to the vet for a comfortable passing, surrounded by loving family and friends.  With these experiences under my belt, I firmly support the right of a terminally ill person to decide when, how, and under what circumstances their end comes.

  • equalist

    Because the dirty sluts should have kept their legs closed in the first place, right?

  • equalist

    I notice you don’t mention anything about men keeping their pants on.  It’s solely placed on the women to be responsible for pregnancy, as if men have nothing to do with it at all. 
    And not all men view women as sex objects, only those who have been raised to believe that women are to be viewed that way.  You know, like in fundamentalist churches and muslim countries where a woman bearing too much skin is concidered valid excuse for rape.  My fiance on the other hand was taught to respect a woman for being a woman and a whole person, and while we have sex, and often, that is in no way the whole of our relationship, or the only aspect he sees me in.  A woman should not be forced to choose between respect for herself or her own sexuality.

  • colleen

    I notice you don’t mention anything about men keeping their pants on.  It’s solely placed on the women to be responsible for pregnancy, as if men have nothing to do with it at all. 

    As much as possible, in word and action, the ‘pro-life’ movement makes women the sexual gatekeepers and holds women responsible for all unwanted pregnancies. The ‘pro-life’ movement is a socially acceptable way to harangue, lecture, bully, abuse and try to dominate women they don’t know and who do not want to know them. There is NO other place in the public sphere where some creepy guy can talk with strange women about their fallopian tubes. There is no other place where religious zealots can express their hatred of all things female in a public setting. There really isn’t a place where someone like Bei can publically fanticize about kicking a woman in her crotch because he disapproves of her opinions about abortion or Paul can insist that everyone has to sacrifice while justifying forcing pregnant 10 year olds to carry to  term.

    For the ‘pro-life’ folks who post here this is entertainment. If they were forced to deal with real life and admit that men are always at least 50% responsible for each and every unwanted pregnancy their membership would drop off precipitiously. It’s never been about the ‘sanctity of life’, it’s always been about misogyny and gang violence.

  • bookbear

    the pro-life movement is also rather notorious for being in the same voting camps as ‘abstinence-only’ education promoters, which is so often linked to unplanned and unwanted teen pregnancy. So the evidence seems to be that the pro-life movement in general:

    -encourages unplanned or unwanted pregnancies

    -prevents women from ending the unwanted pregnancies

    -then ensures that they do not have the access to health and social funding needed to raise those children well, ensuring that the cycle continues, and

    -if they are of a minority group, puts legislation in place to help streamline their road into poverty or imprisonment (it is not ‘nature’ that ensures the high proportion of black inmates in American jails, and of Aboriginal inmates in Canadian jails)

     

    I would like to add that I think the original article here is very well done, and highlights the most important point, that in all areas of sexual and reproductive health, women’s rights always have been, and still are at risk.

  • bookbear

    I hope you are making that statement as some sort of satire, perhaps in the vein of Jonathan Swift?

  • bookbear

    hey, ouch! Not all white people are pro-life sexual-slavery promoting fascists. For that matter, some very vocal pro-life, sexual-slavery promoting fascists are black as well.

     

    However, I appreciate your apt use of the term cognitive dissonance in this context, and your pointing out the fact that it is being ignored by those in the pro-life group (black, white or otherwise)

  • bookbear

    I suspect that we may have differing views of human, but one of the long standing philosophically defining points has come down to the phrase “I think, therefore I am”, highlighting the concept that it is our human brain that makes us unique and human. The other generally accepted defining point is self-awareness.

     

    The embryo does not develop brain function of any kind until about 7 weeks, and some neuroscientists are showing that cortical connections that would allow awareness are not made until 24 weeks, about the time when various sleep states are entered by the fetus. Some texts show that the fetus is not capable of awareness before 16 weeks, and does not have the mechanisms for awareness until after 26 weeks.  It has also been demonstrated that the fetus is never actually conscious (and therefore not self-aware) until birth.

     

    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/pn094.pdf

     

    Smith, R. Fetal Awareness. Obstetrics, Gynaecology &Reproductive Medicine Volume 19, Issue 4, April 2009, Pages 115-116 .

     

    http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice

     

    Therefore, the embryo is neither morally nor philosophically a person in any normal case of abortion. So, women, who *are* persons under the law, not sex slaves or baby factories, do have the right to choose whether to create and sustain life with their bodies or within their bodies. And when that life is born and becomes a full thinking, emoting, self-aware human being, women have the right and responsibility to take the best possible care they can for it. Including helping it live in a world where freedom of choice and action is valued.

  • prochoiceferret

    I hope you are making that statement as some sort of satire, perhaps in the vein of Jonathan Swift?

     

    Oh, certainly. Anti-choicers tend to be a little thick in the head, so we often have to drag out the modest-proposal heavy artillery before they begin to realize the horrificness of their ways. (Even then, it doesn’t always work.)

     

    You see a lot of it from the anti-choicers too, though it’s usually not intentional on their part.

  • jan

    How many times and in how many ways can you be told that you are wrong before you finally get it, Bei???  The only way that you would ever possibly understand is if you had a parasite in your body, leeching off of your organs that you didn’t want there.  That is what an unwanted pregnancy is to a woman.  Maybe in your next life, if there is any justice, you will come back as a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy with no resources and only one way out, that you will understand and finally GET IT.  Or maybe you will come down with a tapeworm in this life…the anxiety and the result is the same.

  • jan

    How many times and in how many ways can you be told that you are wrong before you finally get it, Bei???  The only way that you would ever possibly understand is if you had a parasite in your body, leeching off of your organs that you didn’t want there.  That is what an unwanted pregnancy is to a woman.  Maybe in your next life, if there is any justice, you will come back as a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy with no resources and only one way out, that you will understand and finally GET IT.  Or maybe you will come down with a tapeworm in this life…the anxiety and the result is the same.

  • beenthere72

    If Born really is Bei, he truely is a sociopath. 

  • princess-rot

    t is amazing to me how, generally speaking, the people who eschew such a notion are generally older, as if people are seemingly incapable of controlling themselves.

    Let’s face it, Equalist, “people” in this context actually means “women”. We are the ones who are expected to walk the cobweb tightrope of playing gatekeeper to male sexual urges and yet at the same time submissive to male desires. I hold the firm belief that this is purely based in misogyny – why else would all the grot, consequences, sacrafices, fear, costs, and punishments born of living by fundie sexual “morals” accrue directly to women and women alone?

  • mzmarit

    Thank you for this article! I have many hopes in regards to this issue being debunked, but one main one is that groups like NOW, Planned Parenthood and NARAL actually acknowledge the notion of ‘fetus as slave’ (along with black genocide claims) and tackle it head on. I guess it would also mean contending with larger issues around reproductive justice, which would benefit them greatly.

     

    Great job again, thank you so much,

    Marit

  • princess-rot

    Or unless they can figure out a way to prevent pregnancy without killing a preborn child.

    Yet your written personal beliefs lead to the conclusion that you are also against contraception: “If you [read: women] can’t handle being a parent [read: pregnant], you [read: women] shouldn’t have sex [read: gatekeep the pussy from men].”

     

    So, how does that work? We’re supposed to be submissive to men’s desires within the context of marriage, yet actively repel men’s desires if we don’t want to reproduce because the sole purpose of our submission is to procreate, men’s desires are the most important thing and it’s a woman’s “job” to fulfill them but only if we take all the responsibility for precautions, which we aren’t supposed to use because taking precautions is also a way of avoiding responsibility because the sole purpose of our submission is to procreate and if we don’t want to do that… hello!… we’re back to square fucking one again.

     

    Damned if we do, damned if we don’t. Your opinion is crap, your arguments are specious, contradictory, impractical and hateful. Go away.

  • arekushieru

    They don’t even have a ‘choice’ about being born.  Derrrr….  That ‘logic’ really escapes me….

  • jan

    So there goes your silly argument Bei! :  )