Glenn Beck, Alveda King, and Reproductive Rights


Even if you just wanted Glenn Beck and his over-publicized rally to go away, please take a minute to read what African American clergy, and civil rights and women’s health leaders have to say. It’s important.

This past weekend, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) brought together leaders of the African American community to expose a little-noticed aspect of the Beck event – the attempt to use the legacy of the civil rights movement to undermine African American women’s reproductive rights. Alveda King figures prominently in this scheme – with her ludicrous charges of abortion as “black genocide” and her comparison of anti-choice activists to Freedom Riders.

That Beck held this event at the Lincoln Memorial, on the 47th anniversary of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s historic “I Have a Dream” speech and the famous March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, is insulting to Americans of all races and religions who have worked for equality, unity, and inclusion. It is contrary to Dr. King’s ideals of justice, freedom, and respect for the dignity of all people. But there’s still more – it includes an offensive and harmful anti-woman anti-choice message (and you probably won’t read about this in the press, because they either don’t get it or don’t care).

The message about reproductive health conveyed at this event is connected to the “Right-to-Life” billboard/legislation campaign in Georgia that asserted that African American children are an ‘endangered species’ (and that SisterSong and its allies successfully crushed), and to Alveda King’s “Freedom Rides for the Unborn” (under the auspices of “Priests for Life”). Outrage over this campaign is growing in the African American community nationally as the billboards go up in new states and on-air ads begin. 

To quote RCRC’s president, Reverend Dr. Carlton W. Veazey:

“Disparaging clinics that provide abortion, birth control and reproductive health services is harmful to individual women and to communities struggling with high rates of unintended pregnancy, teen births and HIV/AIDS. It insults the intelligence and values of African Americans and is offensive to women who make conscientious moral decisions about pregnancy.”

The Religious Right has never been able to gain much support in African American communities, and it’s no wonder.

Read more about RCRC’s perspectives and our event at http://www.rcrc.org.

As Reverend Veazey, said: 

“The ‘Religious Right’ and the Tea Party can hold a rally on the anniversary of a time that is sacred in our nation’s march to equality but there is no question that they are not – and never have been – concerned about the African American community or about the racism, poverty and injustice that Dr. King was dedicated to eradicating.”

Or about women’s reproductive health.

It’s up to the pro-choice community to expose the “Religious Right’s” true motives in the African American community – to close clinics and ultimately to gain more support for ending legal abortion. It’s not to protect African American children.

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

To schedule an interview with Marjorie B. Signer please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Great article! I’ve been trying to ignore the “Beck hate-fest.” Thanks for writing about this and the link to the RCRC.

  • kevin-rahe

    Alveda King figures prominently in this scheme – with her ludicrous charges of abortion as “black genocide” and her comparison of anti-choice activists to Freedom Riders.

     

    When the 13% of women in this country who are African-American obtain 36% of all the abortions, it’s not at all a stretch to call it a “black genocide.”  Unless you don’t believe that a black woman’s abortion kills a black child, in which case you need to explain yourself.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Kevin, did you read the link in the article to the RCRC? (http://www.rcrc.org)
    A synopsis -

    RCRC’s Reverend Carlton Veazey & Other Leading African American Clergy & Civil Rights Activists Blast Glenn Beck Rally & Alveda King’s “Freedom Rides for the Unborn” as Insulting to Americans of All Races & to the Legacy of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    Leading African American clergy and civil rights activists blasted the August 28 Glenn Beck rally and Alveda King’s “Freedom Rides for the Unborn” as insulting to Americans of all races and religions who have worked for equality, unity, and inclusion and contrary to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ideals of justice, freedom, and respect for the dignity of all people. The controversial rally is being held on the 47th anniversary of Dr. King’s historic “I Have A Dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and the landmark March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

    “The ‘Religious Right’ and the Tea Party can hold a rally on the anniversary of a time that is sacred in our nation’s march to equality but there is no question that they are not – ……………………………….“Religious Right” attempts to hijack the civil rights movement for its own political agenda……………………………………………………………………
    Reverend Dr. Timothy McDonald, Pastor of First Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta and an immediate past member of the RCRC Board who served as the assistant minister of Ebenezer Baptist Church, Dr. King’s church in Atlanta, and had close connections to Mrs. Coretta Scott King and others in the King family, pointed out that teen pregnancy in the African American community is often related to poverty. He urged the “Religious Right” to “walk the walk” and join with RCRC and other women’s health and anti-poverty and anti-racism advocates to provide accurate information and services that enable women to make their own choices. Alveda King and others on the “Religious Right” who want to rewrite history in the name of Dr. King should remember that Dr. King and Mrs. King supported family planning services to improve the lives of African American women aned families, he said. Dr. King was honored by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1966.

    Jill Morrison, senior counsel in reproductive health and rights at the National Women’s Law Center, characterized “Religious Right” claims that abortion in the African American community amounts to genocide as an “attempt to infantilize, dehumanize and objectify Black women under the guise of protecting the race.” …………… ……………….

     

    Also, another great article on the topic, “Why Alveda King Is Perfect For Glenn Beck’s Rally.” http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/why-alveda-king-perfect-glenn-becks-rally

    Basically, Alveda King has been cut off from the King family because she has made a career out of trading on the King name while peddling views that are diametrically opposed to those held by Martin Luther King Jr … and so it only makes sense that Glenn Beck has tapped her to speak at his rally being held on the anniversary of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech as Beck tries to claim King’s mantle for himself.

  • beenthere72

    African-Americans account for approximately 20% of US population.  African-American births account for approximately 20% of all births.   

     

    Pregnancy rates for African-American’s are 2/3rds higher than the rate for white women. 

     

    With all that supposed ‘genocide’ going on, African-Americans have the 2 fastest growing population in the US, 2nd only to Hispanics.     Please explain THAT!

  • kevin-rahe

    Dr. King didn’t have the benefit of hindsight that we have now when it comes to the effects of widespread use of artificial contraceptives, nor did he have any idea that Roe v. Wade would happen, let alone what effects it would have on his race.

  • kevin-rahe

    African-Americans account for approximately 20% of US population.

     

    Actually, as of 2008 they were 12.4% of the population.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity

     

    African-American births account for approximately 20% of all births.

     

    As of 2010, their birth rate is slightly higher than whites (2,140 per 1000 women vs. 2,098 per 1000), and far below Hispanics (2,818 per 1000).  http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/83_projected_fertility_rates_by_race_origin.html

     

    With all that supposed ‘genocide’ going on, African-Americans have the 2 fastest growing population in the US, 2nd only to Hispanics.

     

    With a slightly higher birth rate than whites but a far higher rate of infant mortality, they are barely ahead of whites in population growth.  http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=3021

  • squirrely-girl

    Unless you don’t believe that a black woman’s abortion kills a black child, in which case you need to explain yourself.

    Maybe because she’s only 1/2 of that DNA…

     

    Could a white woman’s abortion not also kill a “black child”? For that matter, could a black woman’s abortion not also be killing an Asian or Latino child? 

  • beenthere72

    my bad.   I did actually compute population and birth rates incorrectly.  

     

    But according to this:  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf

    Table 1.0 Pregnancy rates among all women aged 15–19 and among those who have ever had sex; and rates of pregnancy, birth and abortion, and abortion ratios, among women aged 15–19, by race/ethnicity, all according to year, 1986–2006

    Birth rates are:  64.6 versus 38.2 for 2006

    And pregnancy rate numbers are 126.3  versus 61.1 for 2006

     

    and from here:  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_15.pdf 

     

    “Pregnancy rates for non-Hispanic black and Hispanic women in 2004 were fairly similar, 139.3 and 145.7 per 1,000, respectively, each about two-thirds higher than the rate for non-Hispanic white women, 84.3.”

     

    And while googling, I came across this frightening study:

     

    http://www.prb.org/Articles/2005/ConspiracyBeliefsMayBeHinderingHIVPreventionAmongAfricanAmericans.aspx

     

     

  • kevin-rahe

    I don’t see where delving into birth/pregnancy rates by age would significantly alter the discussion.

  • prochoiceferret

    Dr. King didn’t have the benefit of hindsight that we have now when it comes to the effects of widespread use of artificial contraceptives, nor did he have any idea that Roe v. Wade would happen, let alone what effects it would have on his race.

     

    Perhaps. But reading his words in response to winning the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 might shed some light on what he would have thought.

  • prochoiceferret

    When the 13% of women in this country who are African-American obtain 36% of all the abortions, it’s not at all a stretch to call it a “black genocide.”

     

    So if we were to have a Nuremburg-type trial for the perpetrators of this “genocide,” who would be up on the docket as the leader(s) who signed the order(s) to “kill?”

  • invalid-0

    They don’t.  They seem to say ‘thank you for the encouragement of my work’ and neglect to say anything about abortion.

  • prochoiceferret

    They don’t.  They seem to say ‘thank you for the encouragement of my work’ and neglect to say anything about abortion.

     

    Well, I’m sure he would have turned 180 degrees on PPFA/Sanger if he had found out that they dared to give African-Americans control over their own reproduction.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Dr. King didn’t have the benefit of hindsight that we have now when it comes to the effects of widespread use of artificial contraceptives, nor did he have any idea that Roe v. Wade would happen, let alone what effects it would have on his race.

    What?

    “Effects of widespread use of artificial contraceptives” The effects like women being in control of their own bodies? I think he may have been pleased at the advance family planning options since he was in favor of family planning.

    From Dr. King’s speech, “Family Planning — A Special and Urgent Concern”

    “For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.” …………………

    For these constructive movements we are prepared to give our energies and consistent support; because in the need for family planning, Negro and white have a common bond; and together we can and should unite our strength for the wise preservation, not of races in general, but of the one race we all constitute — the human race.

    http://www.birthcontrolwatch.org/blog/2009/01/martin-luther-king-jr-and-margaret.html

  • jodi-jacobson

    I don’t understand your point.

     

    To be very honest, what Dr. King might have thought is pretty much irrelevant to what African American women today think, feel, and want, and they are more than equipped to decide for themselves without your intervention.

     

    Women obtain abortions because they are facing unwanted/untenable/unintended pregnancies.  If you start by asking why so many have unintended pregnancies, then you might trace back to the realities in 2010: women of color still have less access to comprehensive reproductive health care including but not limited to birth control. Lack of access to preventive services is one reason African American women die at higher rates than their white counterparts of cervical and breast cancer, have higher rates of sexually transmitted infections including HIV, and experience higher rates of unintended pregnancies.  Lack of preventive care also leads to high rates of untreated high blood pressure, diabetes adn so on.  Looking more broadly, there is partner violence, lack of access to health care, lack of access to secure employment, and many other factors that contribute to the fact that there are much higher rates of unintended pregnancies, which lead to higher rates of abortion.

     

    Please don’t pretend to care about women if you are speaking at them or for them while being unwilling either to listen to them, to recognize their agency, or to work together with us to address the core issues we all face.

     

     

  • cpolis

    Kevin,

    This is quite easily explained.  In the United States, rates of unintended pregnancy are much higher among black women than among women of other races.  In 2001, 69% of all pregnancies to black women were unintended, while only 54% of pregnancies to Hispanic women and 40% of pregnancies to white women were unintended.*  Black women experience a higher burden of unintended pregnancy, and are also more likely to seek abortion.

    Perhaps you would be right in calling it “genocide” if abortion providers were seeking out pregnant black women to force them to have abortions.  But that is not the case.  The higher abortion rate among black women is related to their higher burden of unintended pregnancy, which is in and of itself related to a variety of factors that put minority populations at a disadvantage for successful prevention of unintended pregnancy, including poverty and lack of education.

     

    So, if you are concerned about a black “genocide” through abortion, perhaps you might focus your attention on ensuring that black women (and preferably, all women) who wish to prevent pregnancy have access to affordable and accessible contraceptive services.

    Chelsea

     

    * Finer LB, Henshaw SK.  Disparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001.  Perspec Sex Reprod Health 2006;38(2):90-96.

     

  • saltyc

    Really, hits all the notes. Bravo.

  • bornin1984

    The Religious Right has never been able to gain much support in African American communities, and it\’s no wonder.

    Someone forgot to tell the OP that Blacks, in general, are far more closer to Republicans, and yes even the dreaded religious right, than they are Democrats when it comes to social issues. When it comes to views on abortion Alveda King comes a hell of a lot closer to the view of the Blacks in general than is the RCRC (or even NAACP, for that matter).

  • bornin1984

    Double

  • invalid-0

    I didn’t realize that the African American community needed help controlling their reproduction.  I’ve always thought of them as human beings, not animals.

     

    Has anybody bothered to ask why it is that black people have as many unintended pregnancies as they do?  

     

    Also, was Margaret Sanger a racist?

  • squirrely-girl

    To be very honest, what Dr. King might have thought is pretty much irrelevant to what African American women today think, feel, and want, and they are more than equipped to decide for themselves without your intervention.

     

    But don’t all women… especially black women… need to know what a man might have wanted them to do with their uteruses back in 1966 before they can make informed decisions with what to do with their bodies today????  //end snark

  • crowepps
    the effects of widespread use of artificial contraceptives

    I’d appreciate a clarification — in your opinion just what ARE the ‘effects’ of ‘artificial contraceptives’? Keeping in mind that correlation does not equal causation?

     

    For that matter, the term ‘artificial contraceptives’ is kind of confusing. What is a NON-artificial contraceptive?

  • squirrely-girl

    I didn’t realize that the African American community needed help controlling their reproduction. 

     

    Ummm… short of community wide, total abstinence or some weird telekinetic power I don’t know about, most women need help controlling their reproduction.

    Has anybody bothered to ask why it is that black people have as many unintended pregnancies as they do?

    Quite a bit actually. Numerous discussions over which have been posted here on RHRC. Inconsistent or limited access to birth control and factual information about reproduction have been oft been cited as several of the top contributing issues. 

     

    Also, was Margaret Sanger a racist?

    Really? Are we really going to play the ad hominem game? From past experience, I think the arguments generally come down to a debate over racism versus eugenics, the latter of which was a rather popular position in some medical and academic circles at the time (yay for trying to interpret modern social problems through a lens of a former century), end in a stalemate of sorts, and for the most part irritate everybody except Born/Bei because he finally has a “new” topic to nauseate everybody with. Sound fun?! 

  • squirrely-girl

    just what ARE the ‘effects’ of ‘artificial contraceptives’?

     

    1. Teh womenz taking all the jobs from teh menz. Duh?!

    2. Teh menz not getting their clothes ironed cuz teh womenz don’t have to stay home with teh million kidz.

     

  • colleen

    The existence of ‘artificial contraception’ makes the possibility of marrying some boring, sanctimonious asshole really even more remote for millions of women. For this alone it is a boon to womankind.
    Statistically, it’s about as common for a woman to eschew effective contraception as it is for a US black to vote republican.

  • kevin-rahe

    If you start by asking why so many have unintended pregnancies

     

    A.  Given that such a large number of them happen to unmarried black women and girls, I’d say that they’re looking for love in all the wrong places, and all the wrong ways.

  • colleen

    Given that such a large number of them happen to unmarried black women and girls, I’d say that they’re looking for love in all the wrong places, and all the wrong ways.

    Right, Kevin. You know, advice about how to look for ‘love’ from you is about as compelling as advice from Cardinal Lay about how to protect children from pedophile clergy.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Kevin, your statement is racist.

     

    “Given that such a large number of them happen to unmarried black women and girls, I’d say that they’re looking for love in all the wrong places, and all the wrong ways.”

     

     

    Women of color (including African-American women) have less access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare, not limited to birth control. Not because, as you would say, “unmarried black women and girls…[are] looking for love in all the wrong places, and all the wrong ways.” You are stereotyping African-American women. A flat out a racist statement. All women need access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare, ALL WOMEN. Women in a lower socioeconomic status have little, inadequate, or no access to healthcare, including reproductive healthcare. So please spare me the “looking for love in all the wrong places” bull.

  • wendy-banks

    What a wonderful letter from a wise and intelligent man.

  • kevin-rahe

    advice about how to look for ‘love’ from you is about as compelling…

     

    Do you know me personally?  Or is there something I’ve said on this site that suggests I have a view of love that would likely lead to the problems of which we speak?

  • kevin-rahe

    Kevin, your statement is racist.

     

    Given that this whole article is about African-Americans, you can pretty much discount the fact that I even said “black,” though I will admit I could have boldfaced the word “unmarried” to be more clear about my intended emphasis.

     

    I would say the same thing about unmarried women of any race, if that makes you less likely to see me as a racist.  (Again, a charge that those who know me would never make, especially since one of my wife’s best friends and many of her family’s acquaintances are African-American.)

  • colleen

    My comment was based on many things you have said on this site. I suggest your view of ‘love’ inevitably leads to worse situations than unwanted pregnancies.

  • bornin1984

    Number one, there was nothing racist about the statement Kevin made. It is a very common sentiment among Blacks, even if it is not politically correct to say.

    Number two, nothing irks me more than the argument that Blacks have a higher abortion rate because they have less access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare. Ignoring the fact that they somehow seem to have no problem finding access to abortion (which, for the record, costs a heck of a lot more than a pack of condoms at your local convenience store, which pretty much every convenience store in the Black community sells and is a lot easier to come by than an abortion), it really is not all that true.

    According to data compiled by the CDC, 64.7% of Whites report contraceptive use and 54.5% of Blacks report contraceptive use, a 10.2% difference. Now, before you go claiming how that makes your point, it is important to note that Blacks report higher instances of female sterilization (21.8 vs. 14.9), the use of monthly injections or patches (0.6 vs. 0.5), the use of Depo-Provera (4.1 vs 1.4) and contraceptive rings (1.7 vs. 1.6) than Whites, while Whites report higher instances of male sterilization (8.3 vs. 1.1), the use of the pill (21.2 vs. 11.4), the use of IUDs (3.3 vs. 2.8), the use of condoms (9.5 vs 8.8) and the use of the rhythm method, the withdrawal method and other methods, those being 0.5, 3.3 and 0.3, respective, versus being unreported for Blacks. For the sake of argument, I am going to ignore male sterilization (unless, of course, someone has a problem with that?), as it has nothing to do with women, but rather men, and I am going to ignore the rhythm and withdrawal methods, as those are, as far as I am concerned, not acceptable forms of contraception, much less forms of contraception that have to do with access to healthcare. If we did so, you would find that the use of contraceptives between Blacks and Whites would be comparable, with the biggest differences between the two being that Blacks are more likely than Whites to rely on sterilization and Depo-Provera, while whites are more likely to rely on the pill than Blacks.

    So can someone please explain to me how that boils down to a lack of access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare?

    (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf, page 31)

  • rebellious-grrl

    Sure Born,

    That’s why there were so many African-Americans and people of color at tea party events and the Glenn Beck rally.

    7/23/2010 – A CNN poll shows 73 percent of African-Americans think some or all of Tea Party supporters – who generally lean Republican – are racially prejudiced. And only 26 percent of African-Americans think the Republican Party does a good job of reaching out to minorities.

    http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/23/gut-check-how-republicans-attract-more-african-americans/

    As for Alveda King,

    Basically, Alveda King has been cut off from the King family because she has made a career out of trading on the King name while peddling views that are diametrically opposed to those held by Martin Luther King Jr … and so it only makes sense that Glenn Beck has tapped her to speak at his rally being held on the anniversary of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech as Beck tries to claim King’s mantle for himself.

    Why Alveda King Is Perfect For Glenn Beck’s Rally
    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/why-alveda-king-perfect-glenn-becks-rally

  • beenthere72

    There you go blaming the women again.    You conveniently forget that it takes two to tango?

  • rebellious-grrl

    The article is about the religious right attempting to use the legacy of the civil rights movement to undermine African American women’s reproductive rights.

    Kevin, I feel your statement about blaming African-American women is racist. Instead of using critical analysis to determine why African-American women may have higher rates of pregnancy and abortion you wrongly judge and castigate African-American women (and/or women of color) by stating the reason for their higher rates of unintended pregnancy are because “they’re looking for love in all the wrong places, and all the wrong ways.” You ignore race/class and access to healthcare, you ignore the fact of institutional rascim in the healthcare system.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Wow Born do actually believe the stuff you write?

  • forced-birth-rape

    Born and Kevin have no business commenting on abortion since they do not have vaginas. How nice is it of christian men, to tell women, little girls, and rape victims “You are going to have extreme vaginal pain, against your will, because I, a christian men, tells you you are.”

    Born and kevin have no business dictating my vigina, and forcing it to do, something I dont want it to do.

    I was raised in a baptist home and this year I became a atheist because of you perverted prolifers that do not give a tiny damn about women, and little girls.

    I was sexualy abused as a child, I dont like growing up, and finding out, there is a whole nother group out there, who wants to force my vigana to do something I dont want it to do, that causes it exstreme pain!

    Who are these people? christians, catholics, and prolifers.

    These people are the american taliban.

    They are not satisified unless they are hurting women and little girls. And YES forced pregnancy, and forced birth, hurts women and little girls horribly bad.

    The prolifers is nothing but a giant rape mob.

  • prochoiceferret

    I didn’t realize that the African American community needed help controlling their reproduction.  I’ve always thought of them as human beings, not animals.

     

    And apparently, you believe that “human beings” only have sex when they want to reproduce… which is actually a lot more like most animals, than actual human beings.

     

    Has anybody bothered to ask why it is that black people have as many unintended pregnancies as they do?

     

    No one on the “pro-life” side has, as far as I’ve seen… they just went straight for the “black genocide” schtick. It’s almost like they were interested in something other than actually helping African-Americans…

     

    Also, was Margaret Sanger a racist?

     

    Also, was Thomas Jefferson a slave owner?

  • bornin1984

    Wow Born do actually believe the stuff you write?

    Links are provided for a reason.

  • kevin-rahe

    Kevin, I feel your statement about blaming African-American women is racist.

     

    Because it’s a convenient and demeaning label that you can use to try to stop me from exposing your lies.

     

    You ignore race/class

     

    Well, then I’m not a racist.

     

    you ignore the fact of institutional rascim in the healthcare system

     

    At least I’m not the only one.  I completely agree with Alveda King on this issue.  Are you suggesting that she’s racist, too?  And what about racism in the abortion business?  Or is it just coincidence that 78% of abortion clinics are located in minority areas?  Or that abortion is the leading cause of death among blacks?

  • rebellious-grrl

    Because it’s a convenient and demeaning label that you can use to try to stop me from exposing your lies.

    BULL, BULL, BULL

    When I said this to you, You ignore race/class and access to healthcare, you ignore the fact of institutional rascim in the healthcare system.  It was not a compliment. Wow you have really piled on the crap here.

     

    For reference -

    Loretta Ross one of the leading scholars of racial politics of reproductive politics in the U.S. was interviewed about the racial politics of abortion, posted at http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/03/29/black-abortion-battleground-georgia.

    In the video Loretta talked about the importance of the authority, autonomy, and empowerment of African American women. She said, “There is always an intersection of race and reproductive politics in this country……To fight population control and genocide, the object of that genocide should make the decisions for themselves.”

     

     

    Alveda King, is entitled to believe whatever she wants. I feel she is being used by the likes of Glenn Beck to force their anti-choice agenda, when in reality Glenn Beck and the like are racist and don’t give a crap about African-American children.

     

     

    Also abortion is not the leading cause of death among African-Americans. let’s try, 1. Hearth Disease, and #2 is Cancer.

     

     

    Links:
    Statistics on Health Disparities Among African Americans
    http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/aahealth/currentstats.cfm
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/black_health.htm

  • kevin-rahe

    Born and Kevin have no business commenting on abortion since they do not have vaginas.

     

    I’m just supporting the women I know who feel exactly the same way I do about abortion.

     

    The other fallacy that’s implied here is that abortion doesn’t affect everyone.  The fact is, it touches all of us, even many who don’t realize it and vaccinate their children as required by the state with vaccines cultured using cells from an aborted fetus.  ABORTION IS EVERYWHERE AND IT AFFECTS ALL OF US.

  • princess-rot

    The fact is, it touches all of us, even many who don’t realize it and vaccinate their children as required by the state with vaccines cultured using cells from an aborted fetus.  ABORTION IS EVERYWHERE AND IT AFFECTS ALL OF US.

    Exactly like measles, mumps, percussis, polio, rubella and various poxes will be if you anti-vaxxers get your way. Unlike those, abortion is not contagious and doesn’t apply retroactively.

  • kevin-rahe

    I’m not sure where you got the idea that I’m an “anti-vaxxer.”  My children get vaccinated against most of the recommended diseases, but it is getting more difficult to obtain ethical alternatives to some of the vaccines made using cells from an aborted fetus, and for others no ethical alternative is available at all in this country.

    http://www.cogforlife.org/

  • princess-rot

    Kevin, I do not particularly care about your position on vaccines either way.

     

    It’s your “omg-I’m-a-special-snowflake-being-contaminated-by-abortions” hyperbole I was snarking at. That is a view commonly found among people who are against vaccines because they think one cell line is somehow defiling them and their precious pure beliefs – so I could be forgiven for thinking you are an anti-vaxxer when you parrot their talking points. It is also commonly found, albeit for a slightly different reason, amongst people who identify as “pro-life”, who think someone else’s termination is contaminating the morals of society. I’d laugh at it for being completely absurd if moralistic panty-sniffers and their hysterical whining weren’t actually harming women. I am not against using fetal tissues in cell research and vaccines. If the use of however many aborted fetuses cures Alzheimer’s, AIDS, or cancer in the long run… it might even help those precious born babies with genetic disorders, yanno?

  • kevin-rahe

    Kevin, I do not particularly care about your position on vaccines either way.

     

    Of course you don’t, since your only real objective is to discredit me any way you can.

     

    the use of however many aborted fetuses … might even help those precious born babies with genetic disorders, yanno?

     

    What about helping unborn babies with genetic disorders?

  • prochoiceferret

    I’m just supporting the women I know who feel exactly the same way I do about abortion.

     

    Great! I’m sure you’ll remind them not to have an abortion when they are faced with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.

     

    The other fallacy that’s implied here is that abortion doesn’t affect everyone.  The fact is, it touches all of us, even many who don’t realize it and vaccinate their children as required by the state with vaccines cultured using cells from an aborted fetus.  ABORTION IS EVERYWHERE AND IT AFFECTS ALL OF US.

     

    This might be more persuasive if social conservatives hadn’t also complained that GAY SEX IS EVERYWHERE AND IT AFFECTS ALL OF US.

     

    Oh, not to mention that WOMENS’ BARE BREASTS ARE EVERYWHERE AND THEY AFFECT ALL OF US.

  • jayn

    What about helping unborn babies with genetic disorders?

     

    Assuming that the parents intend for that unborn baby to become a born baby, yeah it’ll help them too.

     

    I have to admit that I find some of the anti-choicer ideology around using fetal/embryonic tissue for medical purposes, especially research, to be a bit perplexing.  Abortions aren’t happening for the purpose of providing doctors with lab supplies, and the unused embryos from IVF clinics are going to be disposed of anyways.  Regardless of how you feel about abortion or fertility treatments, use of fetuses for medical purposes is only a side effect, not an intended goal.  Why waste perfectly good tissue that could be used to find ways to help people?  Talk about throwing the baby out with the, erm…placenta?

  • kevin-rahe

    I have to admit that I find some of the anti-choicer ideology around using fetal/embryonic tissue for medical purposes, especially research, to be a bit perplexing.

     

    I’m not sure why.  What kind of reasoning would find it wrong to take the life of an embryo/fetus that without further intervention would be born, while permitting the taking of the same life for medical purposes, or “benefitting” from a life wrongly taken?  I can imagine that some in the Third Reich thought similarly of the moralists of the day.

     

    You hit upon the key word, however, which is “purpose.”  By utilizing tissue from aborted babies, you are confusing the purpose of abortion, and stepping into a realm not envisioned in Roe v. Wade.  And those frozen embryos were created with a purpose in mind – to bring a baby to term.  What right have we to change their purpose?  We’re not talking about bacteria or some industrial byproduct.  We’re talking about complete, distinct, living, unconditionally viable and fully human beings.  They deserve more dignity and consideration than we give to petroleum derivatives that get turned into artificial knees.

  • jayn

    permitting the taking of the same life for medical purposes

     

    While I disagree that this is the taking of a life, I can agree that taking one for such purposes is wrong.  (Though it still isn’t the reason they’re being taken in the first place, except on South Park)

     

    “benefitting” from a life wrongly taken

     

    Silver lining, I suppose.  Not all of our previous medical research (hell, I won’t even say all of today’s research) has been done under conditions we would accept today, but we don’t toss out that research.  It’s still useful and beneficial, and to disregard it would cause the suffering caused to be for nothing, while also adding to the suffering of others today.

     

    Just because we see something as being evil, doesn’t mean we can’t turn the results of such evil to good purposes.

     

    And those frozen embryos were created with a purpose in mind – to bring a baby to term.  What right have we to change their purpose?

     

    I’m guessing that in most of these cases, their purpose has already been realised–a baby has been brought to term.  It’s not so much changing their purpose, as that they no longer have one to fulfill.  I can see your point about them deserving more dignity (I don’t agree with it, but I understand it), but I don’t see giving them new purpose as being less dignified than what they would otherwise experience.

  • kevin-rahe

    to disregard it would cause the suffering caused to be for nothing, while also adding to the suffering of others today.

     

    I don’t think that institutionalizing the obtaining of benefits from suffering does much toward ending the suffering.  In fact, I suggest that if it has any effect at all on the suffering, it is quite the opposite.  And failing to do these things cannot “add to the suffering,” of others – at worst it can only delay or eliminate relief from their suffering.

     

    Just because we see something as being evil, doesn’t mean we can’t turn the results of such evil to good purposes.

     

    I don’t believe in using evil means to achieve a good end.

  • princess-rot

    What about helping unborn babies with genetic disorders?

     

    And if the cures for those disorders come from research using other fetal/stem tissue – a method which is currently so heavily restricted it cannot do – we are back at square one again, aren’t we?

     

     

    Of course you don’t, since your only real objective is to discredit me any way you can.

     

    I’ll stop trying to “discredit” you when you aren’t parroting anti-choice propaganda like they are facts and arguing that you’d prefer women to remain pregnant against their will, because you think forcing the birth of unwanted children is better than women choosing for themselves. Even though it’s her life, and her uterus and really, the “baby” is only really affects her. For her it is real, not a comfy moral argument for self-righteous crusaders who want to be reassured they’re “saving” someone while leaving all the actual work to someone who can be safely ignored afterwards.

  • jayn

    I don’t think that institutionalizing the obtaining of benefits from suffering

     

    I’m not saying to cause suffering to obtain benefits, yeesh.  But if the suffering has already occurred, why not try and make use the end results of it to create something good?

     

    at worst it can only delay or eliminate relief from their suffering.

     

    Potayto, potahto.

     

    I don’t believe in using evil means to achieve a good end.

     

    See point A.

  • colleen

    I can imagine that some in the Third Reich thought similarly of the moralists of the day.

  • kevin-rahe

    And if the cures for those disorders come from research using other fetal/stem tissue – a method which is currently so heavily restricted it cannot do – we are back at square one again, aren’t we?

     

    Either that, or you can decide which babies should die so that others may live.

     

    I’ll stop trying to “discredit” you when you aren’t parroting anti-choice propaganda like they are facts

     

    If you show that one of my facts aren’t true, I’ll be the first to admit it and quit using it.  But that doesn’t happen.  In fact, none of the arguments I would have publicly put my name to before I ever visited this site have been impacted by the comments they’ve gotten here.

     

    you’d prefer women to remain pregnant against their will

     

    We’re not talking about cancer.  Except in cases of rape or incest, pregnancy doesn’t just “happen,” as I used to think when I would grill the nuns in my early grade school years about why they didn’t have babies (which probably drove them nuts since they couldn’t really explain it to me at that age).

  • prochoiceferret

    We’re not talking about cancer.  Except in cases of rape or incest, pregnancy doesn’t just “happen,”

     

    Neither do car accidents.

     

    But does this really make a difference to you? Are you okay with a mother aborting her unborn child if it was conceived through rape?

  • kevin-rahe

    But does this really make a difference to you? Are you okay with a mother aborting her unborn child if it was conceived through rape?

     

    No, I’m just trying to resolve your language to reality, and that’s the reality it resolves to.

  • prochoiceferret

    No, I’m just trying to resolve your language to reality, and that’s the reality it resolves to.

     

    The reality is that people aren’t perfect—and some people are less willing to allow room for mistakes than others.

     

    Which is why “Would you allow abortion in cases of rape?” is such an interesting question. Would you care to answer it, or are you going to ignore it completely a second time?

  • kevin-rahe

    The reality is that people aren’t perfect—and some people are less willing to allow room for mistakes than others.

     

    I’m as willing to allow for someone’s mistakes as anyone.  However, I realize that the same mistake can have drastically different consequences for different people, through no particular fault of their own.  For example, if someone allows their pickup truck to momentarily swerve over the centerline of a 2-lane road and no one is coming the other way, they’ve made a mistake and happened to “get away with it” as they say.  Someone else who does the same thing and hits a minivan full of children head-on doesn’t make any more of a mistake than the first person, but the consequences of that mistake are tremendously more serious.  Is it fair?  No.  Can anything really be done to fix the mistake with more serious consequences after the fact?  Probably not.  The best we can do is try to encourage everyone to be more careful and stay on their side of the road in the first place.

     

    “Would you allow abortion in cases of rape?” is such an interesting question.

     

    I have not seen a line of reasoning that is a product of critical thinking that would find abortion permissible in the case of rape or incest but condemn it in other cases.  In fact, such an idea ties the morality of abortion to the “guilt” of the mother rather than the act of taking the life of a baby.  In other words, a woman is allowed to procure an abortion if someone else judges her to be innocent but not if they find her “guilty,” reducing the baby to some kind of punishment.  I reject that argument categorically.  If a person deserves to be protected from being harmed by another person, they deserve that protection regardless of the intentions of the other person or the circumstances that put the other person in the position they’re in.

  • prochoiceferret

    Is it fair?  No.  Can anything really be done to fix the mistake with more serious consequences after the fact?  Probably not.  The best we can do is try to encourage everyone to be more careful and stay on their side of the road in the first place.

     

    Sure, there are lots of things you can do to reduce the risks. Which is a much smarter move than simply saying that no one (except people who own tanks, perhaps) should be driving in the first place.

     

    It’s too bad that social conservatives believe that teaching kids how to drive safely leads to reckless driving.

     

    I reject that argument categorically.  If a person deserves to be protected from being harmed by another person, they deserve that protection regardless of the intentions of the other person or the circumstances that put the other person in the position they’re in.

     

    It’s nice to see that a woman’s consent (or lack thereof) to sexual intercourse is not relevant to your position on a subsequent abortion. It’s too bad, however, that your tidy and intellectually-consistent position is inhumane to rape victims to a degree only slightly less than that of the rapist.

  • kevin-rahe

    Which is a much smarter move than simply saying that no one (except people who own tanks, perhaps) should be driving in the first place.

     

    Actually, I’m not saying that no one should be driving.  I’m saying that no one should be driving over the centerline – even when it appears “safe” to do so.

     

    your tidy and intellectually-consistent position is inhumane to rape victims to a degree only slightly less than that of the rapist.

     

    That’s specious.  By the time a rape victim realizes she’s pregnant, what is by far the most horrible thing done to her has already happened, and it has nothing to do with whether she’s pregnant or not.  I don’t think you’d find that the 70%+ of rape victims that become pregnant who bring their baby to term are more traumatized in the end than those who don’t.  In fact, I’d be willing to bet the opposite is true.  Perhaps a study has even been done about that.

     

    It’s too bad that social conservatives believe that teaching kids how to drive safely leads to reckless driving.

     

    I’ll comment on that travesty of reason later.

  • prochoiceferret

    That’s specious.  By the time a rape victim realizes she’s pregnant, what is by far the most horrible thing done to her has already happened, and it has nothing to do with whether she’s pregnant or not.

     

    The rape has nothing to do with why she’s pregnant?

     

    I don’t think you’d find that the 70%+ of rape victims that become pregnant who bring their baby to term are more traumatized in the end than those who don’t.  In fact, I’d be willing to bet the opposite is true.  Perhaps a study has even been done about that.

     

    I think what would help the rape victim avoid further trauma is to allow her to decide what she will do, and then respect that decision, rather than imposing one on her. After all…  disregarding her wishes is a very rapist-like thing to do, is it not?

     

    I’ll comment on that travesty of reason later.

     

    At least it’s good to see you don’t approve of ignorance as an educational policy.

  • kevin-rahe

    The rape has nothing to do with why she’s pregnant?

     

    Okay, I can see how what I wrote can be read that way, but obviously that’s not what I meant.

     

    I think what would help the rape victim avoid further trauma is to allow her to decide what she will do

     

    And I think that what would help her decide what to do is to have some reliable information about the impact the same choices she has have had on others that found themselves in the same situation.

     

    I’ll comment on that travesty of reason later.

    At least it’s good to see you don’t approve of ignorance as an educational policy.

     

    The travesty of reason is found in the link you provided, not the comment it was embedded in.  Sorry I failed to differentiate between the two.  No, I don’t believe in ignorance as an education policy.  But what is ignorant is believing that comprehensive sex “education” is education.  Detailed response still to come.

  • prochoiceferret

    Okay, I can see how what I wrote can be read that way, but obviously that’s not what I meant.

     

    So instead of being brainless, you’re just heartless. I don’t believe this is an improvement.

     

    And I think that what would help her decide what to do is to have some reliable information about the impact the same choices she has have had on others that found themselves in the same situation.

     

    What, you mean about the majority of women who have abortions and are glad to have not gone through with the associated pregnancies?

     

    The travesty of reason is found in the link you provided, not the comment it was embedded in.  Sorry I failed to differentiate between the two.  No, I don’t believe in ignorance as an education policy.  But what is ignorant is believing that comprehensive sex “education” is education.  Detailed response still to come.

     

    Take your time. It must be a bit complicated to argue that giving kids accurate information about sexuality and teaching them how to mitigate the associated risks is, somehow, not education.

  • squirrely-girl

    And I think that what would help her decide what to do is to have some reliable information about the impact the same choices she has have had on others that found themselves in the same situation.

    I can see where you’re going with that, but ultimately I think that decision NEEDS to be her’s and it NEEDS to be respected. What works for one person or even 99% of people doesn’t necessarily mean it works for everybody. 

     

    For example, if the overwhelming majority of women who became pregnant as the result of a rape decided FOR abortion and were plenty happy with that decision, should a woman who isn’t thinking about abortion feel pressured into aborting because it “worked out so well” for those other women? 

     

    Honestly, pressuring a woman in ANY direction with regard to reproductive decisions is just heinous in my mind. 

     

  • princess-rot

    Either that, or you can decide which babies should die so that others may live.

     

    That says more about you than it does about me, in fact, it tells me that you incapable of seeing the nuances of anything involving reproduction – it has to be a clear cut hierarchy in which one way is the only way. There is slim chance you are able to understand anything without that hierarchy being present, but I shall try:

     

    I, personally, do not get to decide what happens to other women’s pregnancies, because their bodies are not mine, and nobody should be obligated to provide babies for me, for society, in the name “life”, for a third party or for some nebulous concept of duty or morals. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. (Even so, the fact that the only difference between PIV and rape is consent needs some critical analysis, as does the fact that our society is focused on PIV as the only definitive “sex” for men, and their entitlement to it. There is nothing more oxymoronic than “natural right” when it causes so many problems for women, but that’s another post).

     

    Ideally, a  woman gives informed consent for what happens to her body and the contents thereof.

     

    Forcing birth, pregnancy, sex, sterilization, abortion or adoption on someone because they have been judged as “bad” because of X reason is wholly immoral, and barbaric and gets us nowhere. Actual instances of, or accusations of, selfishness or irresponsibility are not justifications for servitude of any sort. Selfishness comes in grades, and it is inherent to human life, maliciously intended or not. It is more selfish for others to force birth in the name of “good” than for an individual to willingly procure one abortion or ten, even if that willingness is misguided, positive education is better than passive force.

     

    One must have have given consent to donate organs after death, yet living women are treated in so many cases like their will doesn’t matter. Anything less than full unrestricted access to all options is reproductive slavery and continues the patriarchal tradition of treating women as incubators and unpaid care-givers, which has the domino effect of keeping all women lower-status, which in turn is likely to be exaggerated by how much (or not) a woman is affected by racism, classism, ableism and other institutional discriminations.

     

    I will never be convinced of the notion that a ZBEF is a “separate and unique individual deserving of protection” from conception because that is a ludicrous religious argument which offends me both as a feminist and science enthusiast. It assumes women do nothing in reproducing and are simply a flowerpot for the fetus to grow in, a homonculus theory for the twenty-first century. It assumes women are inherently stupid and must be controlled for their own good, like cattle. How much of it is to do with “women’s own good” is debateable because it reads a lot like apology for the specious politics of pro-lifers than any real regard for the quality of life.

     

    I will not be convinced that anyone other than the pregnant woman has any right over what happens her uterus and the contents thereof, like I have said, one must go so far as to have written, legal proof of consent to organ donation after death, but without exception, women’s bodily autonomy is seen as negotiable when they are still living. The only cases in which are sanctimoniously “permitted” to have full bodily autonomy is when it suits others to blame us for being raped or being pregnant, which still is not true autonomy because it relies solely on what others judge us to be worthy of, and since we live in a sexist society that judgement is always biased.

     

    If we are not full persons, then a fetus has absolutely no right to have more right to life than any other living being, and all at our expense. It’s a double insult. We don’t have full personhood, but a fetus is automatically entitled to a “right” no other human has, which is to commandeer another’s organs without ongoing and willing consent in order to sustain itself. Nobody can seriously say that potential humans are not seen to as worth more than born female humans in this world. (Even the fact I must clarify “humans” with “female” when I am talking about women in the abstract, or my meaning will be unclear because the average reader will assume “human=male”, is enough justification for this theory).

     

    [snip]…as I used to think when I would grill the nuns in my early grade school years about why they didn’t have babies…

    Ah, so you were worryingly fascinated with the reproductive business of others even then, despite it being none of your damn business. That’s a habit you’ve never grown out of.

  • bornin1984

    There is no such thing as a potential human. You either are or you are not. It is an insult to science to claim otherwise (But people do not like science when it does not suit them).

    Also, some people do not know what a right is, which would explain why the word is constantly misuses (Generally by those pro-choicers). The right in question is the right not to be killed. That is a right that everyone, save the unborn prior to 24 weeks, has. The means by which one protects that right is not the right itself. Indeed, the mean by which a specific right is protected is different for individuals based on a whole host of factors. I have never– not once– seen someone here argue that parents should not have to provide for their underage children on the basis that said children would be given special rights that child who is emancipated or over the age of eighteen has, even though that is the exact same argument said people try to spew in relation to abortion. It makes no sense, as you are just picking and choosing when to apply your own rationale.

    Anyway, there is one thing I do want to point out. Whether you like it or not, it is a simple fact that the unborn are separate and unique individuals from the moment of conception/conclusion of fertilizations onwards. I am too lazy to quote mine, so read for yourself.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

    http://www.clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=28

    The irony of the matter is that the only one relying on religion or personal beliefs, is you. But that is more-or-less all the pro-choice movement has to rely on.

  • squirrely-girl

    We just disagree :/

    There is no such thing as a potential human. You either are or you are not. It is an insult to science to claim otherwise (But people do not like science when it does not suit them).

     

    potential  po·ten·tial (pə-těn’shəl) 
    adj. 
     Capable of being but not yet in existence; latent. n.

    1.  The inherent ability or capacity for growth, development, orcoming into being.

     

    Fertilized eggs are not people or persons no matter how much you want them to be. It is an insult to your intelligence to claim otherwise. But people do not like science when it does not suit them, do they?

     

    Honestly, I think the whole “personal responsibility” angle was working a little better for you. 

     

    By the way, so what do you consider sperm and eggs to be? What about early embryonic miscarriages?

  • bornin1984

    Fertilized eggs are not people or persons no matter how much you want them to be. It is an insult to your intelligence to claim otherwise. But people do not like science when it does not suit them, do they?

    So to be a human being, you have to be a legal person and to be a legal person you have to be a philosophical person. Ergo, to be a human being, you have to be a philosophical person? I do not think so. That is called a conflation, and it is a logical fallacy. Scientifically, a human being is an extant member of the Homo genus of the Hominidae family characterized by erect carriage, bipedalism, high intellect and speech. Legally, a person is someone or something that has standing under the law. Philosophically, a person is, well, I do not really know because no one knows. Neither of those definitions is contingent on the other. As I say quite often, it is akin to arguing that in order to be blue (the color), you have to be blue (sad), and in order to be blue (sad), you have to be blue (vulgar or indecent). It does not make much sense, and it is playing with words and concepts. Of course, the reason pro-choicers do so is because it suits them to do so, as they can claim ignorance, and thusly relegate abortion to a matter of personal beliefs (i.e., since, philosophically, no one can agree to what a person is, then the unborn are not human beings and do not have standing under the law, which means there is no reason to limit abortion).

    In other words, why are you even bothering? As has been established time and time again, is that you (and like-minded individuals) are the only ones who discard science when it suits you, or impose your views onto science when it suits you to do so.

    By the way, so what do you consider sperm and eggs to be? What about early embryonic miscarriages?

    Sperm and eggs are germ cells. An embryo is a human being.

  • squirrely-girl

    So to be a human being, you have to be a legal person and to be a legal person you have to be a philosophical person. Ergo, to be a human being, you have to be a philosophical person?

    Cogito ergo sum…

    I do not think so.

    Descartes seemed to think so.

    Scientifically, a human being is an extant member of the Homo genus of the Hominidae family characterized by erect carriage, bipedalism, high intellect and speech.

    Maybe I’m sheltered, but none of the ZBEFs I’ve known are erect, bipedal, or possessing of intellect or speech. They have the potential to be so, however. This definition also describe the species as a whole not the individual examples/members. You may be happy to remove the individual from your understanding of the world, but even scientists remember to add them into the equation. How do you begin to categorize miscarriage, the failure to implant, chromosomal abnormalities, etc. 

     

    If a tree falls in the forest does it still make a sound?

     

    Sperm and eggs are germ cells. An embryo is a human being.

    I love when people think humans just appear like *magic* ::makes spirit fingers::

    Sperm + egg + *teh magic* = human being exists ::rolls eyes::

     

    One moment it doesn’t exist and the next moment it does! MAGIC!

     

    Your little equation completely removes the pernicious little issue of the woman and prenatal development. (And you seriously still want to know why we call you a misogynist? Really? I didn’t take you to be that dense.) If human beings just appeared magically at conception we’d squat them like eggs and males could sit on them for awhile while they develop. Oh darn… forgot that whole part where eggs aren’t chickens… yet. So in your world are humans the only species that just magically “appears.”

     

    You may be comfortable remaining purposefully ignorant of scientific concepts such as DEVELOPMENT… but thankfully many of the rest of us are not. Like I’ve said previously, the “science” angle doesn’t really seem to work for you. You might want to stick with “abortion is murder” or “teh slutty womenz chose to have sex” routines. 

  • prochoiceferret

    It does not make much sense, and it is playing with words and concepts.

     

    Yes, equating a one-celled organism to a person requires a lot of that. Perhaps once you’ve finished with that one, you can start on “pebble = mountain” or “rivet = 747.”

     

    In other words, why are you even bothering? As has been established time and time again, is that you (and like-minded individuals) are the only ones who discard science when it suits you, or impose your views onto science when it suits you to do so.

     

    Oh, those silly anti-choicers!

     

  • prochoiceferret

    There is no such thing as a potential human. You either are or you are not. It is an insult to science to claim otherwise (But people do not like science when it does not suit them).

     

    Oh, so you’re talking about being genetically human. Yes, at no point is a zygote/fetus/whatever genetically non-human. (I kind of thought this was obvious, but with anti-choicers, you never know.)

     

    However, a human zygote/fetus/etc. is obviously not yet a human being, no more than a pine cone is a pine tree. It is, at best, a human being in a potential stage of development—ergo, a “potential human being.” Just like a pine cone is a potential pine tree.

     

    Also, some people do not know what a right is, which would explain why the word is constantly misuses (Generally by those pro-choicers). The right in question is the right not to be killed. That is a right that everyone, save the unborn prior to 24 weeks, has.

     

    I’m sure that prisoners on death row and late-night home invaders everywhere will be heartened to learn this!

     

    It makes no sense, as you are just picking and choosing when to apply your own rationale.

     

    Yes, if you see no difference between violating a woman’s right to her body and placing parental responsibility on her for born children, then I can see why you would be so confused.

     

    Anyway, there is one thing I do want to point out. Whether you like it or not, it is a simple fact that the unborn are separate and unique individuals from the moment of conception/conclusion of fertilizations onwards.

     

    Great! Then I’m sure they won’t mind if the equally unique female individual goes her own separate way.

  • bornin1984

    Cogito ergo sum…

    Well, I am glad you learned Latin.

    Descartes seemed to think so.

    Indeed he did not. But if you want to go down this route, then I am more than happy to do so. I just love a good philosophical debate :)

    Maybe I\’m sheltered, but none of the ZBEFs I\’ve known are erect, bipedal, or possessing of intellect or speech.

    Which is why they are called characterisitcs. I really do not feel like playing semantics, but go look up the word if you do not know what it means.

    They have the potential to be so, however.

    No. These are things human beings have the potential to do. They are not things that one is, and not being able to do them does not make one any less of a human being. That is why they are called characteristics. You, however, probably do not understand this, but oh well.

    This definition also describe the species as a whole not the individual examples/members. You may be happy to remove the individual from your understanding of the world, but even scientists remember to add them into the equation.

    What are you talking about? There is not a single human alive today which is not apart of the genus homo or the Hominidae family. To define things based on individual examples is an exercise in futility, as there is not a single definition for human beings you could come up with if you tried to do it this way. In fact, you would have to come up with an excess of 7B+ definitions. But since you believe it can be done, I would like for you to humor me on the matter. I really would.

    How do you begin to categorize miscarriage, the failure to implant, chromosomal abnormalities, etc.

    The same way you categorize someone who dies before their first birthday, someone who dies before their second birthday and someone born with anencephaly.

    (It is a good thing we do not define things based on when they die or the number of chromosomes they have, is it not? I think so.)

    Your little equation completely removes the pernicious little issue of the woman and prenatal development. (And you seriously still want to know why we call you a misogynist? Really? I didn\’t take you to be that dense.)

    Indeed I did not have to remove it, because it has no bearing on whether or not the unborn at all times are human beings. I am guessing you chose not to click on any of the links provided. But seeing as how you have never clicked on them before, no matter how many times they are provided, it really did not surprise me any.

    If human beings just appeared magically at conception we\’d squat them like eggs and males could sit on them for awhile while they develop.

    Luckily for us all, conception is not a magical, nor instantaneous, event.

    Oh darn… forgot that whole part where eggs aren\’t chickens… yet. So in your world are humans the only species that just magically \”appears.\”

    And the above post just about sums up why you simply do not understand what you are talking about. It is important to note that humans are viviparous, while chickens are oviparous. Simplified, it means that when fertilization occurs in humans, both the egg and sperm cease to be and give rise to a new, genetically distinct organism, which after a few months of gestation is birthed live. On the flip side, whereas a chicken is concerned, when a chicken ovulates it releases a yolk into the oviduct. Whether or not the yolk is fertilized by sperm, the yolk becomes surrounded by a membrane, chalazae and layers of albumin. Upon reaching the end of the oviduct, the yolk is then surrounded by a crystalline form of calcium carbonate, thus forming the chicken egg you are familiar with. If, during its trip through the oviduct, the yolk was not fertilized, nothing happens. If, however, it was fertilized, then the blastodic inside of the yolk becomes a blastoderm, which later becomes an embryo. The embryo then develops, feeding off of the yolk, until it is ready to hatch. And then you get a chicken.

    Just like never is an egg a human being, a chicken egg is never a chicken, especially when you consider the fact that chickens develop inside of the egg which, for the record, is the equivalent to a human fetus developing inside of the uterus. Development is a process by which something goes from immature to mature, not the process by which someone goes from, for example, non-human to human or non-chick to chicken. Pick up a biology book or something, because ignorance is not an excuse. At all.

    You may be comfortable remaining purposefully ignorant of scientific concepts such as DEVELOPMENT… but thankfully many of the rest of us are not. Like I\’ve said previously, the \”science\” angle doesn\’t really seem to work for you. You might want to stick with \”abortion is murder\” or \”teh slutty womenz chose to have sex\” routines.

    And statements like the above are why your posts always make me chuckle. Number one, as I have pointed out to you time and time again, only to have you ignore time and time again, development does not cease once you are born. It is an ongoing process until the day you die. Or, at the very least, until you reach your early twenties, at which point the brain is fully developed. So, I suppose, according to your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable to kill someone who is, say, five because they are only a potential human, correct? What are the odds you are going to say no? Fairly high, I would say. Number two, and quite possibly more importantly, being able to complete ignore links you are provided does not mean they were not provided. Being able to complete ignore hundreds of quotes which, without a shadow of a doubt, prove everything you have ever stated wrong does not mean that you were not proven wrong. It means, as is the norm, that you simply ignored these things. Of course, when having to explain

    Do not talk about science until you actually bother to learn some.

  • bornin1984

    Yes, equating a one-celled organism to a person requires a lot of that. Perhaps once you\\\’ve finished with that one, you can start on \\\”pebble = mountain\\\” or \\\”rivet = 747.\\\”

    So, PCF, what exactly is a person?

    Oh, those silly anti-choicers!

    You spelled pro-choicers wrong :)

    Oh, so you\\\’re talking about being genetically human. Yes, at no point is a zygote/fetus/whatever genetically non-human. (I kind of thought this was obvious, but with anti-choicers, you never know.)

    No. We are talking about being an actual human being. Is it not funny that, even when given an excess of thirty or so quotes on the matter, you still want to argue differently?

    However, a human zygote/fetus/etc. is obviously not yet a human being, no more than a pine cone is a pine tree. It is, at best, a human being in a potential stage of development—ergo, a \\\”potential human being.\\\” Just like a pine cone is a potential pine tree.

    Normally, I would not dignify the above with a response, but I will this time. You do realize that a pine cone will never be a pine tree, because a cone is the, basically, reproductive organ of a tree, correct? Pine cones are either male or female. The male pine cones produce pollen, which is then released, which fertilizes female pine cones, after time which a seeds develops, from which a pine tree will result if planted. What next? Are you going to tell me that penises and vaginas are potential human beings, too? Because that is essentially what you are saying with the whole pine cones are potential pine trees line.

    I\\\’m sure that prisoners on death row and late-night home invaders everywhere will be heartened to learn this!

    It is a good thing that rights are not revoked for simply existing, but because you do something to have those rights revoked.

    Yes, if you see no difference between violating a woman\\\’s right to her body and placing parental responsibility on her for born children, then I can see why you would be so confused.

    I see you are back to the whole self-ownership thing. Must I quote for you again the article which you flatly ignored? I could, but what would be the point if you are just going to ignore it? At any rate, there is no difference. Tell me, what is the difference between killing someone, or letting them die tomorrow, versus doing it today, or yesterday? I wonder how you are going to answer this without hurting some portion of your own argument.

    Great! Then I\\\’m sure they won\\\’t mind if the equally unique female individual goes her own separate way.

    I am sure you know this, as you know everything else, but seperate does not mean not dependant on.

  • bj-survivor

    to rebellious girl, ProChoiceFerret, and squirrely girl! Well said, all of you!

     

    Now, can we ban the trolls already? Their ill-thought, bigoted, misogynistic thread-jacking is exceedingly annoying.

  • jayn

    I do not think so.

     

    Descartes seemed to think so.

     

    Um, that wasn’t really what the line is about (hell, I think therefore I am is only a paraphrase anyways).  Descartes was looking for a simple, irreducible truth.  The one thing he could be certain of.  And in the end, that he was capable of thinking as an autonomous individual was the one thing he knew for a fact wasn’t an illusion.

     

    That said, the ‘personhood’ debate, while philosophical, is moot, IHMO.  If they’re not people, no problem.  If they are…well, no person has the right to my belongings–they need my consent to take and/or use them.  That includes my body parts.  If my own damn uterus doesn’t qualify as my own property, which I have the right to determine what happens to it, then there’s something really fucked up going on.

  • saltyc

     I just love a good philosophical debate :)

    I am laughing so hard right now.

    What you call a debate is actually a little dog making a lot of noise running around in circles trying to catch its own tail.

  • saltyc

    I think therefore I am is only a paraphrase anyways

    Really???

    Seems like a one-to-one translation to me.

  • saltyc

    God yes,

     

    Their bloviation is polluting the air, really, especially the tedious, pedantic one who has a hard time grasping the humanity of women. Get out already, we know your irrelevant points backwards and forward by now.

  • squirrely-girl

    I’m getting ready to go teach but I’ll come back to this. Your philosophical ramblings are always much more interesting to me :)

    Well, I am glad you learned Latin.

    8 years of Catholic school tends to do that. Inoltre parlo italiano… y mi espanol no es totalmente malo. Getting out of you own little world helps with that by the way.


  • prochoiceferret

    So, PCF, what exactly is a person?

     

    It usually refers to born human beings, and doesn’t include things that require a microscope to observe.

     

    No. We are talking about being an actual human being. Is it not funny that, even when given an excess of thirty or so quotes on the matter, you still want to argue differently?

     

    So, BornIn1984, what exactly is an actual human being?

     

    Normally, I would not dignify the above with a response, but I will this time. You do realize that a pine cone will never be a pine tree, because a cone is the, basically, reproductive organ of a tree, correct? Pine cones are either male or female. The male pine cones produce pollen, which is then released, which fertilizes female pine cones, after time which a seeds develops, from which a pine tree will result if planted. What next? Are you going to tell me that penises and vaginas are potential human beings, too? Because that is essentially what you are saying with the whole pine cones are potential pine trees line.

     

    Yes, the female pine cone is pollinated, becomes seeds, and grows into a pine tree. Ergo, a pine cone becomes a pine tree. If that argument is too complex for you to grasp, you may substitute with the more generic “a seed is a potential plant” formulation.

     

    It is a good thing that rights are not revoked for simply existing, but because you do something to have those rights revoked.

     

    Yes, like, say, using someone else’s body for life support without their permission.

     

    I see you are back to the whole self-ownership thing. Must I quote for you again the article which you flatly ignored? I could, but what would be the point if you are just going to ignore it? At any rate, there is no difference.

     

    If you don’t value your own self-ownership, your own bodily integrity… then I can only hope you never have it violated. Given that you are male, the odds of this are quite good.

     

    Tell me, what is the difference between killing someone, or letting them die tomorrow, versus doing it today, or yesterday?

     

    Depends on whether we’re talking self-defense, or murder, or negligent homicide, or garden-variety indifference, doesn’t it?

     

    I am sure you know this, as you know everything else, but seperate does not mean not dependant on.

     

    And “dependent on” does not mean you have the privilege to violate the rights of another, separate person.

  • kevin-rahe

    Honestly, pressuring a woman in ANY direction with regard to reproductive decisions is just heinous in my mind.

     

    In other words, it’s more important that she made the decision autonomously than that she made the right decision.

  • squirrely-girl

    “Right” is a matter of perspective. On an issue that’s so divided, what makes your choice the right one?

     

    In other words, the ends doesn’t justify the means. 

  • kevin-rahe

    “Right” is a matter of perspective. On an issue that’s so divided, what makes your choice the right one?

     

    For a group that is so adamant about making sure that someone has all the information in the world before they have sex, you sure don’t have much interest in helping them make the right decision after they become pregnant.  And some call me heartless.

  • prochoiceferret

    In other words, it’s more important that she made the decision that is right for her according to her own perfectly capable judgment autonomously than that she made the decision that I, Kevin Rahe, random Internet poster who doesn’t know jack squat about her or her circumstances, want her to make.

     

    There, I fixed that for you.

  • kevin-rahe

    Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

     

    From the perspective of modern faux feminism, perhaps not, but from a biological perspective it most certainly is consent to the possibility of pregnancy.

     

    I will never be convinced of the notion that a ZBEF is a “separate and unique individual deserving of protection” from conception because that is a ludicrous religious argument which offends me both as a feminist and science enthusiast.

     

    That the life of a human being is more important than the life of a grizzly bear is certainly a religious argument.  But whether taking the life of an unborn baby is the same as taking the life of a teenager is purely a matter of science.

     

    a fetus has absolutely no right to have more right to life than any other living being

     

    Assuming that by “living being” you mean a born person, then no one has suggested any such thing.  A fetus can have as much right to life as a born person, but no more.

     

    Ah, so you were worryingly fascinated with the reproductive business of others even then, despite it being none of your damn business.

     

    So kids can’t even be innocent and curious anymore?  Sheesh.

  • bornin1984

    It usually refers to born human beings, and doesn\’t include things that require a microscope to observe.

    As you probably well realize, that does not answer the question. To state that the unborn are not persons, you have to know what a person is. Also, for the record, multiple states do define the unborn as persons at either all times or at some point in pregnancy, so you might want to go back and and check what you wrote, on account of it being wrong.

    So, BornIn1984, what exactly is an actual human being?

    Precisely what I have said two times prior on two different threads; an extant member of the Homo genus of the Hominidae family characterized by erect carriage, bipedalism, high intellect and speech. Very simple, really.

    Yes, the female pine cone is pollinated, becomes seeds, and grows into a pine tree. Ergo, a pine cone becomes a pine tree. If that argument is too complex for you to grasp, you may substitute with the more generic \”a seed is a potential plant\” formulation.

    Nothing says irony more than telling someone a concept is too hard to grasp when you, yourself, do not get the concept you are trying to tell someone else they do not understand.

    At any rate, pine cones do not grow into seeds anymore than a uterus grows into a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus. Since you, apparently, were unable to understand this the first time, then let me try this again. Male pine cones contain pollen while female pine cones contain ovules. The male pine cones release pollen which, when they come into contact with the female pine cone, fertilize the ovule, after which the ovule grows into a zygote, an embryo and then a fully mature seed. Afterwards, the seed is released from the pine cone, and germinates given favorable conditions (http://www.education.com/reference/article/biology-help-gymnosperms-vascular-plants/). But since you believe otherwise, plant a pine cone and see how long it takes for it to become a pine tree.

    At any rate, high school biology. Learn it.

    Yes, like, say, using someone else\’s body for life support without their permission.

    I am far too lazy go continue responding to this point, only to have you just as often ignore it, so maybe a copy-and-paste from someone admittedly pro-choice will help you understand:

    In general, the pro-choice argument for abortion that is hostile to putting any obstacles in the way of abortion on demand is that a woman has a right to control over her body at any time and that she has just as much right to choose an abortion as to choose sex. Although it is not a view that is voiced, this argument sometimes seems to imply that a woman has a right to have sex that is superior to the right to exist of the being that may accidentally result. The pro-choice people who believe in obstacles to abortion, as well as the pro-life partisans, respond to that implied view by not wishing the impression to stand that sex should be something that is morally and legally without consequences. Sex without responsibility (Erica Jong\’s famous zippless fuck of the best selling Seventies book, Fear of Flying) is perceived as what the abortion-on-demand pro-choice people are pushing on society.

    If the pro-choice response is that dead or mutilated women is a lot to pay for a morally edifying lesson in responsibility, the only problem with that is that feminism is perfectly willing to use a that-is-just-tough argument of moral responsibility against men when it comes to the very same issue: Since it is entirely the right of a woman to choose abortion or not, the man who may have unintentionally gotten a woman pregnant has no say in the matter at all, once he has donated his sperm. If a man went to court because he wanted a woman to abort a child that she wanted but he did not, there would be a firestorm of partisans from both Right and Left against him. He chose to have sex, therefore his rights end immediately, and he is absolutely responsible for the rest of his life for that child, regardless of his wishes. If he did not want the responsibility, he should not have had sex with the woman. So feminists are perfectly willing to use an argument that responsibility begins with sex against men, that their rights end at intercourse, but then they are unwilling to allow that women should be just as responsible about their own sexual choices and held equally responsible for the rest of their lives for the consequences of their choices. This can easily strike both men and women as a heads-I-win; tails-you-lose approach to sexual responsibility — a double standard.

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

    If you don\’t value your own self-ownership, your own bodily integrity… then I can only hope you never have it violated. Given that you are male, the odds of this are quite good.

    I really do not understand why you have yet to acknowledge this, but there is no right to self-ownership which impedes on the life and well-being of another. That whole quote I gave you initially perfectly explained this in a way which was not hard to understand, yet you ignored it anyway. That is simply mind-boggling, to put it mildly.

    Depends on whether we\’re talking self-defense, or murder, or negligent homicide, or garden-variety indifference, doesn\’t it?

    Indeed it does not, for when you kill someone does not change the ultimate outcome– that being that the one who killed ends up dead. But I am not surprised that you glossed over this point.

    And \”dependent on\” does not mean you have the privilege to violate the rights of another, separate person.

    And yet again I ask, PCF, what right is being violated?

  • squirrely-girl

    Again, in your world there is only ONE right decision after a woman becomes pregnant. I don’t believe the world exists in black and white or any other form of absolutes. We have options and make choices that fit our individual lives for a reason. 

    For a group that is so adamant about making sure that someone has all the information in the world before they have sex, you sure don’t have much interest in helping them make the right decision after they become pregnant.

    Wow. Is that kind of like how the AC/PL crowd is so adamant about making sure women don’t have information before or after they get pregnant and coerce them into making what they believe to be the only right decision but then don’t have much interest in helping them out after they deliver?

     

    Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm…

     

     

  • squirrely-girl

    I <3 you PCF :)

  • prochoiceferret

    As you probably well realize, that does not answer the question. To state that the unborn are not persons, you have to know what a person is.

     

    Or, more likely, what a person is not.

     

    Also, for the record, multiple states do define the unborn as persons at either all times or at some point in pregnancy, so you might want to go back and and check what you wrote, on account of it being wrong.

     

    The states also say that Exxon is a person. Hello, Mr. Exxon!

     

    Precisely what I have said two times prior on two different threads; an extant member of the Homo genus of the Hominidae family characterized by erect carriage, bipedalism, high intellect and speech. Very simple, really.

     

    So, “actual human beings” includes Neanderthals. Which must be rather convenient for you.

     

    At any rate, pine cones do not grow into seeds anymore than a uterus grows into a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus. Since you, apparently, were unable to understand this the first time, then let me try this again. Male pine cones contain pollen while female pine cones contain ovules. The male pine cones release pollen which, when they come into contact with the female pine cone, fertilize the ovule, after which the ovule grows into a zygote, an embryo and then a fully mature seed. Afterwards, the seed is released from the pine cone, and germinates given favorable conditions (http://www.education.com/reference/article/biology-help-gymnosperms-vasc…). But since you believe otherwise, plant a pine cone and see how long it takes for it to become a pine tree.

    At any rate, high school biology. Learn it.

     

    So, Mr. Pine Cone Expert, is that seed-which-came-from-a-fertilized-female-pine-cone an actual pine tree?

     

    I am far too lazy go continue responding to this point, only to have you just as often ignore it, so maybe a copy-and-paste from someone admittedly pro-choice will help you understand:

     

    Ah, yes, the Argument from Child Support. Which, as usual, forgets the whole bit about needing to use the woman’s body to make a child in the first place—and the woman’s right to refuse to lend out her body for that purpose.

     

    Oh, and I’m so sorry that the man can’t decide to abort, or abtain from writing those checks. It’s terribly unfair that taxpayers don’t pick up the tab for his kid.

     

    I really do not understand why you have yet to acknowledge this, but there is no right to self-ownership which impedes on the life and well-being of another.

     

    Great! A kidney retrieval team will visit you in the morning. Little Timmy’s life and well-being will be significantly un-impeded by your contribution.

     

    Indeed it does not, for when you kill someone does not change the ultimate outcome– that being that the one who killed ends up dead. But I am not surprised that you glossed over this point.

     

    Well, everyone eventually ends up dead, anyway. You just have to wait long enough.

     

    And yet again I ask, PCF, what right is being violated?

     

    And yet again I answer, BornIn1984, the right not to have one’s body used or invaded by another person against one’s will.

  • prochoiceferret

    I <3 you PCF :)

     

    Yay! Now I can count squirrels among my fans! =^_^=

  • prochoiceferret

    From the perspective of modern faux feminism,

     

    A.K.A. real modern feminism, as opposed to that nicer kind of feminism that says women shouldn’t be ashamed to wear teeny-tiny bikinis and be stay-at-home moms.

     

    but from a biological perspective it most certainly is consent to the possibility of pregnancy.

     

    From a biological perspective, being a fertile female, and spending time with fertile males, is consent to the possibility of pregnancy. Unless you somehow don’t consider rape to be part of our biological history.

     

    Assuming that by “living being” you mean a born person, then no one has suggested any such thing.  A fetus can have as much right to life as a born person, but no more.

     

    Oh, okay! No born person has the right to take life support from the body of another person without their consent, so therefore, no fetus does, either.

     

    At last, the great abortion debate is over! You can all go home now.

  • forced-birth-rape

    NO KEVIN, MY VAGINA IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!! Men commenting on abortion is sadomasochistic harassment! Quit trying to force womens bodies and vaginas into doing what you want them to do, that they dont want to do! Forcing my body to be used against my will, and me to have vaginal pain against my will, is RAPE, RAPE, RAPE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are a creep, as all prolifers are creeps. Just a bunch of perverts.

  • bornin1984

    Or, more likely, what a person is not.

    And to know what something is not, you have to know what the thing it is not, is. Which is what I just said. So, care to tell us what a person is?

    The states also say that Exxon is a person. Hello, Mr. Exxon!

    No, actually, SCOTUS has bestowed that title upon corporations– not the states. And now you know.

    So, \”actual human beings\” includes Neanderthals. Which must be rather convenient for you.

    Last I checked, Neanderthals were not extant. In fact, I am fairly sure that they are extinct. But if you happen to know any that are extant, please call up your local evolutionary biologist (or anthropologist). I am sure they would be fascinated to talk to him or her.

    So, Mr. Pine Cone Expert, is that seed-which-came-from-a-fertilized-female-pine-cone an actual pine tree?

    Of course not, for a seed and a pine tree are at two different stages of development. The better question is, are the seed and the pine tree of different species because they are at two different stages of development? The answer to that question is no, therefore nipping your future response in the bud. After all, you would never argue that, say, that because a newborn is not an adult, that it is not a human being, would you?

    Ah, yes, the Argument from Child Support. Which, as usual, forgets the whole bit about needing to use the woman\’s body to make a child in the first place—and the woman\’s right to refuse to lend out her body for that purpose.

    Oh, and I\’m so sorry that the man can\’t decide to abort, or abtain from writing those checks. It\’s terribly unfair that taxpayers don\’t pick up the tab for his kid.

    I guess what I always say is true. Irony is lost upon you. Any any rate, let us play this game, and see how quickly your argument devolves into the one stated by what I quoted. If the woman did not want to be pregnant, she should have thought about that before engaging in sex, right?

    Great! A kidney retrieval team will visit you in the morning. Little Timmy\’s life and well-being will be significantly un-impeded by your contribution.

    And I see you are back to pretending to not know the difference between doing to someone and not doing for someone, in which case the question needs to be asked as to why people do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone, but they do go to jail for taking a kidney away from someone? After all, if the two are the same, then either both are wrong or neither is wrong.

    Well, everyone eventually ends up dead, anyway. You just have to wait long enough.

    Oh? So if I were to kill some poor, helpless woman, it is no harm, no foul, as everyone dies eventually?

    And yet again I answer, BornIn1984, the right not to have one\’s body used or invaded by another person against one\’s will.

    I am just going to point something out to you that I said in the other thread, and something which has been pointed out to you multiple times, but barring rape, the unborn is where it is because of the actions of the woman. It is hard to claim someone is an unwanted invader when the other individual is only where they are and in the situation they are in because of your own actions. Essentially, your argument is that I could drag someone into my house, do something to them that would require them to stay in my house for an extended period of time, and then turn around and claim that they are unwanted and kill them.

  • forced-birth-rape

    KEVIN RAHE, Get over your self, and mind your own misogynistic, christian man, business! Men have no say in abortion! Quit trying to dictate womens, little girls, and rape victims, vaginas, like a pimp want-to-be.

  • prochoiceferret

    And to know what something is not, you have to know what the thing it is not, is. Which is what I just said.

     

    No, you seemed more interested in what a person is, not in what a person is not.

     

    No, actually, SCOTUS has bestowed that title upon corporations– not the states. And now you know.

     

    So, minus that irrelevant quibble, you agree that government entities can declare some rather non-person-like things as persons. (Unless your definition of “person” includes a reporting structure.)

     

    Last I checked, Neanderthals were not extant. In fact, I am fairly sure that they are extinct. But if you happen to know any that are extant, please call up your local evolutionary biologist (or anthropologist). I am sure they would be fascinated to talk to him or her.

     

    Interesting. So if there were living Neanderthals, your definition of “human being” could be changed via genocide. I wonder if certain historical dictators thought that way about race…

     

    Of course not, for a seed and a pine tree are at two different stages of development. The better question is, are the seed and the pine tree of different species because they are at two different stages of development? The answer to that question is no, therefore nipping your future response in the bud. After all, you would never argue that, say, that because a newborn is not an adult, that it is not a human being, would you?

     

    So a zygote is human (genetically), but only a potential human being (stage of development). Sounds about right to me.

     

    If the woman did not want to be pregnant, she should have thought about that before engaging in sex, right?

     

    Yes, that’s why contraceptives exist.

     

    And I see you are back to pretending to not know the difference between doing to someone and not doing for someone, in which case the question needs to be asked as to why people do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone, but they do go to jail for taking a kidney away from someone? After all, if the two are the same, then either both are wrong or neither is wrong.

     

    Someone told me that there is no right to self-ownership which impedes on the life and well-being of another. Your refusing to give a kidney would certainly impede the life and well-being of Little Timmy. It’s very simple, really.

     

    Oh? So if I were to kill some poor, helpless woman, it is no harm, no foul, as everyone dies eventually?

     

    The “everyone dies eventually” argument isn’t a good defense. But if she were threatening your life, or living off your body without your consent, you’d be good to go.

     

    I am just going to point something out to you that I said in the other thread, and something which has been pointed out to you multiple times, but barring rape, the unborn is where it is because of the actions of the woman. It is hard to claim someone is an unwanted invader when the other individual is only where they are and in the situation they are in because of your own actions.

     

    So if you were a mortgage banker, and a former-lendee homeless family decides to squat in your living room… I guess it’s going to be hard for you to claim they are unwanted invaders.

     

    Essentially, your argument is that I could drag someone into my house, do something to them that would require them to stay in my house for an extended period of time, and then turn around and claim that they are unwanted and kill them.

     

    When did I argue that you have the right to violate the bodily integrity of others?

  • kevin-rahe

    in your world there is only ONE right decision after a woman becomes pregnant

     

    True, but when I suggested that pregnant women should have information to help them make the “right” decision, I was actually using the term “right” in the same sense in which you use it – right for the woman.  The fact that you failed to acknowledge this indicates either that providing information about the outcomes that others in her position have experienced is something you want to avoid, or that deep down you also feel there is only one decision that could objectively be considered “right.”  Or perhaps both are true.

     

    the AC/PL crowd is so adamant about making sure women don’t have information before or after they get pregnant

     

    It is those who support a “woman’s right to choose” (the most commonly unfinished sentence used in this country) who want to hide the scientific facts that support the idea that the unborn are persons, and it is also they who have no interest in defining just what a person is in biological terms.

  • kevin-rahe

     

    “as I used to think when I would grill the nuns in my early grade school years about why they didn’t have babies”

     

    Ah, so you were worryingly fascinated with the reproductive business of others even then, despite it being none of your damn business. That’s a habit you’ve never grown out of.

     

    At the time I thought that pregnancy just “happened” to women, so found it difficult to understand how it simply didn’t happen to certain women.  In time, of course, knowledge replaced that innocence.  Judging by many of the arguments made here, however, others have retained that innocence, though once you reach a certain age we refer to it simply as ignorance.

  • bornin1984

    No, you seemed more interested in what a person is, not in what a person is not.

    To be a broken record, before stating what something is not, you have to know what the thing it is not, is. You, for example, cannot tell me that an iPod is not a DVD player unless you know what a DVD player is. We can go around in circles all day, PCF.

    So, minus that irrelevant quibble, you agree that government entities can declare some rather non-person-like things as persons. (Unless your definition of \”person\” includes a reporting structure.)

    Indeed, it is not irrelevant. It just goes to show, as usual, that you do not know what you are talking about. At any rate, if the law declares something as a person then guess what? It is, indeed, a person. If it was a non-person, it would not be a person, now would it? Anyway, on a slightly related note, this begs the question as to what you believe a person is, which I have asked multiple times, only to not get an answer.

    Interesting. So if there were living Neanderthals, your definition of \”human being\” could be changed via genocide.

    Yes, in the same way that the extinction of the Moa changed the definition of a bird.

    I wonder if certain historical dictators thought that way about race…

    Of course they did, along with nationality and physical or mental disabilities. Henceforth why they got to labeling different groups as persons and non-persons.

    So a zygote is human (genetically), but only a potential human being (stage of development). Sounds about right to me.

    Then, on the same token, a newborn, a toddler, an infant and an adolescent are only potential human beings too, on account of not being fully developed. Sounds about right to you too, correct?

    Do you ever get tired of running around like a chicken with its head cut off? One would think you should, but you never seem to tire of it.

    Yes, that\’s why contraceptives exist.

    And if they fail, then she knew they could before engaging in sex, and as a result should be disallowed from having an abortion, for she knew what could happen prior to engaging in sex, correct? For the sake of brevity, we will just skip to your eventual response, which is no. But then the question is, why not?

    Someone told me that there is no right to self-ownership which impedes on the life and well-being of another. Your refusing to give a kidney would certainly impede the life and well-being of Little Timmy. It\’s very simple, really.

    Which would make sense only if you view not giving to someone the same as taking away from someone. Of course, as we have been over this ad nauseum, with you refusing to explain why, if the two are equal, you do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone and having them die, but you do go to jail for taking a kidney away from someone and having them die, I really do not see the point in going over this again. You will, as is your modus operandi, will just obfuscate anyway. Constantly being wrong will make one do that.

    The \”everyone dies eventually\” argument isn\’t a good defense. But if she were threatening your life, or living off your body without your consent, you\’d be good to go.

    If I have pointed this out once, I have pointed it out a hundred times, but you are basing your argument on explicit consent, which is irrelevant (Remember, a woman cannot just state that she rescinds her consent to pregnancy and get an abortion at any times), because people– parents in this case– are not made to do anything so long as they consent to it, but because it is in the best interest of the third party, in this case the child, who otherwise could not, and can not, fend for itself. Especially when you consider that they are only in their, for lack of a better word, circumstance of helplessness due to the actions of its parents. But, as is usual, you probably do not understand this, and will go right back to your usual arguments.

    So if you were a mortgage banker, and a former-lendee homeless family decides to squat in your living room… I guess it\’s going to be hard for you to claim they are unwanted invaders.

    Especially if you dragged them into your house without them having a say in the matter and made it so that they cannot leave for a stated period of time without dying.

    When did I argue that you have the right to violate the bodily integrity of others?

    When you started arguing that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion at any point in time she wants, even if it results in the death of another. Unless, of course, you do not believe that causing the death of someone when that individual has no consented to death is not violating their bodily integrity, in which case I have to laugh at the irony being lost upon you.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Thanks BJ Survivor,

    I had to leave the thread a few days ago. There is only so much of the trolls I can deal with.

  • squirrely-girl

    Truthfully Kevin, I don’t actually have a problem with women receiving ALL information about ALL possible options regarding pregnancy. I do believe there is a middle ground to be found where women could receive unbiased counseling about all of their options… but I don’t believe groups like CPCs are filling that role. Ultimately, like all counseling, the counselor shouldn’t have a “stake” in the outcome or biased personal beliefs going into the process. I completely understand that similar criticisms have been lobbied regarding PP and again, I think there is a middle ground to still be found.

     

    I also believe there are plenty of women who “regret” abortions… just as I believe there are plenty women who regret adoption or carrying to term and raising the child on their own. I think people tend to regret the things they weren’t fully committed to in the first place. We’re human beings and we regret all kinds of decisions we make. That doesn’t mean we do away with the ability to make decisions among several choices altogether. 

    …who want to hide the scientific facts that support the idea that the unborn are persons…

    This is where we’re fundamentally going to have to agree to disagree… prior to viability there is very little scientific “fact” that supports the idea that ZBEF are actual “persons.” ZBEF “personhood” is a personal or religious belief that not all people share.

     

    On a highly related note – I’ve actually spent quite a bit of time working as a therapist. Most of my counseling experiences were through my work on a community based VOCA grant and thus all were victims of violent crimes. I’ve also worked through a university counseling center with undergrad students. In both of these experiences I worked with many young women who had been raped and were seriously concerned about the possibility of pregnancy and even a few that were dealing with the reality of being pregnant following the assault. Similarly, a number of my university clients were facing unplanned pregnancies as a result of consensual sexual activity. In every one of those situations we carefully and thoughtfully balanced her thoughts, needs, concerns, beliefs (religious or otherwise), and fears and made a thorough examination of ALL options. Never once did I make a decision for these women, push them in a particular direction, or even hint as to what I would do. Why? Because what I believe or what I would do is of no consequence to what will ultimately be a life decision for that young woman.

     

    Off the top of my head I’ve worked with half a dozen young women (one a minor) who were dealing with an actual pregnancy as the result of rape, of which two chose to carry to term with the intention to adopt. I worked tirelessly to organize community, medical, and adoption services for them and was supportive of them before, during, and after. I also worked tirelessly to organize community and medical services for the women who chose abortion and provided that same level of support. In all of these situations I was unconditionally supportive of what these women wanted for their bodies and lives. Ultimately, I have absolutely no stake in what another woman does with her body. None. And truthfully, neither do you. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    PCF I love ferrets, especially pro-choice ferrets!

    PCF, YOU ROCK MY WORLD. Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!! (if I knew what ferrets liked for treats I’d give you one.)

  • rebellious-grrl

    Kevin, maybe you should quit judging. That may be part of your problem of not understanding when women on this thread say to you, “Stay out of my uterus!” (Of course I’m paraphrasing) I feel your comments have been judgmental and insulting. Obviously this is a pro-choice website and you coming here to argue otherwise is just annoying. I have found women (and pro-choice men) posting here are highly intellectual, have a depth and understanding of women’s issues. So don’t even try to belittle us with your weak judgments. It’s just sad.

     

    Judging by many of the arguments made here, however, others have retained that innocence, though once you reach a certain age we refer to it simply as ignorance.

  • prochoiceferret

    It is those who support a “woman’s right to choose” (the most commonly unfinished sentence used in this country) who want to hide the scientific facts that support the idea that the unborn are persons, and it is also they who have no interest in defining just what a person is in biological terms.

     

    So can you cite for us the official scientific definition of a “person?” I think there’s at least one other commenter here who would be interested in that.

  • prochoiceferret

    To be a broken record, before stating what something is not, you have to know what the thing it is not, is. You, for example, cannot tell me that an iPod is not a DVD player unless you know what a DVD player is. We can go around in circles all day, PCF.

     

    You know, it’s funny to see you go through all these contortions to try to apply the vernacular definitions of “person” and “human being” to things that they have never even remotely been applied to before. Because you seem to think that if by some miracle you were to succeed at that, people would suddenly accept that destroying a zygote would be every bit as terrible as murdering a 20-year-old, as both could then be described as “killing a person / human being!” When in fact, all you would end up doing is draining the statement of its shock value.

     

    It’s like if PETB (People for the Ethical Treatment of Bacteria) campaigned to extend the definition of “animal” to include microorganisms, so that they could then accuse anyone who used antibiotics or antiseptics of “animal cruelty.” All that would end up happening is that there would be “animal cruelty” (harming bacteria) and then there would be “real animal cruelty” (beating a dog and having too many cats).

     

    You can’t completely change around how people think about something just by redefining words. Destroying a zygote, at the end of the day, is still destroying a thing that you need a microscope to see. Getting people to believe that this is a big deal is going to take a lot more work than just adding a line or two to a couple dictionary entries.

     

    Not that the sheer futility of bringing about your Newspeak is going to stop you from trying, of course.

     

    Then, on the same token, a newborn, a toddler, an infant and an adolescent are only potential human beings too, on account of not being fully developed. Sounds about right to you too, correct?

     

    No, being born (and thus biologically autonomous from any other person) is developed enough. The rest is just gravy.

     

    Do you ever get tired of running around like a chicken with its head cut off? One would think you should, but you never seem to tire of it.

     

    Not really. It’s a lot easier to be pro-choice than an unrelenting misogynist.

     

    And if they fail, then she knew they could before engaging in sex, and as a result should be disallowed from having an abortion, for she knew what could happen prior to engaging in sex, correct? For the sake of brevity, we will just skip to your eventual response, which is no. But then the question is, why not?

     

    Why should she be disallowed from having an abortion if she knew there was a small risk of becoming pregnant? That’s like me saying you should be disallowed from receiving trauma care if you knew there was a small risk of being hit by a car. Why does that attitude to a normal, everyday risk make any sense at all?

     

    Which would make sense only if you view not giving to someone the same as taking away from someone. Of course, as we have been over this ad nauseum, with you refusing to explain why, if the two are equal, you do not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone and having them die, but you do go to jail for taking a kidney away from someone and having them die,

     

    If there is mandatory organ donation, and you refuse to donate a kidney, then you would go to jail. That’s kind of, like, the whole point of it being mandatory.

     

    because people– parents in this case– are not made to do anything so long as they consent to it, but because it is in the best interest of the third party, in this case the child,

     

    The fetus does not have the right to obtain life support from the woman’s body if the woman does not want to provide it. The interests or helplessness of whatever third party does not negate the woman’s right to her own body.

     

    Especially if you dragged them into your house without them having a say in the matter and made it so that they cannot leave for a stated period of time without dying.

     

    If you kidnapped them, or violated their bodily rights, then that’s impermissible. But the example was that they just kind of show up on their own, after their mortgage is foreclosed.

     

    When you started arguing that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion at any point in time she wants, even if it results in the death of another. Unless, of course, you do not believe that causing the death of someone when that individual has no consented to death is not violating their bodily integrity, in which case I have to laugh at the irony being lost upon you.

     

    Your right to bodily integrity does not give you the right to violate the bodily integrity of another, just like your right to pursue happiness doesn’t give you the right to force someone else to be your personal servant. If you cannot live without violating the bodily integrity of another, then you’re in a very precarious position indeed.

  • prochoiceferret

    PCF I love ferrets, especially pro-choice ferrets!

    PCF, YOU ROCK MY WORLD. Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     

    Yaaaay! Now I can count grrbils among my fans! =^_^=

     

    (if I knew what ferrets liked for treats I’d give you one.)

     

    Fruit punch seems pretty popular lately!

  • bornin1984

    You know, it\’s funny to see you go through all these contortions to try to apply the vernacular definitions of \”person\” and \”human being\” to things that they have never even remotely been applied to before. Because you seem to think that if by some miracle you were to succeed at that, people would suddenly accept that destroying a zygote would be every bit as terrible as murdering a 20-year-old, as both could then be described as \”killing a person / human being!\” When in fact, all you would end up doing is draining the statement of its shock value.

    Luckily for us all, you (and like-minded) individuals are the only one who really cares about semantics. When it suits you, at least. I am fairly sure you would have given equal credence to the whole women-should-not-be-considered-persons-line-because-they-have-never-been-considered-persons-before spiel.

    It\’s like if PETB (People for the Ethical Treatment of Bacteria) campaigned to extend the definition of \”animal\” to include microorganisms, so that they could then accuse anyone who used antibiotics or antiseptics of \”animal cruelty.\” All that would end up happening is that there would be \”animal cruelty\” (harming bacteria) and then there would be \”real animal cruelty\” (beating a dog and having too many cats).

    Still displaying your appalling knowledge of science, I see. Microorganisms already include animals. Apparentely, you have never heard of plankton, for example. At any rate, they would have quite an uphill battle trying to define bacteria as animals, simply because science does not classify them as so (And you do like science, do you not?).

    You can\’t completely change around how people think about something just by redefining words. Destroying a zygote, at the end of the day, is still destroying a thing that you need a microscope to see. Getting people to believe that this is a big deal is going to take a lot more work than just adding a line or two to a couple dictionary entries.

    Number one, the only one who is redefining words, is you, which is why it is rather humorous to see you state that someone else is redefining words. Number two, not that you will care about this anyway, as you decry anything which does not fit into your worldview, but in 1994, 43% of people considered abortion to be murder while 47% said it was not. By 2000, the last year by which the question was asked, 57% of people agreed that abortion was murder, while 36% disagreed (http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/public-opinion-about-abortion-indepth-review.aspx#6). Now, the biggest reason for this shift is because it is becoming harder and harder and harder to simply pass off the unborn as simple masses of cells and/or tissue as people become more knowledgable regarding the development of the unborn, but you will more-than-likely just claim that it is the result of people becoming more misogynistic over time.

    Not that the sheer futility of bringing about your Newspeak is going to stop you from trying, of course.

    Ah, the irony. How is the weather in your world?

    No, being born (and thus biologically autonomous from any other person) is developed enough. The rest is just gravy.

    And your impeccable record of backtracking continues. You claim that a zygote is only a potential human being because it is not yet fully developed. I point out to you that, by following your logic, a newborn, a toddler, an infant and an adolescent are all potential human beings, because they are not fully developed. You then turn around and say that they are developed enough. Of course, enough is not fully, upon which your original assertion was based, but I am sure you recognize this. At any rate, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that you would never argue that someone born at 24-weeks should be left on a table to die because they are not fully developed. You would not even argue that they should be left on the table to die because they are not sufficiently developed. In fact, you would not argue that it should be left to die at all. But why not? Quite possibly because development is just a nice little red herring you threw in there to make your argument seem less about the woman being able to do as she pleases regardless of the effects it has on another than it actually is. That is what it boils down to. You have already stated that you do not care how developed nor how undeveloped the unborn are– for as long as they are connected to the woman, then the woman can do to it as she pleases.

    Not really. It\’s a lot easier to be pro-choice than an unrelenting misogynist.

    And it is a lot easier to claim everyone else is an unrelenting misogynist then it is to acknowledge the fact that your position is indefensible.

    Why should she be disallowed from having an abortion if she knew there was a small risk of becoming pregnant? That\’s like me saying you should be disallowed from receiving trauma care if you knew there was a small risk of being hit by a car. Why does that attitude to a normal, everyday risk make any sense at all?

    Because she knew there was a risk of becoming pregnant. If she did not want to become pregnant, she should have chose not to engage in sex prior to engaging in sex. Unless of course, you are arguing that the right of the woman to engage in sex is paramount to the right of the individual which might result from act to live. But you would not argue that, would you?

    Also, just so you know, abortion is the only issue in which you can engage in an act, and then bring harm to an unrelated third party because you do not like the consequence of engaging in that act. That is for future clarification.

    If there is mandatory organ donation, and you refuse to donate a kidney, then you would go to jail. That\’s kind of, like, the whole point of it being mandatory.

    All right. Let us try it this way:

    Me: There is a difference between not giving and having someone die, and taking away from and having someone die.
    You: No there is not!
    Me: If the two are not the same, then why do you not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone and having them die, but you will go to jail for taking a kidney away from someone and having them die?
    You: Because mandotory kidney donation is not mandatory!
    Me: But you just said there was no difference between not giving and having someone die, and taking away from and having someone die. If this is true, then the law is wrong, for either someone who refuses to donate a kidney to someone and has them die should be sent to jail the same way someone who takes a kidney from someone else and has them die should be sent to jail, or someone who takes away a kidney for someone else and has them die as a result should not be punished for it just as someone who refuses to donate a kidney to someone else and has them die because of it does not get sent to jail.
    You: ???

    And that is where the conversation usually ends, unsurprisingly enough. I would think you would grow tired of constantly running yourself into some glaring logical contradiction (or a proposition which, to accept as true, would require one to accept some less-than-stellar circumstances) only to later run off, but you never seem do.

    The fetus does not have the right to obtain life support from the woman\’s body if the woman does not want to provide it. The interests or helplessness of whatever third party does not negate the woman\’s right to her own body.

    As a woman cannot obtain an abortion at any time she wishes for any reason she wants, there will come a time when, regardless of what the woman wants, she will be made to continue her pregnancy. Ergo, your assertion is false, for if it were true, there would be no legal restrictions on abortion. The fact that you continue to repeat the same incorrect assertion, even though it is plainly false, is actually quite laughable. Are you really that incapable of forming a coherent argument?

    If you kidnapped them, or violated their bodily rights, then that\’s impermissible. But the example was that they just kind of show up on their own, after their mortgage is foreclosed.

    It is too bad the unborn do not just kind of show up on their own, but are rather where they are due to the actions of another, is it not?

    Your right to bodily integrity does not give you the right to violate the bodily integrity of another, just like your right to pursue happiness doesn\’t give you the right to force someone else to be your personal servant. If you cannot live without violating the bodily integrity of another, then you\’re in a very precarious position indeed.

    I am going to repeat something I said in the past. If I am trying to kill you, I do not get to assert a right to not have you kill me because it would violate my right to bodily integrity. Your logic, however, would necessitate that you allow me to do to you as I please, because you cannot violate my right to bodily integrity. Of course, you would wholeheartedly disagree with this assertion when applied to the aforementioned situation, and just about every situation you can think of– except for abortion. Abortion is the only circumstance in which you believe that one party can do something which causes another to end up in a situation in which his or her life is at stake, yet allow the first party argue that their right to bodily integrity cannot be violated, even if it comes at the expense of the second party. That is nonsensical, and the fact that you completely ignored this point the first time I brought it up shows that even you know it is nonsensical.

    It would do you well to use the internet and read up on those things you are trying– unsuccessfully, I might add– to argue. It will save you from having to do an about-face in the future.

  • forced-birth-rape

    “As a woman cannot obtain an abortion at any time she wishes for any reason she wants, there will come a time when, regardless of what the woman wants, she will be made to continue her pregnancy. Ergo, your assertion is false, for if it were true, there would be no legal restrictions on abortion.”

    Look at you pro-life-christian-man gloating that womens bodies are forced to be used against their will, like she is a breading-animal, or a sex-slave. In the united states where we are supposed to be free, well women sure are not free here, our bodies are owned, and dictated by the state. It is so gross that your favorite hobby is harassing women, about their bodies, and genitals. Is Justin Carl Moose your new favorite hero. You have no idea, how embarrassing you are, but we women do.

  • bornin1984

    Number one, it really is not that hard to get my name right. Number two, assumptions are bad. Number three, who are these women you speak of? I have noticed you have a knack for going on about women this and women that, but as soon as I point out to you that you speak for a minority of women, or that women are far more fervent in their pro-life views then are men, you either disappear or simply ignore the point all together. Now why is that?

    I realize you love histrionics, but it really does get you nowhere.

  • forced-birth-rape

    The majority does not have the right to dictate the minoritys bodies, If you are so confident in pro life women, why are you always on this pro choice website.

    Is it because you have a perverted fetish with harassing and badgering women.

    Your pro life christian man contempt for the word women is showing.

    It does not matter if ten people are against abortion and one is for it, the ten can not dictate the one persons body.

  • forced-birth-rape

    “I realize you love histrionics,”    I do not love anything about this, it scares me.

     

    As some one who comes from a back ground with chronic rampant sexual abuse in their family, I do have hyper sensitive emotion when I see a organized group of people who want to force womens, little girls, or rape victims bodies, and genitals into doing something they do not want to do. If you had, had my childhood, and your family had been in mental homes, and commited suicide because of other people taking control over their lives, bodies, and genitals maybe you would be out raged too. I am sorry for getting your name wrong BornIn1984, I am dyslexic.

  • bornin1984

    When you want to construe the abortion issue to one where it is men versus women then, yes, it absolutely does matter what the majority of women believe. It is fairly hard to pass off abortion as being about controlling women, when the majority of women do not think so, and eschew the kind of rhetoric that pro-choicers somehow believe all women accept as true.

    Anyway, in an ironic yet common twist, you somehow state that ten cannot dictate what one person does with their body, yet turn around and argue that one can dictate what happens to the body of another. How, exactly, does that work? Surely you can see the problem with such a notion? If it is not okay to dictate to a woman what happens with her body, then how is it okay to dictate to the unborn what happens to its body? If, as you think, forced birth is rape, then assuredly forced death is murder, right?

    Oh, and for the record, it seems to me that you are the only one with contempt for others, as seen by your continued use of the word pervert. But, as has been stated by others, you can say what you want and get a free pass, because you are pro-choice.

  • bornin1984

    So, essentially, you see what you want to see, and project that onto something else? Ehhh, okay. At any rate, it does not matter what one does or does not want to do, but rather what is in the best interest of another individual to not have done to them.

    If I, for example, do not want to obey state traffic laws, that does not mean that I should be allowed to drive as fast and recklessly as I want, killing someone in the process. The fact that I do not want to obey stated laws, or do something contrary to them, will be deemed irrelevant because of the effect I can have on someone else by ignoring them. Abortion really is no different.

  • kevin-rahe

    So can you cite for us the official scientific definition of a “person?”

     

    Merriam-Webster says simply, “HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL.

  • squirrely-girl

    5.  the personality of a human being : self
    6
    : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

  • kevin-rahe

    Thank you for your candor.

     

    I believe there are plenty women who regret adoption or carrying to term and raising the child on their own.

     

    But that doesn’t mean they regret not getting an abortion.  In fact, I’d suggest that it rarely if ever means that, notwithstanding that even women who would never procure an abortion might, in a moment of extreme frustration with an errant child, express such a sentiment.

     

    …prior to viability there is very little scientific “fact” that supports the idea that ZBEF are actual “persons.”  ZBEF “personhood” is a personal or religious belief that not all people share.

     

    We all have beliefs that stem from our philosophy and which guide our actions.  We may or many not refer to them as religious beliefs, but either way that is essentially what they are.  There is no science that tells us, for instance, upon arriving on the scene of a grizzly bear poised to attack a man we don’t know and who is himself pointing a loaded rifle at the bear, which one we ought to shoot.  Any decision we make in that situation is based on our beliefs about the importance of the man vs. the bear.

     

    If we would shoot the bear, then we have ascribed some importance to the man, and, since we don’t know him, human beings in general.  Next we have to ask ourselves if someone’s condition or state in life has anything to do with possibly risking our own life to save him or her.  Would we attack a bear to save someone who is a quadriplegic, in a coma, or suffering from stage IV pancreatic cancer?  If such things would make a difference, then we’ve put ourselves in the place of judging someone else’s worthiness to live.  If those facts would not make a difference in our actions, then we’re committed to saving persons no matter what their state in life or what they’re capable of doing for themselves.  In that case, we are only concerned with two things:  Has their life started, and has it ended?

     

    The first question is when did someone have their beginning?  No one saw them before the moment were born.  But something as complex as a human being – with eyes, ears, ten fingers, a brain and hair (of all things) – cannot materialize in a moment.  Obviously, a lot happened before that moment.  But when did all that start?  What was the point at which you could say a new human being, with its own life and all its own parts, came into existence?  We both agree that at birth we have a person.  I think we also both agree that whatever happened before birth, it started with the fertilization of an egg by a sperm, and couldn’t have progressed unless that event took place.  Our only dispute is at what point did what that baby was become a person.

     

    One problem with the idea that a new person doesn’t come into existence at the point of fertilization is the problem of defining philosophically just what a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is before it becomes a “person.”  It started from part of its mother and part of its father, so is it still part of one of them?  Part of both?  Or is it some kind of lower, transient life form?  While you’re free to adopt any philosophy that aligns with what you truly believe, for me, philosophy has to be reasonable, which means that it has to respect known facts.

     

    The problem with using “viability” as the sign that a new “person” exists is that viability outside the womb is a wholly arbitrary point in time from a biological perspective.  The fetus changes little between the day before it was viable outside the womb and the day after – mostly a few thousand more lung cells have matured.  If the existence of a new person should be marked by something of scientific relevance, there are other points that represent a much more convincing change from what was to what is, such as gastrulation, or the production of HCG by the blastocyst, which stimulates estrogen and progesterone production and lets home pregnancy tests return a positive result.

     

    In the end, contrary to your implication, there is little in the way of science that supports the idea that “viability” should mark the existence of a new person.  While it has practical significance for babies born prematurely, “viability” as it relates to the definition of a “person” is of only philosophical or religious importance.  From a scientific perspective, there are much more convincing points that could be said to herald the existence of a new person.

  • arekushieru

    Umm, I could turn this right back on you and say that not all women who regret having an abortion, regret not continuing that pregnancy.  In fact, I would say very few of them do.

     

    Religion is based on faith, not all philosophy is faith, all faith is philosophy (btw, I am a Christian), you get the drill…?

     

    Clinical personhood is conferred at viability, legal personhood is conferred at birth.  These are both the LEAST arbitrary methods to measure personhood, especially when using such empirical-method gatherers as the clinical or legal professions, because they are both observable and knowable phenomenons within their respective professions.  At any other stage personhood IS philosophical and there will always be disagreement. 

  • arekushieru

    Human, Individual.  Y’know, like saying that the parts that sustain your life cannot be broken down any further while you still remain a member of your inherited species.  That, right there, says it is not a person.  A fetus is NOT an individual until viability. 

     

    You might also want to look up the word Genocide, because, last time I looked, ProChoice women had children and ProChoice BLACK women had children.

  • arekushieru

    Actually, it is NOT.  You are so far from reality, it is LAUGHable, Born.  You are EVer, as ALways, unable to comprehend that these women are supPORting the patriarchy.  Y’know, the patriarchy that gives men so much of their privilege and power (whether you are ProChoice are not, you DO have privilege over women), which is the gender/sex that you believe it is so important for ProChoicers to have to fight against, in order to prove that this is an issue of men against women …?  And, please, do NOT falsely accuse me of begging the question, again.  I am SIMPLY stating that women are NOT eschewing anything by being anti-choice, after ALL.  That women ARE the underprivileged (again, this is whether or NOT they are ProChoice), because men ARE the privileged, class, which DOES make it such an issue.

     

    YES, we say that TEN cannot dictate what another does to their body, while  we say that one can dictate what happens to another body.  Because, of course, the oh-so-SIMple thing that you, for some strange unexPLAINable reason, keep MISSing, is that the TEN’s rights are NOT being infringed upon while the ONE’s IS.  That’s like saying the TEN cannot dictate what an organ donor does to THEIR body, because the organ donor is NOT infringing upon the LATTER’s rights, but that the organ donor CAN dictate what happens to an organ reCIPient’s body, because the organ reCIPient IS infringing on the organ donor’s body, which is absoLUTEly true.  Derrrr….

  • arekushieru

    Born, with his usual privileged, white, male, US-centric outlook, can’t seem to GRASP the SIMPLE concept that JUST because something has legal restrictions does NOT mean that ProChoicers agree with it.  I live in Canada.  The ONLY democratic country withOUT an abortion law, meaning it is LEGAL to have an abortion at ANY stage, for whatever reason, but MEDically regulated, as it SHOULD be, so that it is difficult to obtain an abortion ONLY WHEN it would be far riskier (of course we still have problems.  So far, Canada is the ONLY country that is actually legally constitutional, in this manner, meaning it refrains from legal, reproductive sexism.  So, Born, AS USUAL, puts up irrelevant topics which he merely hopes will distract us from the real issue, that ProChoice is about MORE than the current legality of certain activities….  Derrrr….

  • beenthere72

    I just want to point out that if Born is in fact Bei, that he is not white.    And some of Born’s comments seem to speak on behalf of African American’s so I’m inclined to think he is in fact Bei.    

  • kevin-rahe

    not all women who regret having an abortion, regret not continuing that pregnancy.

     

    If there were a difference between the two – in other words, if you could discontinue a pregnancy without having an abortion – perhaps you’d have a point.  As it is, what you said is nonsense.  (Unless you are arguing, as some pro-choicers effectively do, that when a woman wants to end her pregnancy that whenever possible the baby should simply be delivered, rather than killed.)

     

    Religion is based on faith, not all philosophy is faith, all faith is philosophy (btw, I am a Christian), you get the drill…?

     

    I’m not sure what your point is relative to my previous comments.

     

    Clinical personhood is conferred at viability, legal personhood is conferred at birth.

     

    squirrely girl presented the challenge that science only supports the idea that personhood begins at “viability.”  Science goes beyond what is directly observable (clinical) and obviously what is legal as well.

     

    At any other stage personhood IS philosophical and there will always be disagreement.

     

    Only if you throw out science.

  • mechashiva

    In my experience, women who “regret their abortions” but don’t regret the “decision to not continue the pregnancy” actually “regret becoming pregnant in the first place.” They feel bad about the abortion, but they would not change their decision if they could do it over again.

     

    I see it as analogous to feeling bad about putting your dog to sleep after it escaped from your fenced yard and got injured beyond your ability to pay for vet care. Needless to say, I don’t think that’s “nonsense.”

  • prochoiceferret

    Merriam-Webster says simply, “HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL.

     

    So when you said that the unborn being persons is a “scientific fact,” what you actually meant was “if you look at the dictionary definition of the word ‘person,’ which gives two other terms that are equally ambiguous in the context of pregnancy, you can kinda-sorta make the argument that the unborn are people… if that’s what you really want to believe.”

     

    Science education sure isn’t what it used to be.

  • prochoiceferret

    But that doesn’t mean they regret not getting an abortion.  In fact, I’d suggest that it rarely if ever means that, notwithstanding that even women who would never procure an abortion might, in a moment of extreme frustration with an errant child, express such a sentiment.

     

    Or they might just go ahead and get an abortion. “Pro-lifers” have abortions too, you know.

     

    We all have beliefs that stem from our philosophy and which guide our actions.  We may or many not refer to them as religious beliefs, but either way that is essentially what they are.  There is no science that tells us, for instance, upon arriving on the scene of a grizzly bear poised to attack a man we don’t know and who is himself pointing a loaded rifle at the bear, which one we ought to shoot.  Any decision we make in that situation is based on our beliefs about the importance of the man vs. the bear.

     

    Yes. And when the situation is fetus vs. woman, your beliefs are pretty clear in stating that the woman is the one who gets the proverbial rifle.

     

    Our only dispute is at what point did what that baby was become a person.

     

    No, our dispute is whether a woman has the right to control her own body, or not. Personhood is just this side issue you like to bring up to make people forget about that.

     

    One problem with the idea that a new person doesn’t come into existence at the point of fertilization is the problem of defining philosophically just what a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus is before it becomes a “person.”  It started from part of its mother and part of its father, so is it still part of one of them?  Part of both?  Or is it some kind of lower, transient life form?  While you’re free to adopt any philosophy that aligns with what you truly believe, for me, philosophy has to be reasonable, which means that it has to respect known facts.

     

    How about the fact that what we’re talking about is (1) inside a woman’s body, (2) attached to that body and having a pretty major impact on its health, (3) not yet developed to the point of undisputedly being what people think of when they say “person” or “human being,” and (4) not any more a person or human being or moral actor than the grown woman herself?

     

    In the end, contrary to your implication, there is little in the way of science that supports the idea that “viability” should mark the existence of a new person.  While it has practical significance for babies born prematurely, “viability” as it relates to the definition of a “person” is of only philosophical or religious importance.  From a scientific perspective, there are much more convincing points that could be said to herald the existence of a new person.

     

    Yes, like birth. Actual biological autonomy is kind of important.

  • squirrely-girl

    Just a small point of order - 

    The problem with using “viability” as the sign that a new “person” exists is that viability outside the womb is a wholly arbitrary point in time from a biological perspective.  The fetus changes little between the day before it was viable outside the womb and the day after – mostly a few thousand more lung cells have matured. 

    I don’t actually consider viability to be the marker of a new person. I consider viability the closest we’ll get a compromise on when women’s rights can/should be limited in favor of potential life. To be clear, if we’re going to deny or limit women’s bodily rights, I think that the fetus should at least have a reasonable (50%) chance at surviving on it’s own. 

     

    Similarly, those “few thousand more lung cells” may not sound important, but breathing is a vital component of life and the single greatest issue for pre term infants. 

  • saltyc

    Right on, SG, the fact is that conception is just as arbitrary a moment as any other in reproduction and development, as has been noted again and again by embryologists. It’s not the start of an individual and certainly not the beginning of “life.”

     

  • kevin-rahe

    In my experience, women who “regret their abortions” but don’t regret the “decision to not continue the pregnancy” actually “regret becoming pregnant in the first place.”

     

    regret:  sorrow aroused by circumstances beyond one’s control or power to repair

     

    If one “regrets” one’s abortion, then it can only be because one desires to “repair” it, which can only mean to undo it.  To suggest that a woman who “regrets” an abortion could be sure that she would do the same thing again does violence to the English language.

  • kevin-rahe

    And when the situation is fetus vs. woman, your beliefs are pretty clear in stating that the woman is the one who gets the proverbial rifle.

     

    A fetus does fight for life, but it doesn’t fight its mother for hers.  Anyone who would think that has a poor understanding of biology.

     

    Yes, like birth.

     

    Birth being akin to the unfurling of one of those Thanksgiving turkey decorations that goes from an unidentifiable condensation to a fully formed figure in just a couple moments.  The similar account of birth I posted earlier was meant to be funny, but now it’s quite clear that some of you actually see it this way.  Amazing.

  • ahunt

    Horseshit. As an example… woman may regret an abortion, but if “undoing” the past would cost her the children she now has…I’m betting on the kids.

  • kevin-rahe

    As an example… woman may regret an abortion, but if “undoing” the past would cost her the children she now has…I’m betting on the kids.

     

    Then clearly she doesn’t regret her abortion.  Perhaps a term other than “regret” will express more clearly what you mean.

  • kevin-rahe

    I don’t actually consider viability to be the marker of a new person.

     

    So, then, at what point do you believe that a new person exists?

     

    I consider viability the closest we’ll get a compromise on when women’s rights can/should be limited in favor of potential life.

     

    To describe an implanted embryo/fetus as “potential life” is stretching the definition of “potential” a great deal.  First of all, it is already living, so the word “potential” doesn’t even apply in that sense.  The only remotely reasonable use of the word in this situation would be to describe the embryo/fetus as having the “potential” to be born, and even that is a somewhat silly use of the term, since it definitely will be born unless something goes horribly wrong.  It’s like describing a newborn baby as a “potential teenager.”

     

    Similarly, those “few thousand more lung cells” may not sound important, but breathing is a vital component of life and the single greatest issue for pre term infants.

     

    I would not dispute that, and I think my own comments alluded to the importance of the milestone.  However, it’s hardly compelling from a scientific perspective as the point in time and space that marks the existence of a new person where one did not exist before.

  • ahunt

    Given that a fertilized ova has roughly a 25% chance of making it into the world….”potential” person is accurate.

  • prochoiceferret

    A fetus does fight for life, but it doesn’t fight its mother for hers.

     

    I’m sure that will be very comforting for pregnant women undergoing the severe and lasting health effects of an unwanted pregnancy, up to and including the possibility of death.

     

    Birth being akin to the unfurling of one of those Thanksgiving turkey decorations that goes from an unidentifiable condensation to a fully formed figure in just a couple moments.  The similar account of birth I posted earlier was meant to be funny, but now it’s quite clear that some of you actually see it this way.  Amazing.

     

    Yes, who would have dreamed that the whole biological-dependence-on-its-mother thing was such a big deal?

  • bj-survivor

    That describes my situation perfectly. I would rather have not been pregnant in the first place, because then I would not have needed the abortion. I really regret having had sex with the sperm donor, but I was nothing but relieved and grateful that I was able to obtain a safe, legal abortion with the support of my wonderful, pro-choice mother.

     

    Truth be told, I’ve had to put down a pet whose vet care I could not afford and I feel far more horribly about that than I do about my abortion. That decision still haunts me and I still grieve over letting down my loyal, wonderful friend.

  • kevin-rahe

    I would rather have not been pregnant in the first place, because then I would not have needed the abortion. I really regret having had sex with the sperm donor, but I was nothing but relieved and grateful that I was able to obtain a safe, legal abortion with the support of my wonderful, pro-choice mother.

     

    Then how can you say you regret your abortion?

     

    Truth be told, I’ve had to put down a pet whose vet care I could not afford and I feel far more horribly about that than I do about my abortion. That decision still haunts me and I still grieve over letting down my loyal, wonderful friend.

     

    But again, do you actually regret your decision to put it down?

  • kevin-rahe

    I’m sure that will be very comforting for pregnant women undergoing the severe and lasting health effects of an unwanted pregnancy, up to and including the possibility of death.

     

    I would never suggest that a woman’s life shouldn’t be saved, even if doing so results in the unavoidable death of her unborn baby.

     

    Yes, who would have dreamed that the whole biological-dependence-on-its-mother thing was such a big deal?

     

    For me, birth is a special moment.  But for you, it has to be pure magic, in the most fantastic sense of the word.  I’ll bet that in your mind, there wasn’t even a man involved in the process.

  • bj-survivor

    that I regret the abortion. I said that I regret having had sex with the sperm donor and then getting pregnant in the first place. Some reading comprehension skills might actually do you some good here.

     

    I absolutely regret my decision to put my dog down. But the fact is that I had neither money nor good credit at the time and I was not willing to let my best friend suffer and then inevitably die anyway.

  • beenthere72

    What is the point of this regret-or-not-regret thread?

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    Again with the false statistics.  The majority of women are not fervently pro-life.  The majority of the country is pro-choice.  The majority of old white men, now they may be fervently anti-choice, I’ll give you that one. 

  • prochoiceferret

    I would never suggest that a woman’s life shouldn’t be saved, even if doing so results in the unavoidable death of her unborn baby.

     

    I would never suggest that a woman shouldn’t be allowed control over her own body (you know, like we do for everyone else), even if doing so results in the unavoidable death of her unborn baby.

     

    For me, birth is a special moment.  But for you, it has to be pure magic, in the most fantastic sense of the word.  I’ll bet that in your mind, there wasn’t even a man involved in the process.

     

    No, we’ll acknowledge the role the man plays, even if it’s nothing more than donating sperm. On the other hand, when you talk about fetuses growing into babies, it sure sounds like in your mind, there isn’t even a woman involved in the process.

     

    And no, birth isn’t some magical mystery thing for us. It’s just the moment that the child ceases to have any direct effect on the woman’s body, and thereby, the end of the whole raison d’etre for the woman having the right to an abortion in the first place.

  • ahunt

    Kevin….you are the one who noted that the definition of regret is “sorrow.”

     

    Remember?

     

    Sorrow at having to put down one’s beloved pet is normal and to be expected.

     

    Just knock it off.

  • mechashiva

    They wish that they could “repair” their history of becoming pregnant in the first place. You’re just trying to equivocate so that you can dismiss other people’s experiences and enforce your perspective onto them.

     

    Oh and, “doing violence to the English language?” Way to be melodramatic.

  • squirrely-girl

    So, then, at what point do you believe that a new person exists?

    When it exits/detaches from the woman’s body. In other words, when it’s no longer relying on somebody else’s body for life support.

     

    To describe an implanted embryo/fetus as “potential life” is stretching the definition of “potential” a great deal.

    When a quarter or more of pregnancies end in miscarriage and plenty more in stillbirth, I think the assumption that they will be born is, at best, hopeful. Ever stop and think about why many women don’t share news of their pregnancy until the hit the second trimester? 

    It’s like describing a newborn baby as a “potential teenager.”

    Well, considering that not all newborns live to see adolescence, this would actually be a rather accurate analogy. 

  • kevin-rahe

    It’s like describing a newborn baby as a “potential teenager.”

    Well, considering that not all newborns live to see adolescence, this would actually be a rather accurate analogy.

     

    Try congratulating the parents of a newborn on their “potential teenager” and see if they take it as a positive or negative comment.  Even if the infant mortality rate were 50% I’d bet on the latter.

     

    (Now I see that the secret of being “pro-choice” is to take a rather dim view of human existence altogether.)

  • kevin-rahe

    What is the point of this regret-or-not-regret thread?

     

    It started with squirrely-girl’s acknowledgment that some women do regret their abortions.  I’m not sure what everyone else’s point was in saying that they regret something else.

  • prochoiceferret

    Try congratulating the parents of a newborn on their “potential teenager” and see if they take it as a positive or negative comment.  Even if the infant mortality rate were 50% I’d bet on the latter.

     

    Try congratulating a couple with a wanted pregnancy and ask them to keep their minds open to abortion if they end up needing it, and see if they take it as a positive or negative comment.

     

    (Although what bearing their subjective response has on the accuracy of the point made is a bit of a mystery to me…)

  • kevin-rahe

    Try congratulating a couple with a wanted pregnancy and ask them to keep their minds open to abortion if they end up needing it, and see if they take it as a positive or negative comment.

     

    Exactly.  Hence the impropriety of squirrely girl’s original comment that the unborn are just a “potential life.”

  • prochoiceferret

    Exactly.  Hence the impropriety of squirrely girl’s original comment that the unborn are just a “potential life.”

     

    Yes, but she’s not saying that to a couple with a forthcoming child, is she? Telling your great-grandma “Hey, you’re going to die soon, aren’t you?” may be rude, but that’s not the same thing as being wrong, nor is it a reason for the rest of the family to avoid funeral preparations.

  • kevin-rahe

    Yes, but she’s not saying that to a couple with a forthcoming child, is she?

     

    If you’re going to refer to one unborn child as just a “potential life” in a public setting such as this, you’re effectively referring to them all that way.

  • prochoiceferret

    If you’re going to refer to one unborn child as just a “potential life” in a public setting such as this, you’re effectively referring to them all that way.

     

    Yes. And still, that’s not the same thing as using an accurate term to refer to them in a context where it may not be appreciated, which is not the same thing as saying that the term in question is inaccurate.

     

    You may go to a washroom to urinate and defecate, but when you do, do you tell everyone within earshot “Excuse me, but I have to go urinate/defecate?” Because going by your logic, lots and lots of people need to “use the little boys’/girls’ room,” but absolutely no one ever actually needs to urinate or defecate.