Nick Cannon: Anti-Choice Double Standards on the Airwaves


In my household, we’ve recently started listening to top 40 radio morning shows because the loud music, gossipy tone and cracking noise of listener call-ins is a great formula for vaulting us out of bed. Our recent station of choice features a daily show hosted by Nick Cannon, the rapper and R+B singer who made headlines when he married the much older Mariah Carey (both had clearly had previous intimate experience, but made a giggly fuss about waiting to consummate their love until their marriage). Cannon appears to have recently been making a new bid to become another Ryan Seacrest-type all-around celebrity, thanks to this radio gig, and his job hosting “America’s Got Talent” which has sidelined his unexciting singing career.

But last week, I heard a discussion on his show that really had me jumping out of bed–a debate over the new emergency contraceptive pill, “ella.” My flag was immediately raised because Cannon belongs to a special class of celebrity whose personal story influences their political views: that is the “my mom didn’t abort me, therefore abortion is wrong” spokespeople, with Tim Tebow the most famous and egregious example.

Back in the day, Cannon released a song called “Can I Live?” sung from the perspective of a fetus to its mother. It’s a silly, sentimental and nonsensical song that launched a thousand jokes and parodies, but its tone is dead serious. You can listen to it here and catch a sample of lyrics (“mommy, I don’t like this clinic”) at this Bitch magazine blog post comparing Cannon’s position on the issues to Tebow’s.

Writes Kelsey Wallace:

With lyrics like ‘Your friends will look at you funny but look at you mommy/ That’s a life inside you look at your tummy/ What is becoming ma I am Oprah bound/ You can tell he’s a star from the Ultrasound.”

Mr. Mariah Carey’s message is pretty clear. Though Cannon claims to be ‘passing no judgment’ it is obvious that he wants us to leave this video with the idea that an unplanned pregnancy could result in a guest appearance on Oprah if only the woman in question is willing to make the sacrifice.

This line of thinking on the part of celebrities like Cannon and Tebow also underscores the fact that anti-choice crusaders often come from personal experiences that make them feel negatively towards abortion: they regretted an abortion or “my mother chose life” therefore everyone’s circumstances must mirror theirs. Meanwhile the pro-choice position is one of empathy and nonjudgment for people whose circumstances may be vastly different from their own. The Cannon-Tebow position also defies logic: our own Amanda Marcotte has done an excellent job debunking the “what if your mother had aborted you?” line of thinking here at RHRC.

To ask it is to ignore the fact that any of us exist by pure chance, and that many things could have changed it so we weren’t here.  What if your parents never met at all?  …Men make enough sperm in a week to populate the planet; women are born with almost half a million eggs.  Many eggs that are fertilized never even implant, and even when pregnancy happens, 15 to 20 percent miscarry… This creates a lot of “what ifs” that never come to fruition, and obsessing over what if too long will drive you mad.  On any given day, there are billions of theoretical babies never born for the thousands that are born.

Cannon, a typically jovial media personality who mixes a juvenile interest in celebrity scandals, a share it all attitude about his own sex life, with an occasionally moralizing tone, doesn’t seem to have a coherent and rational perspective to offer, but his anti-choice side keeps poking out. You can listen to some of last week’s program here at Cannon’s website, where he seems to take pride in tackling such a “controversial” topic and describes “ella” thus:

“The ELLA Pill works almost as homemade abortions [sic] but was still recently given the official ‘OK’ to be used in the country.” 

During the course of the radio recording he initially makes a crack about all the women he’s sent running for the morning-after pill (yuk, yuk) and then later jokes about women who need prescriptions for the pill being “whores”– mixed messages. Meanwhile his patient female sidekick Nikki explains over and over again that it’s an emergency pill that won’t somehow open the door for unsafe sex. He also can’t seem to get it into his head that the pill is not an abortion pill  It’s a shame to hear someone with such a huge platform spouting psuedo-science and poorly-informed opinion straight out of the Concerned Women for America playbook. As Cannon’s star rises and he becomes a higher-profile celebrity, expect more of his distaste for women’s reproductive rights to be trumpeted out as well, with caveats about everyone’s experience being different, but…

Nick Cannon isn’t the first celebrity to spout ill-informed opinions. There are plenty of celebs on the left and right who adhere to conspiracy theories and bunk science. But it’s a particular shame considering the fact that Cannon’s wife, Mariah Carey, has long been held under scrutiny over her body and her choices, including a recent tabloid obsession over whether or not she’s expecting a child. As Jezebel’s Dodai Stewart wrote:

“Gossips are prying so deep into Mariah’s uterus that they sourced a dress she wore as coming from maternity store A Pea In The Pod.”

It would be nice if Cannon, like other men in this country, could treat women at large the way they’d like their own wives, sisters and daughters to be treated; with respect and the privacy to make their own reproductive decisions.

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

Follow Sarah Seltzer on twitter: @sarahmseltzer

  • beenthere72

    Hrm, this changes my opinion of Nick Cannon drastically.

     

    I read that old post about the “What if…” question and its comments.   Did that Austin Nedved character get banned or just reincarnate as one of the other characters around here?     I figured out that he lives near me.    Yuck.

  • bornin1984

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    OK, Born, you believe abortion is murder.  We get it, and we don’t agree. 

     

    But this is about Ella, which prevents a pregnancy from happening.  That’s not the same as a termination of a pregnancy.  He’s spouting off about things he admits he doesn’t know about.  A listener has to inform him.  Not only that, he’s advocating a complete double standard, and it’s misogynistic. 

  • bornin1984

    It would be nice if Cannon, like other men in this country, could treat women at large the way they’d like their own wives, sisters and daughters to be treated; with respect and the privacy to make their own reproductive decisions.

    I am simply going to copy and paste something I read elsewhere, because it fits here.

    People are trusted with freedom because they are generally trusted not to do wrong as autonomous moral agents. When they do wrongs, like murder, robbery, rape, etc., we do not trust them by saying that an action is all right just because it was all right with them.

    It would be nice if pro-choicers would find a different argument that does not ultimately boil down to rationalizing away an action as okay so long as the individual engaging in that action believes it is okay, as such a line of reasoning is ridiculous. The freedom to make your own decisions does not include the freedom to make the wrong decisions.

    As to the what if you had been aborted question, the answer is that you would not be here to argue for the action that you somehow believe should be legal– on account of you being dead. It is similar to asking what if I had murdered you yesterday. The answer is that you would not care, on the account of being dead. But, surely, would never use that line of reasoning as to argue why murder should be perfectly acceptable (the murdered do not care one way or another), right? You would not turn around and tell someone who states that they are glad they were not killed yesterday that their argument is not a reason why murder should be illegal, would you? I cannot fathom that you would. You seem to not understand that rights are moral claims, more specifically claims to not be acted against. It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable, and expected, that someone would oppose abortion on the basis that they, themselves, would not have wanted to be aborted, much like you would oppose rape because you would not like to be raped, or theft because you would not like to be stolen from, or even murder because you would not have liked to be killed.

    The fact that pro-choicers, generally, do not understand this, is actually quite astounding.

  • prochoiceferret

    It would be nice if pro-choicers would find a different argument that does not ultimately boil down to rationalizing away an action as okay so long as the individual engaging in that action believes it is okay, as such a line of reasoning is ridiculous. The freedom to make your own decisions does not include the freedom to make the wrong decisions.

     

    It would be nice if anti-choicers would find a different argument that does not ultimately boil down to equating abortion to murder as though terminating a pregnancy were somehow equivalent to killing a born, autonomous person, as such a line of reasoning is ridiculous. The freedom to control your own body does include the freedom not to support other organisms living off of it.

     

    It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable, and expected, that someone would oppose abortion on the basis that they, themselves, would not have wanted to be aborted,

     

    Well then, I oppose abstinence on the basis that I would not have wanted to be not-conceived. The state-mandated orgy will begin in ten minutes!

  • arekushieru

    Morally (and, by default, legally), abortion is not (thought to be) murder, if you don’t declare all soldiers murderers, those who support the death penalty murderers, those who take people off life support murderers, etc, etc….  Very few people are willing to declare this.  So, I’m going to guess that Born doesn’t either, since he has regurgitated everything else that the anti-choice movement has thrown at him, WHILE declaring he has not.

     

    So, I think Born can have his false opinions but they ARE FALSE opinions.  This kind of equates to his idea that abortion occurs with EC.  It is his oPINion that EC is abortion, but, again, it is a FALSE opinion.

  • bornin1984

    It would be nice if anti-choicers would find a different argument that does not ultimately boil down to equating abortion to murder as though terminating a pregnancy were somehow equivalent to killing a born, autonomous person, as such a line of reasoning is ridiculous.

    I see you never did quite figure out what it means to beg the question. Normally, it would be at this point I would ask you why abortion is not murder, but you would just tell me it is not murder because terminating a pregnancy is not equivalent to killing a born, autonomous person. After which I would then ask you what the difference is between killing someone who is born versus unborn and autonomous versus non-autonomous, and you would tell me because the unborn are not born and the non-autonomous are not autonomous, thus the two are different. I would then point out that your conclusion for why abortion is not murder rests on the fact that you assume that abortion is not murder or, simplified, that abortion is not murder because the aborted are unborn and non-autonomous, and that you can only be murdered if you are born and autonomous (even though the latter assertion is false). And you, thusly, would either proceed to ignore this point all together. So I figure, why bother? Circular arguments are not very impressive. Well, they are to small minds, apparently.

    The freedom to control your own body does include the freedom not to support other organisms living off of it.

    Which is why abortion is legal on demand. Oh wait. It is not. Ergo, your assertion is false.

    Well then, I oppose abstinence on the basis that I would not have wanted to be not-conceived. The state-mandated orgy will begin in ten minutes!

    You cannot oppose something prior to you existing or after you cease existing. Or did you forget that point? Or maybe not so much forget, as not get it.

  • arekushieru

    So I figure, why bother? Circular arguments are not very impressive. Well, they are to small minds, apparently.”

     

    Btw, no.  If feoti WERE autonomous they would be ABLE to surVIVE outSIDE of the uterus.  At ANY stage.  She just didn’t want to repeat the OBvious, OBviously.  But, I guess, for you, she should have…?

     

    “You cannot oppose something prior to you existing or after you cease existing. Or did you forget that point? Or maybe not so much forget, as not get it.”

     

    Uh, no, YOU didn’t get it.  She was logically exTENding it, OF course.  Oh, wait, I said ‘logic’, right…?  I forgot you and logic have issues.

     

    “Which is why abortion is legal on demand. Oh wait. It is not. Ergo, your assertion is false.”

     

    In Canada it IS, but, of course, Mr. Born FALSEly (of course) believes that ProChoicers automatically agree with something based on it’s legality or lack thereof.  If we DID, abortion would have reMAINED illegal.  Oops, back to Logic 101 with you, eh…?  The REASon I agree with MY (Canada’s) laws is because EVeryone has the same RIGHTS as EVeryone else, inCLUding the unborn.

     

     

     

  • carolyninthecity

    I have so many issues with this I don’t even know where to begin. 

    It bothers me, as you said in the article, that Nick Cannon has such a huge platform and wide audience and he’s spreading misinformation. 

    He didn’t even know that ella doesn’t actually cause an abortion until the final caller told him what it actually did. He based an entire segment of a show on a drug he doesn’t seem to know anything about, and all he could really contribute was judgement for those women who might need to use it. 

    When his co-host nikki told him ella is only available by prescription, he said something like “prescription for whores”, then laughed at the idea that a woman would need a prescription for emergency contraception, obviously misunderstanding that prescription meant you have to go see your doctor to get it, not that it would be dispenced to you in packs of 30. 

     

    The whole thing was so ignorant, and really irritating. I understand everyone has a right to his or her opinion, but when you’re a public figure with a wide audience maybe you should consider doing a little research before opening your mouth. 

     

    He even admitted to needing and being thankful for the Plan b, and yet could not grasp how any one could possibly benifit from having a couple extra days to get the pill. Which obviously there’s any number of reasons. I’m glad Nikki was there as the voice of reason, but Cannon’s blatant anti-choice beliefs and thinly veiled hatred for “whores” absolutely disgusted me. He’s so misguided. It’s really annoying to listen to celebrities go on and on about things they don’t understand. Get over yourself nick cannon. 

  • prochoiceferret

    I would then point out that your conclusion for why abortion is not murder rests on the fact that you assume that abortion is not murder or, simplified, that abortion is not murder because the aborted are unborn and non-autonomous, and that you can only be murdered if you are born and autonomous (even though the latter assertion is false).

     

    And I would once again point out that if your right to life depends on a violation of my right to my own body… then you’d better have your affairs in order.

     

    Which is why abortion is legal on demand. Oh wait. It is not. Ergo, your assertion is false.

     

    I’m sure slaveholders enjoyed the “your assertion is false” line a lot before slavery became illegal.

     

    You cannot oppose something prior to you existing or after you cease existing. Or did you forget that point? Or maybe not so much forget, as not get it.

     

    The sperm and egg that would become the ferret I am today didn’t exist?

  • sweetchild92

    You think he’s gonna become a huge star?

     

    lol.

  • bornin1984

    And I would once again point out that if your right to life depends on a violation of my right to my own body… then you\’d better have your affairs in order.

    And, PCF, what right is being violated? The right to your own body, you say? That is quite impossible, unless you think that your rights can be violated when you force someone into a certain circumstance in which they now need your body to survive, unless they were to die.

    I\’m sure slaveholders enjoyed the \”your assertion is false\” line a lot before slavery became illegal.

    They were smart enough to not argue things they knew were false as far as the law was concerned. Too bad I cannot say the same thing for you, though.

    The sperm and egg that would become the ferret I am today didn\’t exist?

    Did you exist before the two came together? :)

  • forced-birth-rape

    BornIn1984 abortion is none of your business! You are a man, quit trying to dictate womens, little girls, and rape victims bodies, as if you are their pimp! Women, little girls, and rape victims, do not have, to have their bodies “USED” against their will, they do not have to, anticipate vaginal pain, against their will. My body does not belong to you, or your vile prolife ilk.

  • saltyc

    The right to your own body, you say? That is quite impossible, unless you think that your rights can be violated when you force someone into a certain circumstance in which they now need your body to survive, unless they were to die.

    What, forcing someone into your body how? By having sex? Even when they use birth control, they’re forcing someone into their own body?

    Wait. YOU have sex, are you also engaging in tort? Oh, I forgot, men don’t force people into other people’s bodies, only women force people into their bodies. What a bizarre, hate-filled reality you need to weave for your beliefs to make sense.

    You have ZERO credibility, my very very dumb friend.

  • forced-birth-rape

    BornIn1984 Women do not like things forced out of their vaginas, just as they do not like things forced in!!!

    No one, “EVER” has the right to use a womens body against her will, for any reasons. Forced birth is perverted, and abusive, to a womens body, and mind.

  • prochoiceferret

    And, PCF, what right is being violated? The right to your own body, you say? That is quite impossible, unless you think that your rights can be violated when you force someone into a certain circumstance in which they now need your body to survive, unless they were to die.

     

    Yes, other people can’t violate my right to my body, and I can’t violate another person’s right to their body, which would include “forcing [them] into a certain circumstance in which they now need [my] body to survive, unless they were to die.” Now, if they put themselves into that position, then, well… that’s unfortunate for them.

     

    They were smart enough to not argue things they knew were false as far as the law was concerned.

     

    What, like the idea that one human being can’t own another?

     

    Did you exist before the two came together? :)

     

    In a very small, delicate, and odds-stacked-against-me form, yes. You wouldn’t discriminate against persons in such a state of existence, would you?

  • invalid-0

    The analogy of the intruder is flawed because the “host” – generally – consents to the presence of the child.  Consensual sex, regardless of whether or not you intend for pregnancy, eliminates the argument.  Consent does not ask the question: “what did I intend”, but rather it asks: “what have I invited as a legitimate possibility by partaking in this action”.

     

    As an example, I drive over the speed limit – I may not have intended to collide with a car, but I certainly invited the possibility by hitting the gas – nay, getting in the car in the first place.  Imagine if someone tries to hold you responsible for breaking a window during a baseball game – would you argue with a straight face that you owe no responsibility for the ball, because you did not intend it?  By participating in the act, you consented to the potential consequences.  Even if you practice “safe baseball”, which doesn’t break windows 99% of the time.

     

    Once consent is established, the child is no longer a trespasser, but an invitee – in which case, not only can you not kill them, but you have a duty to make sure they leave unharmed.

  • saltyc

    Read up on tort, my ignorant friend. Just google it.

    Not stopping for a pedestrian, not paying attention to the road, driving over the speed limit, is wrong.

    Playing baseball too close to a window is wrong.

    On the other hand, if you get hit by a golf ball and you were wandering around on the designated golf field (whatever it’s called) the golfer is not responsible, because it wasn’t wrong for the golfer to be hitting golf balls there.

    You are responsible if what you were doing was not playing by the rules.

    If you are observing all the rules of the road and someone jumps out from between two parked cars and you hit them, then you are not responsible because you were playing by the rules.

     

    HAVING CONSESUAL SEX IS NOT WRONG, IT IS NOT TORTIOUS BEHAVIOR, IT IS A NORMAL PART OF LIFE.

     

    Hey while you’re looking up the definition of tort you should also look up consent because your current definition is comfort to rapist’s. She invited the possibility of rape by wearing a miniskirt, inviting him to my room, accepting a drink, etc.

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Consensual sex, regardless of whether or not you intend for pregnancy, eliminates the argument.  Consent does not ask the question: “what did I intend”, but rather it asks: “what have I invited as a legitimate possibility by partaking in this action”.

     

    So you’re saying it is okay to kill the “innocent unborn child” if the woman did not consent to sex? That murder should be illegal, except if performed shortly after rape?

  • squirrely-girl

    Once consent is established, the child is no longer a trespasser, but an invitee – in which case, not only can you not kill them, but you have a duty to make sure they leave unharmed.

    So do you have a problem if women who consent to sex but don’t wish to consent to pregnancy (as in, they properly utilized birth control and everything but still become pregnant) leaves the ZBEFs intact but simply clip the umbilical cord and remove the placenta? I mean, those things are absolutely hers. By the way, your use of the “duty” concept would suggest you approve of penalties for women who don’t live healthy lives while pregnant. Are you in favor of policing all pregnant women’s actions? Imprisoning those women who ignore medical advice? I mean, if we’re being serious, women should be taking prenatal vitamins BEFORE they want to get pregnant. Should all women of breeding age be forced onto vitamins to make sure they’re properly fulfilling that “duty?”

     

    I have no “duty” to people other than myself and those I choose. Women have no more “duty” because of their anatomy than men do. A person with Type O blood has no more “duty” to give it up than any other person. A person with healthy organs has no more “duty” to give those organs to unhealthy people . This “duty” you speak of is an entirely moral concept. Please feel free to live your life according to whatever moral code you choose… and respect everybody else’s right to do the same. 

     

    Similarly, consent is an ongoing process not a single experience that cannot be revoked. For example, if I’m having sex with a guy who decides, halfway through, to get all creepy and aggressive, regardless of whether I initially consented to “sex,” I am certainly within my rights to revoke that consent. Likewise, consent to one sexual behavior is not a blanket consent to all sexual behaviors. Just because I consent to letting a man put his penis in my mouth or vagina doesn’t mean I consented to him putting his penis in my anus. 

  • beenthere72

    fairway.  or just a golf course in general.    Just played a round on Monday.  ;-)

     

     

  • invalid-0

    Nobody’s saying that having consensual sex is wrong.  You’re missing the point.  I’m speaking about consent through foreseeable causation of action.  If I jump over water, I’ve consented to getting wet.  

     

    Let’s try this analogy and you can tell me what you think.

    You go out to the bar with some friends, and meet a very attractive member of the opposite sex.  The two of you drink heavily, things get intimate, and…

    The next morning you wake up to find that you have adopted a toddler!

    You don’t want the child.  You never intended to adopt a child.  Nevertheless, it’s on your property, and depends on you to live.  May you kill it?

  • saltyc

    I didn’t miss your point, I addressed it directly,  did you look up tort? Did you look up consent?

    As for your ridiculous and irrelevant example, I would contact child welfare and make arrangements, there’s no way to accidentally adopt a child, I would endeavor to clear up the mistake and contact agencies to find the real parents or place the child, or maybe I could adopt him/her depending on the situation, there’s no need to murder him/her, idiot.

  • forced-birth-rape

    arex, that is your misogynistic opinion, a opinion that christians, catholics, prolifers, and republicans want to establish all over the earth, were women are nothing but baby machines. A women does not want to be a baby-machine, just as she does not want to be a sex-slave. Pimps tell women, and little girls their duties all the time, it is just a opinion, of a creep, that wants a womens body to be used against her will, and cause her unwanted vaginal apin.

  • saltyc

    Thank you, so you’re a golfer,

    Am I skating on thin ice here? I don’t know

    If you’re following all the course rules, and hit a golf ball and it just flies out of sight, and accidentally hits someone on the head, are you responsible for that person’s medical treatment, income and any other associated costs, because after all, it was a foreseeable consequence?

    (I’m hoping the answer is no)

  • forced-birth-rape

    You cant kill it! It is not in your body, using your body, and it will not have to come out of your body. Obviously.

  • catseye71352

    Consent to sex DOES NOT AND NEVER _HAS_ equaled  consent to pregnancy. I suppose you also believe that consent to dinner and a movie = consent to sex.

  • beenthere72

    I actually had to do some googling to answer that and it seems by most accounts: no.     And especially no in the situation your example illustrates (if you’re just some passerby cutting through a fairway – a very dumb thing).

     

    The No-Duty Rule 
    The no-duty rule applies to ban claims for injuries suffered as a result of common, frequent and expected risks. People participating in certain activities are assumed to understand such risks and voluntarily accept them, which eliminates any duty to protect them from these known hazards. This rule is often applied when injuries occur at sporting events caused by foul balls, hockey pucks or errant golf shots, etc.

     

    from here:  http://www.macelree.com/resources/home_foul.html

     

    But:

     

    http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news00/fore.html

     

    Oh, and by the way, it seems in most cases it’s the course itself that gets sued over such accidents.

     

     

  • invalid-0

    Would you agree to that if I did?

  • invalid-0

    Tort law IS missing the point.  We’re talking about an area of Constitutional Law. 

    One commits a tort if you owe a duty to someone, you breach that duty and you cause damage to that person.  If you want to play that game, we can discuss duty, breach and damage.  Obviously, vacuum aspiration, D&X, D&E, whatever causes damage to the child.  Let’s discuss duty.  One owes a duty to all “reasonably foreseeable” plaintiffs.  In my car, I owe a duty of care (to not harm) pedestrians.  If I do something that causes their death, I breach my duty and have committed a tort.  I am saved from this conviction if I can argue that the other party was negligent or culpable for some other reason.

    Clearly, the child in the womb cannot avoid being there – so it cannot be accused of negligence.  You may accuse it of trespass, but you would lose that as well.  Trespass is an intentional tort – requiring intent.  And as you pro-choicers love to point out so much, there is reduced brain activity in the child in the womb… hardly enough to form an intentional tort.

  • forced-birth-rape

    AREX, quit trying to force women, and little girls bodies to be used against their will, and have vaginal pain against their will, just like a rapist, or a pimp on a perverted sadomasochistic power trip.

  • prochoiceferret

    Would you agree to that if I did?

     

    No, I would say that a woman has a right to a safe, legal abortion regardless of whether she consented or not to sexual activity. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that this should be the case only if she did not consent.

     

    So does the ostensible “right to life” of the “unborn child” depend on whether or not the woman engaged in sex consensually? Or does it exist as a fact regardless of other people’s decisions?

  • saltyc

    No, stupid.

    The person you hit with your car may also not have been responsible, say someone else had just punched him in the head, or he was having a seizure, but if you were following all the rules and not doing anything wrong, you are still not liable.

     

    This whole argument is whether the woman is liable based on her conscious decision, so yes tort does come into it.

  • beenthere72

    what’s up with the funny links?

  • prochoiceferret

    Just another link-spammer. Report the comment for good Internet hygiene…

  • beenthere72

    it’s weird how they manage to work the jist of the conversation in there.

     

    this site needs captcha! 

  • mechashiva

    I love the, “What if you didn’t exist because your mom aborted you,” question. I generally like to follow it up with, “What if I don’t really exist anyway?” The confusion that follows is generally strong enough to turn the conversation away from abortion and toward quantum physics and the nature of reality… and since I usually know more about it than my conservative opponents (even though my knowledge is decidedly scant), I automatically “win.” Regardless, I win because the question of what I would think about being aborted in the past is about as relevant to my everyday life as the question of my mathematical probability of existing.

  • mechashiva

    Yeah, good point about calling soldiers murderers. To me, calling doctors who provide abortions murderers is kind of like calling a veterinarian a puppy- and kitten-slaughterer.

  • bornin1984

    Yes, other people can\’t violate my right to my body, and I can\’t violate another person\’s right to their body, which would include \”forcing [them] into a certain circumstance in which they now need [my] body to survive, unless they were to die.\” Now, if they put themselves into that position, then, well… that\’s unfortunate for them.

    Last I checked, barring rape, a woman cannot be forced into pregnancy while, on the other hand, the unborn are always forced into a situation where they are reliant on another. It really makes one wonder as to how you can somehow continuously ignore the fact that women overwhelmingly become pregnant as a result of their own free will. But you are free to continue to, somehow, ignore this point.

    What, like the idea that one human being can\’t own another?

    No. More like the idea that it was the right of everyone everywhere to own a slave.

    In a very small, delicate, and odds-stacked-against-me form, yes. You wouldn\’t discriminate against persons in such a state of existence, would you?

    So the answer, as we all know, is no. I have to say that is not much of a shock. At any rate, how do you discriminate against someone who does not exist?

  • prochoiceferret

    Last I checked, barring rape, a woman cannot be forced into pregnancy while, on the other hand, the unborn are always forced into a situation where they are reliant on another.

     

    Sucks to be them. But what does this have to do with the rights of a woman?

     

    It really makes one wonder as to how you can somehow continuously ignore the fact that women overwhelmingly become pregnant as a result of their own free will. But you are free to continue to, somehow, ignore this point.

     

    Are you saying that the lives of the unborn don’t deserve protection if the woman did not become pregnant by her own free will?

     

    No. More like the idea that it was the right of everyone everywhere to own a slave.

     

    Not unlike you arguing that women don’t actually own their bodies, because of restrictions on abortions in current law.

     

    So the answer, as we all know, is no. I have to say that is not much of a shock. At any rate, how do you discriminate against someone who does not exist?

     

    By denying that they exist, when the gametes that will form them already undeniably exist. Are you suggesting that there is a fixed, magical moment when a person comes into existence?

  • bornin1984

    Sucks to be them. But what does this have to do with the rights of a woman?

    Rights exist at the expense of the life of someone else? If so, then explain to me why there is no right to rape or pillage or murder? Sure, it would suck for those raped or pillaged or murdered, but oh well. Right?

    Are you saying that the lives of the unborn don\’t deserve protection if the woman did not become pregnant by her own free will?

    I could be snarky, but I will not be. Of course not. That would simply be silly.

    Not unlike you arguing that women don\’t actually own their bodies, because of restrictions on abortions in current law.

    It is more along the line of no one owns their bodies because that has no substantial meaning, as it is only relative to the rights of someone else. But you have never understood this, so I doubt you would start now.

    By denying that they exist, when the gametes that will form them already undeniably exist. Are you suggesting that there is a fixed, magical moment when a person comes into existence?

    It is not magical, so much as it is natural. I direct you to the two links provided above, with about thirty to forty quotes on the matter. Of course, since you obviously believe that you have existed since the beginning of life (for the sperm and egg which combined to form you existed, and the sperm and egg which combined to form the human being who produced the sperm and egg which combined to form you existed, and the sperm and egg that combined to form the human beings who produced the sperm and egg which combined to form the human beings who produced the sperm and egg which combined to form you exist, etc.) I doubt they will really have any effect on you.

  • beenthere72

    It disturbs me to no end that the PL argument equates abortion to the rape and murder of live persons.  

     

    Today, *of all days*, have some respect for the rights of LIVE people.  Living, breathing, existing outside the womb people.  

  • prochoiceferret

    Rights exist at the expense of the life of someone else? If so, then explain to me why there is no right to rape or pillage or murder? Sure, it would suck for those raped or pillaged or murdered, but oh well. Right?

     

    There is no right to rape/pillage/murder because people don’t want these things done to them. There is a right to self-ownership because people don’t want others staking claims on their own bodies.

     

    And yes, sometimes that comes at the expense of the life of someone else. Just ask Little Timmy.

     

    I could be snarky, but I will not be. Of course not. That would simply be silly.

     

    So then, this whole “the woman became pregnant by her own actions” thing is really irrelevant, isn’t it? The fetus would have just as much a right to life if it were the product of rape.

     

    It is more along the line of no one owns their bodies because that has no substantial meaning, as it is only relative to the rights of someone else. But you have never understood this, so I doubt you would start now.

     

    So you won’t complain when the mandatory organ donations begin, then.

     

    It is not magical, so much as it is natural. I direct you to the two links provided above, with about thirty to forty quotes on the matter. Of course, since you obviously believe that you have existed since the beginning of life (for the sperm and egg which combined to form you existed, and the sperm and egg which combined to form the human being who produced the sperm and egg which combined to form you existed, and the sperm and egg that combined to form the human beings who produced the sperm and egg which combined to form the human beings who produced the sperm and egg which combined to form you exist, etc.) I doubt they will really have any effect on you.

     

    Yes, I must admit the law of conservation of mass/energy is very persuasive.

     

    But then, the way that you’re not willing to grant me “existence as a person” when there’s still a whole lot of things that need to happen before I come into being, is a lot like the way that pro-choicers don’t grant “existence as a person” to an entity that is not yet capable of living without a direct biological link to someone else and still needs a lot of work to get to that point. It’s really just a difference of opinion, although the pro-choicers’ view does square better with what we normally think of when we say “person.”

  • kevin-rahe

    It would be nice if anti-choicers would find a different argument that does not ultimately boil down to equating abortion to murder as though terminating a pregnancy were somehow equivalent to killing a born, autonomous person, as such a line of reasoning is ridiculous.

     

    Many born persons aren’t completely autonomous.  If you really want to make some headway, however, come up with a scientifically-relevant “line of reasoning” that shows that abortion is not manslaughter, as 53% of Americans (including 56% of women) see it to be.

  • forced-birth-rape

    Kevin Rahe nothing has the right to live off my body, or cause me genital pain, unless I say it can, and men should have no say, in anything, that caue women genital pain, you sadomasochistic, vaginal pain, monger! In other words perfect example, of a christian taliban man.

    No man has the right to tell a women she can not get a abortion, no christian, or politician has the right to tell a women she can not get an abortion. Men do not rip open, get cut open, or die from children coming into the world, many, many women, and very, very, young girls do!
    Men have been raping, beating, and selling women, and little girls for centuries, and now men want a say in something that hurts women, not them!
    Abortion is none of men’s business!
    Men rape women from the outside in, now you want to rape women from the inside out. Men can not make a women’s body do something painful, that could kill her, against her will, men do, and have already done, plenty of that, to us!
    !!

  • rebellious-grrl

    Right on!

  • reproductivefreedomfighter

    How about instead you come up with scientific proof that life begins at conception?  And I don’t trust your stats, any more than you will probably trust this:  http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

  • bornin1984

    There is no right to rape/pillage/murder because people don\’t want these things done to them. There is a right to self-ownership because people don\’t want others staking claims on their own bodies.

    So ignoring the fact that you still do not understand what is meant by self-ownership (the right to not be acted against), I find it deathly humorous that you state that there is no right to rape, pillage or murder because people do not want those things done to them, but as soon as someone turns around and applies the same rationale to abortion– people oppose it because they would not have wanted to be aborted– then you either claim that line of reasoning is faulty, or you ignore it all together. Irony, to say the least.

    And yes, sometimes that comes at the expense of the life of someone else. Just ask Little Timmy.

    Not donating a kidney to someone comes at their expense? Then, pray tell, why do you not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone, yet you do go to jail for taking a kidney away from someone? It is about time you stopped ignoring the question, PCF.

    So then, this whole \”the woman became pregnant by her own actions\” thing is really irrelevant, isn\’t it? The fetus would have just as much a right to life if it were the product of rape.

    It matters when you state that no one can violate the right someone else has to their body, yet turn around less than five seconds later and state the opposite. Or did you, as you usually do, forget what you typed out that quickly?

    So you won\’t complain when the mandatory organ donations begin, then.

    Would that be predicated on the notion of not being allowed to kill someone? Since we all know the answer to that question, I will let you off.

    Yes, I must admit the law of conservation of mass/energy is very persuasive.

    It looks like someone does not understand the law of conservation of mass.

    But then, the way that you\’re not willing to grant me \”existence as a person\” when there\’s still a whole lot of things that need to happen before I come into being, is a lot like the way that pro-choicers don\’t grant \”existence as a person\” to an entity that is not yet capable of living without a direct biological link to someone else and still needs a lot of work to get to that point. It\’s really just a difference of opinion, although the pro-choicers\’ view does square better with what we normally think of when we say \”person.\”

    The problem you are having (among many), is that prior to conception/fertilization, you do not exist. That is not a matter of personal beliefs. It is a simple matter of science. You see, this is not a difference of opinion. Rather, it is one side professing willful ignorance no matter how many sources or sites they are given which proves them wrong, and relegating the abortion debate to one of personal beliefs.

  • forced-birth-rape

    No ”ONE” has the right, to cause a women, vaginal pain, unless, she says, they can, is that simple enough for you, creep? And the fact that giving birth cause women, and little girls, vaginal pain, is really the icing on the cake, for the pro life christian men. Do not try, to tell me, I am wrong, I grew up with you gross, vile, monsters.

  • forced-birth-rape

    I dont know if you grew up with christian men, I did, I will explain, · It is all about giving glory to the man, his sperm created life, after it interred the egg. The women, or little girl being pregnant for nine months, and going through extreme vaginal pain, has nothing to do with giving life, its all about the “MAN.” The only credit women are to ever have, is being submissive to their husbands. Welcome to Christianity

  • kevin-rahe

    How about instead you come up with scientific proof that life begins at conception?

     

    There is little room to dispute that a new life begins at conception.  The more important question is when should that new life be considered a person.  I think the right way to go about it is to define a person, then let the chips fall where they may.  I define person as:  a complete, distinct, living, unconditionally viable and fully human being.  I believe it’s a pretty strong definition.  In fact, anyone who believes that a fetus isn’t complete, that an embryo is part of the mother, that a zygote is nothing more than a “blob of tissue,” that the unborn aren’t yet alive (or don’t have their own life) or that they aren’t fully human, should have nothing to fear from this definition as far as upsetting the status quo regarding abortion.

  • kevin-rahe

    Women do not like things forced out of their vaginas, just as they do not like things forced in!!!

     

    Once a woman becomes pregnant, something is going to be forced out, one way or another, sooner or later, by a natural or artificial process.  And while it may be dead or alive, it is not a “thing” that comes out, it’s a person.

  • forced-birth-rape

    That is your sadomasochistic opinion christian man, all you think about is your pornographic desire to force women,  and little girls to be pregnantd, and give birth against their will. Abortion early in pregnancy is not the same as giving birth to a nine pound baby. You pervert!!! 

     

    Pro-life christian mans favorite bible verse, that really, floats their boats.

    “I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and cravings will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 Amplified version bible.

  • janine

    Women have sex…which is not rape as long as it remains consensual.  I believe “Forced Birth is RAPE” is referring to someone else mandating that something be grown much larger/that it come through her vagina when or how she doesn’t want it to, and preventing her from using means to stop that.

  • kevin-rahe

    Abortion early in pregnancy is not the same as giving birth to a nine pound baby.

     

    You have experienced both, then?

  • kevin-rahe

    I believe “Forced Birth is RAPE” is referring to someone else mandating that something be grown much larger/that it come through her vagina when or how she doesn’t want it to, and preventing her from using means to stop that.

     

    Schedule a C-section.

  • janine

    If she doesn’t want abdominal surgery and someone else mandates her to – thats assault and battery.

  • prochoiceferret

    Many born persons aren’t completely autonomous.

     

    They’re completely autonomous from anyone else’s body, which is ultimately what matters.

     

    If you really want to make some headway, however, come up with a scientifically-relevant “line of reasoning” that shows that abortion is not manslaughter, as 53% of Americans (including 56% of women) see it to be.

     

    No one has the right to obtain life support from the body of another against their will. Abortion is neither murder nor manslaughter because the death of the fetus is incidental to the real point of the procedure, which is the woman asserting her right to disallow her body to be used in that way.

  • carolyninthecity

    A c-section is still a birth. 

     

    does anyone have anything to say about Nick Cannon? 

    I know kevin and born for sure do not, they didn’t read the article , they just saw the word abortion and jumped right in to have the same conversation they have every day. 

     

    I’ll throw in my two cents just for shits and giggles: yes “life” begins at conception. But personhood begins at birth, when a fetus becomes a baby. when something that was once a part of my body is now separate and whole. When the uterus-dwelling body breathes air for the first time, becomes alive, is given a name and rights and opens its eyes, becomes aware. I don’t care to debate the personhood of something that is being kept alive by my organs. That is fully attached and inside my body. my uterus, placenta, and the little body within that, that I created, are all one until I push it out.

     

    Nick Cannon is not alone is his ignorance, and self righteous indignation over women wanting to control their fertility, (and therefore have the freedom to enjoy their sexuality the way men thoughout history always have). Sorry Mariah, your hubby’s probably a misogynist. 

  • prochoiceferret

    You have experienced both, then?

     

    Lots of women have. Too bad you were only listening to the ones who regretted the former.

  • forced-birth-rape

    We all know you have experienced neither, you perfect example of a christian man. You believe your self, like all christian men, to be the top authority on everything, your number one subject of expertise is women, and what women should, and should not do, with their lives, bodies, and genitals. You are violating women, little girls, and rape victims, with your unwanted opinions on something so personal, private, sexual, and genital, as pregnancy, birth, and abortion. It is sexual sadomasochistic harrasment, for men to continually harass women, about abortion. You are a pervert! Leave women alone! And stop your sadomasochistic harassment! It should be against the law! You do not get a say, in my extremely private, private, business. Abortion, and birth, both have to do with women taking their underwear off, and opening their legs, you involving your self, is vile, and perverted. You are just a perverted creep, as all sexual harassers are.

  • janine

    She doesn’t have to experience any specific type of unwanted penetration to know that she is opposed to it.  No woman has to experience both consensual penetration by a penis and also unwanted penetration by penis (or larger penis shaped object/other larger object) in order to be opposed to the latter.

  • prochoiceferret

    I find it deathly humorous that you state that there is no right to rape, pillage or murder because people do not want those things done to them, but as soon as someone turns around and applies the same rationale to abortion– people oppose it because they would not have wanted to be aborted– then you either claim that line of reasoning is faulty, or you ignore it all together.

     

    You certainly don’t care much for the notion of bodily integrity, or even the basic affirmation of having been born to a willing mother. I think others may feel differently.

     

    Not donating a kidney to someone comes at their expense? Then, pray tell, why do you not go to jail for refusing to donate a kidney to someone, yet you do go to jail for taking a kidney away from someone? It is about time you stopped ignoring the question, PCF.

     

    Because living organ donation isn’t mandatory… yet. (I kind of thought this point was obvious.)

     

    It matters when you state that no one can violate the right someone else has to their body, yet turn around less than five seconds later and state the opposite. Or did you, as you usually do, forget what you typed out that quickly?

     

    If the fetus is violating the woman’s right to bodily integrity, you can’t then claim that the corrective action taken violates its own right to bodily integrity. That’s like saying that if you kidnap someone, and they escape and inform the police, that the police can’t then “kidnap” (i.e. arrest) you.

     

    Would that be predicated on the notion of not being allowed to kill someone?

     

    No, just on the notion you seem to like that you don’t have the right to prevent your body from being used for the benefit of others.

     

    It looks like someone does not understand the law of conservation of mass.

     

    Boy, is fusion going to throw you for a loop.

     

    The problem you are having (among many), is that prior to conception/fertilization, you do not exist. That is not a matter of personal beliefs. It is a simple matter of science.

     

    No, more like discrimination against those who do not exist as a single contiguous unit. After all, if I were to chop you down the middle, and then put both of you into special machines that kept you alive… you would still exist, would you not?

  • colleen

    Schedule a C-section.

    Find another blog.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Kevin, do you think about what you are saying? Because you put your foot in your mouth a lot!  Forced birth is RAPE has been very clear in making her point. You should listen and learn.

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Kevin, it’s NONE of your business! Rude, rude, rude.

     

    You have experienced both, then?

  • bornin1984

    You certainly don\’t care much for the notion of bodily integrity, or even the basic affirmation of having been born to a willing mother. I think others may feel differently.

    And I am pretty sure that more people think the way I do than you do– even those you think should have been aborted because they were not born to willing mothers, or mothers who did not want them. But, do not worry. Since they are all misogynists, you can discount their opinions.

    Because living organ donation isn\’t mandatory… yet. (I kind of thought this point was obvious.)

    You see, I have asked this question before, and you skirted it, but when has organ donation ever been mandatory in the United States? The answer, is never. It is still amazing how you somehow fail to distinguish between preventing murder, and mandatory organ donation. And yet you wonder why you feel like you are fighting the proverbial uphill battle.

    If the fetus is violating the woman\’s right to bodily integrity, you can\’t then claim that the corrective action taken violates its own right to bodily integrity. That\’s like saying that if you kidnap someone, and they escape and inform the police, that the police can\’t then \”kidnap\” (i.e. arrest) you.

    No, PCF. Your argument is like asserting that I can attack you with a knife, and that you have to let me attack you with a knife because you cannot do anything to violate my right to bodily integrity. Essentially, you argue that one party can put another party in a situation which threatens his or her life, and that the second party has to allow the first party to continue as they are doing because the first party has a right that cannot be violated. This is nonsense.

    Do I need to give you that link for you to (not read) again?

    No, just on the notion you seem to like that you don\’t have the right to prevent your body from being used for the benefit of others.

    Okay, so people cannot choose to not engage in sex, as sex is compulsory; a consent to sex is not a consent to a resulting pregnancy, if you are a female; and the right of the female, not the man, to engage in sex is paramount to the right of the individual which results from that action. Did I get that right? Different thread, but it did not take you long to devolve your argument down to what I said you would devolve your argument down to.

    Boy, is fusion going to throw you for a loop.

    Not nearly as big a loop as 6th grade biology has thrown you.

    No, more like discrimination against those who do not exist as a single contiguous unit. After all, if I were to chop you down the middle, and then put both of you into special machines that kept you alive… you would still exist, would you not?

    No. It is more like discrimination against those who do not exist, which is not discrimination at all, on account of there being no one to discriminate against. You see, I am arguing a basic biological fact. You seem to be arguing dualism (which is in the long line of concepts you do not understand). Does that surprise me? Not in the least. After all, science is a pro-choicers worst enemy.

  • prochoicekatie

    I would like to write a song as a zygote/fetus as well. Here it goes:

    ….

    That’s it. Because fetuses and zygotes don’t have thoughts. They don’t sing songs, and they don’t have opinions on abortion. Period. And here’s the best part: If we were to philosophize on what a given fetus’ or zygote’s opinion on abortion would be… well, people are most likely to agree with their parents and the views they’ve been raised with – so ‘pro-choice’ women who have abortions would probably have had pro-choice kids. So yeah, they’d actually probably be pro-choice. There’s a funny thought.

    As for Ella, Cannon is an idiot. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Yes, it end’s the life that is growing, but the point of the abortion is to terminate the pregnancy, not end life. Which is why many women have abortions – to terminate their pregnancies – and yet aren’t going around stabbing people. Why anti-choicers can’t agree that these situations are at least a wee bit different amazes me. Pregnancy begins at implantation, so Ella doesn’t cause abortions because it affects implantation. If you believe that conception is when your ability to avoid pregnancy ends, then don’t take Ella. But as for myself, and the AMA, and ABA, and U.S. law – it doesn’t cause abortion, so back off.

  • forced-birth-rape

    BornIn1984, I never had the right to life while my mother was pregnant with me! I never had the right to “USE” my mothers body against her will, cause my mother emotional duress, against her will, or cause her vaginal pain against her will. She had every right to abort me, because I never had the right to use and hurt my mother! If I found out some one forced my mother to be pregnant with me, and give birth to me against my mothers will, I would sue that person for using me to hurt, and rape my mother. You are just hateful to women, you want to hurt women, and you are doing a very good job at it.

    “Science is a pro-choicers worst enemy.” Famous scientist say christians are scientist worst enemy.

    Pro lifers are some of womens worst enemies.

    We women, who care about not having or daughters, sisters, mothers, nieces, friends, and fellow females, bodies, and vaginas, used, abused, and dictated like we are sex slaves, are the pro lifers worst enemies.

  • ahunt

    Deep Breaths, FBIR…deep breaths.

     

    Born is way too chickenshit to carry his convictions through to their rational conclusions, despite being ASKED time and again. Instead, we get his longwinded yawners, because he likes to reassure himself of his profound intellect while boring the hell out of us lesser mortals, who scroll…

  • saltyc

    Well I’m up here in this womb,
    I’m looking all around.
    Well I’m looking out my belly button window,
    And I see a whole lot of frowns.
    And I’m wondering if they don’t want me around.

    What seems to be the fuss out there?
    Just what seems to be the hang?
    ‘Cause you know if ya just don’t want me this time around,
    Yeah I’ll be glad to go back to Spirit Land.
    And even take a longer rest,
    Before coming down the chute again.
    Man, I sure remember the last time, baby,
    They were still hawkin’ about me then.

    So if you don’t want me now,
    Make up your mind, where or when.
    If you don’t want me now,
    Give or take, you only got two hundred days.
    ‘Cause I ain’t coming down this way too much more again.

    You know they got pills for ills and thrills and even spills,
    But I think you’re just a little too late.
    So I’m coming down into this world daddy,
    Regardless of love and hate.
    And I’m gonna sit up in your bed mama,
    And just a-grin right in your face.
    And then I’m gonna eat up all your chocolates,
    And say “I hope I’m not too late.”

    So if there’s any questions,
    Make up your mind,
    ‘Cause you better give or take.
    Questions in your mind,
    Give it a take,
    You only got two hundred days.

    Way up into this womb,
    Looking all around.
    Sure’s dark in here.
    And I’m looking out my belly button window,
    And I swear I see nothing but a lot of frowns.
    And I’m wondering if they want me around.

  • bj-survivor

    carolyninthecity.

     

    yes “life” begins at conception. But personhood begins at birth, when a fetus becomes a baby. when something that was once a part of my body is now separate and whole. When the uterus-dwelling body breathes air for the first time, becomes alive, is given a name and rights and opens its eyes, becomes aware. I don’t care to debate the personhood of something that is being kept alive by my organs. That is fully attached and inside my body. my uterus, placenta, and the little body within that, that I created, are all one until I push it out.

     

    May I paraphrase/quote you?

  • carolyninthecity

    why of course! :)