Stop Entrapping Providers: What I Told the Kansas Department of Health and Environment


VIDEO: Kansas NOW Testimony at TRAP Hearings

Kari Ann Rinker speaks out against medically unnecessary and dangerous TRAP regulations in Kansas.

As Jodi Jacobson reported earlier today, public hearings were held in Kansas today for the abortion regulations created by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.  I presented the following testimony on behalf of Kansas NOW. 

I’m the State Coordinator for Kansas NOW, which means that I stand before you today as a grassroots women’s rights activist and equality advocate.   I stand before you today, as a voice for a whole lot of Kansas women who cannot be here to tell you how they feel about these regulations.  These women want me to express what they think about the possibility of losing their access to existing abortion clinics within their state.  These are good women who have either used these clinics personally, or simply take comfort in knowing that these facilities exist should they need them.    

While I may not be a public health professional, my understanding as a graduate student of Public Administration is that government enacts regulations when a public need for protection presents itself, in the case of Kansas Department of Health and Environment, when some public health concern or externality needs to be addressed.  As employees of an agency that is supported by public tax dollars, deliberative, non-ideological processes are to be expected, especially with regard to the health and well being of the citizens they work for.  I do not believe that this regulatory process met those deliberative, non-ideological tenets.

I certainly do not believe that the health of Kansas women has been furthered by the temporary regulations presented by the KDHE.  I do believe that the women of Kansas need to be protected.  They need to be protected from overeager political majorities that unduly hasten regulatory processes, putting unnecessary demands upon our health care agencies and putting women’s legal health care access at risk.

I was in attendance at the hearing held in Topeka on June 30, 2011 before the committee that approved the temporary regulations that closed two of the three abortion clinics in the state.  What I heard from the Secretary of the KDHE, Robert Moser, was a story about the frenetic departmental rush to comply with the legislative mandates set forth.  He spoke of cancelled vacations, working weekends and nights, all toward their effort of mere compliance.  What I did not hear uttered even once was exactly how Kansas women would be better off from the regulations.  There was no talk of expected outcomes or pride in improved processes, only a sense of weary accomplishment as they presented the product of their agency all nighters.   

Women deserve more respect than to be used as pawns in a game of political posturing via the regulatory processes of the very agencies that our tax dollars support.  We had thought that Kansas had had enough of the days of public offices and agencies being controlled by extremists such as our former Attorney General Phil Kline, but it seems we have come back around to this same place again.  This regulatory process has been a sham, a shame and an embarrassment for this state and has done nothing to improve the health of the women who live here.   

I urge the KDHE to appeal to the legislature to request more time for deliberation and research toward the intended outcomes from potential restrictions and amend the temporary regulations to remove the unnecessary, overtly biased regulations contained within.   

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

Follow Kari Ann Rinker on twitter: @karivelvet

  • lindzanne

    Absolutely amazing.  So well spoken, cuttingly clear and to the point.  Wonderful job, Keri Ann.  Your words got right to the heart of why these regulations are so ridiculous.  Thank you! 

  • rhology

    Ms. Rinker,

     

    Hopefully you will not mind if I leave a critical comment, in the hopes of clarifying the issue at hand.

     

    You said:

    comfort in knowing that these facilities exist should they need them.

     

    Let’s be clear what you’re saying here.

    Some women are glad to know that there is a “backup plan” should they become pregnant with a child. 

    This “backup plan” involves destroying the life of the human baby growing inside that woman. 

    This baby is not a clump of cells. He is a person with his own DNA, his own organs, his own brain, his own abilities and personality. He also has human rights, the most fundamental and basic of which is the right to life. Abortion deprives him of that most fundamental of rights without so much as a trial by a jury of his peers.

    In short, “should they need them” means “should their lives be inconvenienced (in most cases of abortion) by a baby”, so that they can kill their child.

     

    Saying “comfort in knowing that these facilities exist should they need them” is much more relevant when discussing, say, a clinic that provides *health care* in cases of disease or injury. Pregnancy is neither.

     

     

    You said:

    As employees of an agency that is supported by public tax dollars, deliberative, non-ideological processes are to be expected

     

    This is political double-speak, interestingly. I can appreciate a good rhetorical flourish like this, but in reality, you have stacked the deck. There is zero constitutional justification for abortion; in fact abortion is anti-constitutional in that it violates the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, skipping past the right to a “trial by an impartial jury”. You proceed directly to the death sentence for these unconvicted, tiny people.

     

     

    You said:

    I certainly do not believe that the health of Kansas women has been furthered

     

    Are you aware that the vast majority of abortions are NOT performed to protect the mother from a health situation that presents a danger to her life?

    What health furtherance do you have in mind? Are you simply redefining “removing a 10-month inconvenience” as “health furtherance”?

    Also, abortion results in a net LOSS in health. The mother frequently gets sick or infected, and often later suffers from mental and emotional problems as a result of the abortion. The baby ends up dead 99.99% of the time. So one wonders what you mean when you refer to health.

     

     

    You said:

    What I did not hear uttered even once was exactly how Kansas women would be better off from the regulations.

     

    Given that it is difficult to see how killing one’s child will reliably better one’s life, the woman is not the only factor here. The baby virtually always ends up dead. We must remember this.

     

    Peace to you,

    Rhology
    http://www.abolishhumanabortion.com 

  • freetobe

    these people could care less about the health of women. They are following all their male counterparts and female brainwashed out of fear or otherwise around the world who would rather see women dead or not around than anything else.

    I am so sick of the hatred oozing from these mysogynists world wide it makes me ill. I know many women if they had the chance would take their children and run to another world void of hateful and abusive men.

  • freetobe

    ignoramus. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. GO AWAY This is a blog for PRO-WOMEN people not liars and mysogynists as you are.

    “Also, abortion results in a net LOSS in health. The mother frequently gets sick or infected, and often later suffers from mental and emotional problems as a result of the abortion. The baby ends up dead 99.99% of the time. So one wonders what you mean when you refer to health.”

     

    LIAR!

  • rhology

    If I am a liar, would you mind providing an argument to that effect?

    Where precisely have I said a lie or made an otherwise false statement?

  • rhology

    these people could care less about the health of women

     

    Speaking of false statements, this one is most certainly false.

    I’d appreciate it if you could ask us about what we care about, rather than foisting your prejudices on us prematurely.

    Is that fair?

     

    Coudl you please also point out precisely which of my statements contained “hatred”? If I’m “oozing” it, that should be easy enough, right?

  • prochoiceferret

    This baby is not a clump of cells. He is a person with his own DNA, his own organs, his own brain, his own abilities and personality. He also has human rights, the most fundamental and basic of which is the right to life. Abortion deprives him of that most fundamental of rights without so much as a trial by a jury of his peers.

     

    “He” (why do you assume this “person” to be male, anyway?) also does not have the right to room and board inside the woman’s uterus. Since you’re all about rights and laws, think of the uterus as the woman’s property, and the abortion as an eviction. Who are you to say that the woman can’t evict an unwanted tenant from her own property??

     

    In short, “should they need them” means “should their lives be inconvenienced (in most cases of abortion) by a baby”, so that they can kill their child.

     

    Um… hello McFly? *knock* *knock* We’re talking about abortion here, not infanticide. *knock* *knock* Is anyone home? McFly?

     

    This is political double-speak, interestingly. I can appreciate a good rhetorical flourish like this, but in reality, you have stacked the deck. There is zero constitutional justification for abortion; in fact abortion is anti-constitutional in that it violates the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, skipping past the right to a “trial by an impartial jury”. You proceed directly to the death sentence for these unconvicted, tiny people.

     

    Read the Fourteenth Amendment sometime, particularly the “born or naturalized” part.

     

    Are you aware that the vast majority of abortions are NOT performed to protect the mother from a health situation that presents a danger to her life?

     

    Are you aware that women have rights even when it’s not a matter of life and death for them?

     

    What health furtherance do you have in mind? Are you simply redefining “removing a 10-month inconvenience” as “health furtherance”?

     

    Perhaps you may want to read up on pregnancy sometime, and the effects it has and may have on a woman’s body.

     

    Also, abortion results in a net LOSS in health. The mother frequently gets sick or infected, and often later suffers from mental and emotional problems as a result of the abortion. The baby ends up dead 99.99% of the time. So one wonders what you mean when you refer to health.

     

    Which just goes to show, anti-choice zealots make lousy doctors!

     

    Given that it is difficult to see how killing one’s child will reliably better one’s life, the woman is not the only factor here. The baby virtually always ends up dead. We must remember this.

     

    It would be nice if some of us remembered that the discussion has nothing to do with infanticide.

  • rhology

     

    Hello ProChoiceFerret,

     

    You said:

    also does not have the right to room and board inside the woman’s uterus

     

    Well, you can assume that all you want, but don’t you need an argument to that effect? 

    After all, the woman did something (again, the vast majority of the time) to bring him/her into existence, and in her uterus. So the woman is partly responsible for his/her existence. 

    Why does the mother have the right to kill her child just b/c of the child’s location and age?

     

     

    You said:

    Who are you to say that the woman can’t evict an unwanted tenant from her own property??

     

    Well, I don’t have any authority, but to be fair, I haven’t grounded my challenges in my own authority. 

    Let me pause here for a moment, though, for I believe you have caught me on something. In my first comment, I cited the Constitution, the 6th Am specifically, and you have countercited the 14th Am. 

    It is laughable to contend that the authors of the 14th Am were thinking about the issue of abortion when they wrote that, but it does say what it says, so I withdraw that argument from the Constitution.

    Let me move closer to the core of my argument against abortion – it is murder, the unjustifiable destruction of human life. 

    I’m sure that you would agree that unjust laws can exist. Thus, what is legal is not necessarily what is moral, and vice versa. See the Dred Scott decision, for one thing. 

    So, how do you know the tiny baby is not a human life?

    Also, God Himself is pretty clear that we are not to destroy humans.

    I’d like to know why you think that you have some moral justification here. Make your own argument. Pro-abortion is not the default.

     

     

    You said:

    Are you aware that women have rights even when it’s not a matter of life and death for them?

     

    Surely. 

    Does the right to convenience of one person supersede another’s right to life?

     

     

    You said:

    Perhaps you may want to read up on pregnancy sometime, and the effects it has and may have on a woman’s body.

     

    This is no response to what I’ve said.

     

     

    You said:
    Which just goes to show, anti-choice zealots make lousy doctors! 

    This is less than no response to what I’ve said. It is, in fact, totally irrelevant.

     

    Peace,

    Rhology

     

  • prochoiceferret

    After all, the woman did something (again, the vast majority of the time) to bring him/her into existence, and in her uterus. So the woman is partly responsible for his/her existence.

     

    Oh, so then you’re okay with abortion as long as the woman’s pregnancy is the result of rape?

     

    Why does the mother have the right to kill her child just b/c of the child’s location and age?

     

    She doesn’t have the right to “kill her child.” She has the right to remove an unwanted growth/resident/person from her uterus in the safest manner possible.

     

    Let me move closer to the core of my argument against abortion – it is murder, the unjustifiable destruction of human life.

     

    Yes, I’m sure you see no justification for women having rights over their own bodies. I don’t suppose you’re a woman, by any chance?

     

    Oh, and if abortion is murder, do you support charging the millions of women who have had the procedure with same?

     

    So, how do you know the tiny baby is not a human life?

     

    It is a human life. You know what’s also a human life? The pregnant woman. The “tiny baby” in her uterus does not have the right to remain there against her will, be it human and alive or otherwise.

     

    Also, God Himself is pretty clear that we are not to destroy humans.

     

    So you’re also working on “abolishing” war, capital punishment, and lethal self-defense?

     

    I’d like to know why you think that you have some moral justification here. Make your own argument. Pro-abortion is not the default.

     

    Our bodies belong to ourselves. I have a right to my body—no one else does. Just like you alone have a right to your body. We can choose, of our own free will, to use our bodies (or allow them to be used) to benefit someone else. The day you decide that someone else has a right to a person’s body is the day that tissue and organ donation cease to be voluntary, and you no longer have a good reason as to why rape is a bad thing.

     

    Does the right to convenience of one person supersede another’s right to life?

     

    It does when the second person’s right to life doesn’t give it the right to deprive the first person of their rights. A homeless person might need $100 to stay alive, but that person’s right to life doesn’t give them a right to your wallet.

     

    This is no response to what I’ve said.

     

    That’s because what you said revealed abject ignorance on your part, so the only meaningful response is to tell you to become not-ignorant.

     

    This is less than no response to what I’ve said. It is, in fact, totally irrelevant.

     

    Indeed, for you, medical reality is totally irrelevant.

     

  • rhology

     

    you’re okay with abortion as long as the woman’s pregnancy is the result of rape?

    No, I didn’t say that. But it’s not the same argument.

     

     

    She doesn’t have the right to “kill her child.”

     

    Oh, so you’re pro-life, then.

    What else is in her uterus, other than her child? 

     

     

    She has the right to remove an unwanted growth/resident/person from her uterus in the safest manner possible

    1) You’re just asserting that these rights exist w/o giving anyone a reason to think it is true.

    2) Let me ask it this way – if you put someone in the hospital but it is inconveniencing you or even causing you some measure of suffering to have them receiving treatment there because of what you did, do you have the moral justification to kill them to stop your own suffering?

    3) You said “person”. So you’re saying it’s OK to kill a person for the sake of a (virtually always) non-life-threatening imposition on you?

     

     

    I’m sure you see no justification for women having rights over their own bodies. I don’t suppose you’re a woman, by any chance?

     

    1) I never said what you attribute to me.

    2) I have in fact specifically said women DO have the right over their own bodies. But the baby’s body is another matter.

    3) Why does it matter whether I’m a woman? Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy?

     

    if abortion is murder, do you support charging the millions of women who have had the procedure with same?

    Not today, no. 

    It is a human life. You know what’s also a human life? The pregnant woman.

     

    Man, this is easier than I thought!

    Realise what you’re saying here. You’re saying that it’s OK to kill one human to avoid that human putting some non-life-threatening demands on you. Wow! 

    You know, you complained about my comparing abortion with infanticide earlier, but given the moral standard you’re espousing here, why did you complain? It’s not as if the age of the person matters, does it? Not according to what you’ve said here, it doesn’t.

     

    you’re also working on “abolishing” war, capital punishment, and lethal self-defense?

     

    1) I’ve been pretty clear that the “w/o justification” is a pretty big deal here. Why did you neglect to mention that?

    2) If I were inconsistent on that point, what would that have to do with abortion? This is another example of the genetic fallacy.

     

     

    Our bodies belong to ourselves.

     

    So the baby’s belongs to him/her. Right?

     

    A homeless person might need $100 to stay alive, but that person’s right to life doesn’t give them a right to your wallet.

    But you’re not responsible for the homeless person’s needing $100, right?

    So how is your example analogous in the essentials?

     

     

    That’s because what you said revealed abject ignorance on your part

     

    Mmm, not really. I notice that you didn’t bother to reformulate your non-response either, so I guess that represents not-a-point in your favor.

     

     

    Indeed, for you, medical reality is totally irrelevant.

     

    You apparently greatly enjoy burning strawmen.

     

    Peace,

    Rhology

     

  • jennifer-starr

    Genetic fallacy?  Seeing as pregnancy is a condition which is unique to womanhood, is it really a fallacy to assume that women should have more to say in the matter? Men can never be pregnant, so while they can run their mouths all they like, they’re talking about something which they themselves will never actually experience. 

  • rhology

    True, men can’t get pregnant, but they do have a part in the creation of the baby.

    However, I don’t tend to think that emotional reaction trumps logic in real life, though pro-choicers routinely demonstrate they think it does.

    I have also never owned a slave, and I am not black. Yet I have substantive input about the question of whether slavery is justifiable, don’t you think?

     

  • prochoiceferret

    No, I didn’t say that. But it’s not the same argument.

     

    So then, the woman’s “responsibility” doesn’t really make a difference, does it?

     

    Oh, so you’re pro-life, then.

     

    I’m certainly pro-life, pro-liberty, and pro-pursuing-happiness. Which is why I’m also pro-choice!

     

    What else is in her uterus, other than her [developing] child?

     

    A placenta, usually. But what does that have to do with her right to have an abortion?

     

    1) You’re just asserting that these rights exist w/o giving anyone a reason to think it is true.

     

    Oh, but I did give a reason: Our bodies belong to ourselves.

     

    2) Let me ask it this way – if you put someone in the hospital but it is inconveniencing you or even causing you some measure of suffering to have them receiving treatment there because of what you did, do you have the moral justification to kill them to stop your own suffering?

     

    No. But if the hospital wants to cut me open to obtain tissues/organs that this someone needs in order to live, I have the right to refuse.

     

    3) You said “person”. So you’re saying it’s OK to kill a person for the sake of a (virtually always) non-life-threatening imposition on you?

     

    No, I’m not. What I’m saying is that this “person” does not have the right to use my body, even if they need it in order to live, and even if doing so were (virtually always) non-life-threatening.

     

    1) I never said what you attribute to me.

     

    When you use the broad brush labeled “unjustifiable,” you tend to cover a lot of ground.

     

    2) I have in fact specifically said women DO have the right over their own bodies. But the baby’s body is another matter.

     

    Great! So you won’t mind if the woman has the “baby’s” body removed from her own body, then. Because it’s not like the “baby” has a right to the woman’s body, of course.

     

    3) Why does it matter whether I’m a woman? Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy?

     

    Republicans like to call it “having some skin in the game.”

     

    Not today, no.

     

    But eventually, you’ll want those murder charges filed, right? After all, it’s not like there’s a statute of limitations on murder.

     

    Realise what you’re saying here. You’re saying that it’s OK to kill one human to avoid that human putting some non-life-threatening demands on you. Wow!

     

    If those “demands” include residence inside my body against my will, and the human cannot be removed without it dying, then yes. Newsflash! Needing someone else’s body in order to live does not give you the right to it! Even if you could do it non-life-threateningly!

     

    You know, you complained about my comparing abortion with infanticide earlier, but given the moral standard you’re espousing here, why did you complain? It’s not as if the age of the person matters, does it? Not according to what you’ve said here, it doesn’t.

     

    Yes, if a 26-year-old were in the same situation as a two-month fetus, then the argument would be exactly the same. (Would be a pretty big pregnancy bump, granted.) Most 26-year-olds, however, are able to get along just fine without sucking life support from a woman’s body, so it’s not really an issue.

     

    1) I’ve been pretty clear that the “w/o justification” is a pretty big deal here. Why did you neglect to mention that?

     

    Because our main point of difference, among others, is whether a woman’s health and autonomy and right to her own body constitute “justification.” Many people consider wars (all wars) to be unjustifiable. Why don’t you?

     

    So the baby’s belongs to him/her. Right?

     

    Arguably, it can be said. Are you looking to abolish (child) circumcision and ear-piercing, too?

     

    But you’re not responsible for the homeless person’s needing $100, right?

     

    So if you were this person’s old boss, and you fired same, then they would have a right to your wallet?

     

    So how is your example analogous in the essentials?

     

    Needing X in order to live doesn’t necessarily give you the right to X from another person who’s not willing to provide it. When X is a physical element of the body, there is categorically no such right.

     

    Mmm, not really. I notice that you didn’t bother to reformulate your non-response either, so I guess that represents not-a-point in your favor.

     

    Parents: Don’t let willful ignorance happen to your kids! Unless you want them to end up like this poor, babbling soul here.

     

    You apparently greatly enjoy burning strawmen.

     

    I haven’t been to Burning Man, actually. But feel free to think you’ve won the argument. Much as was the case with Dred Scott, when you don’t accept women as full human beings, utterly reprehensible beliefs about what rights they do and don’t have tend to follow—and no amount of arguing will change that.

  • jennifer-starr

    Yes men do have a role in making a baby, but again, men can never know what it’s like to be pregnant.   And pro-life men tend to be the ones who will downplay and sneer at serious health issues during pregnancy (diabetes, high blood pressure, severe morning sickness, etc. ) by saying silly stuff like “If this was really a big problem, how did women give birth in the olden days?” (Well, many of them died, and so did their babies) or will tell a pregnant rape victim that “it’s not the baby’s fault”, which is possibly the most asinine statement that anybody could make to someone in a situation like that. But I don’t think the fact that the man played a role by having sex gives him any sort of say or veto power in what a woman does. 

  • prochoiceferret

    However, I don’t tend to think that emotional reaction trumps logic in real life, though anti-choicers routinely demonstrate they think it does.

     

    Fixed that for you.

     

    “Abortion photos” and “baby killer” epithets notwithstanding, of course.

     

    I have also never owned a slave, and I am not black. Yet I have substantive input about the question of whether slavery is justifiable, don’t you think?

     

    Not as much as you would if you were a slave—or someone who would likely be one if slavery were legal.

  • rhology

     

    the woman’s “responsibility” doesn’t really make a difference, does it?

    Yes, it makes a difference. I don’t know how what you said follows.

     

    I’m certainly pro-life, pro-liberty, and pro-pursuing-happiness. Which is why I’m also pro-choice!

    Then you’re pro-life for everyone you want to live, and for those you want to die, you’re not pro-life.  

    This kind of rhetoric is bizarre, but certainly not helpful.

     

     

    A placenta, usually. But what does that have to do with her right to have an abortion?

    Because there is a human person in the uterus. And abortion kills it. Not sure why this isn’t obvious.

     

    Our bodies belong to ourselves.

    1) You didn’t give a reason for us to think so. You just asserted it. What is your authority to dictate morality to anyone else?

    2) If our bodies belong to us, then that means the baby’s body belongs to him. You’ve already admitted the baby is a human person. 

    So, where is there room for abortion in your view? It seems like you have an open, glaring contradiction right here.

     

    No. But if the hospital wants to cut me open to obtain tissues/organs that this someone needs in order to live, I have the right to refuse.

    Hahahaha, you’re not really reading very closely.

    So I asked you if you put someone in the hospital but it is inconveniencing you or even causing you some measure of suffering to have them receiving treatment there because of what you did, do you have the moral justification to kill them to stop your own suffering?

    You say no.

    Then you say in the very next sentence that if the hospital wants to inconvenience you or cause you some measure of suffering, you ARE justified in killing the person. 

    It would seem that when you come to a fork in the road, you take it. I’m not sure what value you think you’re adding to public dialogue with such inconsistent reasoning.

     

    you won’t mind if the woman has the “baby’s” body removed from her own body, then.

    Whatever you’re doing, you’re not reading with a great deal of consistency.

     

    Because it’s not like the “baby” has a right to the woman’s body, of course.

    1) Prove it.

    2) Why did you put “baby” in quotes after you have previously conceded that the baby is a human being? What do you really believe?

    3) The woman is responsible (the vast majority of the time) for the baby’s existence (along with the man). Since removal of the baby = killing the baby, I’m not sure why the reason isn’t obvious.

     

    Republicans like to call it “having some skin in the game.”

    I like to call it a “logical fallacy”. Doesn’t matter who says it.

    So, you’re perfectly OK with committing logical fallacies? Doesn’t bother you at all? Why are you even arguing? 

     

    But eventually, you’ll want those murder charges filed, right? After all, it’s not like there’s a statute of limitations on murder.

    Hey look! Another genetic fallacy!

     

    Needing someone else’s body in order to live does not give you the right to it! Even if you could do it non-life-threateningly!…Needing X in order to live doesn’t necessarily give you the right to X from another person who’s not willing to provide it.

    You’re just repeating yourself, not answering any questions.

    This is fast becoming a rout. 

    Look, for anyone who is actually interested in thinking consistently through this specific question, let me recommend you read this through.

     

    Most 26-year-olds, however, are able to get along just fine without sucking life support from a woman’s body, so it’s not really an issue.

    So whether it’s morally justifiable to kill someone w/o provocation depends on their physical location.

    What if you’re standing in front of me in line at Starbucks and I don’t really have patience, or particularly care about the police chasing me down? Would it be morally justifiable for me to kill you for your place in the Starbucks line? 

    I’m being 100% serious – please answer this important hypothetical.

     

    Many people consider wars (all wars) to be unjustifiable. Why don’t you?

    I never said I didn’t. I said that the question is irrelevant.

     

    Arguably, it can be said. Are you looking to abolish (child) circumcision and ear-piercing, too?

    Is there a high mortality rate with those exercises? 

    if you were this person’s old boss, and you fired same, then they would have a right to your wallet?

    To go along with your hypothetical, are you asking whether I UNJUSTIFIABLY fired him?

    If so, then the argument in favor of that would be strong, yes. 

     

     

    Parents: Don’t let willful ignorance happen to your kids! Unless you want them to end up like this poor, babbling soul here.

    True, one wouldn’t want kids to learn to follow a rational point, avoid logical fallacies, and consider the consistency of one’s position of paramount importance. Hahaha. 

     

     

    But feel free to think you’ve won the argument

    The real question is whether you’ve made much of one at all.

     

    Much as was the case with Dred Scott, when you don’t accept women as full human beings

    HAHAHAHA that is irony in all its glory. 

    I *DO* accept women as full human beings. It is YOU who have several times affirmed that human beings exist who do not have the right even to life. Anyone paying attention to our dialogue can see that clearly. 

     

    Peace,

    Rhology

     

  • maiac

     

    You wonder how you’re hateful???

    You said “In short, “should they need them” means “should their lives be inconvenienced (in most cases of abortion) by a baby”, so that they can kill their child.”

    The meat of your statement is that women who have abortions are selfish murders (they “kill their children” for “convenience“). You don’t think that’s hateful? You don’t think it’s hateful to ignore that 2/3 of women who have abortions already have children, and that they are often choosing abortion so that they can provide for the children they already have?

    In fact, equating abortion with infanticide (which you’ve done so frequently I can’t imagine the need to quote you) is, in general, hateful. 

     

    Again here, you said “Given that it is difficult to see how killing one’s child will reliably better one’s life, the woman is not the only factor here. The baby virtually always ends up dead. We must remember this.”

    Translation: “I can’t be bothered to understand the actual complexities of your life, woman, so just stop being selfish and obey me – I know what’s best for you better than you do!”.

    Regardless of whether you use your wording or mine, telling women that they can’t or shouldn’t consider themselves (when deciding whether to continue a pregnancy) is hateful.

     

    And again, you said “Does the right to convenience of one person supersede another’s right to life?

    Do you really not understand that arguing that women have abortions for mere “convenience” is hateful? You have no idea what women choosing abortion are really facing, and you don’t care enough to find out about the tough decisions they have to make. That’s hatfeul.

     

    You wonder how you’re a liar???

     

    You said “If I am a liar, would you mind providing an argument to that effect? Where precisely have I said a lie or made an otherwise false statement?

    You said “The mother frequently gets sick or infected, and often later suffers from mental and emotional problems as a result of the abortion.”  

    This is just a bald-faced lie (complications from legal abortions are extremly rare, as are psychological problems – according to every major medical organization from the American Medical Association to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists to the American Psychological Association). The ONLY people spouting this crap are you. Do serious complications or regret occasionally follow an abortion? Sure. But this is a rare exception (in an average year in the U.S. more people die of vending machines than women do from legal abortions), and no justificiation against abortion.

    I happen to think lying is hateful, though I’ll admit that’s a stretch.

     

    You accuse others of “burning strawmen”? 

    You are consistently ignoring the medial realities of the points being made to you. You keep trying to make this an argument about whether “killing” is justified. But you’re ignoring the point being made back to you that abortion is not so much killing as it is the denial of sustenance of life. You may say that’s semantic, but the killing and allowing to die are NOT the same thing. Since the vast majority (9 out of 10) abortions are performed at 11 weeks or earlier, the embryo is, in most cases, small enough to pass through the vaccum aspiration tube whole (or, in medication abortion, is expelled whole). I have not “killed” the embryo – I simply denied it the use of my body, and allowed it to die.

    You may not like this, but we all (not just pregnant women) have the right to deny others the use of our body, even if that denial will surely allow another person to die (accepting this notion of a fetus for the sake of argument, not in actuality). For instance, if my child (the actual, born kind) needed a kidney and I was the only match in the whole wide world, I could not and should not be compelled to donate the kidney, even if my failure to do so would surely result in the child’s death.

     

    You keep saying things like:

    I have in fact specifically said women DO have the right over their own bodies. But the baby’s body is another matter.

    Yeah, but it’s body is INSIDE mine. And if I want to kick it out, I can, even if that eviction results in its death.

    Comprende???

     

    Also, just to nip this :”location” argument in the bud….

    Don’t give me some crap about how “inside my body” is “just a matter of location”. Oh yeah? Do I have the right to fist-pump (like those d-bags on Jersey Shore)? I do? In any “location” I want? Yeah? Even if that “location” is inside your anus? No, huh? You mean “inside your body (anus)” is NOT “just another location”, but something fundamentally different? Hmmmm….

     

     

  • rhology

    Given that you said:

    “If this was really a big problem, how did women give birth in the olden days?” (Well, many of them died, and so did their babies) 

    May I ask if you hold to Darwinian evolution?

    And I wouldn’t tell a rape victim “it isn’t the baby’s fault” unless she suggested killing her child. I most certainly would want to be the most sensitive possible to someone who has experienced something so awful, but at the same time we must speak truth when people’s lives are at risk.

    Could I ask you to consider what these women have said? One Two

  • purplemistydez

    Still remains the fact if the woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, it’s none of your business.  And no matter how many times you say abortion kills a baby, it is not true.  That is why we have birth certificates.  You can’t claim a fetus on your taxes or ride in the carpool lane.  Society does not consider a a fetus a person until it is no longer in the woman’s body.

  • jennifer-starr

    Going to ask out of sheer curiosity.  What does evolution have to do with what I was talking about? 

  • prochoiceferret

    Yes, it makes a difference. I don’t know how what you said follows.

     

    If the woman is responsible for being pregnant, then you think abortion is wrong. If the woman isn’t responsible for being pregnant, then you think… abortion is still wrong! So the wrongness of abortion doesn’t really depend on the whole responsibility thing, does it?

     

    Then you’re pro-life for everyone you want to live, and for those you want to die, you’re not pro-life.  

    This kind of rhetoric is bizarre, but certainly not helpful.

     

    Whoever said I wanted anyone to die? Sometimes it’s necessary, and sometimes it’s unavoidable, but that doesn’t mean I’m all “yaaay death!” about it.

     

    Because there is a human person in the uterus. And abortion kills it. Not sure why this isn’t obvious.

     

    It’s not a “person” according to the U.S. Constitution. And abortion, strictly speaking, is concerned with the removal of the conceptus/fetus from the uterus. The killing/dying part is more of a side effect. (If abortion were just about the killing, you’d end up with a blob of gangrene inside, and that wouldn’t be so great for the woman’s health.)

     

    1) You didn’t give a reason for us to think so. You just asserted it. What is your authority to dictate morality to anyone else?

     

    I’m not going to tell you that you have to refuse others who want to use your body for their own benefit. But I think most people will want this for themselves. We could always hold a referendum…

     

    2) If our bodies belong to us, then that means the baby’s body belongs to him. You’ve already admitted the baby is a human person.

     

    I haven’t admitted that your male “baby” is a “person.” I just used the term to indicate that it doesn’t change the argument. The “baby’s” body belonging to him doesn’t give him tenancy rights to the woman’s uterus.

     

    So, where is there room for abortion in your view? It seems like you have an open, glaring contradiction right here.

     

    What contradiction? Why is it so hard for you to understand that nothing gives a person the right to use another person’s body against their will? Even if the person’s life depends on it? Yes. Even if the usage can be done safely? Yes. Even if ________________? Yes.

     

    So I asked you if you put someone in the hospital but it is inconveniencing you or even causing you some measure of suffering to have them receiving treatment there because of what you did, do you have the moral justification to kill them to stop your own suffering?

    You say no.

    Then you say in the very next sentence that if the hospital wants to inconvenience you or cause you some measure of suffering, you ARE justified in killing the person. 

    It would seem that when you come to a fork in the road, you take it. I’m not sure what value you think you’re adding to public dialogue with such inconsistent reasoning.

     

    I might be financially responsible for that person’s treatment, and I might even be legally responsible for having put said person there in the first place. But there is no circumstance in which this person would have a right to my tissues/organs/body—and my refusal to provide them needs no moral justification, even if it causes the person to die. That is my right. And I doubt you would want to live in a society where you do not have that right.

     

    1) Prove it.

     

    No one in the world (a group which includes your “baby”) has a right to the woman’s body, with the sole exception of herself.

     

    2) Why did you put “baby” in quotes after you have previously conceded that the baby is a human being? What do you really believe?

     

    Because bestowing the term “baby” on a fetus at the time that most abortions are performed (10 weeks) is a stretch. The proper term is “fetus.”

     

    3) The woman is responsible (the vast majority of the time) for the baby’s existence (along with the man). Since removal of the baby = killing the baby, I’m not sure why the reason isn’t obvious.

     

    This matter of “responsibility” is irrelevant to me, and as you’ve made clear, it’s irrelevant to you. Why bring it up?

     

    I like to call it a “logical fallacy”. Doesn’t matter who says it.

    So, you’re perfectly OK with committing logical fallacies? Doesn’t bother you at all? Why are you even arguing? 

     

    Because slapping down anti-choice advocates is fun! As is observing that most of the people who argue stridently against abortion are either men, or post-menopausal women, who can argue for abortion restrictions all they want without having to worry about ever having to deal with these themselves.

     

    Hey look! Another genetic fallacy!

     

    So I guess you don’t really feel that abortion is murder, after all. Because, since when do we let people get away with murder? (Aside from O.J. Simpson, Caylee Anthony et al.)

     

    You’re just repeating yourself, not answering any questions.

    This is fast becoming a rout. 

     

    Don’t worry. I’m pretty magnanimous in victory :-)

     

    Look, for anyone who is actually interested in thinking consistently through this specific question, let me recommend you read this through.

     

    Feel free to see how well any of those arguments hold up here. (Hint: not very)

     

    So whether it’s morally justifiable to kill someone w/o provocation depends on their physical location.

    What if you’re standing in front of me in line at Starbucks and I don’t really have patience, or particularly care about the police chasing me down? Would it be morally justifiable for me to kill you for your place in the Starbucks line? 

    I’m being 100% serious – please answer this important hypothetical.

     

    If my location is inside your body, and I’m sucking life support from you, and I cannot be removed without dying, then yes—it is morally justifiable for you to remove (or as you prefer to say, KILL!!!1!11!!!) me.

     

    Is this a good time for you to go “Wow!” again?

     

    I never said I didn’t. I said that the question is irrelevant.

     

    Whether or not there is justification is irrelevant?

     

    Is there a high mortality rate with those exercises?

     

    No, but there are good arguments for banning them precisely because they are a violation of a child’s right to their own body. It’s not like these rights only come into play when mortality is an issue, after all.

     

    To go along with your hypothetical, are you asking whether I UNJUSTIFIABLY fired him?

    If so, then the argument in favor of that would be strong, yes. 

     

    And if this homeless person needed a new kidney in order to live, and you happened to be a perfect match, would the argument remain as strong?

     

    True, one wouldn’t want kids to learn to follow a rational point, avoid logical fallacies, and consider the consistency of one’s position of paramount importance. Hahaha. 

     

    I’ll certainly admit, your position is consistently misogynistic.

     

    The real question is whether you’ve made much of one at all.

     

    You don’t accept my premise (that women are full human beings who have rights to their own bodies), so you don’t accept my conclusion. I’ve made an argument; you just failed to see the point.

     

    HAHAHAHA that is irony in all its glory. 

     

    Indeed. You use the terminology and accoutrements of the slavery abolition movement, in a movement whose goal is to enslave women to their reproductive systems.

     

    I *DO* accept women as full human beings. It is YOU who have several times affirmed that human beings exist who do not have the right even to life. Anyone paying attention to our dialogue can see that clearly. 

     

    Nope. All you’ve shown is your erroneous belief that “right to life” somehow means “right to take what I need from your body in order to live, whether you want to give it or not.” And that’s pretty clear to just about everyone paying attention here.

  • rhology

     

    MaiaC,

     

    Yes, I definitely deny that what I’ve said is hateful.

    In fact…

    I have no desire to “ignore” women, but I must speak up for the weak, oppressed victims that are the children who get dismembered. Do you know what happens during abortions? Do you know that the children are not mere “clumps of cells”?  The ABORTICIAN is the badguy here, not the women. Most women are 2ndary victims as well, as they have been lied to by the system, by the industry, by the fatcat rich “doctors” who want to make money off another abortion.

     

    In fact, equating abortion with infanticide (which you’ve done so frequently I can’t imagine the need to quote you) is, in general, hateful. 

    i disagree. It is the logical conclusion. 

    If you disagree with me, please give an argument as to why it is wrong.

     

    Translation: “I can’t be bothered to understand the actual complexities of your life, woman, so just stop being selfish and obey me – I know what’s best for you better than you do!”.

    That is not even close to a proper representation of what I said. 

    You know, it IS hateful to refuse to treat others fairly, especially on topics of such importance. 

    It demonstrates that you don’t care about me, to want to treat me with respect, and you also have hatred for the truth because you don’t care about stating it.

     

    you don’t care enough to find out about the tough decisions they have to make.

    Excuse me, but you don’t know anything about me.

     

    complications from legal abortions are extremly rare, as are psychological problems – according to every major medical organization from the American Medical Association to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists to the American Psychological Association). The ONLY people spouting this crap are you 

     Oh, so the deaths from toxic shock syndrome and other such things, those just don’t really matter. They’re too few. 

    And of course, the babies all end up dead; does that matter to you at all?

     

    You are consistently ignoring the medi(c)al realities of the points being made to you. 

    Speaking of lying – this is one. You haven’t proven I’ve lied, but it’s clear you’re lying here.

    To specifically which “medical reality” have I neglected to reply?

     

     

    Since the vast majority (9 out of 10) abortions are performed at 11 weeks or earlier, the embryo is, in most cases, small enough to pass through the vaccum 

     

    So if a person is small enough, it’s justifiable to kill them if you want to?

     

     I have not “killed” the embryo – I simply denied it the use of my body, and allowed it to die.

    I know that may be what you tell yourself late at night when you feel guilty, but I urge you to reconsider. You didn’t ALLOW anything. The abortion is a proactive seeking out of a procedure that actively results in the death of the child. It’s not “oh, I just allowed him/her to die”, not at all.

     

     

    Don’t give me some crap about how “inside my body” is “just a matter of location”. 

    So inside your body is not in fact a location?

     

     

    Do I have the right to fist-pump (like those d-bags on Jersey Shore)? 

    No idea what you’re talking about. Sorry. If you’re referring to some sort of anal-manual sex act, which is what I gather from the context, um, sure. How is that relevant to snapping the spinal column of a very young child inside his/her mother’s womb?

     

    Peace to you, from someone who, I can assure you, does not hate you, but thinks it’s pretty evident that you harbor hatred for me,

    Rhology

     

  • rhology
  • colleen

    And I wouldn’t tell a rape victim “it isn’t the baby’s fault” unless she suggested killing her child.

    In the interest of speaking  truth, this is precisely why people like you anywhere shouldn’t be anywhere  near rape victims.

     

  • jennifer-starr

    That’s what I thought you meant, but I wanted to be sure and confirm it. You really are a piece of work, aren’t you? I was talking about women with health issues and you give me this link from your blog.   It’s just  amazing to me how quickly the faux ‘pro-life’ concern for women falls away and the true misogyny shines through.  

    Just as an aside, you do realize that the biological theory of Evolution and ‘social darwinism’ are two completely different things?  Or perhaps you don’t. 

  • prochoiceferret

    That’s what I thought you [Rhology] meant, but I wanted to be sure and confirm it. You really are a piece of work, aren’t you?

     

    I have to admit, I’m impressed. He basically says that women dying from abortion is a good thing.

     

    It’s pretty funny (not funny ha-ha, but funny ewwww) that these people somehow see themselves as occupying the moral high ground.

  • beenthere72

    Do you realize that there are many readers and contributors here who have HAD abortions?   You speak as though there’s a mysterious subset of women hidden somewhere in overcrowded mental hospitals or dead because they’ve had abortions  – the only ones you meet in your circles are the ones that were guilted to regret them.   Here’s truth:  the rest of us, the majority of us, move on with our lives.   

     

    You speak as though we are too stupid and don’t know what it means to be pregnant.    You DO ignore women.   You ignore the reasons why we have abortions, you ignore the fact that we do know what an abortion is doing:  ending a pregnancy (while we also know that *completing* a pregnancy results in a baby and that nobody should be forced to do that against their will).   And for these reasons, it does prove your contempt for us.   Your lack of respect for us just because we chose to NOT BE PREGNANT.  You’d rather punish us, control us, guilt us, demean us because the contents of my uterus are so much more important than I am.    

     

    That which I aborted so early on in pregnancy could’ve just been a miscarriage later.  Or a major complication.  Or a threat to my life.   You know what?  Because I didn’t want to be pregnant, because I didn’t want to have my abuser’s baby, I wasn’t about to wait and find out.   I am a happily married woman now with a wonderful step-child but people like you make me SO angry.    What I do with the contents of my uterus is none of your fucking business.   It’s between me, my loved ones, and my doctor, but ulimately: just me.  

     

    And you’ve got to be fucking kidding with this Darwinism thing.   If that’s not contempt for women, I don’t know what is.    Seriously dood, fuck off. 

     

    (to everybody else: pardon my language)

     

     

  • cloned-lamb

    MOTHER-KILLER, google obstetric fistulas and molar pregnancies to get a small clue.  Female fetuses cause lethal breast and FACE cancer — I know many victims.   Get over yourself.

  • ahunt

    ” No, I didn’t say that. But it’s not the same argument.”

     

    Certainly the point is the rational extension of the argument. But by all means…regale us with the “other” argument:  “abortion further victimizes the rape victim

     

    “What else is in her uterus, other than her child?”

     

    BZEF

     

    “2) Let me ask it this way – if you put someone in the hospital but it is inconveniencing you or even causing you some measure of suffering to have them receiving treatment there because of what you did, do you have the moral justification to kill them to stop your own suffering?”

     

    A)  Location, location, location

    B)  By all means…try to pass a law requiring an at-fault driver to give up blood to the victims of the accident At-Fault caused. In fact, try to pass a law mandating that the man responsible for the pregnancy is legally obligated to, say, give blood to the hemorrhaging woman he impregnated?

     

    2) I have in fact specifically said women DO have the right over their own bodies. But the baby’s body is another matter…and…So the baby’s belongs to him/her. Right?

     

    See A)

     

    You’re saying that it’s OK to kill one human to avoid that human putting some non-life-threatening demands on you. Wow!

     

    Snerk. See B)

     

    “I’ve been pretty clear that the “w/o justification” is a pretty big deal here.”

     

    I’d say bodily integrity is a pretty big deal.

     

    “But you’re not responsible for the homeless person’s needing $100, right?”

     

    See B).

     

  • freetobe

    where are your medical facts for this nonsense? NOne of you can be beleived we know that you have an agenda behind this and it is not about fetuses or children or b abies. It is about controlling women nothing else. It is a very complicated mess entagled with the Government the GOP the fundamentalists and many other religious groups.

    I can tell you are false prophets. maybe you do not even realize you are but you are. This is NOT how Jesus taught. i suggesat you go and get your Bible and read the words of Jesus Christ. Not the man made words HIS WORDS.

    Even if you are not associated with any rleigious politiacal group you cannot be trusted because of the violence your kind has commited. Your fighting a losing battle. I as a woman will NEVER give up my right to freedom I will DIE FIRST!!!!!!!!

  • freetobe

    along. Who is WE? Are there more than one of you? Two headed monster perhaps LOL! Your a joke all of you are jokes. I have NO respect for anyone who trys to force me to do anything against my will and damn if those humans rank near the bottom of my list. Figure it out for yourself Mr.

    Which is ALL you and your cronies are doing . Anyone who trys to force their will on anyone else and threatens anyones life as the anti-choice group has LOSES ALL CREDIBILITY. Your just plain evil !

  • colleen

    Could I ask you to consider what these women have said?

    While I have no respect for them, those women are welcome to their beliefs. They aren’t welcome to force their beliefs on the rest of us and they most certainly are not welcome to continue to dehumanize rape victims by forcing them to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

    The people who really revolt me are the men replying in the comments section. I venture that those paragons of virture so eager to praise the brainwashed morons who wrote the posts have never, not once, said or done anything to prevent rape or incest. Indeed for the religious right, the sole moral dilemma in cases of rape and/or incest appears to be forcing the women and little girls to carry any possible pregnancies to term.

  • rhology

    I must object to your saying that my concern for women is “faux”. It is very real. I am not a Darwinian! I am a Christian. The post from my blog (thank you for reading it at least, BTW) explains the logical outworking of Darwinian thinking, not Christian thinking.

    And yes, I do know the diff, but it is valuable to mention it, so thank you.

  • rhology

    “People like you”, eh? 

    Right, b/c I guess you prefer that rape victims get force-fed the idea that abortion is the only way to go? No other options should be offered? 
    That’s the only way I can see to take this comment from you.  

  • rhology

    They aren’t welcome to force their beliefs on the rest of us 

    How are they doing that? Do you mean by trying to work to make the laws of the nation reflect their beliefs?  You do that too!

    What makes what you do different than what they are doing? Or are you just engaging in special pleading?

     

    never, not once, said or done anything to prevent rape or incest

    You are being very judgmental. You don’t know anything about us. Ask any female member of the abolitionist society (ie, those who know us) and they’ll tell you otherwise. You’re just ignorant, and you’re bigoted b/c you have so much hate. I truly have compassion for you, enough compassion to call out your irrational speech.

     

    the sole moral dilemma in cases of rape and/or incest appears to be forcing the women and little girls to carry any possible pregnancies to term.

    This also is entirely false. Do you only care about truth when it suits your preconceived notions?

  • rhology

    the wrongness of abortion doesn’t really depend on the whole responsibility thing, does it?

     

    Oh, thanks for explaining further!

    Yes, that is correct. The wrongness is due to the fact that abortion unjustifiably ends the life of a human, who is created in the image of God.

     

    Whoever said I wanted anyone to die?

    You did! When you have expressed your heartily pro-abortion stance.

     

     

    It’s not a “person” according to the U.S. Constitution. 

    Neither was Dred Scott. Remember how we already discussed this?

     

     

    The killing/dying part is more of a side effect.

     

    Tell that to the dead child.

    You could say that about ANYthing. How about the thousands of dead Iraqis since 2003? The US Army and W Bush didn’t go over there with the express purpose of killing Iraqi civilians; it just sort of happened. I guess that their dying part was more of a side effect.

    This is staking YOUR logic (not mine) to its logical conclusion.

     

     

    We could always hold a referendum…

    That’d be fine with me, since the minority of the USA is pro-choice.

    But let’s be honest; you wouldn’t accept the verdict of such a referendum. Be honest. And to a point, you’d be right. Truth is not determined by counting noses.

     

    I haven’t admitted that your male “baby” is a “person.” 

    Sorry, yes you did.

    From your September 8, 2011 – 1:44pm comment:

    **She has the right to remove an unwanted growth/resident/person from her uterus in the safest manner possible.**

     

     

    The “baby’s” body belonging to him doesn’t give him tenancy rights to the woman’s uterus.

    Then the woman’s uterus belonging to her doesn’t give invasion rights to the woman. The woman proactively seeks out an agent to shove scissors into the baby’s body.

    Look, be consistent. Either bodily autonomy matters or it doesn’t. You have to make up your mind. 

     

    Because slapping down anti-choice advocates is fun! 

    Since you are OK with logical fallacies, do you realise that all this time you  have actually been expressing a rabid pro-life position? 

    That you have also told us all that you’re voting for Sarah Palin? 

    I mean, since logical fallacies don’t matter…

     

    So I guess you don’t really feel that abortion is murder, after all

    Didn’t ever say that. Why do you feel the need to pretend I’m saying things I’m not saying?

    the most likely possibility is that you realise your position has been exposed as false.

     

    Whether or not there is justification is irrelevant?

    Nope. PLease read it again.

     

    but there are good arguments for banning them precisely because they are a violation of a child’s right to their own body.

    I don’t believe I’ve ever argued for a “child’s right to their own body”. What does that even mean?

    I’ve been arguing against killing children without justification.

     

     

    And if this homeless person needed a new kidney in order to live, and you happened to be a perfect match, would the argument remain as strong?

    Did I do something to damage his kidney? that’s the only way this analogy holds.

     

    –True, one wouldn’t want kids to learn to follow a rational point, avoid logical fallacies, and consider the consistency of one’s position of paramount importance. Hahaha. 

    I’ll certainly admit, your position is consistently misogynistic.

    You don’t really have any idea what you’re doing, do you? It’s like you accidentally pasted a response to someone totally different.

     

    You use the terminology and accoutrements of the slavery abolition movement, in a movement whose goal is to enslave women to their reproductive systems.

    No, in a movement who wants to see full human rights granted to ALL HUMANS. You are like the enablers of slavery in that you have arbitrarily written out of human-ness all the really small children who can’t speak for themselves. You’re the Supreme Ct calling Dred Scott 3/5 of a person.

  • rhology

    This comment was removed for violation of RH Reality Check‘s commenting policy.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Your comments are rated low because they are misogynistic, trollish, and lack any rational thinking. I’m saying this to you and all the anti-choice trolls lurking out there, “Stay the hell out of my uterus. My uterus is none of your business and is not public property –Stay the hell out of my uterus.” A fertilized egg, fetus, is not a baby. I have the right to my bodily autonomy and a right to decide when and if to reproduce. It’s none of your business when, where, if, blah, blah, blah, my sex life, my decision to reproduce, have sex, etc.– None of your business. This are the facts, not emotion. Please get over yourself. In fact all anti-choicers need to get over themselves. It’s not even worth my time replying to you.

  • colleen

    “People like you”, eh?

    Indeed. It takes a special sort of unexamined hatred and contempt towards all women to try to force and guilt trip a victim of rape or incest to carry a pregnancy to term .

    I guess you prefer that rape victims get force-fed the idea that abortion is the only way to go? No other options should be offered?

    And you accuse the women here of illogic and over emotionality.

    Rape and incest victims have been “force fed” quite enough. After all, the pregnant ones have had at least one male force feeding his penis and his hatred and need to control and dominate on them. The last thing we need after being raped is the unending contempt and sadism of the religious right. I feel rape victims should be offered a number of things: a processed rape kit, justice and emergency contraception for starters. I understand that Republicans have a great deal of trouble with the concept of justice or, for that matter, sexual consent .

     

  • ack

    Some women are glad to know that there is a “backup plan” should they become pregnant with a child.

     

    1/3 of women in the US have an abortion at some point in their lifetime. Yes, that’s “some” but it’s by no means a minor proportion.

     

    He also has human rights, the most fundamental and basic of which is the right to life.

     

    And, as an adult, I still don’t have the right to demand an organ from my mom. Why should I have had that right while I was in her uterus?

     

    Saying “comfort in knowing that these facilities exist should they need them” is much more relevant when discussing, say, a clinic that provides *health care* in cases of disease or injury. Pregnancy is neither.

     

    Everyone I’ve ever known who’s been pregnant talks about it as a condition, as a status. Pregnancy has symptoms, has side effects, has generally necessary medical intervention…Once that baby decides to come out, you’re dealing with bleeding. So much bleeding…

     

    It’s more than a UTI, for instance, which is another “condition” I can deal with having to do with my reproductive health. I can get rid of a UTI with water and cranberry juice, or I can seek antibiotics. Yeast infection? Those don’t last nearly as long as pregnancy, and I can try to get rid of it with yogurt.

     

    Ask any reputable “lady doctor”: If you’re pregnant, you need medical care. What that care looks like is different for every person. I plan to work with a doula or midwife, along with an OBGYN in case the worst happens. Most people work primarily with an OBGYN.

     

    I have a LOT of problems with medicalizing pregnancy to the point where we can’t make our own birthing decisions anymore. I think that is utter bullshit. But I also think that denying the risks associated with pregnancy, and instead putting it on a pedestal that requires pregnant women and girls to place themselves in harms way is disrespectful to everyone with a uterus. Birthing a child is an incredibly risky process. It’s not an inconvenience.

     

    This is political double-speak, interestingly. I can appreciate a good rhetorical flourish like this, but in reality, you have stacked the deck. There is zero constitutional justification for abortion; in fact abortion is anti-constitutional in that it violates the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, skipping past the right to a “trial by an impartial jury”. You proceed directly to the death sentence for these unconvicted, tiny people.

     

    Any trial by an impartial jury would probably still convict me of stealing my mother’s organs. It would still be self-defense if I tried to steal her kidney and she killed me, even if she could survive without the other one.

     

    Are you aware that the vast majority of abortions are NOT performed to protect the mother from a health situation that presents a danger to her life?

    What health furtherance do you have in mind? Are you simply redefining “removing a 10-month inconvenience” as “health furtherance”?

     

    No, but we’re recognizing the absolutely undeniable fact that each woman and girl knows their situation better than anyone else. I don’t know your situation. Do you think you know mine? Do you feel capable of making decisions for me?

     

    And, once again, this isn’t an inconvenience. Pregnancy is a long, grueling process that requires not only biological but emotional support.

     

    The mother frequently gets sick or infected, and often later suffers from mental and emotional problems as a result of the abortion.

     

    I need sources on this, since everything I’ve read and heard anecdotally reports that women and girls generally feel relief, and long term problems are simply not there. (I’d cite the article, but there simply aren’t any reputable sources that refute this statement… it would require a lit review.)

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • jennifer-starr

    Since you do claim to  know the difference between social darwinism and the scientific theory of evolution, I’d be interested in knowing who you think actually believes in social darwinism.  Because in my experience those people tend to inhabit the right side of the political spectrum these days–cutting health care to children, organ donations, etc.  And unbelievablly some of these same people have the temerity to call themselves ‘pro-life’ when doing this–re: Jan Brewer. 

  • jennifer-starr

    Duplicate please erase.

  • ack

    I have no desire to “ignore” women, but I must speak up for the weak, oppressed victims that are the children who get dismembered. Do you know what happens during abortions? Do you know that the children are not mere “clumps of cells”?  The ABORTICIAN is the badguy here, not the women. Most women are 2ndary victims as well, as they have been lied to by the system, by the industry, by the fatcat rich “doctors” who want to make money off another abortion.

     

    I think you need to give more credit to women and girls. No one is being duped by people who provide abortions. Those women and girls are making their own decions. It’s easier to blame the doctors, sure. But it’s not the reality.

     

    In fact, equating abortion with infanticide (which you’ve done so frequently I can’t imagine the need to quote you) is, in general, hateful. 

    i disagree. It is the logical conclusion. 

    If you disagree with me, please give an argument as to why it is wrong.

    We can disagree on a lot of philosophical arguments. I completely understand that. But this… this I cannot ignore.

     

    Set up a google alert for child abuse deaths.

     

    These are literally off the top of my head.

    - That dad in VA who threw FOUR children off a bridge because his ex tried to modify custody

    Arizona:

    - Cheeree Goard, under 5 years old, who was beaten to death while trying to hide behind a toilet tank. (Literally. That was where they found her.)

    - Kimberly Sullivan, who was starved to death from the day she was brought home from the hospital after her birth

    -Aimee Deal, 10, who was suffocated in a footlocker because she took a popsicle. Neighbors reported she’d been made to walk on the sidewalk during 100+ heat in bear feet.

    - Alec and Asher, who were shot to death by their father, who was going through a divorce and thought they couldn’t live without him.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • ahunt

    “Yes, that is correct. The wrongness is due to the fact that abortion unjustifiably ends the life of a human, who is created in the image of God.”

     

    Just to clarify,  are you talking about “moment of conception” rights?

  • prochoiceferret

    Yes, that is correct. The wrongness is due to the fact that abortion unjustifiably ends the life of a human, who is created in the image of God.

     

    So you’re saying abortion would not be wrong for a Buddhist? (for whom humans are not created in the image of a supreme deity)

     

    You did! When you have expressed your heartily pro-abortion stance.

     

    Nope, not pro-abortion here. Pro-choice. You know, kind of like how being pro-voting doesn’t necessarily make you pro-Democrat or pro-Republican.

     

    Neither was Dred Scott. Remember how we already discussed this?

     

    Good luck getting an amendment passed, by the way.

     

    Tell that to the dead child.

     

    The woman can make peace with her dead fetus without unrelated parties sticking their nose into her private affairs, as some folks are wont to do.

     

    You could say that about ANYthing. How about the thousands of dead Iraqis since 2003? The US Army and W Bush didn’t go over there with the express purpose of killing Iraqi civilians; it just sort of happened. I guess that their dying part was more of a side effect.

    This is staking YOUR logic (not mine) to its logical conclusion.

     

    Many people feel that the human (and financial/political) costs of the second Iraqi War were not justified. Here, we are aware that abortion has its human costs. The fetus dies, duh. But we believe that that cost, when incurred by a woman’s freely-made choice, is less than that exacted by denying women control over their own bodies and lives.

     

    That’d be fine with me, since the minority of the USA is pro-choice.

    But let’s be honest; you wouldn’t accept the verdict of such a referendum. Be honest. And to a point, you’d be right. Truth is not determined by counting noses.

     

    If I’m presented with a ballot item proposing to allow anyone who needs tissues/organs from my body in order to live to obtain them without my consent, I’m going to vote NO. I’m not particularly worried about that referendum passing.

     

    Sorry, yes you did.

    From your September 8, 2011 – 1:44pm comment:

    **She has the right to remove an unwanted growth/resident/person from her uterus in the safest manner possible.**

     

    Nope. I just threw in a bunch of terms that different people have used to refer to the same thing. I don’t call it a “person” myself, because that’s not the legal reality, and it’s dubious at best when you’re talking about an organism that can’t even live apart from a grown human. But I didn’t want you to labor under the impression that my argument would fall apart if you could only get me to admit that it is a person, as you seem to be doing now.

     

    Then the woman’s uterus belonging to her doesn’t give invasion rights to the woman. The woman proactively seeks out an agent to shove scissors into the baby’s body.

    Look, be consistent. Either bodily autonomy matters or it doesn’t. You have to make up your mind.

     

    The woman’s uterus belonging to her does mean that she can have its contents cleared out, actually. Do I have to explain the meaning of the word “belong” to you?

     

    Since you are OK with logical fallacies, do you realise that all this time you  have actually been expressing a rabid pro-life position? 

    That you have also told us all that you’re voting for Sarah Palin? 

    I mean, since logical fallacies don’t matter…

     

    They’re like candy for anti-choicers!

     

    Didn’t ever say that. Why do you feel the need to pretend I’m saying things I’m not saying?

    the most likely possibility is that you realise your position has been exposed as false.

     

    Well, you certainly seem to treat it differently from the way most people treat murders. If someone is a murderer, and there’s evidence, I generally prefer to have them convicted as soon as possible. For you, however, it doesn’t seem to be a particularly big deal. Like, you’ll just get around to it whenever. Abortion is something that millions upon millions of women have obtained. Are you comfortable having so many murderers walking the streets?

     

    I don’t believe I’ve ever argued for a “child’s right to their own body”. What does that even mean?

    I’ve been arguing against killing children without justification.

     

    Well then, you’re on the wrong site, because we’ve never argued in favor of that. Perhaps you were looking for the Caylee Anthony Fan Club?

     

    Did I do something to damage his kidney? that’s the only way this analogy holds.

     

    Yes, the loss of employer-provided health insurance led to this person’s kidney condition going untreated. Would you rather give up the left, or the right?

     

    You don’t really have any idea what you’re doing, do you? It’s like you accidentally pasted a response to someone totally different.

     

    That’s the funny thing about you anti-choicers. You always make the same tired, erroneous, and deeply misogynistic arguments. Everything I’ve told you, I’ve told to at least a hundred other knuckle-dragging trolls. (It’s cute how at least half of them, including you, seem to think their arguments are “unbeatable.”)

     

    No, in a movement who wants to see full human rights granted to ALL HUMANS. You are like the enablers of slavery in that you have arbitrarily written out of human-ness all the really small children who can’t speak for themselves. You’re the Supreme Ct calling Dred Scott 3/5 of a person.

     

    Tell that to the women who have been forced into labor thanks to the policies you promote.

  • prochoiceferret

    Just to clarify,  are you talking about “moment of conception” rights?

     

    Personally, I thought he was talking about “I wish fetuses had these because then women would have to do as I say, and that would go a long way toward making up for my small penis” rights.

  • lindzanne

    Dear God.  Please.  Rhology.  Just stop.  Everything you say is so mind-numbingly boring, so tired, so embarrassingly mis-informed.  But, sigh, I’m sure it’s pointless for me to say this when the very premise of your beliefs demand that you stay misinformed and tirelessly take up your sword against us, or whatever.  A big high five to everyone who had the energy to go into combat against you here.  I could care less about your “beliefs”, and personally I really don’t have time or energy to debate human rights with someone.  Especially someone who thinks said “beliefs” are a viable argument agains said human rights.  Here’s why I don’t, and shouldn’t, have time:

    You said:

    …….How are they doing that? Do you mean by trying to work to make the laws of the nation reflect their beliefs?  You do that too!

    What makes what you do different than what they are doing? Or are you just engaging in special pleading?…………

    No, we’re not.  This isn’t about beliefs.  This is about access to healthcare.  Basic, complete healthcare.  Birth control, morning after pill, abortion.  THIS IS HEALTHCARE.  My healthcare is not a belief; it is a non-negotiable healthcare standard.  It’s not up for debate.  Yeah, sure, like most basic living standards in this country it’s constantly under attack.  But the standard itself for the healthcare I deserve, is not up for deliberation.  Your “beliefs” take a backseat to medical and scientific reality and to the real life health consequences (yes, physical, mental, emotional, and guess what, SPIRITUAL consequences) that reproductive justice address.  Your “beliefs” shouldn’t even be in the car, or even on the same road.  So seriously, spare me, and us, your “arguments”.  I don’t care.  Because again, I don’t have time to debate human rights with you, or explain or justify them to people like you.  (Yes, “people like you”.)  I’m too busy fighting for them. 

    And, for crying in the night, you are not abolitionists. Seriously?! You sully the word. 

  • lindzanne

    And again, to get back to the OP, THANKS Kari Ann Rinker! 

  • plume-assassine

    I’m arriving late to this discussion, but I thought it would be worthwhile to help you understand some of the glaring problems in your own arguments, as well as helping you to understand the pro-choice position.

    This baby is not a clump of cells. He is a person with his own DNA, his own organs, his own brain, his own abilities and personality. He also has human rights, the most fundamental and basic of which is the right to life. Abortion deprives him of that most fundamental of rights without so much as a trial by a jury of his peers.

    Here you are claiming that an embryo/fetus is a person. As you are making the positive claim, then the burden of proof is on you, which you have failed to provide. As it stands, there are no neurological characteristics that could identify an embryo/fetus as a sentient person. (I would be glad to discuss this further with you, as neuroscience is one of my favorite areas of study.) An organism with unique DNA does not make it a person; neither does having organs, or a brain. The last two characteristics you provide are “abilities” and “personality” — either you are totally ignorant of fetal development or you are lying, as an embryo/fetus does not have the capacity for either (as it does not have the capacity for sentience until birth.)

    “should their lives be inconvenienced (in most cases of abortion) by a baby”, so that they can kill their child.

    Here you are claiming that abortion is the same thing as killing, or as murder. Knowing that 1/3 of American women have abortions, then you must think that these women should be tried and imprisoned for the crime of murder, right (as that is what we do in this country for people who take part in such heinous acts)? Ah, but apparently not, because later in the thread, you claimed that women were “victims” of “the doctors” and therefore they are “not guilty.” BUT: women are not naive children, we are rational adults who knowingly and with FULL INTENT will seek out an abortion if we so choose (to have a doctor terminate the pregnancy)… so, if you want to be logical, you must at least think that women are partially responsible for this “crime” then, yes? Since she knowingly seeks to end her pregnancy? If you still disagree that women are at least partially responsible for abortion, then you have conceded that you do not really believe that abortion is murder; you only pretend that it is murder in order to have an excuse to control women. It is all hyperbole! Also, let me ask you this: if you knew that 1/3 of American women murdered their 3-year-old children with the help of another party, would you still sound so forgiving, saying that they were innocent victims who had been tricked into killing their children? I think not!

     

    The mother frequently gets sick or infected, and often later suffers from mental and emotional problems as a result of the abortion.

    Abortion — when legal — is one of the safest medical procedures; in fact, early legal abortion is safer than having your tonsils removed. Also, you are wrong about there being universal “mental and emotional problems” resulting from abortion. Cohort studies have found that this is not the case for all, or even most, women. Feel free to click around on the Guttmacher Institute web site and please refrain from propogating medically inaccurate myths in the future.

     

    Couple more things before I go:

    –Later in the thread, you discussed that nobody should be “killed” just because of their “location.” Regrettably, you have decided to reduce a woman’s body, specifically her uterus, to a federally-protected public location. This objectifies women and is insulting, as my body is not protected property; it belongs to myself and I have the right to remove anything that grows on or within me

    –Even if a person consents to sex, it is still not consent to pregnancy/childbirth, because 1) they are separate processes and 2) the act of having sex is not an irrevocable contract that will always result in a baby, and 3) having sex does not mean that one must sign away their rights to bodily integrity.

    –On a related note, I also have the right to refuse any person/organism to use my body for sustenance, even if that organism or person will die as a result of my refusal. This is also why we do not force people to donate their organs to others, even if the other person will die as a result of such refusal. That is bodily autonomy. It is a simple concept, and can also be applied to other areas (aside from biological sustenance), such as sexual consent. That is why many people understand that forced birth is rape. So, no matter the perceived-personhood, it is still wrong to use another person’s body against their will.

    –As you know, criminalizing abortion will not prevent it from happening, it only makes it dangerous, so you will never truly “abolish” such a common procedure. Knowing this, do you or do you not care that thousands of women will die as a result of unsafe abortion?

    –Re abortion and men: Men do not get to have a say in the reproductive decisions of women because the male body is not responsible for the physically/emotionally-taxing process of gestating the fetus. Men contribute their DNA; they do not contribute the use of their body for sustenance. Also, if you take away the reproductive decisions from women and grant them to men, you are also granting them the right to force women into abortions, which is equally as abhorrent as forced birth. Forced birth and forced abortion are both common tactics of domestic violence, which you are advocating.

    –Finally, in another comment, you used a religious argument about the “wrongness of abortion” (“made in the image of God”). I hope you will realize that not everybody shares your religious beliefs, and you cannot force your religious beliefs on other people in this country about what you personally think is “immoral.” Unless, of course, you would like to live in a theocracy.

  • kari-rinker

    Thanks for the kind words.  Looks like my piece brought a little bit of good ol’ Kansas anti-choice love along with it via the comment section.  Our local Wichita paper looks like this every time an abortion article is posted.  It’s good to see that our side is represented well here at RH. 

  • kari-rinker

    Thanks for the kind words.  Looks like my piece brought a little bit of good ol’ Kansas anti-choice love along with it via the comment section.  Our local Wichita paper looks like this every time an abortion article is posted.  It’s good to see that our side is represented well here at RH. 

  • maiac

    Rhology, 

    There’s no point in arguing with you. Why? Becuase I know the following things about you:

    • You intentionally misconstrue EVERYTHING said to you. (You can tell by the way you edit out all the points people make to you, just snippeting some convenient piece that you can twist to mean something it didn’t.)
    • You ignore real facts (like the actual process of gestation and medical distinctions between zygote/embryo/fetus/baby, or the real-nothing-to-do-with-”convenience”-everything-to-do-with-survivial reasons that women have abortions, or the fact that ALL surgeries and medical interventions have risks which we have to assume – for instance, that approximately the same number of people die worldwide of flu vaccines as women do of legal abortions – and that doesn’t make either of them “unsafe” or “risky”).
    • You make blatantly misogynist statements and then deny their obvious implications (like that calling women’s reasons for having abortions are “selfish” or about “convenience”, and then claiming you’re not calling women selfish or being anti-woman… even though you’re insulting 1/3 of women).
    • You believe that there is something called “Darwinism” that is a legitimate school of intellectusal thought (there’s not – there’s a biological theory of evolution, which says none of the things you’ve claimed it does, and there’s social Darwinism, which is a DE-BUNKED theory that has NOTHING to do with Darwin – Herbert Spencer made it up in support of eugenics).

    I know ALL these things about you. And I know one more, you’re just a sad sad troll, who needs to find someplace else to go spout off his tired old rhetoric.

    Dueces!

    :)

  • elburto

    Tell me, how does one dismember something that has no limbs, or snap a nonexistent spine?

    Next you’ll be trying to tell us that the poor ickle ZBEFs scream in pain as their nonexistent limbs and spine are snapped.

  • elburto

    We’ve got your back against the mansplaining, anti-choice, Bronze Age weenies who have nightmares about women being able to leave the kitchen. They can stamp their ickle feet, and wave their arms, and invoke their gods, but it won’t make their point any more valid or their penis any bigger.

    They come and go, hit and run, and we’ll all be here with our science and our facts, and I for one won’t get tired of it because the laughter from seeing them froth about “teh poor dismembered babbies” (who are usually only millimetres big) fuels me.

    So keep up the good work Kari, and we’ll deflect the wingnuts as best we can.

  • wendy-banks

    Oh brother, not another one…

    Image removed for violation of our commenting policy. Please refrain from posting personal insults, they merely distract from conversation.

  • rhology

    Hi Jennifer,

     

    Yes, Darwinism and SOCIAL Darwinism are not the same. 

    SD is an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to society and consider these processes of evolution and survival of the fittest as moral guidance/imperatives.

     

    Here’s the thing about that. If Darwinism is true, if we have all evolved from lower life forms and all emerged from mere matter. If we are all nothing more than molecules in motion, bags of protoplasm, then whence morality? Morality is merely a social construct, a fantasy. Moral values do not exist in reality. they’re just ideas that people have had, and as such they can be abrogated and annulled by whoever has the power at the time.

     

    This includes what most Americans usually unthinkingly consider inalienable rights – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If ppl gave you those rights, then ppl can take them away if they have enough power. Darwinism destroys the foundation of morality and rights.

     

    I am not a Darwinist, however; I am a CHristian, so morality is as God has commanded and as He has said it is. Not just for me, either – EVERYONE must obey God. This includes you, and includes all aborticians and politicians in the world. Those who refuse to submit to God will meet with His wrath in the time He has chosen, and I tremble for those who will face it.

     

    So, the choice is this:

    -Darwinism, where you THINK you’re the master of your own destiny, but it is all self-deception. There is no mastery because mastery is absurd; there is no goal for existence, no purpose. There is no morality, no right or wrong beyond whatever the ppl in power say. There is no destiny. Abortion is not right, and it’s not wrong. It just is. everything just IS, whether it’s petting puppies or whipping them to death, helping grandma clean her house or beating her savagely for her money, helping rape victims heal or taking advantage of them so as to rape them again. Everything just IS, and none of it matters.

    -Jesus, where Jesus is the master. He tells us what is right and wrong, and we either obey or disobey.

    Thing is, we all choose to disobey, and thus we are lawbreakers.

    Yet Jesus was not willing that everyone suffer eternal torment and separation from Himself, which is the just penalty for lawbreaking, so He entered into His creation and became a man, lived a perfect life, and gave Himself on the cross to die for sinful people. Thus He offers eternal life in a relationship with Him, and we obtain it by repentance and full trust in Jesus as Savior and Lord. 

    Abortion matters in this case, and it is absolutely wrong and abhorrent. Yet there is forgiveness for it, for those who repent and trust in Christ. There is zero room, however, for those who unrepentantly continue to love evil and hate good.

     

    those are your choices. Choose wisely.

  • rhology

    Rape and incest victims have been “force fed” quite enough

    I agree, which is why the last thing we should be doing to them is lying to them that their children are just blobs of tissue, and that killing them is anything short of murder.

     

    The last thing we need after being raped is the unending contempt and sadism of the religious right.

    I agree, but that’s not what I’m advocating. 

    I’m sad that you seem to equate pregnancy and childbirth with “sadism”…God created women with the wondrous ability to  bear and nurture children. 

    Why think about it that way? You were also created with the ability to eat and digest eggplant parmigiana (one of my favorites); do you complain about the fact that eventually your body absorbs the nutrients and then eliminates the waste, and the waste sort of smells bad? 

    Put another way, on what basis are you complaining it’s “sadistic”?  

    Also, who demonstrates contempt for rape victims? Got any examples?  I should think they’d be hard to find outside of Pakistan…
    Certainly not abolitionists

     

    Republicans have a great deal of trouble with the concept of justice or, for that matter, sexual consent .

    No argument here, just biased bigotry, so nothing to respond to.

    And I’m hardly a “Republican”. I’m a Christian abolitionist, care very little about the Repub party, which I generally regard as a bunch of foolish tools.

  • rhology

    are you talking about “moment of conception” rights?

    Yes.

    I’m going to presume you disagree. :-)  

    If you do, please let me know when precisely:

    1) the “product of conception” becomes human, 

    2) it is no longer morally justifiable to kill that human, and

    3) how you know this, specifically.

     

    Let me give you a hint, too. Don’t say “scientific studies show…” without also telling us how those studies are relevant. So, for example, don’t say “studies show the fetus feels pain at __ weeks”; tell us why that matters. So what if the fetus feels pain at __ weeks?

    Don’t say “studies show the fetus has brainwaves at __ weeks”. So what?

    Don’t say “full human rights are granted at the point of __”.  How do you know? What did you observe to clue you into the fact that rights had just been granted? Who granted them? How did those rights accrue to the fetus? 

     

    If you can’t answer these, then on what basis do you think you have any idea whether abortion is morally justifiable?

  • rhology

    that would go a long way toward making up for my small penis” rights.

    1) Note how ProChoiceFerret assumes I am a man, w/o bothering to ask. So much for non-bigoted, fair treatment!
    2) Of course, any reader can note how I have been treated with contempt and insulting language, including numerous instances of grotesque obscenity. I am a Christian abolitionist, however, and believe the truth will win out in the end. Keep throwing those insults my way! It will make your lack of rational response that much more telling.

  • rhology

    you’re saying abortion would not be wrong for a Buddhist? (for whom humans are not created in the image of a supreme deity)

    You’ve confused categories a bit.

    Belief doesn’t create reality. You may not believe that city bus hurtling toward you is real, but it will indeed crush you, belief or no belief.

     

    Pro-choice. You know, kind of like how being pro-voting doesn’t necessarily make you pro-Democrat or pro-Republican.

    So would it be OK if someone described herself as pro-choice with respect to slavery?

    Ie, “if you’re against slavery, don’t own a slave”.

    Or w.r.t. murder? Ie, “If you’re against murder, don’t murder anyone”. 

    Why not? B/c those things involve the removal of rights from someone else, right? Exactly! So does abortion! 

    You know, the 3rd Reich decided on an arbitrary basis that Jewish people (among other ethnicities and social groupings) were not human. (Yes, the tired “Hitler example” aka “Godwining”; don’t switch your brain off. Just because it is [over]used does not mean it does not hold.) I ask: In what way is the arbitrary decision that the unborn human acquires human rights when s/he exhibits brain waves qualitatively different than the Nazis’ arbitrary decision that Jewish people were not human?
    You may respond: “But these Jews were walking, talking, had jobs, had families, had lives. How could you say that it’s the same?”
    I remind you that an arbitrary decision based on performance can be on a limitless sliding scale - whomever is in power gets to decide who has human rights. If they decide you don’t have human rights, you don’t. Then you’re no more important than cattle, and you can be killed without much remorse at all. Which is what happened. Human rights must be bestowed based on whether one is human. There is no good reason to believe that human rights are bestowed based on what one can do. This leads to all sorts of highly faulty and awful conclusions – those in a coma are no longer human. A little adjustment one way or the other, and someone loses his humanity when he is asleep. Or I have greater human rights if I am older, stronger, smarter, richer, or in a better location; if those things are true, and someone who is younger, less intelligent, and poorer is standing in my way, I can morally (and legally) kill that person. They were inconvenient to me, and my human rights supersede theirs.

    No, the real bases for human rights is ontological, not performance-based. We argue against the latter using, among other things, the acronym SLED. The conferral of human rights does not, indeed, must not depend on:
    -Size or physical appearance
    -Level of development
    -Environment (location)
    -Degree of dependency

     

    Neither was Dred Scott. Remember how we already discussed this?

    Good luck getting an amendment passed, by the way.

    The astute reader will note how this is hand-waving and an appeal to the current popularity of pro-choice in the USA, not an actual answer. 

     

     

    Tell that to the dead child.

    The woman can make peace with her dead fetus without unrelated parties sticking their nose into her private affairs, as some folks are wont to do.

    1) Just b/c some women are able to get past it doesn’t mean that all or even the majority do.

    2) This handwaving has no relevance to the dead child, and so is another non-response.

    One is left wondering whether you have any rational reason to hold to your position. It’s looking more and more like irrational bigotry.

     

     

    The fetus dies, duh. But we believe that that cost, when incurred by a woman’s freely-made choice, is less than that exacted by denying women control over their own bodies and lives.

    1) So, let’s examine that in terms of murder and slavery.

    The murder victim dies, duh. But we believe that that cost, when incurred by a murderer’s freely-made choice, is less than that exacted by denying murderers control over their own bodies and lives.
    The slave loses his freedom, duh. But we believe that that cost, when incurred by a slaveowner’s freely-made choice, is less than that exacted by denying slaveowners control over their own bodies, plantations, and lives.
    Thus we see that your “we believe” is nothing more than blind faith in your position. 

    2) You don’t have any way to measure that. 

    But really? It would appear that you think that as long as the babies really really small, this holds:

    Importance of a woman avoiding 1 year of some physical difficulty > The importance of THE LIFE of the baby 

    How do you know? Did you just make it up?

     

    If I’m presented with a ballot item proposing to allow anyone who needs tissues/organs from my body in order to live to obtain them without my consent

    This is approximately the 5th time I’ve reminded you that this is disanalogous. Please try again.

     

     

    I mean, since logical fallacies don’t matter…

    They’re like candy for anti-choicers!

    This makes 3 admissions you’ve made that you don’t care whether you commit logical fallacies.

    This is perhaps the most important statement here. Pro-choice is illogical, and you don’t care.

     

    For you, however, it doesn’t seem to be a particularly big deal. 

    Wait a sec, are you trying to use logic? Why would you do that?

     

     

    Well then, you’re on the wrong site, because we’ve never argued in favor of that.

    1) You just did, actually. Again. Remember how about 4 sentences ago you said “The fetus dies, duh.“?  Do you not even remember what you just typed?

    2) Wait a sec, are you trying to use logic? Why would you do that?

     

     

    Did I do something to damage his kidney? that’s the only way this analogy holds.

    Yes, the loss of employer-provided health insurance led to this person’s kidney condition going untreated. Would you rather give up the left, or the right?

    1) So no, I didn’t. Leaving sthg untreated != causing the problem.

    2) Wait a sec, are you trying to use logic? Why would you do that?

     

    You always make the same tired, erroneous, and deeply misogynistic arguments.

    Wait a sec, are you trying to use logic? Why would you do that?

     

    Tell that to the women who have been forced into labor thanks to the policies you promote.

    I’m sad that you seem to equate pregnancy and childbirth with “forced labor”…God created women with the wondrous ability to  bear and nurture children. 

    Why think about it that way? You were also created with the ability to eat and digest eggplant parmigiana (one of my favorites); do you complain about the fact that eventually your body absorbs the nutrients and then eliminates the waste, and the waste sort of smells bad? 

    Put another way, on what basis are you complaining it’s “forced labor”?  

    Also, who demonstrates contempt for rape victims? Got any examples?  I should think they’d be hard to find outside of Pakistan…

    Certainly not abolitionists.

  • prochoiceferret

    Here’s the thing about that. If Darwinism is true, if we have all evolved from lower life forms and all emerged from mere matter. If we are all nothing more than molecules in motion, bags of protoplasm, then whence morality? Morality is merely a social construct, a fantasy. Moral values do not exist in reality. they’re just ideas that people have had, and as such they can be abrogated and annulled by whoever has the power at the time.

     

    Congratulations, you’ve figured out at least one thing that most people who have lived through genocide have learned.

     

    This includes what most Americans usually unthinkingly consider inalienable rights – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If ppl gave you those rights, then ppl can take them away if they have enough power. Darwinism destroys the foundation of morality and rights.

     

    “Darwinism” destroys our free will and our ability to build a society on values of our choosing?

     

    I am not a Darwinist, however; I am a CHristian, so morality is as God has commanded and as He has said it is. Not just for me, either – EVERYONE must obey God. This includes you, and includes all aborticians and politicians in the world. Those who refuse to submit to God will meet with His wrath in the time He has chosen, and I tremble for those who will face it.

     

    Then we would be grateful if you could keep your trembling to yourself and let other people live their lives as they see fit. We can deal with the consequences.

     

    -Darwinism, where you THINK you’re the master of your own destiny, but it is all self-deception. There is no mastery because mastery is absurd; there is no goal for existence, no purpose. There is no morality, no right or wrong beyond whatever the ppl in power say. There is no destiny. Abortion is not right, and it’s not wrong. It just is. everything just IS, whether it’s petting puppies or whipping them to death, helping grandma clean her house or beating her savagely for her money, helping rape victims heal or taking advantage of them so as to rape them again. Everything just IS, and none of it matters.

     

    Actually, what you’ve described is nihilism. No thank you.

     

    -Jesus, where Jesus is the master. He tells us what is right and wrong, and we either obey or disobey.

     

    Sounds like slavery to me. No thank you.

     

    Thing is, we all choose to disobey, and thus we are lawbreakers.

     

    I prefer the term “free people.”

     

    Yet Jesus was not willing that everyone suffer eternal torment and separation from Himself, which is the just penalty for lawbreaking, so He entered into His creation and became a man, lived a perfect life, and gave Himself on the cross to die for sinful people. Thus He offers eternal life in a relationship with Him, and we obtain it by repentance and full trust in Jesus as Savior and Lord. 

     

    No thank you, not interested. *closes door, turns on sprinklers*

     

    Abortion matters in this case, and it is absolutely wrong and abhorrent. Yet there is forgiveness for it, for those who repent and trust in Christ. There is zero room, however, for those who unrepentantly continue to love evil and hate good.

     

    Sorry, buddy, but this ain’t a theocracy.

     

    those are your choices. Choose wisely.

     

    None of the above.

  • prochoiceferret

    I agree, which is why the last thing we should be doing to them is lying to them that their children are just blobs of tissue, and that killing them is anything short of murder.

     

    How cute! Rhology thinks that we follow the same approach as he does, only we say the ideological opposite of his views!

     

    I agree, but that’s not what I’m advocating.

     

    Actually, yes it is.

     

    Put another way, on what basis are you complaining it’s “sadistic”?  

     

    When it is forced on a woman against her will.

     

    Also, who demonstrates contempt for rape victims? Got any examples?  I should think they’d be hard to find outside of Pakistan…

     

    Most dyed-in-the-wool misogynists do.

     

    And I’m hardly a “Republican”. I’m a Christian abolitionist, care very little about the Repub party, which I generally regard as a bunch of foolish tools.

     

    Not that that stops you from voting for them.

  • prochoiceferret

    If you do, please let me know when precisely:

    1) the “product of conception” becomes human, 

     

    It is never not genetically human. After all, the relevant sperm and egg cells weren’t canine, amirite?

     

    2) it is no longer morally justifiable to kill that human, and

     

    No such time. If a 120-year old person were somehow threatening my safety, and I have no choice but to defend myself using lethal force (or else die at this person’s hands), then I am morally justified in doing so.

     

    3) how you know this, specifically.

     

    Because most people don’t have a problem with the use of lethal force in self-defense when necessary.

     

    If you can’t answer these, then on what basis do you think you have any idea whether abortion is morally justifiable?

     

    I was able to answer those. And abortion is morally justifiable because no one has the right to use another person’s body against their will. Not even fetuses.

  • prochoiceferret

    1) Note how ProChoiceFerret assumes I am a man, w/o bothering to ask. So much for non-bigoted, fair treatment!

     

    There wasn’t any need to ask.

     

    2) Of course, any reader can note how I have been treated with contempt and insulting language, including numerous instances of grotesque obscenity. I am a Christian abolitionist, however, and believe the truth will win out in the end. Keep throwing those insults my way! It will make your lack of rational response that much more telling.

     

    Yes, you have such a heavy cross to bear!

  • jennifer-starr

    Again,  I think you’ll find that most of the people living by social darwinism these days are on the right, even the ones who label themselves ‘conservative Christians’.  Though I doubt they’d ever admit it, their politics are  definitely of the “I’ve got mine so screw the poor” variety. 

    As to your assertion that everyone must live by your personal beliefs, I smell a whiff of dominionism and theonomy in the air. Perhaps you would be happier living in a theocracy than in the United States? If you find your theocracy, go there forthwith and take the D. James Kennedys, Pat Robertsons and the Jerry Falwells of this world with you–it would be a much better place without them. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Belief doesn’t create reality.

     

    Sure doesn’t seem to have stopped you!

     

    So would it be OK if someone described herself as pro-choice with respect to slavery?

    Ie, “if you’re against slavery, don’t own a slave”.

    Or w.r.t. murder? Ie, “If you’re against murder, don’t murder anyone”. 

    Why not? B/c those things involve the removal of rights from someone else, right? Exactly! So does abortion! 

     

    Nope. Because no one has the right to use another person’s body against their will. Not even a fetus!

     

    You know, the 3rd Reich decided on an arbitrary basis that Jewish people (among other ethnicities and social groupings) were not human. (Yes, the tired “Hitler example” aka “Godwining”; don’t switch your brain off. Just because it is [over]used does not mean it does not hold.) I ask: In what way is the arbitrary decision that the unborn human acquires human rights when s/he exhibits brain waves qualitatively different than the Nazis’ arbitrary decision that Jewish people were not human?

     

    What “arbitrary decision” are you talking about? Also, last time I checked, most Jewish people have brain waves.

     

    You may respond: “But these Jews were walking, talking, had jobs, had families, had lives. How could you say that it’s the same?”

    I remind you that an arbitrary decision based on performance can be on a limitless sliding scale – whomever is in power gets to decide who has human rights. If they decide you don’t have human rights, you don’t. Then you’re no more important than cattle, and you can be killed without much remorse at all.

     

    Exactly. Perhaps you should read Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale sometime.

     

    Which is what happened. Human rights must be bestowed based on whether one is human. There is no good reason to believe that human rights are bestowed based on what one can do. This leads to all sorts of highly faulty and awful conclusions – those in a coma are no longer human. A little adjustment one way or the other, and someone loses his humanity when he is asleep. Or I have greater human rights if I am older, stronger, smarter, richer, or in a better location; if those things are true, and someone who is younger, less intelligent, and poorer is standing in my way, I can morally (and legally) kill that person. They were inconvenient to me, and my human rights supersede theirs.

     

    Your argument is all fine and good, but “human rights” still do not include the right to draw life support from another person’s body against their will.

     

    The astute reader will note how this is hand-waving and an appeal to the current popularity of pro-choice in the USA, not an actual answer.

     

    Yes, because quite frankly, I’m not worried about such an amendment ever seeing the light of day. (Not that anti-choicers aren’t able to do a whole lot of damage short of sullying our Constitution…)

     

    1) Just b/c some women are able to get past it doesn’t mean that all or even the majority do.

     

    Indeed, people like you can make the whole ordeal a lot more traumatic than it needs to be.

     

    2) This handwaving has no relevance to the dead child, and so is another non-response.

     

    I would have written an actual response if you had written something more than emotionally manipulative rhetoric.

     

    One is left wondering whether you have any rational reason to hold to your position. It’s looking more and more like irrational bigotry.

     

    All advocacy in favor of women’s rights and reproductive justice looks like irrational bigotry to anti-choicers like you. You just haven’t been at this long enough.

     

    1) So, let’s examine that in terms of murder and slavery.

    The murder victim dies, duh. But we believe that that cost, when incurred by a murderer’s freely-made choice, is less than that exacted by denying murderers control over their own bodies and lives.

    The slave loses his freedom, duh. But we believe that that cost, when incurred by a slaveowner’s freely-made choice, is less than that exacted by denying slaveowners control over their own bodies, plantations, and lives.

    Thus we see that your “we believe” is nothing more than blind faith in your position. 

     

    I’m sorry, were you trying to make an argument? All I heard was a bunch of non-sequiturs and sour grapes. Oh, and an ongoing presumption that you can’t violate women’s rights if you don’t even accept that they exist.

     

    2) You don’t have any way to measure that. 

    But really? It would appear that you think that as long as the babies really really small, this holds:

    Importance of a woman avoiding 1 year of some physical difficulty > The importance of THE LIFE of the baby 

    How do you know? Did you just make it up?

     

    Nope. I’m just cognizant of the fact that “this won’t be such a big deal” is not a valid excuse to violate a person’s human rights.

     

    Oh, and LOL on referring to pregnancy as “some physical difficulty.” I can practically smell the testosterone from here! (ewwww…)

     

    This is approximately the 5th time I’ve reminded you that this is disanalogous. Please try again.

     

    Nope, use of another person’s body is no one’s right. I can understand that you may want to try to dismiss this argument, given that it’s the one that will eventually demolish the anti-choice movement.

     

    This makes 3 admissions you’ve made that you don’t care whether you commit logical fallacies.

    This is perhaps the most important statement here. Pro-choice is illogical, and you don’t care.

     

    It’s certainly illogical for you! And no, I don’t care, as long as women are unencumbered by your misogynistic worldview.

     

    1) You just did, actually. Again. Remember how about 4 sentences ago you said “The fetus dies, duh.”?  Do you not even remember what you just typed?

     

    I do remember that you erroneously equate abortion with “killing children without justification.”

     

    1) So no, I didn’t. Leaving sthg untreated != causing the problem.

     

    So leaving the fetus without the woman’s bodily-provided life support != causing the problem (which for you, is the whole “dying” part).

     

    Put another way, on what basis are you complaining it’s “forced labor”?

     

    On the “forced” part. As in, not having a choice about it.

     

    Also, who demonstrates contempt for rape victims? Got any examples?  I should think they’d be hard to find outside of Pakistan…

     

    Not surprising that your contempt would so blind you.

  • jennifer-starr

    I doubt anyone impregnanted against their will as a result of rape or incest  thinks of it as ‘wondrous’. That’s about as trite as Sharron Angle telling people to ‘make lemonade out of lemons’. Very smug and easy to say when you aren’t the one in that situation, the one who’ll be dealing with it for nine months and then possibly for the rest of your life.  Which is why the decision should be left up to the victim, and no one else.  We don’t need or want you making decisions for us, so run along. 

  • beenthere72

    I guess we can add ‘Other Religions’ to the list of things you don’t respect.  

     

    I’m not surprised, by the way.

  • crowepps

    Do you not even remember what you just typed

    Have fun playing — I have better things to do than confirm the troll in his self-importance

  • prochoiceferret

    Have fun playing — I have better things to do than confirm the troll in his self-importance

     

    GASP! So Rhology is our favorite (well, not-so-favorite) anti-choice troglodyte with a keyboard fetish!

     

    “And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling reproductive-health advocates!”

  • rhology

    This comment has been removed for violation of the RH Reality Check commenting policy.

  • rhology

     

    Sure doesn’t seem to have stopped you!

    Yet another non-response.

     

    Because no one has the right to use another person’s body against their will. Not even a fetus!

    This argument is absolutely demolished at this link.

     

    What “arbitrary decision” are you talking about? 

    Arbitrarily dehumanising the fetus.

    You don’t think it’s OK for me to kill adults just b/c I want to and claim they’re causing me some suffering, but you do claim it for the very young fetus. The middleman is your arbitrary decision.

     

     

    most Jewish people have brain waves.

    Yes, but if I’m the one in power and I can choose who’s human and who’s not, ie, if I am the one making the choice, then I can simply choose that the Jewish brainwaves are not in fact brainwaves sufficiently worthy to live.

    Voila! I have dehumanised them. Now I can kill them.

     

    I remind you that an arbitrary decision based on performance can be on a limitless sliding scale – whomever is in power gets to decide who has human rights. If they decide you don’t have human rights, you don’t. Then you’re no more important than cattle, and you can be killed without much remorse at all.

    Exactly. Perhaps you should read Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale sometime.

    I read that book, actually.

    You haven’t understood my point, for you would not agree with something that condemns your position as my point does. Maybe try reading it again.

     

     

    human rights” still do not include the right to draw life support from another person’s body against their will.

    Prove it. How do you know anything about human rights?

     

     

    The astute reader will note how this is hand-waving and an appeal to the current popularity of pro-choice in the USA, not an actual answer.

    Yes, because quite frankly, I’m not worried about such an amendment ever seeing the light of day. (Not that anti-choicers aren’t able to do a whole lot of damage short of sullying our Constitution…)

    PCF seems proud not only of his/her commission of logical fallacies but also of his/her handwaving and non-responses to important questions.  It’s sort of pitiful.

     

    1) Just b/c some women are able to get past it doesn’t mean that all or even the majority do.

    Indeed, people like you can make the whole ordeal a lot more traumatic than it needs to be.

    The trauma the women experience is nothing to the severed spinal column and crushed cranium the baby suffers.  Priorities – let’s make sure that both parties end up ALIVE and then worry about minimising other traumas.

     

     

    2) This handwaving has no relevance to the dead child, and so is another non-response.

    I would have written an actual response if you had written something more than emotionally manipulative rhetoric.

     LOL!  This is gold. I’m going to use this from here on out.

    Here’s the deal, PCF. You have taken pride in your commission of logical fallacies, shown total disregard for consistency and for writing substantive rebuttals. My work with you is complete. Thanks for playing, but that’s a résumé that screams “Ignore me!!!” to those who actually care about the truth of the issues at hand.

     

     

    All advocacy in favor of women’s rights and reproductive justice looks like irrational bigotry to anti-choicers like you. You just haven’t been at this long enough.

    I would have looked harder and thrown in some logical fallacies while I was at it if you had written something more than emotionally manipulative rhetoric.

     

    All I heard was a bunch of non-sequiturs and sour grapes. 

    I would have written an actual response and thrown in some logical fallacies while I was at it if you had written something more than emotionally manipulative rhetoric.

     

     

    LOL on referring to pregnancy as “some physical difficulty.”

    I would have made a better reference and thrown in some logical fallacies while I was at it if you had written something more than emotionally manipulative rhetoric.

     

  • rhology

    This comment has been removed for violation of the RH Reality Check commenting policy.

  • rhology

    This comment has been removed for violation of the RH Reality Check commenting policy.

  • prochoiceferret

    Is there more to being human than genetics, then?

     

    For most of us, yes.

     

    I mean, you’re OK with killing millions of very young genetically-human life forms, so I’m wondering whether I could deem, say, you as a threat to my well-being and thus be morally justified in killing you.

     

    Hey, Scott Roeder thought he was morally justified in killing George Tilller. Look how much good that did him.

     

    If a 120-year old person were somehow threatening my safety

    ANOTHER disanalogy. You just can’t get it right. 

     

    Oh, I’m sorry, did your argument not go over the way you had hoped?

     

    Because most people don’t have a problem with the use of lethal force in self-defense when necessary.

    Based on an irrelevant non-analogy. One wonders if you’ll ever get around to addressing the real issue.

     

    Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

     

    This argument is absolutely demolished at this link.

     

    No, it’s not. But your anti-choice echo chamber certainly illustrates what one gets when misogyny, fundamentalism, and utter lack of empathy, reason and basic common sense are allowed to feed off each other.

  • rhology

    This comment has been removed for violation of the RH Reality Check commenting policy.

  • ahunt

    “are you talking about “moment of conception” rights?”

    Yes.

     

     

    So you would abolish breastfeeding, a known abortifacient practice?

  • ahunt

    Permit me to point out that we are all, essentially, clumps of cells.

     

    But hey, getting back to the moment of conception business…

     

    Tell us what extending the the 14th amendment to include the BZEF looks like in the real world…

     

    How does it work?

  • prochoiceferret

    This argument is absolutely demolished at this link.

     

    It’s so cute when anti-choicers think their arguments demolish anything other than their own credibility!

     

    Arbitrarily dehumanising the fetus.

     

    Who is deciding that the fetus is genetically non-human?

     

    You don’t think it’s OK for me to kill adults just b/c I want to and claim they’re causing me some suffering, but you do claim it for the very young fetus. The middleman is your arbitrary decision.

     

    Adults are not the ones drawing life support from another person’s body, potentially against that person’s will.

     

    Yes, but if I’m the one in power and I can choose who’s human and who’s not, ie, if I am the one making the choice, then I can simply choose that the Jewish brainwaves are not in fact brainwaves sufficiently worthy to live.

    Voila! I have dehumanised them. Now I can kill them.

     

    What does deciding who is human or not have to do with abortion? The human-ness of the fetus does not give it the right to stay in a woman’s uterus against her will.

     

    I read that book, actually.

     

    Protip: It was not intended as a how-to.

     

    You haven’t understood my point, for you would not agree with something that condemns your position as my point does. Maybe try reading it again.

     

    You want to deny women human rights. This can result in their deaths if they become pregnant, and are denied lifesaving care because they are deemed less worthy of life than the fetus inside them. Women have died because of this. Not that you care.

     

    Prove it. How do you know anything about human rights?

     

    I, for one, respect them.

     

    PCF seems proud not only of his/her commission of logical fallacies but also of his/her handwaving and non-responses to important questions.  It’s sort of pitiful.

     

    I would say that I’m proud of my respect for women, except I’m not. Respect for women should be the default, not something special one can do to get a cookie. Lack of respect for women, on the other hand, is reprehensible. Aggressive lack of respect for women, and advocacy of laws that violate their rights and lead to their needless deaths, is evil.

     

    There is a lot of evil in this world, and I’m afraid that you, Rhology, are part of the problem.

     

    The trauma the women experience is nothing to the severed spinal column and crushed cranium the baby suffers.  Priorities – let’s make sure that both parties end up ALIVE and then worry about minimising other traumas.

     

    Hey, the rape victim has already been denied control of her body once. What’s the big deal with denying it her a second time?

     

    Here’s the deal, PCF. You have taken pride in your commission of logical fallacies, shown total disregard for consistency and for writing substantive rebuttals. My work with you is complete. Thanks for playing, but that’s a résumé that screams “Ignore me!!!” to those who actually care about the truth of the issues at hand.

     

    I’m sure you would like others to ignore me, and other pro-choice advocates. But as long as women’s rights to their own bodies and their own reproductive health are imperils, you’re going to be hearing from us loud and clear.

     

    I would have looked harder and thrown in some logical fallacies while I was at it if you had written something more than emotionally manipulative rhetoric.

     

    No, I specialize in feminism and reproductive justice, served with a side of industrial-strength snark. And there’s plenty more where that came from!

  • ahunt

    God created women with the wondrous ability to  bear and nurture children.

     

    Putting aside the Woo-Woo…So What?

  • ahunt

     

    No other options should be offered?

     

    “Offered?” Seriously?

     

    By Whom?

  • prochoiceferret

    I’m sorry, but you need to open your eyes. They most certainly are being duped!

    1) They are told that the baby is not human.

     

    What species are they being told the “baby” supposedly is?

     

    2) They are told they’re just clumps of cells!

     

    As ahunt said, we’re all clumps of cells. The difference is, early-term fetuses don’t look all that much like anything else. (Unless you want to bring certain aquatic life forms into the picture.)

     

    3) They are not given the counterarguments against pro-abortion rhetoric and misinformation.

     

    In cases where they receive good-quality counseling, they don’t get any rhetoric or misinformation, from any side. (Unless, of course, you consider “you have the right to an abortion” to be “pro-abortion rhetoric.” Which you probably do.)

     

    4) I know this woman personally who will tell you unequivocally she was duped into it.

     

    Whoever counseled her should be disciplined and potentially re-trained, then.

     

    You too have been lied to. I am pleading with you to open your eyes. Let the lies stop here and now!

     

    Oh, if only.

     

    Yes. These are heartbreaking. Such horrors can only be remedied by the final redemption that Jesus Christ will accomplish. I look forward to that great day, as I look forward to meeting my child who died before I could ever meet her.

     

    No one here cares about your personal religious beliefs.

     

    1) It’s an example of a tu quoque logical fallacy. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just b/c bad things happen in the world do not give us the right to cause more bad things.

     

    “Abortion is wrong” is part of your personal religious beliefs, which again, no one here cares about.

     

    It is better to suffer evil than to do evil.

     

    It’s even better when you can outsource the evil-suffering to someone else!

     

    2) It is not ours to try to peer into a crystal ball and see a child’s future.

     

    Perhaps you could tell that to the anti-choicers who claim that “abortion could kill the next Albert Einstein/Barack Obama/Scott Roeder.”

     

    In other words, we can’t say “this child’s life won’t be worth living; let’s kill him to save him the trouble of dying later”.

     

    No, but we can say “A woman cannot be compelled to remain pregnant against her will.” And we do. Loudly, and clearly, until even knuckleheads like you get the point.

  • colleen

    I’m sad that you seem to equate pregnancy and childbirth with “sadism”…God created women with the wondrous ability to  bear and nurture children.

    Hi Paul,

    You need to take your meds.

  • prochoiceferret

    With these tools, since you ask.

     

    With anti-choicers, every abortion is a late-term abortion!

     

    Abortions at 12 weeks are late-term abortions!

     

    Abortions at 10 weeks are late-term abortions!

     

    Abortion at 8 weeks? Any later, and Craig Ferguson would be hosting it!

     

    Plan B? It’s like ripping the wings off a teeny, tiny fly!

  • ahunt

    Colleen…this can’t be Paul.  This is a kid who just barely passed Philosophy 101 and is now inflicting his newfound “knowledge” on those of us who have been around for…oh…half a century.

  • crowepps

    Although most of my interactions with him were as Bornin1984 (Ideas from 1484).

    He’s really getting a running start at the posts so nasty and vulgar that rather than just voting them down they have to removed altogether. 

    I figure if I come back, say, day after tomorrow, he’ll have had a fit and fell in it and we can talk about something reasonable.

  • crowepps

    And we love you for it – snark away!

  • beenthere72

    I’m not sure Born and Bei and this Rhology guy are the same person.   For one, Bei is from Florida and Rhology is from apparently from Oklahoma, if not some other ‘flyover state’.    I do think they all suffer from the same narcissistic personality disorder and considering anti-choicers put out training material on how to counter our arguments, it’s no surprise they all sound the same. 

  • rhology

    I agree, but that’s not what I’m advocating.

    Actually, yes it is.

    Oh, I’m glad you’re here to tell me what I think. 

     

    Put another way, on what basis are you complaining it’s “sadistic”?  

    When it is forced on a woman against her will.

    Pregnancy is the natural course of things and it always has been. Who’s forcing it?

    The woman, in 99% of cases, chooses to engage in behavior that leads to pregnancy. You’re committing a category error.

     

    Also, who demonstrates contempt for rape victims? Got any examples?  I should think they’d be hard to find outside of Pakistan…

    Most dyed-in-the-wool misogynists do.

    So, you can’t point to any. OK.

     

    And I’m hardly a “Republican”. I’m a Christian abolitionist, care very little about the Repub party, which I generally regard as a bunch of foolish tools.

    Not that that stops you from voting for them.

    More bigotry. You know next to nothing about me. 

  • rhology

    Disclaimer: the following comment discusses issues that are relevant in less than 1% of all abortions in the USA.

     

    I doubt anyone impregnanted against their will as a result of rape or incest  thinks of it as ‘wondrous’.

    1) May I suggest that for someone who’s been the victim of a violent act such as rape, it would be understandably difficult to see the forest of the objective nature of the situation (ie, that a wondrous thing is taking place in her body – the creation of a new life) through the trees of the horrible circumstances surrounding its occurrence? 

    2) This has no bearing on the moral justifiability of punishing the baby for the sins of his/her father.

    3) Our calling is not to murder the child but rather to weep with and care for the victim.

     

     

    Very smug and easy to say when you aren’t the one in that situation

    You’re right, it can be. 

    I can only tell you that I do not take this lightly, and I don’t say any of this with any smug attitude. Rape is approximately the most horrible thing I can think of. That doesn’t change the horror of killing the child, though. We don’t help the victim by lying to her.

    And I am not alone in this – we abolitionists of human abortion stand united when it comes to our attitude about this issue.

  • rhology

    I guess you prefer that rape victims get force-fed the idea that abortion is the only way to go? No other options should be offered?

    “Offered?” Seriously?

    Yes, seriously. I’m more pro-choice than y’all, apparently, since I want to offer the woman numerous choices and y’all seem intent on giving her only one – killing the child.

    Such as raising the child as the woman’s own, redeeming the awful situation with love and peace, rather than death and violence.

    Such as giving the baby away to a loving family, again redeeming the awful situation with love and peace, rather than death and violence.

  • rhology

    Sure doesn’t seem to have stopped you!

    Non-response.

     

    Because no one has the right to use another person’s body against their will. Not even a fetus!

    This argument is absolutely demolished at this link.

     

     

    What “arbitrary decision” are you talking about? 

    Arbitrarily dehumanising the fetus.

    You don’t think it’s OK for me to kill adults just b/c I want to and claim they’re causing me some suffering, but you do claim it for the very young fetus. The middleman is your arbitrary decision.

     

    most Jewish people have brain waves.

    Yes, but if I’m the one in power and I can choose who’s human and who’s not, ie, if I am the one making the choice, then I can simply choose that the Jewish brainwaves are not in fact brainwaves sufficiently worthy to live.

    Voila! I have dehumanised them. Now I can kill them.

     

    I remind you that an arbitrary decision based on performance can be on a limitless sliding scale – whomever is in power gets to decide who has human rights. If they decide you don’t have human rights, you don’t. Then you’re no more important than cattle, and you can be killed without much remorse at all.

    Exactly. Perhaps you should read Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale sometime.

    I read that book, actually.

    You haven’t understood my point, for you would not agree with something that condemns your position as my point does. Maybe try reading it again.

     

     

    human rights” still do not include the right to draw life support from another person’s body against their will.

    Prove it. How do you know anything about human rights?

     

    The astute reader will note how this is hand-waving and an appeal to the current popularity of pro-choice in the USA, not an actual answer.

    Yes, because quite frankly, I’m not worried about such an amendment ever seeing the light of day. (Not that anti-choicers aren’t able to do a whole lot of damage short of sullying our Constitution…)

    PCF seems proud not only of his/her commission of logical fallacies but also of his/her handwaving and non-responses to important questions.  It’s sort of pitiful.

    1) Just b/c some women are able to get past it doesn’t mean that all or even the majority do.
    Indeed, people like you can make the whole ordeal a lot more traumatic than it needs to be.
    The trauma the women experience is nothing to the severed spinal column and crushed cranium the baby suffers. 
    Priorities – let’s make sure that both parties end up ALIVE and then worry about minimising other traumas.

    2) This handwaving has no relevance to the dead child, and so is another non-response.

     

    I would have written an actual response if you had written something more than emotionally manipulative rhetoric.

    LOL!  This is gold. I’m going to use this from here on out.

    Here’s the deal, PCF. You have taken pride in your commission of logical fallacies, shown total disregard for consistency and for writing substantive rebuttals. My work with you is complete. Thanks for playing, but that’s a résumé that screams “Ignore me!!!” to those who actually care about the truth of the issues at hand.

     

    All advocacy in favor of women’s rights and reproductive justice looks like irrational bigotry to anti-choicers like you. You just haven’t been at this long enough.

    I would have looked harder and thrown in some logical fallacies while I was at it if you had written something more than emotionally manipulative rhetoric.

     

    All I heard was a bunch of non-sequiturs and sour grapes. 

    I would have written an actual response and thrown in some logical fallacies while I was at it if you had written something more than emotionally manipulative rhetoric.

     

    LOL on referring to pregnancy as “some physical difficulty.”

    I would have made a better reference and thrown in some logical fallacies while I was at it if you had written something more than emotionally manipulative rhetoric.

  • rhology

    So you would abolish breastfeeding, a known abortifacient practice?

    1) Why would I do that? You’re pushing a disanalogy, which seems to be popular around here.

    Going into an abortuary for the purpose of having the abortician insert a tool into the mother’s body and forcibly remove the baby = primary purpose.

    Feeding one’s baby is the primary intent of breastfeeding.

    2) I doubt you could provide any solid evidence that breastfeeding is indeed abortifacient, showing that you have isolated breastfeeding outside of all the other postpartum things going on the new mother’s body.

     

  • rhology

    No, I specialize in feminism and reproductive justice, served with a side of industrial-strength snark.


    Yes, and as we’ve seen, you ALSO specialise in committing logical fallacies and using disanalogies while you’re at it, and then ignoring correction. 

    This is hardly commendable, though it may earn you a few attagirls from sycophants.

  • rhology

    I do think they all suffer from the same narcissistic personality disorder

    For those of you who like trying to psychoanalyse someone you know nothing about, I suppose that appellation can be tempting.
    I might as well remind you that to ignore my arguments just b/c you are perturbed that I would dare argue with you, or b/c I have some imagined physical defect or whatever, is to commit the genetic fallacy.

    How I wish someone would actually deal with my arguments! It should be easy, shouldn’t it? if the pro-abortion side is so strong and so in the right? 

     

  • rhology

    Hello la plume assassine,

    Thank you for discussing with me.

     

    Here you are claiming that an embryo/fetus is a person.

    Yes.  I don’t see any other reasonable conclusion.

     

    As you are making the positive claim, then the burden of proof is on you, which you have failed to provide.

    OK. Let’s look at this from two perspectives:

    THE CHRISTIAN POSITION

    The baby is created in the image of God, most importantly. The Bible informs us that the very young  child is protected by His command, that we are not to end his/her life w/o justification, and there is none for destroying the baby. 

    Further, the fetus is exactly the same as you are.
    -Has two human parents
    -Unique DNA
    -Unique organs
    -No necessary blood-type connection to mother
    -Unique body
    -Unique organs
    -Unique development pattern
    -Used to be less developed, is now more developed, and continues developing

     

    THE NATURALIST POSITION

    The fetus is exactly the same as you are, as mentioned above.

    However, naturalism gives us no objective reason to say that “this is human” leads inevitably to “we should not kill it w/o justification”. This is to commit the IS/OUGHT fallacy, otherwise known as Hume’s Guillotine. 

    So, on Christianity, you don’t have the right to end the baby’s life.

    On naturalism, there are no rights at all beyond what some humans (ie, the ones in power) have granted to some other humans. But this is 100% arbitrary and carries no moral weight, normativity, or authority that would make us think we SHOULD respect them.

     

    there are no neurological characteristics that could identify an embryo/fetus as a sentient person.

    YOU ASSUME THAT. You don’t know, b/c you cannot enter into the fetus’ existence and sense whether s/he is thinking and experiencing sensations. 

    Just b/c you can’t sense brainwaves does not mean you know this for sure. You have assumed that brainwaves=sentience and go from there, but I don’t grant that assumption w/o an argument to that effect. 

    And don’t ask “OK, so what other things would you propose?” You’re making the positive assertion; you provide the evidence.

     

     The last two characteristics you provide are “abilities” and “personality” — either you are totally ignorant of fetal development or you are lying, as an embryo/fetus does not have the capacity for either (as it does not have the capacity for sentience until birth.)

    How do you know? Give me an argument, please, not a naked assertion.

    Why do young fetuses do backflips and roll around all the time, suck their thumbs, smile, etc, while others don’t? Would that not qualify as “personality” for you? 

    Yes, I know, it would be inconvenient for your argument, but think about it objectively.

     

     

    Knowing that 1/3 of American women have abortions, then you must think that these women should be tried and imprisoned for the crime of murder

    Generally, these women are victims of misinformation and so would be victims. The aborticians are the murderers. 

     

     women are not naive children, we are rational adults who knowingly and with FULL INTENT will seek out an abortion

    Yes, BUT how many of them are given the fullest information about the procedure and the nature of their baby? Not many.

    Yes, I agree that at least some women are at least partially responsible for abortion, and I might favor criminal charges in those cases, but it would be difficult to pull that off. I’d be willing to discuss that further at my blog if you want (you’d have free rein; I never moderate comments), but I’ve been asked to stay on topic here, so I’m going to do that as best as I can.

     

    Abortion — when legal — is one of the safest medical procedures

    1) Not for the baby.

    2) Why then do so many women suffer complications and infections? Or do inconvenient facts just not  matter?

     

     

    Also, you are wrong about there being universal “mental and emotional problems” resulting from abortion. 

    I know someone personally who experienced just that. 

    You are acting like a bigot, writing these women off because their testimony doesn’t fit your preconceived notions. 

     

    Later in the thread, you discussed that nobody should be “killed” just because of their “location.” Regrettably, you have decided to reduce a woman’s body, specifically her uterus, to a federally-protected public location. This objectifies women and is insulting

    1) The baby ends up dead, and you want to talk about “insulting”?  Well, OK.

    2) If you disagree, then on what basis do you say the fetus is not worthy of not-violent-death?

    3) ProChoiceFerret, among others, has been saying that the fetus’ location in the uterus = it’s OK to kill him/her. Why does s/he disagree with you, and who’s right? How can we know?

     

    –Even if a person consents to sex, it is still not consent to pregnancy/childbirth, because 1) they are separate processes and 2) the act of having sex is not an irrevocable contract that will always result in a baby, and 3) having sex does not mean that one must sign away their rights to bodily integrity…

    I also have the right to refuse any person/organism to use my body for sustenance

    I don’t want to spam this combox with a bunch of copy-paste, so please check this link, where this argument is demolished.

    And don’t act like the other immature commenters above; it’s not an “echo chamber”. Read it for yourself and see where in the combox we engaged numerous dissenters. Who has the stronger argument? If you think you do, refute the arguments. Do better than your compatriots above, who merely waved it aside for who knows what reason.

     

    criminalizing abortion will not prevent it from happening, it only makes it dangerous

    I suppose by YOUR logic (not mine), we shouldn’t outlaw sex trafficking, slavery, grand theft auto, or murder.

     

    you will never truly “abolish” such a common procedure

    That’s what early anti-abolitionists said of slavery. But guess what happened?

     

    do you or do you not care that thousands of women will die as a result of unsafe abortion?

    1) Yes, I do care. I’d much prefer they not get abortions at all.

    2) There should be some risk involved in attempting such a heinous crime. that’s part of deterrence.

    3) It’s quite callous to worry about the “1000s” (as if you can know how many would really die) of women who’d die when millions of very young women are already died b/c of abortion.

    4) Women die NOW from unsafe abortions even though they’re legal.  Open your eyes!

     

    Men do not get to have a say in the reproductive decisions of women because the male body is not responsible for the physically/emotionally-taxing process of gestating the fetus.

    1) The men are involved in the baby-making though.

    2) I (who am a man) was heavily involved in the gestation of my children; I helped my wife the entire time, provided for her, made sure her rights were respected by medical staff, etc.

    3) Do only former slaves have a right to speak out against slavery? Only victims of murder against murder? This is the genetic fallacy. 

     

     I hope you will realize that not everybody shares your religious beliefs

    Just as you should realise not everyone shares YOURS.  We all have a position; let’s put our positions out there under scrutiny so we can see whose is correct.

     

    you cannot force your religious beliefs on other people in this country about what you personally think is “immoral.” 

     

    ) You don’t really believe that. You believe it is morally wrong to rape a woman, don’t you?  You would like to send offenders to prison, no doubt.

    THAT is “forcing your beliefs” on someone!

    2) I am trying to PERSUADE; at no point do I try to “force” someone to believe. How in the world could someone do that? Is there some pressure point on which one can apply one’s fingers to reboot someone’s brain and change their thinking? At best one could force BEHAVIOR, but not BELIEF.

    3) Further, you too are putting forth a position, that of pro-abortion. If I’m “forcing” my beliefs on others, so are you.

  • prochoiceferret

    Looks like the anti-choicer is out of arguments, because he’s regurgitating a two-day-old comment.

  • prochoiceferret

    I agree, but that’s not what I’m advocating.

    Actually, yes it is.

    Oh, I’m glad you’re here to tell me what I think. 

     

    I don’t know and I don’t care what you think. But when you advocate for laws that violate the rights of women, you’ll hear from us.

     

    Pregnancy is the natural course of things and it always has been. Who’s forcing it?

     

    Death is the natural course of things and it always has been. Why are you so down on abortion, anyway?

     

    The woman, in 99% of cases, chooses to engage in behavior that leads to pregnancy.

     

    Just like 99% of car-crash victims chose to engage in behavior (i.e. getting into a car) that leads to a car crash.

     

    So, you can’t point to any. OK.

     

    It’s a bit like trying to point to a single mosquito in the Amazon. But for now, you’re the one that buzzing annoyingly around our ears.

     

    More bigotry. You know next to nothing about me.

     

    Your own words, and an awareness of the sociopolitical context in which you say them, speak volumes.

  • forced-birth-rape

     

    I grew up in the southern Baptist wife beating convention, and went to Christian home school.

     

    Pro-lifer, Pro-forced birther, Christians. This is what their god, Christian bible god says about killing babies, he is for it! Commands it when people do not kiss his ass.

     

    ~ Hosea 13: 16

    “Samaria shall bear her guilt and become desolate, for she rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women shall be ripped up.” ~

     

    ~ 1 Samuel 15:3 

    “Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” ~

     

    ~ Exodus 11:4-5:

    “And Moses said, thus says the Lord, about midnight I will go out into Egypt; and all the firstborn in the land [the pride hope and joy] of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sits on his throne, even the firstborn of the maidservant who is behind the hand mill, and all the firstborn of beasts.” ~

     

    ~ Psalms 137:9 “Happy and blessed shall he be who takes and dashes your little ones against a rock!” ~

     

    ~ Numbers 31:17

    “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who is not a virgin. “ ~

     

    ~ Numbers 31:18

    “But all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.” The Christian god telling soldiers to rape thirteen year old and twelve year old virgins. ~

     

    ~ Christian pro-lifers do not have a drip of integrity. ~

     

    ~ Christian bible god is extremely sadomasochistic to pregnant women and pregnant little girls while they are pregnant, and while they are giving birth. ~

     

    ~ Pro-lifers favorite piece of literature of all time.

     

    Genesis 3:16

    “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.” ~

     

    Now if these bible verses are not true then the Ten Commandments and the creation story is not true either.

     

    ~ Christian pro-lifer, pro-forced birthers are not going to let women and little girls escape their punishment for being born female. They are going to do everything they can to force women and little girls to breed, breed, breed, breed, breed. Women and little girls are nothing but breeding stock to the forced birthers who happen to be catholic, christian, republican, conservative.  ~

  • prochoiceferret

    Disclaimer: the following comment discusses issues that are relevant in less than 1% of all abortions in the USA.

     

    Disclaimer: the following comment illustrates the monstrosity of the anti-choice position. They even want to force rape victims to carry their unwanted pregnancies to term!

     

    1) May I suggest that for someone who’s been the victim of a violent act such as rape, it would be understandably difficult to see the forest of the objective nature of the situation (ie, that a wondrous thing is taking place in her body – the creation of a new life) through the trees of the horrible circumstances surrounding its occurrence? 

     

    Your kind thinks of all women as being incapable of making objective decisions about their lives, not just rape victims. You don’t have to “suggest” it; many women have had that literally beaten into them. If not worse.

     

    2) This has no bearing on the moral justifiability of punishing the baby for the sins of his/her father.

     

    But to you, it has all the bearing on the moral justifiability of punishing the woman a second time for the sins of the rapist.

     

    3) Our calling is not to murder the child but rather to weep with and care for the victim.

     

    Unless she doesn’t want to go through with the pregnancy. Then, your ideology is all you care about.

  • rhology

     No one is being duped by people who provide abortions.

     

    I’m sorry, but you need to open your eyes. They most certainly are being duped!

    1) They are told that the baby is not human.

    2) They are told they’re just clumps of cells!

    3) They are not given the counterarguments against pro-abortion rhetoric and misinformation.

    4) I know this woman personally who will tell you unequivocally she was duped into it.

    You too have been lied to. I am pleading with you to open your eyes. Let the lies stop here and now!

     

     

    Set up a google alert for child abuse deaths.

    Yes. These are heartbreaking. Such horrors can only be remedied by the final redemption that Jesus Christ will accomplish. I look forward to that great day, as I look forward to meeting my child who died before I could ever meet her.

    You must see, however, that these are no excuses for abortion.

    1) It’s an example of a tu quoque logical fallacy. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just b/c bad things happen in the world do not give us the right to cause more bad things.

    It is better to suffer evil than to do evil.

    2) It is not ours to try to peer into a crystal ball and see a child’s future. 

    In other words, we can’t say “this child’s life won’t be worth living; let’s kill him to save him the trouble of dying later”. 

    See here please

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Yes, seriously. I’m more pro-choice than y’all, apparently, since I want to offer the woman numerous choices and y’all seem intent on giving her only one – killing the child.

     

    No, actually, we don’t force pregnant women to have abortions. Because that would be anti-choice.

     

    Such as raising the child as the woman’s own, redeeming the awful situation with love and peace, rather than death and violence.

     

    If a rape victim wants to do that, no pro-choicer is going to stop her. Most women who haven’t been acculturated into fetishizing pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood, however, aren’t interested in raising the child of a rapist.

     

    Such as giving the baby away to a loving family, again redeeming the awful situation with love and peace, rather than death and violence.

     

    Yep, they can do that too if they want. But what if they want to abort the pregnancy? What then of your “more pro-choice than thou” stance?

  • jennifer-starr

    No one here believes in ‘lying’ to a rape victim. We believe in giving her the options and then stepping back and leaving the decision up to her and her alone. You can spout all the trite homilies you want, but it’s not your decision. It’s not my decision. And it’s certainly not the government’s decision. It’s her decision.  That’s not that hard to understand, now is it? 

  • prochoiceferret

    1) Why would I do that? You’re pushing a disanalogy, which seems to be popular around here.

     

    No, that would be a disRhology. Because it disses the claptrap that Rhology likes to shovel out.

     

    Going into an abortuary for the purpose of having the abortician insert a tool into the mother’s body and forcibly remove the baby = primary purpose.

     

    Kind of like how going into a cardiouary for the purpose of having the cardiotician shove a knife into the heart-bearing human’s body and forcibly remove the heart and replace it with some foreign tissue = primary purpose (of heart-transplant surgery).

     

    2) I doubt you could provide any solid evidence that breastfeeding is indeed abortifacient, showing that you have isolated breastfeeding outside of all the other postpartum things going on the new mother’s body.

     

    Why would solid evidence be needed? The lack of it sure hasn’t stopped anti-choice advocates from railing against hormonal contraception!

  • person-0

    Your link is nothing but emotional and religiously related rhetoric that relies on the assumptions that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, that a fetus is “innocent” and therefore deserves mercy, that pregnancy is a mere, temporary 10 month condition with no harmful effects and that women are obligated to continue an unintended and unwanted pregnancy. The entire premise is so flawed, pathetic and regurgitated that it’s laughable that you think it demolishes anything. Anyone who claims that a woman must continue a pregnancy because she had sex obviously views that pregnancy and baby as behavioral punishment and has no qualms about doling it out.

    Women have the absolute right to determine how, when and for what reason their bodies are used and do not suddenly lose that right when they become pregnant. Does the ‘state’ have the right to dictate to men when their bodily resources are needed to sustain a life? Are you willing to give the state that right since you are demanding it of women? 

    You know very little about women and abortion and the idea that the millions upon millions of women who have aborted in the U.S. alone are somehow naive victims who need to be saved from themselves is the most blatant show of disrespect imaginable. I know it helps you to think that they just didn’t know any better, but we can promise you that women who walk into a doctor’s office for an abortion or swallow a pill know exactly what they are doing and why. They are making decisions that are best for them and that’s good enough for us. You want to force women to gestate and birth against their will and clearly do not care if they die or are maimed during abortion. You are precisely who they need to be saved from.

  • prochoiceferret

    Yes, and as we’ve seen, you ALSO specialise in committing logical fallacies and using disanalogies while you’re at it, and then ignoring correction. 

    This is hardly commendable, though it may earn you a few attagirls from sycophants.

     

    Funny, you’ve just described pretty much every anti-choice blog out there. Especially your own.

  • forced-birth-rape

    So true PC person

    Can I go hook up to my fathers body and use his body against his will? Can I cause my father unwanted genital pain to save my self against his will? NO! This is what misogynist creeps have reserved for the female race only.

  • prochoiceferret

    How I wish someone would actually deal with my arguments! It should be easy, shouldn’t it? if the pro-abortion side is so strong and so in the right? 

     

    That’s only the case if you accept women as human beings who have human rights that must be respected. If you see women as chattel who are unable/disallowed to make reproductive decisions for themselves, then our arguments won’t carry much water with you.

  • prochoiceferret

    THE CHRISTIAN POSITION

     

    People can believe that if they want, but religious positions have no place in civil law.

     

    However, naturalism gives us no objective reason to say that “this is human” leads inevitably to “we should not kill it w/o justification”. This is to commit the IS/OUGHT fallacy, otherwise known as Hume’s Guillotine.

     

    So what’s the fallacy where you assume that an “objective” reason is needed to support the concept of human rights?

     

    Just b/c you can’t sense brainwaves does not mean you know this for sure. You have assumed that brainwaves=sentience and go from there, but I don’t grant that assumption w/o an argument to that effect. 

     

    If you want to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will, you’re going to need a much stronger argument than “there might be mysterious hidden brainwaves/sentience we can’t detect!”

     

    Why do young fetuses do backflips and roll around all the time, suck their thumbs, smile, etc, while others don’t? Would that not qualify as “personality” for you? 

     

    I’ll bet you think lizard tails have lots of “personality” when they’re cut off, too!

     

    Generally, these women are victims of misinformation and so would be victims. The aborticians are the murderers.

     

    Funny, most people arraigned on solicitation-of-murder charges don’t do very well with the “I was too dumb to know I was paying someone to commit murder” defense.

     

    Yes, BUT how many of them are given the fullest information about the procedure and the nature of their baby?

     

    Oh, you mean anti-choice propaganda?

     

    2) Why then do so many women suffer complications and infections? Or do inconvenient facts just not  matter?

     

    What percentage is “so many” out of all women who undergo induced abortion?

     

    I know someone personally who experienced just that.

     

    I also happen to know a Black man who is president of the U.S. I’m sure there are lots of other guys like him!

     

    3) ProChoiceFerret, among others, has been saying that the fetus’ location in the uterus = it’s OK to kill him/her. Why does s/he disagree with you, and who’s right? How can we know?

     

    Because no one has a right to be inside the woman’s uterus. Ergo, if the woman doesn’t want someone there, out s/he goes!

     

    I don’t want to spam this combox with a bunch of copy-paste

     

    But then you go and do it anyway.

     

    And don’t act like the other immature commenters above; it’s not an “echo chamber”. Read it for yourself and see where in the combox we engaged numerous dissenters. Who has the stronger argument? If you think you do, refute the arguments. Do better than your compatriots above, who merely waved it aside for who knows what reason.

     

    Engaging your arguments would imply that there is some non-zero chance of convincing you that women are human beings and deserve to be treated as such.

     

    I suppose by YOUR logic (not mine), we shouldn’t outlaw sex trafficking, slavery, grand theft auto, or murder.

     

    Next, I suppose you’ll compare homosexuality to bestiality.

     

    1) Yes, I do care. I’d much prefer they not get abortions at all.

     

    Not surprising that you like it when women do as you want. Most misogynists do!

     

    2) There should be some risk involved in attempting such a heinous crime. that’s part of deterrence.

     

    So you’re okay with women dying to uphold your woman-hating ideology. This is why we tend to put “pro-life” in scare quotes.

     

    3) It’s quite callous to worry about the “1000s” (as if you can know how many would really die) of women who’d die when millions of very young women are already died b/c of abortion.

     

    Yeah, who cares about a few daughters, friends, mothers, grandmothers, secretaries, firewomen, letter carriers, etc. anyway?

     

    4) Women die NOW from unsafe abortions even though they’re legal.  Open your eyes!

     

    People die NOW from unsafe surgical procedures even though they’re legal. Open your eyes!

     

    1) The men are involved in the baby-making though.

     

    Yes, it tends to be very easy (pleasureable, even!) for them.

     

    2) I (who am a man) was heavily involved in the gestation of my children; I helped my wife the entire time, provided for her, made sure her rights were respected by medical staff, etc.

     

    None of that gives you a say in your wife’s reproductive decisions. Only her free choice to do so.

     

    3) Do only former slaves have a right to speak out against slavery? Only victims of murder against murder? This is the genetic fallacy.

     

    I’m sure plenty of White people who have spoken out against affirmative action like to use that line, too.

     

    Just as you should realise not everyone shares YOURS.  We all have a position; let’s put our positions out there under scrutiny so we can see whose is correct.

     

    Since we can’t seem to come to an agreement on this, we’ll do the liberty thing, and set laws that allow each person to choose per their conscience.

     

    ) You don’t really believe that. You believe it is morally wrong to rape a woman, don’t you?  You would like to send offenders to prison, no doubt.

     

    Are there a lot of people who are arguing that rape is not morally wrong?

     

    THAT is “forcing your beliefs” on someone!

     

    Okay, so maybe when as many people think abortion is wrong as think rape is wrong, anti-abortion laws will be okay.

     

    2) I am trying to PERSUADE; at no point do I try to “force” someone to believe. How in the world could someone do that? Is there some pressure point on which one can apply one’s fingers to reboot someone’s brain and change their thinking? At best one could force BEHAVIOR, but not BELIEF.

     

    She could have said, “force you to behave in accordance with my beliefs,” but that would have been more words to say the same exact thing.

     

    3) Further, you too are putting forth a position, that of pro-abortion. If I’m “forcing” my beliefs on others, so are you.

     

    Is anyone being forced to have an abortion?

  • prochoiceferret

    At least posterity will now know what anti-choice drivel formerly occupied this this comment (minus the propaganda image).

  • prochoiceferret

    Fastastically well-said, PC person! If there’s any kind of upside to the troglodytes that occasionally show up around here, it’s that they elicit potent comments like yours.

  • jennifer-starr

    Please save us from people who think that life is a philosophy class and people are robots–and if you just insert Argument ‘A’ they’ll come up with Answer ‘B’everytime.  Because you really don’t get  that the world doesn’t and won’t work that way. It’s not black and white. Everyone is different and every situation is different, and what might be the right choice for one person isn’t necessarily the right choice for another. There is no ‘one size fits all’.  And yes, that makes life messy and complicated and chaotic, but that’s what it is and always has been.  Hopefully you’ll learn that one day, Rhology.  If not, you’ll just continue to beat your head into a wall and shriek “Waaah–why won’t they accept my perfect logic?”

  • plume-assassine

    THE CHRISTIAN POSITION

    The baby is created in the image of God, most importantly. The Bible informs us that the very young  child is protected by His command, that we are not to end his/her life w/o justification, and there is none for destroying the baby. 

    It is useless to argue from religious authority, because not everyone shares your religious beliefs — So, you are only going to convince other people who already share your Christian worldview. Since we are discussing abortion, which is legal in this country, it is also useless to argue from religious authority if you want to “abolish” or “criminalize” abortion, because the Constitution prevents the state from forcing religious beliefs on others who do not share them. (And you never answered the question — do you want to live under theocratic rule?) Your assertions that the embryo/fetus is a “baby” created in the image of “a God” informed by a holy text (“the Bible”) are unsubstantiated beliefs (not facts), nothing more. You are not making any logical, rational, or reality-based claims about the morality/immorality of abortion. The Christian religion is not the source of morality either, so try again.

     the fetus is exactly the same as you are.

    No, a fetus is not exactly the same as I am. An embryo/fetus is a developing human [reminder: biological "human" is not synonymous with philosophical "person"], incapable of living outside of a person’s body (the environment of the uterus) and lacks the capacity for sentience (pain, emotion, personality.) I am an adult who does not require the use of another person’s body for sustenance, and I have the capacity to experience pain, various emotions, and a personality. There is no logical reason why I should consider an insentient, nonviable organism to be a “person” given that it does not exhibit ANY neurological characteristics of actual persons, and does not even compare to a live infant.

    -Unique DNA
    -Unique organs
    -No necessary blood-type connection to mother
    -Unique body
    -Unique organs
    -Unique development pattern
    -Used to be less developed, is now more developed, and continues developing

    All living organisms have DNA, including viruses. Many non-human organisms have unique organs/body/development — these characteristics do not make a “person.” I should point out to you that your qualifier “non necessary blood-type connection to mother” isn’t exactly true, because the developing embryo/fetus has a connection to the circulatory system of the woman: it derives oxygen from the woman’s blood (since it does not have functioning lungs) and nutrients from the woman’s blood, via the placenta and the umbilical cord.

    That leaves you with “has two human parents” which is pretty useless because it is an external qualifier which says nothing about the internal characteristics of what we are actually describing (the embryo/fetus). It does not say whether it is living or dead (in which case it would not even qualify as a person at all), or whether it even has a brain or viable organs necessary to sustain life or sentience (ever heard of anencephaly or fetus in fetu?)

    YOU ASSUME THAT. You don’t know, b/c you cannot enter into the fetus’ existence and sense whether s/he is thinking and experiencing sensations. 

    The embryonic/fetal incapacity for sentience is not an “assumption;” it is science. Actually, I think you are guilty of some projection, because you are the one assuming (on no scientific grounds whatsoever) that a developing fetal organism has consciousness and personality, like you and I. That is an emotional assumption which has no basis in reality.

    You have assumed that brainwaves=sentience and go from there,

    Wrong. One does not need to consider brainwaves at all. I am talking about the neurobiological development of the embryo/fetus. Consider the cerebral cortex (necessary for consciousness, thought, memory, perceptual awareness, language). It is not there until the final stages of gestation (in a normal pregnancy). Before that there is the neural tube, and even earlier than that there is the neural plate (see “neurulation” if you are interested). Even in the final stages of pregnancy, cortical connections are suppressed by the hormonal environment of the uterus.

    Here are some sources for you:

    “In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent that connections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and, as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can be concluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation. After 24 weeks there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks such that noxious stimuli in newborn preterm infants produce cortical responses. Such connections to the cortex are necessary for pain experience but not sufficient, as experience of external stimuli requires consciousness. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the fetus never experiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept, by the presence of its chemical environment, in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation. This state can suppress higher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. This observation highlights the important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the difficulties of extrapolating from observations made in newborn preterm infants to the fetus.”

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

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/294/8/947.short

     

    Here is a computer analogy for you. Think of the brain as the “hardware” (with the cerebral cortex as the motherboard). Think of sentience/consciousness/personality as the “software.” If the computer does not have the critical hardware components, then it can not run the software (any programs, or even the Operating System.) Similarily, if the brain lacks a functioning cerebral cortex, then it does not have capacity for sentience, and certainly not personality/pain/emotion/personhood. I hope this clears things up for you.

    Why do young fetuses do backflips and roll around all the time, suck their thumbs, smile, etc, while others don’t? Would that not qualify as “personality” for you?

    As I explained to another poster on this site: what you are seeing are involuntary reactions to external stimuli. Even an anencephalic infant (born without a brain) can “smile” and kick its legs. This is not evidence of a personality, as the personality does not come from the brain stem.

     but think about it objectively.

    If you are not considering neuroscience in any of your arguments, then YOU are the one not thinking about this subject objectively. (well, I guess that’s pretty obvious, since you consistently make the mistake of appealing to Christianity or religious authority, neither of which are objective at all.)

    Generally, these women are victims of misinformation and so would be victims. The aborticians are the murderers. 

    You have just proved my point that you do not really believe that abortion is murder, and by doing so, you reveal that you only call it “murder,” because it gives you a “moral” excuse for your desire to control women. Thank you, great job! You do not believe that abortion is the same thing as murdering a 3-year-old child, otherwise you would not say that “these women” (we’re talking about MILLIONS) are “victims of misinformation.” A person who logically concludes that abortion = murder would not pretend that millions of women choosing to “murder” their embryos (“”children”") are JUST victims of misinformation.

    I agree that at least some women are at least partially responsible for abortion, and I might favor criminal charges in those cases, but it would be difficult to pull that off. I’d be willing to discuss that further at my blog if you want (you’d have free rein; I never moderate comments), but I’ve been asked to stay on topic here, so I’m going to do that as best as I can.

    Oh, yes, that would be very difficult indeed, now wouldn’t it? How would you figure out if she had an elective abortion or if she had a miscarriage? Would miscarriage be negligent homicide or manslaughter? How would you even know which women were pregnant and which ones were not? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to have mandatory pregnancy tests for all women in the nation, just to make sure that their pregnancy ends in the “RIGHT” way, according to your special rules? Maybe bring in some forensic vaginal inspectors, just like they have in El Salvador? Since, you know, that’s an “innocent child” and all– you don’t want to risk any lives lost to those naive women misled by misinformation! I mean, really, you would need to start assigning conception certificates (instead of birth certificates) to all of these ”children.” If a woman had an abortion, would you need a set of qualifiers to determine whether she should be punished or not? Like, how guilty she feels about it, how Christian she is, whether she was a “slut” or whether she was “asking for it.” Finally, you need to ask yourself: how many murderers do I know in my life? Your wife, your sister, your mother, your grandmother, your best friend… who knows?

    Now, I hope you realize just how ridiculous and morally wrong it is to claim that abortion = murder.

    And, no, sorry, I’m not going to hang out on your blog to stroke your ego to discuss it further. We can discuss it right here. Nice try, though.

     

    I don’t want to spam this combox with a bunch of copy-paste, so please check this link, where this argument is demolished.

    Heard it all before. Here’s the problem with your blog post: all of these arguments operate on the ASSUMPTION that an embryo/fetus is a already an actual person, which has no basis in reality (comparing the embryo/fetus to a person, as in the violinist scenario, or the scenario in which a mother ignores her sick child at night.)  There is no reason for anyone to believe that an non-sentient non-viable organism is a person. What you refuse to accept is that the logical extension of your beliefs would also lead to mandatory organ donations so that another may live. What you also failed to address are the facts that sex and pregnancy (two separate processes) do NOT always result in a live birth, even if elective abortion is NOT in the picture. So, there is no reason for us to assume that sex must be an irrevocable contract that 1) should result in a person and 2) must involve the loss of bodily integrity to create a person, especially if one or both people were using contraception. You also do not address how you would regulate the behavior of entire populations of people who do not want children and, by your logic, are playing Russian Roulette (playing with lives) by having sex for pleasure with no intent to conceive or to keep a pregnancy at all should they conceive.

    The saddest part about your personal philosophy is that it is essentially pro-rape, because it argues that certain individual/state entities have the right to mandate use of a person’s sexual organs (uterus for gestation and vagina for childbirth) against their will. Even if a woman has been raped (she is pregnant through no ”fault” of her own), you believe that she should be raped again by having reproductive choice taken from her, because the imaginary personhood of an embryo is more important than the actual personhood and suffering of the woman. (The rapist takes away a woman’s bodily integrity once in the matter of whether she will have sex, the ”pro-lifer” takes away bodily integrity a second time in the matter of whether she will remain pregnant/birth the rapist’s child. In that sense, the extremist pro-lifer is the same as a rapist.) 

    The “suffering” and “personhood” of an embryo/fetus is disputable and debatable; the suffering and personhood of the woman is proven and obvious. Forced childbirth exacerbates suffering. But you prefer to err on the side of the imaginary suffering of a non-sentient organism over the obvious suffering of a person, a woman. That is misogyny, and you are a misogynist.

    I suppose by YOUR logic (not mine), we shouldn’t outlaw sex trafficking, slavery, grand theft auto, or murder.

    Your problem is that you think the elective termination of a pregnancy, a MEDICAL/BIOLOGICAL EVENT WHICH ONLY INVOLVES ONE PERSON – is morally comparable to sex trafficking, slavery, and theft. Utterly ridiculous hyperbole.

    Comparing abortion to slavery, by the way, is insulting and de-humanizing to the people whose ancestors (ACTUAL PEOPLE) were enslaved, tortured, and abused by their captors, experiencing immense suffering and years of degradation. To say that an embryo is even capable of experiencing human rights violations or suffering on that scale is disgusting hyerbole and incredibly insulting to the memory of the actual people of color who endured such violations against their indisputable personhood.

    1) Yes, I do care. I’d much prefer they not get abortions at all.

    So, if women don’t do what you’d prefer them to do, then it’s okay if they die as a result?

    There should be some risk involved in attempting such a heinous crime. that’s part of deterrence.

    I already showed that you don’t believe abortion is a heinous crime, only that your misogyny leads to believe that there are certain heinous women who have abortions and deserve to die for flouting your “law.” So, you think that the dangers of illegal abortion will create a good deterrance, eh? Wrong.

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

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/4/gpr120402.html

    3) It’s quite callous to worry about the “1000s” (as if you can know how many would really die) of women who’d die when millions of very young women are already died b/c of abortion.

    I know how many will die because the danger of illegal abortion is already a human rights issue in other countries! Do you live under a rock? In countries that criminalize abortion, the number of women dying as a result of backalley abortion is a serious health problem. And I don’t want to go back to that in the US.

    And an embryo is not a “a very young woman” in any sense of the word– physically, emotionally, or philosophically. Don’t be ridiculous.

    4) Women die NOW from unsafe abortions even though they’re legal.  Open your eyes!

    Look at the links I supplied above. Legal abortion is almost always safe abortion. Any idiot knows that there are some risks with surgery. But what are the statistics of women who die as a result of complications of legal abortion versus the number of women who die around the world as a result of illegal abortion/suicide/pregnancy complications as a result of the unavailability of safe abortion services.

    1) The men are involved in the baby-making though.

    Oh. my. god. That is called sex, and that is what I meant by “contributing DNA.” Having sex with somebody does not mean that their body becomes your property. Putting your penis in somebody’s vagina for a whopping 2 minutes of “baby-making” does not mean that you marked your territory and now control all reproductive functions of your partner. Penis in does not always equal baby out. Get over it?

    I (who am a man) was heavily involved in the gestation of my children;

    No, your body was not physically involved with the gestation of your children. Are you saying that you can get pregnant or did you mis-read something? Helping your wife with chores, etc is not the same thing as gestating a fetus inside of your body.

     

    ) You don’t really believe that. You believe it is morally wrong to rape a woman, don’t you?  You would like to send offenders to prison, no doubt.

    The immorality of rape is NOT a religious belief, it is based on my understanding of OBSERVED human suffering and a person’s bodily autonomy. So, I am not ”forcing my beliefs” on anyone by wanting to imprison rapists, since it is NOT AN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM that rapists cause human suffering. It is objective reality. If anyone is advocating for rape, then it is you, since your extremist positions on abortion demonstrate that you neither understand human suffering nor bodily autonomy.

    I am trying to PERSUADE; at no point do I try to “force” someone to believe. How in the world could someone do that? Is there some pressure point on which one can apply one’s fingers to reboot someone’s brain and change their thinking?

    The desire to criminalize abortion stems from your desire to force women to bear unwanted pregnancies and endure childbirth against their will. And if women die as a result, it is not a problem to you, because you couldn’t force them to do what you wanted.

    Further, you too are putting forth a position, that of pro-abortion. If I’m “forcing” my beliefs on others, so are you.

    Wrong. No where have I ever advocated for forced abortion or forced birth. The pro-choice position allows for ALL available options for women: whether or not they will have sex, when/whether or not they will have children or use contraception, what type of contraception they will use, how many children they will have, whether or not their pregnancy will result in birth or abortion, how they choose to give birth and in what setting, whether or not she will raise a child or choose adoption, etc. There is no force or “should” in the pro-choice philosophy because there are always options. Meanwhile, you believe that sex has one purpose only, that contraception is “wrong,” that women should have as many children as “God will provide,” and that pregnancy must always end in live birth. If you only give ONE option for each scenario and claim that other options are immoral, then that shows a desire to force your belief on others! Surprise. It’s not that hard.

  • forced-birth-rape

    La Plume you are brilliant! You should be a reproductive rights lawyer. Women and girls the world over need you. Thank you so much!

  • ahunt

    Inconsistant…if 14th amendment rights exist at the moment of conception…then any action which is KNOWN to cause an abortion, by YOUR own reasoning…must be prohibited. Breastfeeding acts as an abortifacient, one with which women have been regulating their fertility since the dawn of time.

     

    You cannot have it both ways.

     

    2) I doubt you could provide any solid evidence that breastfeeding is indeed abortifacient, showing that you have isolated breastfeeding outside of all the other postpartum things going on the new mother’s body.

     

    Google is your friend.

     

     

  • crowepps

    But — but — but these answers got A’s on the TESTS!  Sigh.

  • crowepps

    Who the heck do you think YOU are to be offering “correction” to ANYBODY at this site?

    “Hardly commendable”?  Next you’ll be complaining she isn’t being ‘ladylike’.

     

    All of your arguments have been fairly easily refuted.  The reason it was easy is because they are all reruns.  We have seen them before, over and over and over.  They all sum up to: “but that’s what women are FOR”.

    Women are not vending machines, penis in/baby out.  If the only part of our body God wanted us to use was our uterus, He wouldn’t have bothered to give us brains.  Women now have other choices besides doing unpaid labor as sex toys/household servants/baby gestators/babysitters for men.  Times have changed, and men now have the ENORMOUS burden of attempting to be minimally pleasant so that women will VOLUNTARILY have sex with them, tolerate them around the house and have children with them.

    Some men, unwilling or unable to meet those minimum standards, want to return to the days when they could just buy some girl from her father and start using her as livestock for riding and breeding.  You might want to consider just how dangerous it can be for the woman you’re forcing sex on to cook your food; there are a lot of poisons under the sink.

  • plume-assassine

    Thank you, FBIR, you are awesome.

    Oddly enough, I had never considered that career before– very cool idea. I am still on my way toward completing my studies/finding a career, but perhaps it’s not too late to change paths. :)  No matter what I end up doing, I’ll never stop speaking out for the rights of women & girls.

  • person-0

    Indisputable, irrefutable and utterly complete.

    Rhology, has it occurred to you that the reason rape is so reprehensible and illegal is because it violently and so forcefully violates bodily autonomy? Imagine for one second what it might be like to be raped and then tell everyone again that there’s no such thing as bodily autonomy.

  • rhology

    ME: I agree, but that’s not what I’m advocating.

    YOU: Actually, yes it is.

    ME: Oh, I’m glad you’re here to tell me what I think. 

    NOW YOU: I don’t know and I don’t care what you think. 

    This is what’s so funny about you – you turn back on your own previous statements w/o apology and w/o indication that you’ve done a 180. This is not indicative of a commitment to intellectual honesty. But of course, neither is complacent apathy with regard to logical fallacies you’ve committed.

     

    Death is the natural course of things and it always has been. Why are you so down on abortion, anyway?

    1) B/c death is not the natural order of things. God created things not to die. Stuff dies because of sin.

    2) B/c imposing death upon another is only permissible under certain circumstances. Dismembering babies w/o provocation is not one of those.

    3) If this is the argument you want to make, I suppose you won’t care about murder, either. Right?

    4) Many pro-aborts make the argument that pregnancy sometimes leads to complications that lead to death for the mother. But since according to you death is the natural course of things and since natural course = justifiable, you don’t make that argument either, right?

     

    The woman, in 99% of cases, chooses to engage in behavior that leads to pregnancy.

    Just like 99% of car-crash victims chose to engage in behavior (i.e. getting into a car) that leads to a car crash.

    Cars are not designed to get into crashes. Their purpose is to transport.

    Pregnancy is obviously, however, a direct result of the sex act. Another poor analogy.

     

    Your own words, and an awareness of the sociopolitical context in which you say them, speak volumes.

    In other words, you feel justified in your bigotry b/c you think you know me after reading maybe 1-2000 words from me. I doubt, if our roles were reversed, you’d buy that excuse if I made it.

  • rhology

    No, actually, we don’t force pregnant women to have abortions. Because that would be anti-choice.

    Right, you just lie to them and withhold essential facts from them so that they won’t be able to make the right decision. That’s not anti-choice, that’s just pro-choice modus operandi.

     

    But what if they want to abort the pregnancy? What then of your “more pro-choice than thou” stance?

    Asked and answered already. To remind you – the woman is not the only relevant party here.

     

  • rhology

    regurgitating a two-day-old comment.

    Yes, because it was deleted by the site admin. I removed the graphic and reposted it so everyone else could have the benefit of reading the full interaction.

    This is not a very fair comment from you. 

  • rhology

    Awesome, 3 replies, none of them with any value.

  • rhology

    then any action which is KNOWN to cause an abortion, by YOUR own reasoning…must be prohibited

    No, that would be YOUR misinterp of my own reasoning. 

    I didn’t say that, and you haven’t provided an argument. You’re just apparently hoping no one noticed.

     

    with which women have been regulating their fertility since the dawn of time.

    “Regulating fertility” != abortion. Did you know that?


  • rhology

    Women are not vending machines, penis in/baby out

    Strawman.  Nobody, least of all I, has claimed that.

    This whole issue comes down to: once you’re pregnant, is it OK to rid yourself of the very young human person inside you b/c you don’t want him/her there? 

    It’s not about whether women are sex toys/babymaking machines/household servants or whatever other nonsense you are throwing out there b/c of your bigotry.

    The best recommendation I can give you at this time is to slow down, take a deep breath, and listen to the other side. We’re listening to you; that’s why we can defeat your arguments so easily. I suggest you listen so that you can see whether you have the truth or not. Take the next step. Everyone here has used stale arguments that have been superseded by better ones from the pro-life side. Now, dig deep and overturn our arguments. If you can’t (and so far you haven’t been able to), dig deeper and embrace the truth.

     

    You might want to consider just how dangerous it can be for the woman you’re forcing sex on to cook your food; there are a lot of poisons under the sink.

    The deep, deep bigotry and hateful prejudice you’ve expressed here is amazing and amazingly sad to behold. 

  • rhology

    I know you’re probably proud of yourself for pasting some badly out-of-context Bible passages, but if you want to take them one by one, I’d be happy to explain each and explain how 

    1) the context aids in understanding of any text, including these, and

    2) I haven’t seen your Pope of Morality badge so that you can force your morality on others and judge Bible-believers.

    HOnestly, I doubt that reasoned, calm dialogue is what interests you, but I mention it just in case you would like to do so. Otherwise, please accept my deepest sympathies if (as seems possible, but I can’t tell for sure) you really have experienced abuse at the hands of Southern Baptists or self-proclaimed Southern Baptists. I know that words across an INternet page don’t do well at conveying tone and emotion, but if that is what happened, I am disgusted at someone who would claim to love Jesus and yet would not love his wife or his friend/neighbor, especially to the point that he would abuse her.

  • rhology

    Your link is nothing but emotional and religiously related rhetoric that relies on the assumptions that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy,

    For those unsure of the reference, this is the link.

    The thing is, this is the furthest thing from an assumption. The entire article is an argument for that very position.

    Most commenters around here seem not to be able to grasp the difference between argument and assumption, but I’d recommend you look it up and ponder it.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ Get over yourself you extremely nasty Christian man creep. I have gotten the Billy Graham bible verse booklet in the mail and his bible verses are just like this except cherry picked leaving out the not so flattering ones. He is sure to put the women have to be submissive to their husbands in there, a Christian man never leaves that bible verse out. I grew up going to my Baptist grandfathers church and went to Christian home school, my wife beating, church going Christian father was a Sunday school teacher and a deacon. Don’t try to pretend you know more about Christianity then me, you don’t. The bible verses are true even though you wish you could polish them up. You are the one who is proud. ~

     

    ~ I was sexually abused as a child, as was most of my family. From every heartless, hateful post of yours it is easy to see you do not give a tiny damn about raped women and raped little girls. How easy it is for men to tell women and young girls they have to stay pregnant and give birth against their will. How very easy it is for Christian men to tell raped women and raped girls they have to stay pregnant and breed with their rapist. ~

     

    ~ Since you cannot get pregnant, and since you have never been a raped female you have no business commenting on what raped women should and should not be doing. ~

     

    ~ Rapist are extreme misogynistic sadomasochistic creeps on power trips, and pro-lifer men are the same. They are consumed with forcing women and girl’s bodies and vaginas to be subject to their commands. ~

     

     

    “TIME ranks Southern Baptists’ rejection of sex-offender database as a top “underreported” news story of 2008”

     

     

    http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm

  • rhology

    Read the Fourteenth Amendment sometime, particularly the “born or naturalized” part.

     

    I just saw this from a friend, originally posted here.

     

    —-Apparently, you need to read Section 1 of the 14th amendment a little more carefully:

     

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

     

    These two sentences assert 5 specific rights:

     

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.

    2. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the State wherein they reside.

    3. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

    4. No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

    5. No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

     

    Contrary to your misreading of the text, the amendment only assertions (1)-(3) apply to U.S. citizens (born or naturalized). Assertions (4) and (5) simply apply to “persons.” The transition from “citizens of the United States” in the first clause of the second sentence to “any person” in the second clause of that sentence marks a contrast in the scope about those whom the rights concern. U.S. citizens are to be protected from an abridgement of the privileges and immunities that they enjoy as U.S. citizens at the hands of any State, and all persons, regardless of citizenship, are to be protected from deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Applying your standards of interpretation to the third clause of the second sentence to the second clause of that sentence, there would be nothing in this amendment prohibiting an individual State from egregiously violating the rights of non-citizens, such as, for example, rounding up illegal aliens and executing them on the spot. Such an abuse would not be ruled out by the amendment, on your interpretation, since the protection against the deprivation of life and liberty only applies to citizens (since in using the term “person,” the authors of the amendment obviously meant citizens only).—-

     

    So, you’d so far succeeded in overturning one (and only one) of my arguments in this thread, but with the help of my friend, we see that even this effort failed.

  • person-0

     God created things not to die. Stuff dies because of sin.

    This is your religious opinion that has no bearing on anyone else. You may choose to believe it, but you may not impose it on others who choose not to.


    Just like 99% of car-crash victims chose to engage in behavior (i.e. getting into a car) that leads to a car crash.

    Cars are not designed to get into crashes. Their purpose is to transport.

    And recreational sex is not intended to be procreative. The purpose is sexual pleasure. A woman is not obligated to continue a pregnancy simply because she has a uterus. Also, please educate yourself on the clitoris. 

  • prochoiceferret

    This is what’s so funny about you – you turn back on your own previous statements w/o apology and w/o indication that you’ve done a 180. This is not indicative of a commitment to intellectual honesty. But of course, neither is complacent apathy with regard to logical fallacies you’ve committed.

     

    I guess when you don’t have any topical arguments left, you can always complain about my inability to read minds.

     

    1) B/c death is not the natural order of things. God created things not to die. Stuff dies because of sin.

     

    I’m sure the scientists working on how to extend human life will be very interested in this fact!

     

    2) B/c imposing death upon another is only permissible under certain circumstances. Dismembering babies w/o provocation is not one of those.

     

    However, terminating an unwanted pregnancy certainly is.

     

    3) If this is the argument you want to make, I suppose you won’t care about murder, either. Right?

     

    It’s your argument, actually, what with “the natural course of …” being an important part thereof.

     

    4) Many pro-aborts make the argument that pregnancy sometimes leads to complications that lead to death for the mother. But since according to you death is the natural course of things and since natural course = justifiable, you don’t make that argument either, right?

     

    No, because “the natural course of …” isn’t an argument; it’s a flimsy attempt to intellectually justify violating the human rights of women. And pro-aborts don’t bother with arguments; they just force women into having abortions, like in China. Us pro-choicers don’t like them any more than we like you.

     

    Cars are not designed to get into crashes. Their purpose is to transport.

     

    I guess they have no need for air bags and crumple zones, then.

     

    Pregnancy is obviously, however, a direct result of the sex act. Another poor analogy.

     

    Yes, after all, it’s not like pregnancy is the result of every instance of the sex act, or that people can’t take measures to reduce the chances of pregnancy occurring, or that impregnation is the reason people have sex for most of their lives.

     

    In other words, you feel justified in your bigotry b/c you think you know me after reading maybe 1-2000 words from me. I doubt, if our roles were reversed, you’d buy that excuse if I made it.

     

    If our roles were reversed, I’d stop posting tired intellectual excuses for my own misogyny, apologize profusely to everyone here, and mail a $1000 check to my local Planned Parenthood affiliate to begin atonement for my former hatred of womankind.

  • prochoiceferret

    Right, you just lie to them and withhold essential facts from them so that they won’t be able to make the right decision. That’s not anti-choice, that’s just pro-choice modus operandi.

     

    Nope, actually, that’s how anti-choicers do things. Touting the fictitious abortion-breast-cancer link, fictitious post-abortion depression, CPCs, abstinence-only sex ed… you guys have a whole industry built around that!

     

    Asked and answered already. To remind you – the woman is not the only relevant party here.

     

    So you’re “pro-choice” only so far as the woman’s desired choices agree with your own. Funny, most anti-choicers and misogynists are “pro-choice” in that regard!

  • prochoiceferret

    Yes, because it was deleted by the site admin. I removed the graphic and reposted it so everyone else could have the benefit of reading the full interaction.

     

    For a loose definition of “benefit.”

     

    This is not a very fair comment from you.

     

    So now you’re interested in fairness? I thought you weren’t such a fan of the notion, when you argued that unwantedly-pregnant rape victims should not have the option of terminating their pregnancies.

  • jennifer-starr

    Death is very much the natural order of things; you can choose to believe what you will about the spirit or the soul, but eventually the human body simply wears out or in certain cases is too injured to recover. I’m not sure why you think that should lead to a sort of nihilistic fatalism, where people throw up their hands and say ‘Oh well, since we’re all going to die anyway….’  your attitude on that is bizarre–and I hope you wouldn’t take such a cavalier attitude if it were your loved one experiencing medical complications from pregnancy. If something can be medically treated and we possess the science and knowledge to do so and the patient consents we certainly should at least try.

    But we all know that in the corporeal sense none of us is going to live forever. I said goodbye to my grandfather 8 years ago and it still hurts–a dear friend of mine lost her father to liver disease only two weeks ago–and he was only in his fifties. Death is indeed a part of life–we mourn, we remember and we go on.  Hopefully you’ll learn this in time. 

  • colleen

    HOnestly, I doubt that reasoned, calm dialogue is what interests you

    Let me remind you that you’ve not even managed to comply with the very reasonable guidelines for posting on this blog. Indeed your own dialogue has been so obnoxious and hateful and abusive that the moderators have been erasing it. But, then, the males of the religious right have always demanded submissive and stupid behaviors from women. No reasonable or thoughtful person would turn to someone who has been behaving as you have here for religious, spiritual or ethical advice.

  • crowepps

    Troll — boring

  • ahunt

    If you call drumming your heels with your fingers in your ears while wailing…. NU’UH, NU’UH, N’UH at the top of your lungs “refuting” an argument…then props to you, Ro.

  • ahunt

    “Regulating fertility” != abortion. Did you know that?

     

    Come again?

  • ahunt

    -The “woman’s rights > fetus’ rights” is a very poor inequality because it is trading on a fundamental dissimilarity. In well over 95% of cases, it does not come down to the choice of the mother’s life or the baby’s life. Thus what the pro-abort should be saying is “woman’s convenience/freedom from some life struggles for a year or so > the life of her child”. Funny that they never state it that way.

     

    So, stripping a woman of her fundamental and inarguable right to bodily integrity is OKAY because it is only for a while and doing so only inconveniences her and removes her freedoms for a year or so. This is your argument? In a nutshell?

     

    Just checking, because if you are claiming that women enjoy equal protection of the law right up until the moment she conceives, why not just state it that way?

  • rhology

    Yes, that has occurred to me, I share that idea, and I don’t recall trying to mitigate the horror of rape.

    Read my posts carefully and you’ll see, in fact, a universal condemnation of the practice.

    You left out, however, in the issue of bodily autonomy the fact that the baby also has the right to bodily autonomy, and forcing death upon that child is worse than rape since it ends the life, ends the chance for redemption and moving past a horror to a life of love and healing.

    Doesn’t it?

  • jennifer-starr

    That’s your opinion; personally I think the opinion of the woman who was actually raped matters more. So why not just leave the decision up to her? 

  • person-0

    I only brought up rape to illustrate the value of bodily autonomy. The fetus has none, of course, because it is not AUTONOMOUS. 

  • person-0

    Rhology,

    Aren’t you even going to attempt to address any of the facts presented to you just up that way ^ a little? Or are truth and reality too much?

  • colleen

    Doesn’t it?

    No. It takes a really sick and evil mind to claim that forcing a rape victim to carry a pregnany caused by that rape to term has anything at all to do with redemption or healing.

  • ahunt

    You left out, however, in the issue of bodily autonomy the fact that the baby also has the right to bodily autonomy

     

    Well, at least you are upfront about your contempt for the bodily autonomy of women. You eschew the rhetoric of equal rights of women and the BZEF…and simply remove the right of bodily integrity from women altogether.

     

    Tell us, have you ever carried the ramifications of your beliefs through to the logical conclusions?… as in…how will granting superior rights to the BZEF, from the moment of conception impact on the day to day lives of women…

  • crowepps

     the baby also has the right to bodily autonomy

    Bodily autonomy is not available to the BZEF until it is removed from the uterus.  Up until that time, it had no freedom to determine its own actions and behaviour, but was carried willynilly wherever the uterus containing it went with no choices available to it whatsoever.

  • plume-assassine

    Mmhmm…I was wondering about that, too, actually! Very interesting.

  • ahunt

    No, no no, Crowepps! DinJa know that the  BZEF tap dances and writes grafitti on the walls of its own natural environment?

  • chemist

    Hello La Plume Assassine!  This is a very long series of comments, and I don’t have time to digest all of them.  I am going to dive into a couple of your comments though because I found them thought provoking.

     

    It is useless to argue from religious authority, because not everyone shares your religious beliefs — So, you are only going to convince other people who already share your Christian worldview.

    (1)   Of course, arguments from the image of God are unconvincing to people who don’t share our worldview, but it is convincing to those who are Christians.  Now, a major thrust of the Christianity is in fact showing people the truth so that they may be saved.  The process here is conversion first.  I would also like to remind the readers that Rhology was comparing two worldviews here.

    (2)   All moral arguments are ultimately rooted in a metaphysical worldview.  Yours is no less independent than mine.  Why should I accept an argument based in humanism over an argument based in Christianity?  I think we will both agree that ultimately these moral questions become questions about the truthfulness of a worldview.  I submit that Christianity is the only worldview that corresponds to reality.

    (3)   The argument isn’t based on the fetus satisfying a set of criteria for personhood.  Rather the argument is quite simple.  I will repost it for you here:

    P1. If the right to life is an intrinsic property of humans and human life begins at conception, then humans possess the right to life from conception.
    P2. The right to life is an intrinsic property of humans.
    P3. Human life begins at conception.
    C1. Humans possess the right to life from conception.

    I would argue that premise one is non-controversial as well as the third premise.  Certainly, they seem much more plausible than their negations.  The second premise is the heart of the discussion.  It makes far more sense to me that humans have a right to life because they are human than the idea that their right to life is grounded in some other set of criteria.  We can all too easily recall instances in past history as well as contemporary events where people are denied a basic right to life simply because those in power have determined that they do not deserve to live.  Often this is through dehumanizing those individuals or groups of individuals.  I would also like to point out that none of the premises are religious in nature.  A secular humanist can agree that the right to life is intrinsic to humans, though it would almost certainly be for different reasons than the Christian.

    Lengthy discussion of persons and its bearing on abortion rights.

    You gave a nice discussion about why do you not view a fetus as a person, largely derived by a lack of consciousness, ability to feel and react to pain, ability to care and nourish oneself without a second party, etc.  I am going on memory here so please excuse me if I added/deleted one or two criteria.  Before I engage this point, I was hoping you could refine your position here.  I don’t want to waste my time straw-manning this thing.  When exactly does a human become a person and for what reason should s/he be given a right to life?  I’m not looking for anything super specific here but specific enough to advance the conversation.  Is it birth? Adolescence? First day to kindergarten?  I am most interested in the justification for why based on your views of what constitutes a person because this appears to by the lynchpin of your future arguments (e.g., there is only one person involved whereas two are involved in murder, theft, slavery, etc.  Please also define the concept of a person.  I can’t discuss much of the remainder of discussion below until this is established.

     

    These two items did stand out and seem independent of the notion of a person.

    [diatribe] Now, I hope you realize just how ridiculous and morally wrong it is to claim that abortion = murder.

    This did nothing of the sort.  At most you articulated how difficult it would be to bring criminal charges against someone not that the criminal charges are unjustified.

     

    What you also failed to address are the facts that sex and pregnancy (two separate processes) do NOT always result in a live birth, even if elective abortion is NOT in the picture. So, there is no reason for us to assume that sex must be an irrevocable contract that 1) should result in a person and 2) must involve the loss of bodily integrity to create a person, especially if one or both people were using contraception.

    I fail to see how pregnancy is a separate process from sex.  Rather sex is a necessary pre-requisite for pregnancy.  In fact, it seems completely reasonable to view pregnancy as a potential consequence of sex, even if contraception is used.  Do you deny this?  To sustain your claim, you have to further argue that people should not be forced to bear consequences even if the consequences are undesired (in this case, a consequence of a pregnancy).  For sake of discussion, I am fine leaving non-consensual sex off the table for now.  It is a real and serious issue but frankly accounts for a small number of actual abortions.  I completely agree with you IF the consequence does not result in the termination of a human being who possesses a right to life.  Once, again we see that this is the real crux of the issue.  If there is a human with a unique right to life, then I see no reason that someone else’s autonomy can over-ride another person’s right to life.  Do you think this is in fact the case?  Should I be able to kill others simply because my decisions in life lead to consequences I find difficult, unplanned, or in some cases just distasteful?  If there is no right to life there is no problem.  However, I find the argument I gave above convincing.  Furthermore, I find idea that rights are a function of personhood, which itself is a function of some set of criteria, to be poorly defined at this point in the conversation and incongruent with the way the right to life is normally viewed.  That is, we clearly recognize that a person possesses a right to life because they satisfy the criteria of being human.

  • ahunt

    I submit that Christianity is the only worldview that corresponds to reality.

     

    Okay,  I think we are done here.

  • colleen

    At bottom the ‘pro-life’ movement is yet another Inquisition and, as their posters here make clear,  it is fueled by the same human emotions which fueled the other Inquisitions.

     

  • crowepps

    Yeah, “we have a different reality” is kind of a conversation stopper.

    Personally, I think laws that apply to everybody ought to be constructed and enforced based on the actual right-here-in-front-of-our-eyes reality that we all, you know, share in, you know, actual real life.

    Once people start asserting that the “Biblical world view” somehow changes how nature works, or that people can somehow be forced to live in Idealistic Land without being seriously damaged, there isn’t really much to discuss.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ I know when I was a Christian if someone upset me I could ask the lord to send two she-bears to rip them up. Worked every time. ~

    Quote from the bible.    

    II Kings 2: 23, II Kings 2:24 “He (Elisha) went up from Jericho to bethel. On the way, young [maturing and accountable] boys came out of the city and mocked him and said to him, Go up [in a whirlwind], you baldhead! And he (Elisha) turned around and looked at them and called a curse down on them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and ripped up forty-two of the boys.”

  • ahunt

    Well if we wanted to have some fun…we could run with this one:

     

    I fail to see how pregnancy is a separate process from sex…

     

    I’ll start…I fail to see how picking peaches is a separate process from canning peaches.

     

    I fail to see how cooking dinner is a separate process from setting the table.

     

    I fail to see how masticating food is a separate process from having a bowel movement…(this one is tricky, but should force Chem to define “process” for us)

  • crowepps

    I fail to see how pregnancy is a separate process from sex…

    The problem is that there is a tricky problem of semantics disguised in the word order here.

    Pregnancy is NOT a separate process from sex with a great deal of high tech help.  As a general rule, pregnancy requires two people of opposite sexes, both fertile, not using birth control, and a sex act.

    Sex, however, is a separate process from pregnancy.  People have sex all the time without getting pregnant.  People have sex with themselves.  People have sex with people the same sex they are.  People have sex with people of the opposite sex who are naturally or artificially sterile.  People have sex with people of the opposite sex and use various methods of birth control, including natural family planning, to prevent pregnancy.

    Let’s see, doing some quick math — on average married couples under 30 have sex 110 times annually, I was married for 11 years, that’s 1,210 sex acts with 2 pregnancies, for an average of 1 pregnancy per 605 sex acts.  And then married couples over 30 have sex about once a week, married 24 years, 1,248 sex acts with 2 pregnancies, for an average of 1 pregnancy per 624 sex acts.

    Let’s see how this compares to something everybody understands.  Baseball!  Hitting the ball is part of the process of baseball, and yet superb professional baseball players with excellent skills and a batting average of .300 actually only hit the ball one-third of the time, and the very best baseball players ever get less than 10% of those hits as home runs, so that an eyepopping success rate at home run would still be less than 3% of the time.  Getting a home run is part of the process of baseball, but playing baseball does not necessary mean you hit home runs.

    Our hypothetical married couples up there only have a success rate of .0015%, 4 hits out of 2,458 swings, and that isn’t even taking into account that two of those pregnancies were lost to miscarriage, for an actual success rate of .0008%.

    I think that’s pretty conclusive.  You couldn’t get anybody to bet on something that hits the ball out of the park less than one time in a thousand.

  • ahunt

    Exactly Crowepps…one does not necessarily or, hey… even usually… follow the other… and allow me to point out pregnancy can be achieved w/o a mutual sex act.

     

    My sense is that Chem may be coming from the POV of one who believes that the sex act “should,” as opposed to “could”… result in pregnancy…

  • chemist

    Thank you for your responses, though I am not sure anyone has actually engaged the points I raised, especially the argument or the request to clarify what is meant by person, when a human becomes a person and why.  These are foundational questions to this entire issue.  I hope someone will be willing to clarify these issues.  I also remind that in deductive logic (the argument given is deductive) the conclusion is necessary if the premises are true and more plausible than their negation.

    @Crowepps

    Yeah, “we have a different reality” is kind of a conversation stopper.

    Personally, I think laws that apply to everybody ought to be constructed and enforced based on the actual right-here-in-front-of-our-eyes reality that we all, you know, share in, you know, actual real life.

    Once people start asserting that the “Biblical world view” somehow changes how nature works, or that people can somehow be forced to live in Idealistic Land without being seriously damaged, there isn’t really much to discuss.

    No one said that we share different realities.  I stated that Christianity is the only view that makes sense of reality in a non-self-defeating manner.  Maybe you are unaware of what a worldview is?

    Concerning the statistics and issue of process…sex is a necessary pre-requisite for pregnancy; this makes pregnancy a potential consequence of sex.  This is clearly laid out in the original comments.  To be more blunt, can you explain how someone can get pregnant without having sex?  The two are fundamentally linked.  Now, I see no reason someone’s personal autonomy should be set so high that it overcomes another’s right to life.  Do you agree or not?  This takes us to the watershed issue in the whole debate.  If the fetus is a human with a right to life, then terminating the pregnancy should be viewed as a person violating another’s right to life.  The whole issue turns on whether or not a fetus has a right to life.  This is why I gave the argument I gave and why I am asking for people to clarify what is meant by the concept “person”.

     

    @ahunt

    Here is the clarification…Rather sex is a necessary pre-requisite for pregnancy.  In fact, it seems completely reasonable to view pregnancy as a potential consequence of sex, even if contraception is used.

    I am not arguing that it is an inevitable consequence, but it certainly is a potential consequence.  Let me re-state the question again.   If there is a human with a unique right to life, then I see no reason that someone else’s autonomy can over-ride another person’s right to life.  Do you think this is in fact the case?  Should I be able to kill others simply because my decisions in life lead to consequences I find difficult, unplanned, or in some cases just distasteful?

    I never stated nor do I believe that sex should result in a pregnancy.  In fact, I don’t know how to make my view any more clear that it is a potential consequence.  Let me restate something else too, for sake of discussion, I am fine leaving non-consensual sex off the table for now.

  • jennifer-starr

    So you’ve restated that ‘for the sake of discussion, you’re fine leaving non-consensual sex off the table for now’. And that means what, exactly?

  • colleen

    I hope someone will be willing to clarify these issues.

    These issues have been ‘clarified’ many times here by many pro-choice men and women. There is a nice search function up there in the light grey area on the right hand side.

    I stated that Christianity is the only view that makes sense of reality in a non-self-defeating manner.

    That is not what you said but it’s  just as offensive, absurd

    Maybe you are unaware of what a worldview is?

    Yes. We’re really all ignorant, home schooled first graders unable to comprehend basic concepts or form a logical argument. Poor us.

  • colleen

    It means he/she does not have to consider  male responsibility (not that he has) and can demonize all  women and girls with unwanted pregnancies as irresponsible sluts.

  • crowepps

    If we’re going to “hold to Darwinian evolution” in cases where pregnancy complications are killing women, we’re going to have to stop providing medical care to teenage boys and men in their 20′s when they take stupid risks playing sports, skateboarding, driving, etc.  For that matter, I guess we’ll have to get rid of medical care for accidents and chronic illnesses altogether, and only intervene with vaccination in cases where the problem is being caused by a bacteria or virus.  This would solve the ‘ethical dilemma’ of abortions in cases of rape, though, since we have plenty of rapists already and don’t want to increase the number by coddling their possible descendents.

  • crowepps

    clarify what is meant by person, when a human becomes a person and why.

    A fetus becomes a person when it is born and lives through the experience.  That is the point at which it succeeds (or fails) at being an autonomous, independently alive person.  In the United States, 1 in 115 births is a stillbirth.  Those fetuses did not become ‘people’.

    No one said that we share different realities.

     If we’re all in the same reality, then instead of going over “is a fetus human”, something which so far as I am aware nobody has ever disputed, perhaps we could discuss something more germane to the issue, like why the majority of conceptions fail.  Here’s an interesting article about the biology of pregnancy that has informed my view of reality which you might find interesting.

    http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover

    Pregnancy is a ‘potential consequence’ of sex (in those cases where the sex partners are opposite sex, both fertile, not using birth control) and birth is a ‘potential consequence’ of being pregnant.  Potential is not actual.  It is ridiculous to conceptualize potential as actual, to assume that even though reality demonstrates that fertility is actually 1 in a thousand, that The Plan is that every single sex act should result in live birth.  Apparently The Plan is instead that sex should result in live birth very rarely.

    Assuming, just for the sake of easy math, that the natural process of reproduction AFTER the sperm meets the egg fails 80% of the time, through mechanisms including failure to form a zygote, failure of the zygote to progress to blastocyst, failure of the blastocyst to implant/implantation in the wrong place, failure of the placenta to develop normally, failure through spontanenous abortion, failure to develop normally resulting in deformed nonviable fetus, death in utero and death during childbirth.

    Of the remaining 20% of conceptions, 10% were planned and wanted, 5% were unplanned but women will complete them, and 5% are aborted.  Of the 5% aborted in early pregnancy, 20% would have been miscarried.  Abortion then raises the failure rate by 4%, with the positive social benefit of decreasing the number of children likely to be neglected or abused.

    As most of those abortions are done at the very earliest stages of pregnancy, when reproduction hasn’t progressed past the embryo stage, the loss of those ‘potential’ lives is minimal when contrasted to the loss of lives of the women themselves, in whom society has already invested 15-25 years of shelter, food, medical care, education, etc.

    I certainly understand the Christian point of view, that every sinner is a potential saint, that every person one meets is potentially Christ, that the eye should lift from the sordid reality in front of us and instead visualize the best and brightest of all possible futures for every single person we meet.  I even AGREE with that idealistic point of view because I am a Christian and try to put that vision in practice in my own life.  The difference between us is that I while my eyes have lifted from sordid reality, I haven’t forgotten that it’s there.  I am aware that women who are denied legal abortions will seek and obtain illegal abortions and that doing so will kill many of them.  I do not believe having sex, which carries the potential of pregnancy, is a capital crime which should be punished with the other potential involved, death.  I ALSO extend the best and brightest of all possible futures it to the woman herself, and do not ignore the realities of her existence to give preference to a potential ‘person’.

  • ahunt

    No one said that we share different realities.  I stated that Christianity is the only view that makes sense of reality in a non-self-defeating manner.

     

    Well no…you said “I submit that Christianity is the only worldview that corresponds to reality.” 

     

    We don’t do Calvinball around here. 

     

    I am not arguing that it is an inevitable consequence, but it certainly is a potential consequence.

     

    And so the process of sex can most certainly be separated from the process of pregnancy, in terms of function and outcome…yes, no, maybe?

  • ahunt

    if there is a human with a unique right to life, then I see no reason that someone else’s autonomy can over-ride another person’s right to life.  Do you think this is in fact the case? 

     

    No.


    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072

  • crowepps

    I am not arguing that it is an inevitable consequence, but it certainly is a potential consequence

    I’m assuming the idea is that since sex has pregnancy as a “potential consequence” then voluntarily having sex is supposed to be obligate the woman somehow, even if she is using birth control.

     

    But the thing is, if we’re going to go forward on the notion that “potential consequences” obligate people, the fact that pregnancy has maternal death as a “potential consequence” would mean that ALL pregnant women are at risk of their lives in EVERY pregnancy (an assumption which has the advantage of actually being true, since there’s no way of telling for sure whose pregnancy will end disasterously) and that would mean that  since the “potential consequence” exists, ALL abortions are requested by women at risk of their lives.

  • ahunt

    Oh, this is good, Crowepps.

     

     

    I imagine the response will include naturalism in the way of natural womanly selflessness, natural maternal instincts, natural propagation of the species, and natural life and death…all in the context of Xtian sacrifice…

     

     

  • colleen

    Ahem. I’m beginning to see some possibilities. A potential consequence of a man ejaculating into a the vagina of a woman or child is that he might kill her just to pleasure himself. Perhaps we should charge rapists and particularly child rapists (because the likelihood of a child dying from complications of pregnancy is so much greater)  with attempted murder. Every cloud has a silver lining.

    I’ve never understood why the real life potential consequences which apply to male actions are so seldom mentioned by the ‘pro-life’ movement. It’s absurd really.  They even hold up men like Randall Terry (who deserted his 5 or 6 children and failed in even the most basic parental responsibility, contributions to assure that the children were fed, housed and educated) as ‘pro-life’ leaders we’re supposed to admire and respect. Imagine the potential consequences if ‘pro-life’ men would only have sex when their partner was willing to gestate a child.

  • ahunt

    Imagine the potential consequences if ‘pro-life’ men would only have sex when their partner was willing to gestate a child.

     

    Snerk…no takers so far, Colleen. Let’s see if you get any nibbles.

  • wendy-banks

     The process here is conversion first.

    Uh, NOT! I am a Atheist– I am not a christian, nor do I have any desire to become one. I am so done with that crap.

    I personaly think religion is a diservice to humankind, and attempting to convert anyone to beleave in it is a contemptable thing.

    And also, bubye troll!

  • crowepps

    Because ‘natural’ means behavior which is inherent in people biologically across ALL cultures, like holding their breath when splashed with water, or closing their eyes when something appears to be coming toward their face, or disapproving of behavior which is believed to be ’unfair’.  Natural behaviors are just there, and it is actually difficult to PREVENT people from them, as for instance attempting to rein in the sex drive.

     

    Natural behaviors don’t have to be TAUGHT.  In fact, if there is a huge and concerted propaganda campaign trying to outline and teach behaviors (like being ‘ladylike’), and organized enforcers alert to monitor the many who attempt to deviate from the set of behaviors and punish those who won’t fall into line, then you can be absolutely SURE it’s not natural.

     

    Women’s natural reproductive behavior is that typical in the most primitive settings, where infanticide is almost universally practiced.  Since modern sensibilities are revolted by infanticide, and have actually criminalized that entirely natural behavior, abortion as way of ending unwanted pregnancies seems to be the civilized compromise. 

    http://www.metafro.be/prelude/view_plant?pi=12034

    http://family.jrank.org/pages/873/Infanticide-Prevalence.html

  • colleen

    Let’s see if you get any nibbles.

     A couple of weeks ago we were having a conversation here about impregnating under-age girls and one ‘pro-life’ woman with  sons expressed horror at the thought of one of her sons impregnating a girl not because knocking up under-age girls is illegal and harms them but, rather, because the girl might have an abortion and she, the mother of  poorly raised and profoundly irresponsible sons, wouldn’t have any say in the matter.

      If the ‘pro-life’ movement were to even suggest that men should be held responsible for , well, anything, and especially where they place their penises, there would be no ‘pro-life’ movement. When it comes to human reproduction and the care and raising of children, women have responsibilities and duties, men have rights, including property rights. It’s Biblical.

  • chemist

    Sorry.  Work week started and had some traveling to my parents over the weekend.  Honestly, I try to limit the amount of time I spend blogging since it doesn’t pay the bills.  Sometimes, I am more successful than others.

    Here are some responses to the points raised.  Lost the names when I imported into Word, so I apologize for not addressing you individually.

     

    So you’ve restated that ‘for the sake of discussion, you’re fine leaving non-consensual sex off the table for now’. And that means what, exactly?

    It means exactly that.  For this conversation, I am only interested in discussing cases of mutually consensual sex.

     

    It means he/she does not have to consider  male responsibility (not that he has) and can demonize all  women and girls with unwanted pregnancies as irresponsible sluts.

    It means nothing like this at all.  For the record, I hold males equally responsible for caring for the baby.  Moreover, my position is that we should give both the pregnant woman and the baby the highest amount of support they need in what could be a very difficult time. 

    You have badly mischaracterized me.  I haven’t done this to you at all.  I realize this is a way of cheapening another’s arguments, but I would appreciate if you would stick to the actual positions I hold, and if you don’t know what they are please ask.  I am trying to give you the same level of respect.

     

    These issues have been ‘clarified’ many times here by many pro-choice men and women. There is a nice search function up there in the light grey area on the right hand side.

    Then it should be easy for you to summarize it for me here.  This is my first time to the site.

     

    <me>I stated that Christianity is the only view that makes sense of reality in a non-self-defeating manner.

    <you>That is not what you said but it’s  just as offensive, absurd

    Yes, it is what I said.  A true worldview must correspond to reality.  It is absurd to think that different worldviews, which are inherently mutually distinct, can both describe reality.  Christianity and Hinduism are two separate worldviews.  They can both be wrong, one can be right and the other wrong, but they simply cannot both be right.  I don’t see what is offensive or absurd about this concept.

     

     

    A fetus becomes a person when it is born and lives through the experience.  That is the point at which it succeeds (or fails) at being an autonomous, independently alive person.  In the United States, 1 in 115 births is a stillbirth.  Those fetuses did not become ‘people’.

    This seems very arbitrary to me.  Why did you pick birth and those set of experiences?  Let me phrase the question differently.  Do you think a dog is a person?  A dog is born and lives through the birthing experience.  It is an autonomous, independent creature at that point, yet I do not see how that it is a person.  The idea of “person” seems to be unique to humans.  At least, we are discussing the criteria for a human to have a right to life, since this is the crux of the issue.  However, by this set of criteria, I do not see why a dog should not be a regarded a person with its own unique right to life.  You need more in your definition.  Along these lines, suppose someone comes along and says, “I disagree with your demarcation of ‘person.’  I think a person exists when a child reaches age 2.”  What would you offer as a counter point to this line of thinking?  What I am trying to get at is this concept of person really doesn’t capture what we mean when we say human beings have a right to life, at least certainly not an inviolable right to life.

    It seems far more likely to me that the right to life is a property of being human.  That is, humans have a right to life simply because they are humans not because they satisfy a set of arbitrary criteria.  This goes back to the main argument I offered that NO ONE has attempted to deal with, at least not in a straight forward manner.  Do humans have a right to life and, if so, why?  There are many many examples in past history and contemporary current events where people are denied their lives or basic human needs simply because others have defined them as lacking a right to life.  I can look at the Sudan government and say, “you should not kill your citizens” because I recognize that all humans have a right to life irrespective of their circumstances or how others define them.  The right to life flows from being a human.  However, under an ethical system where the right to life is a function of being a person, which is defined as satisfying a set of criteria, then all bets are off.  Who’s to say which set of criteria are the ones we should be using?  Those in power?  Ultimately, this takes us down a road of ethical subjectivity where we totally lose the ability to recognize acts that are clearly immoral.

     

     If we’re all in the same reality, then instead of going over “is a fetus human”, something which so far as I am aware nobody has ever disputed, perhaps we could discuss something more germane to the issue, like why the majority of conceptions fail. 

    Because the right to life is a feature of being a human!  The right life flows from the ontology of the human.  Another way of saying it is that there are no humans that do not have a right to life just like there are no red dots that lack the property of being red.  I invite you to ponder the ramifications of just what it means if we lose that concept.  There is no longer any way to pass judgment on any genocidal act at all.  If the right to life is a function of satisfying criteria, then it becomes very subjective as to what those criteria actually are.  Moreover, the criteria fundamentally become arbitrary.  Why select birth over first heart beat?  Why not select first ability to communicate verbally over birth?  I argue that even if a definition of personhood is offered, that it ultimately is arbitrary and subjective.  This means we land square back into subjective ethics, which is totally untenable.  People say they embrace subjective ethics on paper, but I am highly skeptical that anyone actually manages to live it out consistently in life because it simply doesn’t work.

    Here’s an interesting article about the biology of pregnancy that has informed my view of reality which you might find interesting.

    http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover

    Thank you for the link.  I will try to read it later and respond, but right now I have too much on my plate.  I hope you understand.

     

    Pregnancy is a ‘potential consequence’ of sex (in those cases where the sex partners are opposite sex, both fertile, not using birth control) and birth is a ‘potential consequence’ of being pregnant.  Potential is not actual.  It is ridiculous to conceptualize potential as actual, to assume that even though reality demonstrates that fertility is actually 1 in a thousand, that The Plan is that every single sex act should result in live birth.  Apparently The Plan is instead that sex should result in live birth very rarely.

    I am not conflating potentiality with actuality.  I am saying that pregnancy is a potential consequence of sex.  If my argument is successful, then that baby has a right to life.  I am further arguing that no one has such a strong sense of personal autonomy that their choices over-ride another’s right to life, especially when they engaged in behavior that has this as a potential consequence and even if attempts were made to suppress the consequence.  Let me remind you about the caveat I made earlier about consensual sex acts for the purposes of this discussion.

     

    Math argument

    This is quite beside the point of everything I am arguing.  The number of sex acts that lead to birth has no bearing on the argument that personal autonomy is not strong enough for me to over-ride another’s right to life in this circumstance.

     

    Abortion then raises the failure rate by 4%, with the positive social benefit of decreasing the number of children likely to be neglected or abused

    The issue of neglect and abuse are real problems.  I am all for making it easier for people to adopt and for encouraging adoption over abortion.  I think we share this as a common ground.  I reject the idea that death of a person with a right to life is a positive benefit to society.

     

    As most of those abortions are done at the very earliest stages of pregnancy, when reproduction hasn’t progressed past the embryo stage, the loss of those ‘potential’ lives is minimal when contrasted to the loss of lives of the women themselves, in whom society has already invested 15-25 years of shelter, food, medical care, education, etc.

    I reject the idea that they are potential lives.  There is over-whelming scientific evidence that they are alive.  Who is arguing that we shouldn’t support women during the process?  I haven’t endorsed that view.  I think you are erecting a straw man here.

     

    I certainly understand the Christian point of view, that every sinner is a potential saint, that every person one meets is potentially Christ, that the eye should lift from the sordid reality in front of us and instead visualize the best and brightest of all possible futures for every single person we meet.  I even AGREE with that idealistic point of view because I am a Christian and try to put that vision in practice in my own life.  The difference between us is that I while my eyes have lifted from sordid reality, I haven’t forgotten that it’s there.  I am aware that women who are denied legal abortions will seek and obtain illegal abortions and that doing so will kill many of them.  I do not believe having sex, which carries the potential of pregnancy, is a capital crime which should be punished with the other potential involved, death.  I ALSO extend the best and brightest of all possible futures it to the woman herself, and do not ignore the realities of her existence to give preference to a potential ‘person’.

    It is nice to know that we share a common base in Jesus Christ.  I only offer you a more consistent picture of what a human is and why humans have a right to life.  You are absolutely right that life is messy and it is often ugly, but that doesn’t mean we have to endorse more messiness and more ugliness.  I don’t think this has to be an either/or situation.  It can be a both/and.  We can care and love the woman AND the baby.  Sure it will take work but that is a noble task.  We can aim to give both a bright future because they both have a right to live their life.  For the record, I never said that having sex is a capital crime.  That is a gross mis-representation of my statements. 

     

    We don’t do Calvinball around here. 

    This makes me laugh actually.  I love Watterson. 

    And so the process of sex can most certainly be separated from the process of pregnancy, in terms of function and outcome…yes, no, maybe?

    It is getting late, see above.

     

    I’m assuming the idea is that since sex has pregnancy as a “potential consequence” then voluntarily having sex is supposed to be obligate the woman somehow, even if she is using birth control.

    The argument is that personal autonomy is not strong enough to over-ride another’s right to life.  Let’s straighten this out first.  Do you agree?  I’ll hold off on the rest until we clear this up.

  • prochoiceferret

    It means exactly that.  For this conversation, I am only interested in discussing cases of mutually consensual sex.

     

    Of course you are. It’s quite hard to keep up the facade of Christian mercy and integrity if you tell pregnant rape victims that they have no choice but to carry to term, or betray your overriding concern for a “right to life” by allowing them to obtain abortions.

     

    It means nothing like this at all.  For the record, I hold males equally responsible for caring for the baby.  Moreover, my position is that we should give both the pregnant woman and the baby the highest amount of support they need in what could be a very difficult time.

     

    Unless the woman wants to have an abortion, of course. Then your “support” turns into callous disregard for her wishes, her health, and quite possibly her life.

     

    You have badly mischaracterized me.  I haven’t done this to you at all.  I realize this is a way of cheapening another’s arguments, but I would appreciate if you would stick to the actual positions I hold, and if you don’t know what they are please ask.  I am trying to give you the same level of respect.

     

    Yes, you’re being quite respectful about denying human rights to half our population.

     

    Yes, it is what I said.  A true worldview must correspond to reality.  It is absurd to think that different worldviews, which are inherently mutually distinct, can both describe reality.  Christianity and Hinduism are two separate worldviews.  They can both be wrong, one can be right and the other wrong, but they simply cannot both be right.  I don’t see what is offensive or absurd about this concept.

     

    We’ll accept that Christianity is the one correct worldview when you provide objective evidence for it. Don’t worry, we’ll give you plenty of time to assemble that together.

     

    The idea of “person” seems to be unique to humans.  At least, we are discussing the criteria for a human to have a right to life, since this is the crux of the issue.

     

    No, actually, it’s not. The crux of the issue is whether a fetus has the right to draw life support from a woman’s body without her consent. The answer is, of course, it does not. No human has such a right, whether s/he is a “person” (however you define that term) or otherwise.

     

    Moreover, the criteria fundamentally become arbitrary.  Why select birth over first heart beat?  Why not select first ability to communicate verbally over birth?  I argue that even if a definition of personhood is offered, that it ultimately is arbitrary and subjective.  This means we land square back into subjective ethics, which is totally untenable.  People say they embrace subjective ethics on paper, but I am highly skeptical that anyone actually manages to live it out consistently in life because it simply doesn’t work.

     

    Birth is the point where a human becomes an independent being, and its ability to live no longer infringes on the bodily rights of a person. First heartbeat does not allow this. Ability to communicate happens after the point that the child can be cared for by another person. In other words, birth is the point where a human begins to exist without its ability to live being subject to the consent of another person.

     

    I am further arguing that no one has such a strong sense of personal autonomy that their choices over-ride another’s right to life, especially when they engaged in behavior that has this as a potential consequence and even if attempts were made to suppress the consequence.

     

    A person’s “right to life” does not give them the right to biological resources from some other person’s body. And unless you’re into mandatory organ donation, that’s the way that you want to keep it.

     

    I reject the idea that death of a person with a right to life is a positive benefit to society.

     

    Then there’s a lot of gun owners that you’ll want to sit down and chat with, about that whole “my home is my castle” thing…

     

    I reject the idea that they are potential lives.  There is over-whelming scientific evidence that they are alive.

     

    So are egg cells. And sperm cells. “Every sperm is sacred…”

     

    You are absolutely right that life is messy and it is often ugly, but that doesn’t mean we have to endorse more messiness and more ugliness.  I don’t think this has to be an either/or situation.  It can be a both/and.  We can care and love the woman AND the baby.  Sure it will take work but that is a noble task.  We can aim to give both a bright future because they both have a right to live their life.

     

    I believe there was a famous patriot who said, “Give me liberty, or give me death!” And more than enough women have died in the struggle for reproductive justice.

     

    The argument is that personal autonomy is not strong enough to over-ride another’s right to life.  Let’s straighten this out first.  Do you agree?  I’ll hold off on the rest until we clear this up.

     

    If you’re really arguing against the right to bodily autonomy, then you must have a lot more trust in our government than I do.

  • plume-assassine

    Now, a major thrust of the Christianity is in fact showing people the truth so that they may be saved.  The process here is conversion first

    Christianity is not “the truth,” it is a set of unverifiable beliefs (not facts) about our reality. I have no interest in your’s or Rhology’s authoritarian drive to “convert” people.

     I submit that Christianity is the only worldview that corresponds to reality.

    Utterly ridiculous. The “morality” of Christianity is informed by a holy text in which the character of God condones rape, murder, genocide, slavery, and numerous other atrocities. If you think that that is the only suitable version of reality, then you can keep it far away from me, thanks. http://www.evilbible.com

    P1. If the right to life is an intrinsic property of humans and human life begins at conception, then humans possess the right to life from conception.
    P2. The right to life is an intrinsic property of humans.
    P3. Human life begins at conception.
    C1. Humans possess the right to life from conception.

    Biological human life started millions of years ago, so it is erroneous to say that human life begins at conception. A fertilized egg is human life but there is no reason that it should have rights that trump my rights as a sentient person, or that I should treat it any differently from other non-sentient human life (consider the immortal line of HeLa cells – human, yes. Person, no.). So, yes, personhood in this discussion IS very important.

    I would argue that premise one is non-controversial as well as the third premise. 

    It is controversial in the sense that it values the existence of a non-sentient organism over the indisputable human rights of an adult woman. It values the potential and the imaginary over the actual and objective. It is misogynistic and degrading to women throughout the world, when carried to its logical extreme.

    You gave a nice discussion about why do you not view a fetus as a person, largely derived by a lack of consciousness, ability to feel and react to pain, ability to care and nourish oneself without a second party, etc.  I am going on memory here so please excuse me if I added/deleted one or two criteria.

    Go back and re-read.

    Not a lack of consciousness (since that would just be unconsciousness), rather, the fact that an embryo/fetus lacks even the capacity for consciousness. I was hoping that my discussion of the brain structure (with computer analogy) would clarify this.

    I also did not discuss the “ability to care and nourish oneself without a second party” — I believe you put that in there on your own. It has no bearing on my argument. Biological autonomy is different from the ability to care/nourish oneself without a second party. I hope that you would be able to understand the difference of an organism that is physically attached to a person, using that person’s organs VS. a biologically independent person who requires another to care for them in daily life (such as an infant or a disabled person.)

    When exactly does a human become a person and for what reason should s/he be given a right to life? 

    Oddly-worded question.

    Personhood begins at birth, simple. There is nothing arbitrary about it. This is how all cultures celebrate personhood, from the time of birth.

    I am most interested in the justification for why based on your views of what constitutes a person because this appears to by the lynchpin of your future arguments (e.g., there is only one person involved whereas two are involved in murder, theft, slavery, etc.  Please also define the concept of a person.

    A person is a biologically autonomous organism with the capacity for sentience. This understanding of personhood includes all people regardless of superficial characteristics such as ability or race or gender, from the time of birth until death, and may also include some higher mammals (see non-human person.)

    It does not include an embryo/fetus because it is not biologically autonomous from a woman (it can only sustain itself from inside of a person’s body) and because it does not have the capacity for sentience (as I discussed in my other comment about the neurobiological characteristics of the developing human embryo/fetus.)

    This did nothing of the sort.  At most you articulated how difficult it would be to bring criminal charges against someone not that the criminal charges are unjustified.

    What I illustrated was your position carried to its logical end, to the point of massive human rights violations against women. Reductio ad absurdum. If you thought that any of that was NOT misogynistic and degrading on an ABSURD scale, (such as the constant policing of fertile, potentially-pregnant women), then I cannot help you. Apparently, you are too far gone to even view women as fellow human beings. Women do not deserve to be objectified as vessels or treated differently based on their reproductive status, which is exactly what you want to do.

     

    I fail to see how pregnancy is a separate process from sex

     

    Ejaculation, fertilization, and implantation are all separate biological processes. PIV sexual intercourse does not always result in the male ejaculating, and if he does, ejaculation does not always result in the fertilization of an egg (due to contraception, or the woman may not be ovulating, etc), and even if fertilization happens, the egg may still fail to implant in the uterine lining for whatever reason, therefore pregnancy does not occur. Hope this clears things up for you.

     

    Rather sex is a necessary pre-requisite for pregnancy. 

    Not for a person using a sperm donation.

     In fact, it seems completely reasonable to view pregnancy as a potential consequence of sex, even if contraception is used.

    Sure, but that does not mean that I must accept pregnancy/instant motherhood every time I have sex and sign away all of my reproductive rights; especially considering the fact that 1. all of the processes (as described above) are separate and have their own failure rates, 2. I am using contraception, and 3. I have personal knowledge of interventions such as different abortion methods should an unwanted pregnancy occur in spite of all precaution.

     If there is a human with a unique right to life, then I see no reason that someone else’s autonomy can over-ride another person’s right to life. 

    Problem is that you think a non-sentient developing organism is a “person.”

    And furthermore, I also do not think even another person has the right to inhabit my body or take my organs for sustenance against my will, even if he/she will die as a result of my refusal, even if he/she is a ~*~famous violinist~*~, even if you argue that it’s my “fault” that such a person needs to take my organs in the first place (like in a car accident that I caused), the answer is still NO.

    Otherwise, you are looking at a world in which forced organ “donation” is commonplace and morally acceptable.

    Do you think bodily autonomy as a human right exists at all, or do you think it only exists up until the point a woman has sex/becomes pregnant and thus loses her status as a human being with full human rights? Because that is essentially what you are arguing.

    Once you say that she loses those rights when she has sex/becomes pregnant (because you think a fertilized egg is a person with a “right to life”), it’s a slippery slope toward losing bodily autonomy in other matters, too, that have nothing to do with a perceived right to life (such as sexual consent.)

  • ahunt

    The argument is that personal autonomy is not strong enough to over-ride another’s right to life.  Let’s straighten this out first. 

     

    The argument is that bodily autonomy is not strong enough to over-ride another’s right to life.  Let’s straighten this out first.

     

    There. Fixed that for you.

     

    We can care and love the woman AND the baby.

     

    Except that “we” don’t…unless the woman is properly obedient…and then only for the 9 mos or so.

  • ahunt

    What I illustrated was your position carried to its logical end, to the point of massive human rights violations against women. Reductio ad absurdum. If you thought that any of that was NOT misogynistic and degrading on an ABSURD scale, (such as the constant policing of fertile, potentially-pregnant women)

     

    Give it up, La Plume.  You’ll never get a lucid, honest response.

  • crowepps

    I hold males equally responsible for caring for the baby.

    Uh-huh.  And what’s your position on male responsibility to wait until marriage before having sex?  Or to prevent conception when pregnancy is unwanted?  Are men who don’t use condoms “agreeing to the potential consequence of becoming a father”?

    This seems very arbitrary to me. 

    Arguments from incredulity aren’t going to get you far here.  Personhood starting at birth has always been the tradition, and whether you believe it is arbitrary or not is irrelevant.  Stillbirths are not and have never been considered “persons”.  Although there is some effort by ProLife forces to change the law, traditionally they did not even generate a death certificate and in some parishes they weren’t given a church burial unless they took at least one breath and were baptized, because it was believed that the soul was inhaled with the first breath.

     Do humans have a right to life and, if so, why? 

    Human whats?  Human cancer tumors?  No.   Human toes?   No.  Human sperm?  No.

    Then it should be easy for you to summarize it for me here.

    Oh, bless your little heart!  You don’t have the time to wade through all those archives, so the other people who post here are supposed to spend a few days pulling together a 10 step summary for you.  Because you’re SO BUSY!  Sorry, I don’t do other people’s homework. 

    Thank you for the link.  I will try to read it later and respond

    Nope, not good enough.  We can’t be in the “same reality” while you are so obviously ignorant of the biology of pregnancy.  After you read the link, THEN get back to us.

     For the record, I never said that having sex is a capital crime.  That is a gross mis-representation of my statements.

    Your assertion is that if women have sex, they are responsible for the ‘potential consequence’ and MUST remain pregnantm and I am saying if you insist they MUST remain pregnant, then YOU are responsible for the ‘potential consequence’ of their death.  Pregnancy kills women.  If abortion is outlawed so that abortion procedures aren’t available to save women with pregnancy complications, pregnancy will kill lots MORE women.  At the present time, approx. 600 women a year die from pregnancy complications in the United States every year.  If ALL abortions are outlawed, those numbers will hit 30,000 annually from ectopic pregnancies alone, with eclampsia contributing another 1,750 women dying, and the long, LONG list of pregnancy complications adding more and more. 

    There is over-whelming scientific evidence that they are alive. 

    So is every other functioning part of the woman’s body.  Does her diseased left kidney have a “right to life” that would prevent it being removed and “killed”?  Are you asserting that because the cancerous tumor of a molar pregnancy develops from a fertilized egg and is “alive” that the woman is not allowed to remove it?  ZBEF’s are not sufficiently developed to be independently alive, which is why they die when the use of the woman’s organs is denied to them.

    The argument is that personal autonomy is not strong enough to over-ride another’s right to life.

    And yet no one’s argument rests on ”personal autonomy”, but instead on ”bodily autonomy” which is a different thing altogether.  No person has a legal obligation to donate the use of their organs or their blood to another, ever.  After a child is born, that child’s parents have ZERO legal obligation to donate a needed organ or needed blood.   People who were the direct CAUSE of another person’s organ failure, as for instance by injuring them in an accident, have ZERO legal obligation to donate a needed organ or needed blood.

     

    And I’ll suggest one more resource you should read before you attempt to engage here that might save us all a lot of time, because the number of logic fallacies in your post is just incredible.

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

  • plume-assassine

    Sorry. I try. :\

    It seems that some of these armchair philosophers that come here have never been exposed to the real consequences of how their insular “worldview” could harm millions of women. It’s all so abstract and removed to them. If I could just help a few people to re-evaluate their beliefs, then I feel like it’s worth it…

  • colleen

    It means nothing like this at all.

    And yet you continue to avoid the topic of male responsibility for unwanted pregnancy and have yet to explain why you’re “only interested in discussing cases of mutually consensual sex.”

    You have badly mischaracterized me.

    I am unconvinced and in large part because your response  implies that males “helping to care for the baby” is the extent of male responsibility for unwanted pregnancies. 

     

    I am trying to give you the same level of respect.

    It really isn’t evident. Not me or to the blog.

    Then it should be easy for you to summarize it for me here.  This is my first time to the site.

    I think not. I am a busy person and try to limit my efforts on blogs to things and subjects that interest me. Summarizing information that bores me for someone who cannot be bothered to do his own research does not interest me.

    If this is indeed your first time on this site perhaps you could take the time to aquaint yourself with the blog.  Why not start by reading the ‘About Us’ tab located to the right just under the aformentioned ‘search’ function?

    Yes, it is what I said.

    Not it most certainly is not. What you said was:

    I submit that Christianity is the only worldview that corresponds to reality.

    FYI, if I wanted to discuss comparative religion or listen to Christians or, for that matter, true believers in any of the Abrahamic ‘faiths’ pound their chests about their superior reality and morals I would seek out blogs where such discussions are appropriate and welcomed. This is not such a blog and doing so here is. well, disrespectful.

  • crowepps

    You have a very clear, easy to understand way of explaining things, which is great for people who actually know how to read for content.  There are a lot of lurkers on this site, who never post, but to whom your posts provide a great education!

  • person-0

    Do you think bodily autonomy as a human right exists at all, or do you think it only exists up until the point a woman has sex/becomes pregnant and thus loses her status as a human being with full human rights? 

     

    Perhaps if we begin all questioning and fact providing with this, then we wouldn’t have to spend so much time explaining the basics. All other arguments seem to always come down to the implication that women only have bodily autonomy while they are not pregnant and the antis never seem to understand what that means for the entire population. It would be sort of refreshing in a depressing sort of way to get one to admit that they truly believe women must relinquish their rights to their own bodies against their will when pregnant. It’s so revolting to say and they know it.

  • ahunt

    I know, LaPlume…it is just so frustrating…and like crowepps, I’m deeply grateful for your patience and clarity.

     

    But it won’t happen. There has yet to be a pro-lifer here who will carry the conviction through to the rational conclusion.

  • beenthere72

    Seconded (or thirded?)   I’ve kept mostly quiet to leave it to you ladies who can communicate so much more concisely.   I too am grateful and thank you wonderful ladies – and people – who speak up for all of us.