Life Begins At Conception. That’s Not the Point


“Life begins at conception.”

This is perhaps the favorite phrase of anti-choicers seeking to eliminate women’s basic right to control over their own bodies. It is, for example, the premise of policies pushed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and fundamentalist evangelicals. It is the cornerstone of the so-called personhood laws defeated by large margins in ballot initiatives undertaken in both Colorado and Mississippi. And it is the basis for the “Sanctity of Life” bill co-sponsored by Congressmen Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Todd Akin (R-MO) in the House of Representatives. The end game in all of these efforts is a radical shift in women’s lives, including a total ban on abortion without exception, and bans on many forms of contraception, in vitro fertilization, and health care for women who are or who may be pregnant.

“Life begins at conception,” is repeated incessantly by politicians such as Richard Mourdock, as though this were a revelation, something not previously known, that should inform our thinking on whether women are people with the same fundamental rights as men, or if they are essentially incubators whose ability to participate in society and the economy, and, quite literally, whose ability to live is dependent on whether they are, might be, or might become pregnant.

But the phrase is highly—and purposefully—misleading because it confuses simple biological cell division both with actual pregnancy and with actual, legal personhood, which are all very different things.

During the October 11, 2012 vice presidential debate, for example, moderator Martha Raddatz asked Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) to discuss “the role religion has played” in their personal views on abortion.

Ryan responded by saying:

Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.

You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born, for our seven week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. A little baby was in the shape of a bean. And to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child Liza, “Bean.”

Now I believe that life begins at conception.

Here is a startling revelation: I am a mother of two and a woman who earlier in her life had an abortion. I am unapologetically pro-choice. And I know life *begins* at conception (which itself is the product of a complex process), because I kinda already knew that having a child required, as a first step, the successful integration of a sperm and an egg, or fertilization.

In other words, “life” begins at conception, if by “life,” we mean the essential starting place of a potential human being. Neither my 16-year-old daughter nor my 13-year-old son would be here if they were not first conceived, if the fertilized eggs had not gone through the process of cell division, successfully implanted in my uterus and developed into healthy embryos, and subsequently gone successfully through the many other phases of development leading to their births.

A fertilized human egg in two phases of division.

A fertilized human egg in two phases of division.

The fact that life begins at conception is why women and men use birth control to prevent it from happening and why they have been trying to prevent it from happening since time immemorial. While they may not have had high-resolution microscopes and photography to reveal biological-level activity, women do not and did not need modern “reason and science” (to which anti-choicers now love to refer) to tell them they get pregnant from sex; as Homo Sapiens they have been conceiving, carrying, and bearing babies for at least some 160,000 years, and they’ve been trying to prevent pregnancy and induce abortions for just as long.

Evidence of condom use has been found in cave drawings in France dated between 12,000 and 15,000 years old and in 3,000 year-old illustrations in Egypt. Throughout history, people have variously practiced “outer course” (encouraged even by Christian clergy at some points in history!), and used pessaries, herbs, and other objects to create barriers to fertilization when having sex, not to mention trying many other more dangerous and less effective means, such as drinking lead and mercury or wearing blood-soaked amulets in the hopes of preventing fertilization, a subsequent pregnancy, and later, the birth of a child. I understand that seeing the sonogram of a wanted child is a powerful thing and a connection to the potential person whose birth is much awaited. But if it took Paul Ryan to see a sonogram of his daughter in utero to get him to believe his wife was pregnant and that his daughter’s “life” began with conception, the state of GOP knowledge on sex and biology is even worse than I thought.

The question is not when life begins. That just obfuscates the real issues.

The fundamental issues are:

  • When does pregnancy begin?
  • Does personhood begin at conception? Is a fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus a person with rights that trump those of the woman upon whose body it depends?
  • Do women need “evidence” that if they are pregnant, odds are they are going to have a baby?
  • Do women have the moral agency and fundamental rights to decide whether or not to commit themselves not only to the development of a life within their own bodies, but to a lifelong tie to another human being once a child is born?

Pregnancy begins at implantation. Human life has to begin with conception, but conception is not the same thing as pregnancy, the latter of which reason, science, and medical evidence agree begins when a fertilized egg successfully implants in the uterus and develops into a healthy embryo. Fertilized eggs take between six to 12 days to implant in the uterine lining. There simply is no pregnancy until this happens, which is why any method that prevents fertilization or implantation can not cause an abortion. A large share of fertilized eggs never successfully implant to establish a pregnancy: Between 50 and 80 percent of fertilized eggs never successfully impant and end in spontaneous miscarriage (and before a woman even knows she is pregnant) because of insufficient hormone levels or an non-viable egg or for some other reason.

Hormonal contraception, including emergency contraception, works to prevent fertilization in the first place. If you were really, really worried, therefore, about abortion at any stage, you would be a strong supporter of universal access to contraception, and to universal and easy access to emergency contraception, which needs to be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse to prevent fertilization from taking place.

Anti-choicers are, of course, against both birth control and emergency contraception, which they attack by confusing conception with “personhood,” and then misrepresenting the mechanisms of action of contraception and the medical definition of pregnancy to blur the lines between contraception and abortion. By endlessly repeating “life begins at conception,” anti-choicers, “egged on,” if you will, by the USCCB and fundamentalist evangelicals, are trying to simultaneously sow confusion about when pregnancy begins and how birth control works to declare a fertilized egg to be a person. This is a precursor to promoting their goals of eliminating both contraception and abortion, making abortion the equivalent of murder, and by extension, controlling women’s bodies and their economic and social choices. This is exactly the goal of so-called personhood amendments that have been the subject of several ballot initiatives and of the “Sanctity of Human Life” act co-sponsored by Ryan and Akin.

Efforts to confuse basic biology are so widespread and so trump rational thinking that they have even tripped up some influential GOP leaders. In December 2011, for example, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (who in recent years converted to Catholicism) told Jake Tapper of ABC News that he believes that human life does not begin at conception but at “implantation and successful implantation” because if you say life begins at conception “you’re going to open up an extraordinary range of very difficult questions.” What he was really trying to describe was the beginning of pregnancy, while also acknowledging that “difficult questions” arise when you ascribe personhood to a fertilized egg. Shortly thereafter, however, and after he had his hand slapped hard by anti-choicers, Gingrich “clarified” his statement. to the global Catholic network, ETWN, as reported by the National Catholic Register:

In a statement sent by the Gingrich campaign to EWTN News, the former speaker of the House reiterated his belief that “human life begins at conception” and that “every unborn life is precious, no matter how conceived.”

He vowed to support pro-life legislation aimed at the ultimate goal of legally protecting “all unborn human life.”

The issue of “personhood” is a theological and personal rather than medical or scientific question. While current teaching by the Vatican is that a fertilized egg is a “person” with full rights under the law, other religious traditions disagree. Jewish law and tradition does not recognize an egg, embryo, or fetus as a person or full human being, but rather “part and parcel of the pregnant women’s body,” the rights of which are subjugated to the health and well-being of the mother until birth. The United Methodist Church recognizes the primacy of the rights and health of women. Islamic scholars, like Jewish scholars, have debated the issues of “ensoulment” and personhood, and continue to do so with no over-riding consensus.

But the issue of “personhood,” legally speaking, really is most clearly articulated by Roe v. Wade under which restrictions on abortions performed before fetal viability, as described in detail by the Center for Reproductive Rights, were limited to those that “narrowly and precisely promoted real maternal health concerns. After the point of viability, the state was free to ban abortion or take other steps to promote its interest in protecting fetal life. Even after that point, however, the state’s interest in the viable fetus must yield to the woman’s right to have an abortion to protect her health and life.”

Intuitively and practically, women who face unintended and untenable pregnancies and choose abortion overwhelmingly prefer to terminate a pregnancy as early as possible.

Share of Abortions Performed in the United States by Length of Gestation, Courtesy of Guttmacher Institute

Share of Abortions Performed in the United States by Length of Gestation, Courtesy of Guttmacher Institute

Nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended and about four in ten women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion. The vast majority—nearly 62 percent—of women who terminate a pregnancy do so before nine weeks of pregnancy, before any fetus is involved. Nearly 80 percent of such abortions occur before 10 weeks, and nearly 90 percent do so by the end of the first trimester, making clear that anti-choice assertions about high rates of late abortion are false. In fact, if anything, anti-choice laws and policies ranging from banning early, safe medication abortion, to mandated waiting periods and unnecessary ultrasounds all serve to push early abortions later than they otherwise would be, belying anti-choice concerns about, say, second trimester abortions, because they are in fact responsible for a large share of such abortions.

Women don’t need to listen to fetal heartbeats, see sonograms, have ultrasounds, and receive lectures on pregnancy to know what being pregnant means. They know that when they are pregnant, they will, in roughly nine months, give birth to an actual person. When considering an abortion, women weigh the responsiblities they have… to themselves and their own futures, to any born children they have or any they may plan to have at a future date.

Preventing conception or having an abortion isn’t just about getting through the “inconvenience” of a pregnancy, as the right often asserts, though in many situations pregnancy does in fact pose substantial risks to the health and lives of women (such as very high rates of maternal mortality among girls and women in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and among women of color in the United States). It is about whether or not a woman wants to and is able to make a lifelong emotional, financial, and physical commitment—often at substantial cost to herself and/or to her family—to the person who will exist if a pregnancy is successfully brought to term. In the case of a wanted pregnancy, or an unintended pregnancy a woman decides to carry to term this can be a joyous, hoped-for, and much anticipated event. Under other circumstances, and without recourse to safe abortion care, an unintended pregnancy is a forced pregnancy and a forced birth, and amounts to reproductive slavery. Only one person—the woman in question—has the right to decide whether, when, and under what circumstances to bring a new person into the world. And the vast majority of women who have an abortion know they are ending biological life that they can not or do not want to sustain because the commitment to an actual child is a moral commitment they are not able, willing, or ready to make, or can not make for reasons of health or life.

In the end, when you hear the phrase “life begins at conception,” remember the implications. In debating the “personhood” of eggs, embryos, and fetuses prior to viability, we are also implicitly and explicity debating the personhood of women. Because if you have no choice and control over your body, you are less than an actual person in the eyes of the law. If the right is so worried about abortion the closer a pregnancy gets to viability, then anti-choicers would be making sure both contraception and early, safe abortion were widely available. That really is not their actual concern.

The development of a potential human life requires conception as a first step. But that is not the same as either pregnancy or personhood. You can’t reduce complex reality to a slogan, and when you try to do so, you actually minimize the personhood of women.

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

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • euphony618

    I greatly respect and appreciate the well-reasoned, intelligent, and informative writing of this article. “Life begins at conception” is stated over and over by conservatives. You bring up a great point about the difference between fertilization and implantation, the beginning of pregnancy. This raises many questions about the types of birth control that anti-choicers would and would not find acceptable if they had their way.

    As someone who has studied biology, Ryan’s use of “science” as a supposed reason he opposes abortion was offensive, not to mention ridiculous. Anti-choicers constantly misuse or make up science to support their philosophical agenda. And anti-choicers clearly don’t think women understand what pregnancy means when they insist on “protecting” women by forcing them to be exposed to ultrasound images and/or fetal heartbeats before an abortion.

  • chelley

    Thank-you Jodi for your eloquently witten article.  I have been say the same thing for the past twenty years, but i dont have the format to be heard.   I was enriched to hear my words echoed back to me by you. 

    respectfully,

    michelle Cory

  • liberaldem

    “Between 50 and 80 percent of fertilized eggs never successfully impant and end in spontaneous miscarriage (and before a woman even knows she is pregnant) because of insufficient hormone levels or an non-viable egg or for some other reason.”

    Do the anti-choice folks want to start subjecting all women of reproductive age to invasive procedures to determine if/when they have had intercourse, if they produced an egg that united with a sperm?  Who are they going to blame for those 50-80% of fertilized eggs that don’t implant?

     

  • crowepps

    Well, they’ll blame the women, of course.  Here’s one effort to criminalize miscarriage:

    GA GOP Rep. Would Force Women To Prove Miscarriage Happened Naturally Or Face Felony Charges

    “State Rep. Bobby Franklin of Georgia introduced a bill in his state last week that, if enacted, would require proof that a miscarriage occurred naturally. If a woman can’t prove that her miscarriage–or spontaneous abortion–occurred without intervention, she could face felony charges.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/23/145866/bobby-franklin-miscarriage-naturally/

    Here’s a link to the bill in question:

    http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/31965

    Fortunately, Rep. Franklin’s black little heart failed him, and he died last summer without having his law passed.  I’m sure his family and friends miss him, but personally, I think the prayers of tens of thousands of women were answered, and am pretty happy his efforts to make being female a felony have been stopped.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    I’m wondering what the antis and RCC will do about God/Goddess’s 450+ herbal abortifacients like the coffee, tea, and holy wine they serve and consume! —  will they arrest themselves?  And when will gynophobic priests give last rites to “baby” tampons?

  • ljean8080

    wine except the priest.and the wine is like only 2%.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    You missed my point!  And I’ve had REAL wine at some Masses.  If Jesus opposed the natural RU-486-like properties of wine and other beverages and food, he never would have served miracle wine to the Cana bride!

  • wildthing

    In all cases a woman has some risk to her life in pregnancy and childbirth and should have medical choice of what risks and the reasons for not taking them should be hers alone. Regardless of viability. If her body can spontaneously abort so too should she have the right to use her own mind to make a similar determination unless you feel a woman’s mind is irrelevant which would then be a denial of humanhood.

    Just like implanation life throughout nature is over-profuse and nature has not been averse to spreading seeds that do not taqke root or do not fully mature otherwise we would be over-run with all species. It seems rather disingenuous to think this is not part of natures or gods plan. We also know too many inhumane methods have been used to reduce over-population such as wars to thin the human herd as well as famine, epidemics, and genocide all of which we hardly manage to control let alone trying to focus on making sure every conception leads to birth. Which incidentally they might begin to say a spontaneous miscarriage is murder due to a womans lifestyle or habit. Then she truly would be a slave to her body.

    They have this focus rather than already born life being treated as sacred because of some fanciful theological idea that is a religious tenant relative to be a belief system that can’t even be proved related to unborn souls. The sanctity of born life is a human reality based on values that do not have to be rooted in belief of conceptual systems.

    If they belief in this personhood then likely it would be necessary to incubate children oustide of the womb so that all conditions would be optimized, then I suppose they would be free to outlaw sex altogether.

     

  • saltyc

    “Human life has to begin at conception”
    Really? How do you define human life and why the necessity that it have a beginning? Trying to figure it out. It can’t just mean it goes from non-life to life obviously nor does it go from non-human to human, nor does it define the beginning of a genetic individual since identical twins become distinct long after conception. Not convinced.

  • firehead

    Okay, I’m not really sure where to start, but here goes. 

    Woman want to be equal to men, but there is no possible way for them to be equal. Men and woman are so signifcantly different.  They have different body parts, different ways to handle emotions, and different desires in life.  For example, most men want to be respected, while most woman want to be loved.  Woman were designed with a uterus.  This uterus is designed to provide nourishment and a home to a developing baby.  You can’t say my uterus was not designed for birth. 

           Sex. What is sex?  Obviously, you know what it means to have sex.  However, today, people want to seperate sex into two different parts.  Sex is both pleasure and procreation.  I am not saying that everytime one has sex, that one is supposed to get pregnant.  That is not the case as evidenced by our menstral cycles. There is only a small window in which a woman can become pregnant.  I am saying that people think you can completely seperate the two.  They want sex that does not ever result in procreation, but our bodies were designed to support a pregnancy is one happens. Likewise, procreation without pleasure can’t be seperated either.  In order for procreation to happen, some level of pleasure must take place in order to get the sperm where it needs to go for procreation.  I am saying that people falsely believe that sex can be seperated.  My friend was using multiple methods of birth control and she still got pregnant.  Sex has consquences.  I think that a woman does not have the right to unprocreative sex.  She can try to and may suceed for a time, but to expect that something your body was designed to do will never happen isn’t a right, it is a hope.  You don’t have the right to have uterus that was not designed to have babies.  All woman have uteruses. All uteruses are designed to hold and grow babies.  Therefore, all woman are designed to hold and grow babies.  I’m not saying woman are to be viewed as only good for making babies.  That is rather demeaning if we are viewed as that.  I’m saying that one can not true “equality” among men because biologically our bodies are designed to create babies.  I am saying that having kids does not mean we have to give up on career or be viewed negatively.  Reproducing is part of life. If none of us did, there’d be no future.  Why can’t a pregnant woman be respected in the workplace? 

            You mentioned choice and control over you body.  The choice/control is whether to have sex or not knowing you could (though not always) get pregnant.  You can’t control your body. Your body was designed to have babies.  Short of tearing out your reproductive organs, your body is always to going to get ready to create a baby.  No method is 100% effective at any given time except abstainance.  Like I said before, my friend was using hormonal, barrier, and timing methods and still became pregnant.  Her chances should have been even less than the 1% or so chance on birth control because of the other methods.  Your right to decide to bring life into the world begins and ends with sex. 

           There is a difference between natural miscarriage and willful miscarriage.  Sometimes miscarriages take place because genetically, the embryo can’t survive.  Sometimes we don’t know why they happen.  However, I think choosing to create an environment where the embryo has to miscarry is not right.  One is wilfull, one is not.  You can not charge a woman with murder because her body naturally miscarried.  She did nothing to cause it (unless she knew she was pregnant and chose to have a reckless lifestyle).  A woman who takes a pill that she knows is supposed to force the baby to miscarry is willfully taking it into her own hands.  She is deciding whether the baby will survive or not.  That’s like refusing to feed your cat.  You take away all sources of water/food.  The cat has no choice but to die.  It’s not you fault though if your cat dies because the dog keeps eating/drinking the cat’s food before she can get to it.  You had no idea.  You didn’t cause it.  Now, if you knew and chose to do nothing about it, then it like the woman who lives recklessly knowing she is pregnant. 

             If one is not ready for a family, one should think before engaging in sex.  Like I said earlier, you can’t always seperate pleasure from procreation.  To think one has the right to do so is naive.  To think one wasn’t designed to create and hold babies to term is false.  I’m not saying one has to go out and get pregnant. I’m saying one can’t think it is their right. 

  • crowepps

    Yes, these are the standard questions and answers that the ProLife movement promotes because it finds them persuasive, although the majority of Americans don’t agree with them, and I admire your honesty in admitting that you “think that a woman does not have the right to unprocreative sex.”

    If you want to think of yourself first and foremost as human breeding stock, that’s certainly your right, and I hope you and your 12 or so future children are able to have a satisfactory life.

    The rest of us, who have minds and actually want to use them, who have years of actual life experience in the realities of reproduction and children, have discovered life is more complicated.  Aside from being “designed to create and hold babies” as a sort of self-maintaining uterine appliance, most women also have a compelling interest in making sure their children who are already born have food, shelter and clothing available so they also stay alive.

    It will be interesting to see if your opinions change after you go through puberty, get out of school, and also have to cope with the realities of life.

  • prochoiceferret

    Woman want to be equal to men, but there is no possible way for them to be equal. Men and woman are so signifcantly different.

     

    That’s why it’s more accurate to say that women want equality of rights with men.

     

    They have different body parts, different ways to handle emotions, and different desires in life.

     

    The second and third items (and to a lesser extent, the first) are also applicable even when you’re only looking at men or women. People are different, in general.

     

    For example, most men want to be respected, while most woman want to be loved.

     

    And most women want to be respected, and most men want to be loved, too. Isn’t it funny how gender stereotypes work?

     

    Woman were designed with a uterus.  This uterus is designed to provide nourishment and a home to a developing baby.  You can’t say my uterus was not designed for birth. 

     

    Sure I can. The uterus is certainly involved in birth, but that’s not the same thing as saying it was designed for same.

     

    Sex is both pleasure and procreation.  I am not saying that everytime one has sex, that one is supposed to get pregnant.  That is not the case as evidenced by our menstral cycles. There is only a small window in which a woman can become pregnant.  I am saying that people think you can completely seperate the two.  They want sex that does not ever result in procreation, but our bodies were designed to support a pregnancy is one happens. Likewise, procreation without pleasure can’t be seperated either.  In order for procreation to happen, some level of pleasure must take place in order to get the sperm where it needs to go for procreation.  I am saying that people falsely believe that sex can be seperated.  My friend was using multiple methods of birth control and she still got pregnant.  Sex has consquences.

     

    Contraception allows people to have sex without reproducing. Sometimes it fails; like any technology, it’s not perfect. Your whole argument here makes as much as saying “you cannot separate transportation and crashing.”

     

    I think that a woman does not have the right to unprocreative sex.

     

    Some people believe women shouldn’t have the right to vote, either. Thankfully, retrogressive views like this are no longer the law of the land.

     

    You don’t have the right to have uterus that was not designed to have babies.  All woman have uteruses. All uteruses are designed to hold and grow babies.  Therefore, all woman are designed to hold and grow babies.  I’m not saying woman are to be viewed as only good for making babies.

     

    Actually, yes, you are.

     

    That is rather demeaning if we are viewed as that. 

     

    Indeed. So please stop it.

     

    I’m saying that one can not true “equality” among men because biologically our bodies are designed to create babies.  I am saying that having kids does not mean we have to give up on career or be viewed negatively.  Reproducing is part of life. If none of us did, there’d be no future.  Why can’t a pregnant woman be respected in the workplace?

     

    Perhaps because some people view the different anatomy of women as an excuse to treat them unequally?

     

    You mentioned choice and control over you body.  The choice/control is whether to have sex or not knowing you could (though not always) get pregnant.  You can’t control your body.

     

    With modern medicine, she can!

     

    Short of tearing out your reproductive organs, your body is always to going to get ready to create a baby.

     

    Have you heard of this thing called “Implanon?” Or, for that matter, “menopause?”

     

    No method is 100% effective at any given time except abstainance.

     

    No, actually, abstinence has a failure rate, too.

     

    Like I said before, my friend was using hormonal, barrier, and timing methods and still became pregnant.  Her chances should have been even less than the 1% or so chance on birth control because of the other methods.

     

    And my friend was practicing abstinence and still became pregnant. Her chances should have been 0%, but she was raped.

     

    Your right to decide to bring life into the world begins and ends with sex.

     

    No, it ends with either childbirth or abortion. But I’ll grant that you certainly wish it ended at sex.

     

    However, I think choosing to create an environment where the embryo has to miscarry is not right.  One is wilfull, one is not.

     

    Good thing we don’t decide whether women should be allowed to have a potentially life-saving procedure based on whether you think it is right or not!

     

    You can not charge a woman with murder because her body naturally miscarried.

     

    Unless, of course, you accuse her of having an abortion and lying about it being a miscarriage. This has been known to happen in foreign countries with extreme anti-abortion laws.

     

    A woman who takes a pill that she knows is supposed to force the baby to miscarry is willfully taking it into her own hands.  She is deciding whether the baby will survive or not.

     

    What baby are you talking about, and how exactly is it going to be pregnant in order that it can miscarry due to some woman taking a pill??

     

    That’s like refusing to feed your cat.  You take away all sources of water/food.  The cat has no choice but to die.

     

    No, the cat can choose to be cared for by another owner.

     

    If one is not ready for a family, one should think before engaging in sex.

     

    One should always think before engaging in sex, to address STIs, contraception (if desired), and emotional readiness.

     

    Like I said earlier, you can’t always seperate pleasure from procreation.  To think one has the right to do so is naive.

     

    Then the Founding Fathers were very, very naive.

     

    I’m not saying one has to go out and get pregnant. I’m saying one can’t think it is their right.

     

    Odd, I thought your whole argument was that one can’t think not getting pregnant is their right.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Do you realize 450+ plants (many in your kitchen!) trigger miscarriages?  Just 2 cups of tea or coffee can do this (happened to my mom and a co-worker).  Are you willing to criminalize coffee, tea and colas for all fertile women?  Will you turn yourself in to the womb police?  If you won’t, you’re a selfish hypocrite.

  • jennifer-starr

     However, I think choosing to create an environment where the embryo has to miscarry is not right.  One is wilfull, one is not.  You can not charge a woman with murder because her body naturally miscarried.  She did nothing to cause it (unless she knew she was pregnant and chose to have a reckless lifestyle). 

    I’d be interested to know what you would define as a ‘reckless lifestyle’.  How about woman who engages in strenuous exercise or has a job as a police officer or a construction worker?  A woman who drinks coffee or tea (caffeinated or even herbal–some herbs have abortifacient qualities)? A woman who smokes?   Or how about a woman who doesn’t even know she’s pregnant yet and goes out and has a few cocktails with her girlfriends?  Would you charge her? 


  • thalwen

    Woman want to be equal to men, but there is no possible way for them to be equal. Men and woman are so signifcantly different. 

    An amputee is significantly different than a non-amputee. We don’t deny the amputee rights because she has different body parts. 


     For example, most men want to be respected, while most woman want to be loved. 

    Bullshit, love without respect isn’t love. 


     I think that a woman does not have the right to unprocreative sex.

    So every post-menopausal woman does not have the right to have sex? Lesbians don’t have the right to have sex? Infertile people don’t have the right to have sex? Women who have physical problems making pregnancy dangerous or very painful should not have the right to have sex? You say women don’t have the right to have sex without the proper baby-punishment, so you think men do? Who are these men going to have sex with if they don’t want their baby-punishment? I’m going to take a wild guess and assume you’re a homophobe so I’m going to assume gay sex is out. 


    You don’t have the right to have uterus that was not designed to have babies.  

    So all women not wanting/incapable of having children should be mandated to have hysterectomies? 


    Why can’t a pregnant woman be respected in the workplace? 

    The evil wimminz movement has been fighting for eliminating discrimination against pregnant women for decades. Wait, didn’t you say women don’t want to be respected? 

     

    However, I think choosing to create an environment where the embryo has to miscarry is not right.  One is wilfull, one is not.  You can not charge a woman with murder because her body naturally miscarried. 

    But you can charge her if the miscarriage wasn’t “natural?” How do you know that innocent miscarriage was really innocent? Did she carry a heavy box? Did she inhale a whiff of exhaust from a car or a passing-by smoker? Was she driving? I mean she could get into an accident. Did she clean the house and cook dinner for her owne…er husband? Did she dare to have sex while having bad genetics that predispose her to miscarriage? 


    That’s like refusing to feed your cat.

    Seriously? Fuck you. A cat is a living being. Comparing animal abuse to a miscarriage? I have no words, I’m sickened. 


     If one is not ready for a family, one should think before engaging in sex.  

    And women do think. We have brains! That’s why women use contraception so they don’t get pregnant. 



  • firehead

    I do not think of woman as demeaned incubators.  I know a family who has 5 children and the wife still has a career in medicine.  She can have a career and a family.  They are not exclusive. 

     

    For reference, I’ve gone through puberty, have obtained a biology degree, and am now facing the realities of life.  Hubby and I can not afford a child.  We are wanting to wait until we have more money, etc. to take care of our child.  However, if we did get pregnant before we had more money, we would never even think of having an abortion.  If we ever decided we didn’t want the baby, we would give it up for adoption. More than likely, we would find a way to make ends stretch without going onto welfare. I know of some very resourceful moms. 

     

     

    The funny thing about the tea, coffee, etc. thing is I personally don’t like coffee, tea, and usually drink non caffeinated sodas because I don’t really like them.  I’m a hot cocoa/sprite kind of person.  Now, I know that is not the norm for everyone because like mom a lot of people like coffee, etc.  Excessive caffeine intake increases the risk, but does not mean it will result in a miscarriage.  Also, there is a short period of time each month that you may not know if you’re pregnant.  Most woman have two weeks between ovulation and menstration.  It takes 6-10 days for the baby to implant.  So that’s like 4-8 days.  I’m not sure how much excessive caffeine intake it takes before it results in miscarriage, but that means 4-8 days of increased risk.  Doesn’t guarantee a miscarriage. 

                The 450+ plants you mean, I’m assuming mostly refer to spices.  Spices used in cooking are not a high enough dose to cause problems.  Taking in high quantities, yes, they can, but who way over spices their food?  I don’t know what the specific limit is for each spice/plant, but I’m pretty sure it’s way higher than you would normally use.  So as long as one is not going crazy with the spices, they should be fine.

    My point in what I was saying is that if you knowingly ingest medicine, etc. or act in such that has been known to cause a miscarriage than you a guilty of killing that child if what you did indeed causes the miscarriage.  If you don’t know you’re pregnant and do something you wouldn’t do if you knew you were pregnant and it causes a miscarriage, then it is more an accident.  You weren’t willfully trying to cause a miscarriage because you didn’t know you were pregnant.   Once you know you’re pregnant, you can cut back on/out the caffeine. In an ideal world, it would be nice to think that everybody does things in moderation/that are healthy for them.  If everyone did that anyway, the chance that their actions would result in a miscarriage before they know would go down too.  I mean excessive spices, alcohol, caffeine, smoking, and drugs aren’t good for one anyway.  If everyone used these in moderation, then there would be low concern for unwillful miscarriage anyway. 

    When I go to doctor, sometimes they have to ask if you’re pregnant.  If I need a drug that could be harmful to a developing baby, I take a pregnancy test first.  If I knew I was pregnant, I would change my lifestyle where I need to as soon I know or maybe even if I suspect. 

     

    http://www.parents.com/pregnancy/complications/miscarriage/causes-miscarriage/   This website might be a good reference.  Exercise can actually be good for a pregnancy.  I don’t know how much exercise a doctor would deem okay.  However,  there is like two weeks between when you conceive and when you should know if you’re pregnant by a missed period.  I willing to say that 5 days of strenuous exercise or so from when it implants until when you should know if you’re pregnant may not be enough to cause a miscarriage.  Also I think especially that early it’s probably a lot more difficult to cause a miscarriage from exercise, than 6 months in.  Also, having few drinks/smokes isn’t going to instantly cause a miscarriage, the article I referenced said it have to be like hardcore drinking and getting drunk and hardcore smoking. Which while it is a person’s choice to get drunk/smoke/drugs, it is not the healthiest thing for them in general anyway regardless.  So I guess someone who lives rockstar/hardcore partying would be considered a reckless lifestyle.

     

    I am not against woman be treated equally in the workplace.  I want to be treated equally in the workplace. Woman should be able to vote as well. However, it is ludicrous to start imagining everyone as unisex beings with no differences.  Woman are more emotional than men usually.  Men and woman think differently.  Guys usually think about one thing at a time, while woman can multitask and think about 5 things at once. Yes, stereotypes are not perfect examples.  There usually is always an exception to the norm.  If nothing else, we have different body parts.  I’m not going to go through a sex change to remove my boobs and uterus/vagina so that I can be more like a man.  It’d be so boring if men and woman were the same. 

    You used the example of an amputee.  You would agree that either way they are both human and deserve to be treated as such, regardless of gender, correct?  So why is it that people want to discriminate against babies who have not yet grown all their limbs?  Having a limb does not affect your humanity.  A baby without an arm is just as much human as a man without an arm.

    I agree, respect and love go hand in hand.  I was simply saying that if given the choice of feeling respected or loved, the majority of men and women would say that.  There is an actual book where a woman author did research on this.  A men in general would much rather have your respect than a box full of chocolates and roses.  Women in general would pick romantic gestures such as chocolate/roses than respect.  I’m not saying men/woman don’t still want to be respected/loved, but that they generally have preferences or ways in which they most feel loved.  My point was that men and woman are different.

    I mean woman that are able to procreate. I’m not talking about the woman who incapable of having babies.  If a woman has conditions that make having a baby undesirable/unwanted why not have surgery? If one removes all one’s eggs, one can’t possibly get pregnant. 

    I’m not saying that every time one has sex, one has to do so with the opportunity to get pregnant.  I’m saying that you can not guarantee that every time one has sex, that a baby won’t result.  Men should be held responsible for their contribution to life.  It is just as much the woman’s baby as the man’s baby.  The only difference is that man would created with organs to carry a baby to term; women are. That is why I can keep saying men and woman are different.  You can’t make men house/carry babies to term.  They can’t.  I’m sure some woman think it’s unfair that they have to be the ones to carry the baby instead of the male.  But the truth/facts are that that’s the way men and women are.  I’m sure if/whenever I have children, that I may at some point wish the agony I’m experiencing upon my husband.  But wishing it would be different doesn’t mean one can make it different. 

    No, I think men that get a woman pregnant should have to raise/support their child.  If a man is willing to have sex with a woman he knows is still in her childbearing years, he better be prepared to father any child that comes about by the sex. 

    If you really want to go there, they are a couple more options than being gay.  Note: I’m not suggesting these options, merely listing them. As we already mentioned menopausal woman are infertile.  Also many men already masturbate/dolls.  Those would be two more options for men if they really are not willing to take any risks of the woman getting pregnant.  Or they can take the risk.  Both woman and man should be ready to be responsible for the results of sex.  If they’re not, why have sex in the first place?  Who wants to sleep with a guy they know will leave them stranded or run out on them if they get pregnant?  That’s not the kind of guy I want to be intimate with. 

    I understand that actually proving whether a miscarriage was natural or premeditated would be difficult. In order to have the best chance of enforcing any kind of law, one would have to use pretty invasive measures.  It could also be hard to prove what caused the miscarriage.  However, if a woman declared or hinted that was or could be pregnant, it would not be hard for the police to watch financial accounts to see what she purchased and for them to tail her to see if she goes somewhere questionable. Or one could refuse to sell products that could induce a miscarriage.  However, really one should be moral enough that laws/police wouldn’t need to get involved.  One should not want to commit murder.  In real life, if police suspected someone of murder, what I just said would not be unreasonable at all in fact it would be expected.

    You said a cat is a living being.  So is an embryo.  I could be just as offended that you value the life of a cat over a human’s.  Perhaps, I can restate what I said using a different example.  An embryo needs to implant in the uterus so that it can have shelter and nourishment.  Without implantation, an embryo simply exits the wound and dies.  Or if it does implant, but somebody forces it to leave the uterus, then it dies.  Simply, without the uterus the embryo dies.  Now, let’s look at a baby that is out of the womb.  It needs shelter and nourishment (whether from mommy/daddy or someone adopting it).  Somebody has to provide these essentials to the newborn baby.  The source from where the baby gets it essentials is different, but it is the same baby.  If you neglect a baby for long enough, it will die.  Okay so we know that without food/shelter, both the baby in the womb and baby outside of the womb will die.  So why are we discriminating against age?  An embryo is just as much human as the 9 month old baby.  You can’t tell me otherwise, because I know it’s not a bird instead the womb.  It has human DNA.  Science has shown this, plus logic.  Also you can’t say it’s not alive, because it is actively growing before it even implants.  You can’t say it is not human without a limb or organ.  I already explained that earlier. You can’t even say it’s not human because it’s not conscious.  There are people in comas.  They are still human.  So an embryo is living human being.  You wouldn’t kill your cat, so why do people think it is okay to kill the unborn baby?

    Contraception is not 100% reliable.  So contraception can lower the chances of getting pregnant, but never eliminate it completely.  So yes, if one does not want to get pregnant, it is wiser to reduce your chances of getting pregnant.  But one can not count on it to work everytime. 


    True, that even among genders, people are different.  But men and woman are still different.  I’m sure there are some guys who could cry just as much during a chick flick as women, but this is not the majority.  These are more outliers, than the norm though. It is hard to find a stereotype that fits everyone everywhere.  But the majority of men and women fit the stereotype hence the stereotype. 

    Tell what function your uterus serves if not to house a baby should the situation occur?  Reproductive organs are just that.  Organs used for reproducing.  Unless one was rarely born without a uterus (or removed theirs), woman all have uteruses. It is a simple biological fact.  I’m not saying it has to serve its purpose constantly, but that you can’t avoid that it is there and that it what it is there for.  You can’t ignore the reproductive nature of human bodies.

    You can’t travel without the risk of crashing.  Many people take the risk everyday, but it is still there. 

    No, I don’t think so.  I’ve said already that woman can have careers and children at the same time.  Also, there is nothing wrong with the fact that woman were made with the capacity to have children.  It is natural and normal.  Woman should embrace how they were made, not spurn it for all eternity.  I mean  I don’t like uterus for a couple days a month, but I’m not ready to remove it.  I’m saying biologically your body is prepped and ready to have a baby.  I’m not saying that each time it is you have to take advantage of that.  I’m not saying you’re only purpose on this earth is to have children. If it was, we all should have started right after puberty. I’m saying that your body is able to have children and to say that it’s not or think that you’re not responsible if your contraception fails is not correct.  It may not be your fault that the contraception failed, but you know it is possible.  Having sex is your action and responsibility. 

    I think it can be demeaning for woman to wish they more like men. If one doesn’t want kids, don’t have sex.  Woman should be able to have kids/be pregnant and still be respected at work.  People need to accept that is very normal for woman to start families.  They not be penalized for doing so. 

    Implants work very similarly to hormonal birth control pills.  They release something that alters the hormones in you body, just like hormonal birth control pills do.  They have a 0.05% failure rate.  Apparently smaller rate than tubal sterilization.  However, it is not a 0% failure rate.  So those are pretty good odds of not getting pregnant, if one is willing to risk the 0.05% chance of getting pregnant.  One might embark on that and be fairly successful with those odds, but if the dice roll so that one ends up pregnant.  One must being to say I’ll raise this child, even though I trying not to have one. Hubby and I are trying to get pregnant, but if get pregnant, I’m not going to kill my unborn baby.  I still had the sex that created my baby.  Also, it is debated whether hormonal birth control causes chemical miscarriages/abortions. I’m not willing to risk murder though. 

    Abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy.  Rape is forced sex. The rapist is forcing you to engage in sex. He is forcing some innocent woman to run the risk of getting pregnant.   I’m sorry for your friend.

    One makes the choice whether to have sex. This is the act that decides whether one conceives/becomes pregnant.  Childbirth/Abortion is what people decide to do after the conception.  Life has already been created at conception.  Therefore, sex is the decision to potentially bring life into the world. 

    There are rare times when one could have to choose between their life and the life of their baby.  There are different scenarios depending on the illness.  I would encourage giving both a shot for as long as possible.  If the mother has a terminal illness anyhow, I would be more apt to want to see the baby live since it’ll have more years to live than it’s mother.  However, it is a hard thing when asked to choose between your own life and your baby’s life.  Personally, I’d have a hard time willfully ending my baby’s life.  Probably not everyone would choose that option.  But if there ever a reason to end a baby’s life this would be the only one that would be harder to judge.  How am I to say to one is more important than the other?

    Sorry my grammar in that one section wasn’t the best.  I meant the woman is miscarrying the baby, not a baby having a baby and miscarrying it.

    A baby can not choose to be cared for by another person.  First off, the pregnant woman has to carry the baby to term and then that mother has to find a person that wants the baby.  The baby is incapable of doing such on its own. 

    A cat is old enough to wander around, but if you trap it in the house with no means of escaping to find another owner, it is condemned to die.

    The founding fathers believe people have the right to life.  Abortion is murder. 

    Again, sorry my grammar was bad/confusing.  The last sentence is referring to people who think it is their right to not get pregnant.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Do you understand that just two cups of coffee can trigger miscarriages and that anti-choice states and countries are now arresting women for miscarriages and moderate tea consumption?  So you are OK with being arrested for drinking abortifacient caffeine-laced cocoa?  You can handle $100,000 legal fees, and losing your job and health insurance while in the pokey for drinking “baby-killing” hot chocolate?

    “If one doesn’t want kids, don’t have sex.”

    Wow! — you must hate your husband!

  • jennifer-starr

     However, if we did get pregnant before we had more money, we would never even think of having an abortion.  If we ever decided we didn’t want the baby, we would give it up for adoption. More than likely, we would find a way to make ends stretch without going onto welfare. I know of some very resourceful moms. 

    Fine for you and hubby. Why not let other women make their own decisions?  

    I am not against woman be treated equally in the workplace.  I want to be treated equally in the workplace. Woman should be able to vote as well. However, it is ludicrous to start imagining everyone as unisex beings with no differences.  Woman are more emotional than men usually.  Men and woman think differently.  Guys usually think about one thing at a time, while woman can multitask and think about 5 things at once. Yes, stereotypes are not perfect examples.  There usually is always an exception to the norm.  If nothing else, we have different body parts.  I’m not going to go through a sex change to remove my boobs and uterus/vagina so that I can be more like a man.  It’d be so boring if men and woman were the same. 

    Thank you, A Wrinkle In Time . I read that book as a child, and one of the lessons learned from that book was this : Like and equal are not the same thing. Being equal to a man, in the sense of having equal rights and being treated as an equal person, does not mean that you want to be a man or be like a man. Yes, men and women are different. It does not mean that they cannot be equal. 

     

    I agree, respect and love go hand in hand.  I was simply saying that if given the choice of feeling respected or loved, the majority of men and women would say that.  There is an actual book where a woman author did research on this.  A men in general would much rather have your respect than a box full of chocolates and roses.  Women in general would pick romantic gestures such as chocolate/roses than respect.  I’m not saying men/woman don’t still want to be respected/loved, but that they generally have preferences or ways in which they most feel loved.  My point was that men and woman are different.

    Most women I know, including myself, would rather have both love and respect. Material expressions are meaningless and shallow if not accompanied by genuine feeling and respect.  

    Also you can’t say it’s not alive, because it is actively growing before it even implants.  You can’t say it is not human without a limb or organ.  I already explained that earlier. You can’t even say it’s not human because it’s not conscious.

    I can say that because it’s inside the woman’s body, she has the right to choose whether it stays there or not. 

    I think it can be demeaning for woman to wish they more like men. If one doesn’t want kids, don’t have sex.  Woman should be able to have kids/be pregnant and still be respected at work.  People need to accept that is very normal for woman to start families.  They not be penalized for doing so. 

    And people need to respect that it is normal for women not to want families and to still want to have sex. There are married and unmarried couples who are childless and happy–they should be able to have sex. Not wanting to be a mother does not mean that you want to be like a man, it just means that you don’t want to be a mother. I don’t think anyone should be penalized for starting a family, but I don’t think they should be penalized for not wanting to, either. 

    One must being to say I’ll raise this child, even though I trying not to have one. Hubby and I are trying to get pregnant, but if get pregnant, I’m not going to kill my unborn baby.  I still had the sex that created my baby.  Also, it is debated whether hormonal birth control causes chemical miscarriages/abortions. I’m not willing to risk murder though. 

    Again, that’s you–that’s not everyone else’s view on pregnancy/contraception. Why not make your decisions and let other women make their own decisions? 

    Abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancy.  Rape is forced sex. The rapist is forcing you to engage in sex. He is forcing some innocent woman to run the risk of getting pregnant.   I’m sorry for your friend.

    So what is your feeling on abortion in cases of rape/incest? 

    If the mother has a terminal illness anyhow, I would be more apt to want to see the baby live since it’ll have more years to live than it’s mother.  However, it is a hard thing when asked to choose between your own life and your baby’s life.  Personally, I’d have a hard time willfully ending my baby’s life.  Probably not everyone would choose that option.  But if there ever a reason to end a baby’s life this would be the only one that would be harder to judge.  How am I to say to one is more important than the other?

    Again, the fact that you would choose to do this, doesn’t mean that everyone else would or should make the same choice. What you would do is not the same as what everyone else would. 

    The founding fathers believe people have the right to life.

    The founding fathers (many of them), also believed in slavery. The founding fathers often had sex with female slaves. Many of the founding fathers believed in public executions, in shaving their heads and gluing wigs to their heads, putting lead on their lips and in bleeding someone as a way to treat their illness. Ben Franklin was a member of the Hellfire Club. I’m sorry to be facetious, but too often in this country we have a tendency to put the founding fathers on a pedestal, treat everything they said as gospel and act as if the eighteenth century were some golden age and moral utopia. It wasn’t. And they weren’t. 

     

  • thalwen

    You really are a piece of work. 

    I hope you don’t own any animals. The calous way you talk about an animal dying in the most horrible way possible reeks of sociopathy. As does your view that if a woman dies while pregnant.. no big. Lemme guess, the slut deserved it? 

    Oh did I offend your ickle little womb feelings by saying I value a living, breathing cat’s life over a fetus? Good.

    Yes, we have a right not to be pregnant. You don’t like it? Too bad. Go move to another century… oh wait, abortion was around and accepted for pretty much all of human history. Though try Romania in the 80s, they had the same values as you – lots of dead women and lots of born babies that got put in rather horrible orphanages(but they were born right? so they can die)

    And I don’t want babies, I’m also gay so I can have all the sex I want without getting pregnant. Since I don’t have the right to not get pregnant from sex, should I call up my doctor and schedule a hysterectomy? I mean.. all that uterine tissue going to waste and me not suffering for it, must make your blood boil. 

    Oh and your crap about women being emotional frail little things that don’t want respect – still crap. Rather stale crap to boot. I’ve heard it from fundies over and over, but repeating something doesn’t make it true. 

  • firehead

    There is a much smaller amount of caffeine in chocolate.  Most doctors do not warn against eating chocolate in small/moderate amounts because there is so little in it they do not foresee a problem.  However, should it be found that any amount of caffeine increases the risk, then one can just avoid chocolate and coffee.  They are not life staples.  They are luxuries. Caffeine technically is a drug because it is a stimulant.  If a law was passed prohibiting fertile woman from caffeine in any form, then I’d accept it and follow it.  I don’t want to harm my potential baby anyhow.  The laws are intending to keep woman accountable for their actions.  I’m generally a  rule follower in nature.  So I wouldn’t be arrested because I wouldn’t be caught drinking something they say is prohibited.  I don’t even drink hot cocoa all that often either.  It wouldn’t be that hard to give it up entirely.  I do think that they should find a way to link the cause of death with the caffeine ingestion. 

            I do love my husband. Hubby and I want kids someday.  We prefer that we do not have them now because of finances, but we are willing to take the risk in the meantime.  We’re not trying to have them, but if it happens we are not going to murder our child because the timing wasn’t the best.  There is a difference between being dirt poor and giving up some luxuries in life to make ends meet to support the child.  Either way, it never justifies murder.  Adoption is always there as an option if one really feels they can’t support a child.  I am against choosing to murder someone.  The way I see it, woman want the choice to murder their own child. I’m not okay with that.  

  • jennifer-starr

    Caffeine technically is a drug because it is a stimulant.  If a law was passed prohibiting fertile woman from caffeine in any form, then I’d accept it and follow it.  I don’t want to harm my potential baby anyhow.  The laws are intending to keep woman accountable for their actions.  I’m generally a  rule follower in nature.  So I wouldn’t be arrested because I wouldn’t be caught drinking something they say is prohibited.  I don’t even drink hot cocoa all that often either.  It wouldn’t be that hard to give it up entirely.  I do think that they should find a way to link the cause of death with the caffeine ingestion. 

    The fact that you don’t see anything wrong, even in the hypothetical sense, with a government passing a law that restricitive (Not just a pregnant woman but any fertile woman??) is incredibly disturbing to me. You really would be okay with the government policing all women  in that way? Really? What was that you said about not wanting women to be incubators again? 

     Adoption is always there as an option if one really feels they can’t support a child.

    Adoption is the solution to unwanted PARENTHOOD. It doesn’t do a thing for an unwanted pregnancy. And a woman is not obligated to go through a pregnancy that she does not want just to provide a barren woman with a baby. 

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Well you are one sick selfish hypocritical fascist!  Coffee, tea, cola and cocoa are basic global staples, and you would create office, supermarket, restaurant and kitchen riots by banning them just to indulge your spoiled pedophile priests.  Perhaps RH Reality Check should next do an article entitled:  “They’re Coming for Your ‘Baby-Killing’ Tea and Coffee!”

    So I wouldn’t be arrested because I wouldn’t be caught drinking something they say is prohibited.”

    Fascist idiot, you’ll get arrested anyway for suspected past consumption, hearsay, or the mere presence of nearby caffeine addicts (just like other “innocent” residents of crack houses)!  Your husband won’t be able to consume any caffeine either while you live together to avoid his own arrest.  Worse yet, “baby-killing” alcohol will again be banned for all fertile women.  America will be the new Afghanistan with its draconian food apartheid enforced by pedophile priests.

    “woman want the choice to murder their own child”

    Are you OK with fetuses murdering you?  Will your husband be faithful if an unplanned pregnancy leaves you with bankrupting face and breast cancers, bladder and bowel incontinence, multiple organ failures, paralysis or baldness (Sheehan Syndrome)?  Karma the bitch loves making house calls on consummate hypocrites like you.

    And do you understand the whole point of the anti-contraception, -sterilization and -abortion tyranny is to guarantee pedophile priests unlimited victims?  Priests and GOP thugs who make their rape victims and mistresses get abortions are never excommunicated or criminally prosecuted, so the RCC/GOP “save the babies” scam is, well, a scam!

  • firehead

    Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000105 EndHTML:0000010208 StartFragment:0000002295 EndFragment:0000010172

    Because murder is not an appropriate decision.  If woman want to keep or place their child up for adoption that is their decision as to which one. 

    Okay, I’m not saying woman don’t want both love and respect.  If given the choice between the two, the book was saying most woman want to loved first. 

    Okay, so you think your life is more important than the baby’s life?  Where is the baby’s right to life?  The thing is you’re creating life only to crush because you don’t like that it has to live in your womb for 9 months.  Not a good excuse for murder.  The baby is its own being. It needs you, but it is not you. It’s not like it’s your finger and you can decide to cut your finger.  Why you would, I don’t know but for the sake of an analogy. 

    I’m not concerned with trying to say all people have to want to be mothers.  I’m saying that babies are a natural consequence of sex and that if one does become pregnant, one should not kill their baby.  If you don’t want to be a mother, then give the child away.  It does not require all people to be parents, if they really don’t want to be. 

    Well given that I view an embryo to be a living human being with just as much right to life as anyone else, I would have to be against any abortion regardless of reason.  It is not the baby’s fault, that she was conceived under horrible circumstances.  One wrong (rape/incest) does not justify another wrong.   The baby is innocent.  It’s like punishing the child for the evils of the father.  If one’s partner/husband beat them and they had a 4 year old child at home, the mother wouldn’t go kill her child because the man did something evil against her (unless she was psycho I guess).  The logic doesn’t follow it.

    That’s why I said that particular issue would be harder to judge.  I said what I would do or would think makes sense.  However, that is harder to give a clear concrete answer or solution. 

    Just because someone does one thing wrong, doesn’t mean they didn’t do any good in their life. Nobody is perfect.  I’m sure each founding father had his own hang-ups, maybe some more than others.  However, that doesn’t mean that the right to life stance is wrong.   Also, everybody thinks murder is wrong, except maybe in cases of war or protection.  But an unborn child is innocent, it is wrong to murder an innocent life.  Even people that do wrong us, we’re not given the authority to take it into our own hands.  If you’ve seen any crime shows, there are hundreds of episodes we’re people take it into their own hands.  They’re still jailed for it. 

     

     

    Actually, I don’t currently own any animals, but I had a hermit crab once.  I’m not trying to sound like a sociopath, merely prove my point. Using a pet was what came to my mind at the time. I would never kill my cat if I had one.

    I never said a woman has to die while pregnant. I said that would be what I would do.  I said that it would be hard to judge who should live because both lives are valuable. 

    Your statement tells me you do not believe that a fetus is living.  That is why you think a cat’s life is more important.  If you believed that a fetus is a living, growing person, then you would value its life more than a cats.  I guess one could like their cat more than their kid, but I believe that human life is sacred and more valuable than a cat’s life. 

    You’re missing my point.  Sex can result in pregnancy.  Our bodies were not designed reproduction less.  Medicine can try and drone out that function in our bodies, but sometimes it doesn’t.  You have the right to try and not get pregnant, but you can’t 100% control it.  My real problem is not with whether one wants kids or is having babies, but with what happens when a baby is created.  I want people to value the baby’s life enough to carry it to term.  Whether they choose to keep or put it up for adoption is their choice. 

    No, not really.  If you’re gay there is no possibility of a child being conceived.  There would be no point to removing your uterus. 

    Okay, some woman are extremely emotional. I’m sure that some that are less emotional.  My point was men and women are not the same.  They can have the same rights and be treated the same way.  However, if a man pursued a woman by only doing things he thought his buddies would like, he may not get very far with her.  Again, some woman love to do things that are stereotypical more male.  So his approach may work better with those women.   I’m not going to say a man is no different than a woman. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Because murder is not an appropriate decision.  If woman want to keep or place their child up for adoption that is their decision as to which one. 

     

    Of course murder is not an appropriate decision. No one here is promoting infanticide, so I’m not sure why you bring this up.

     

    Okay, I’m not saying woman don’t want both love and respect.  If given the choice between the two, the book was saying most woman want to loved first.

     

    Did this book conduct a peer-reviewed, representative survey of women to come to this result?

     

    Okay, so you think your life is more important than the baby’s life?  Where is the baby’s right to life?

     

    It’s right there, just like everyone else’s. But this right to life doesn’t give it the right to life support from the body of an unwilling woman. Where is the right to life of a man who is charging at an armed police officer with a knife?

  • thalwen

    Because murder is not an appropriate decision. 

    Who’s supporting murder? Oh right, you are. Killing living women – murder and I agree, totally inappropriate and rather sick. 

    Oh and your precious founders (not all of them were fathers by the way, plenty of women helped make this country) weren’t anti-abortion. Give me a reliable source (not David Barton and his ilk) that says anything about abortion. In fact, abortion wasn’t a legal issue until long after this country was founded and then it was perfectly legal until quickening. The strict anti-abortion laws weren’t put in place until the early 20th century and even then were confined to the more conservative states. You are so sure everyone agrees that any and all abortions are the same as murdering a living person. Yet history and current public opinion does not support you. Why the hell do you think you have the right to impose your extreme minority opinion on us?


    Okay, so you think your life is more important than the baby’s life? 

    No, but a fetus’ right to life is not more important than my own. A person can legally deny a transfusion to their just-born child, even if that transfusion is the only thing that will save the child’s life and there is no alternative. Yet you think a woman should have to give up her rights to her body. Pregnancy is not some easy, just hang out for 9 month and then adorable baby, deal. There are many physical consiquences – some that are temporary yet quite debilitating, others that can be permanently disabling, and then there are some that can kill. Before modern science and medicine (including safe abortion and miscarriage management) the #1 killer of women was childbirth. Yeah, yeah I know, the slut shouldn’t have opened her legs – again, your opinion and not a very pro-life one. 

     

    I never said a woman has to die while pregnant.

    You support banning all abortions, you support denying women medication that is necessary to save their life if it will harm the fetus, you support prosecuting “suspicious” miscarriages. All of those things result in lots of dead women so don’t tell me you don’t support killing women.


    Your statement tells me you do not believe that a fetus is living.  That is why you think a cat’s life is more important.  If you believed that a fetus is a living, growing person, then you would value its life more than a cats.

    No, I am well aware that a fetus is a living, growing being (person – no it is not a person in the legal sense). Yet, still I have more value for a cat because that is a living, breathing, already born being who has memories and emotions and feelings. I think you have a very warped and sociopathic view of love if you can’t understand that people regard animals as part of their family and love them. I’m glad you don’t have any animals, please continue not to have them, they deserve love that you obviously can’t understand. You trying to prove your point by picking out a sadistic way to murder an animal and talking about like it’s nothing? Yes that makes you look sociopathic, not to mention your lack of regard for women’s lives. By the way – your criterea for personhood – growing, distinct human DNA, living cells, also applies to cancer. 


    You’re missing my point.  Sex can result in pregnancy.  Our bodies were not designed reproduction less.  Medicine can try and drone out that function in our bodies, but sometimes it doesn’t. 

    Our bodies were also designed to store fat because of our origins as living in times where food was scarce. As a result, we have a natural predisposition to be drawn to high-fat, high-calorie foods. Since that’s how our bodies are, is it a violation of natural law for medicine to address obesity or to encourage people to make wise food choices?


    Okay, some woman are extremely emotional. I’m sure that some that are less emotional.  My point was men and women are not the same.  

    You realise you just contradicted yourself? Twice, in the same paragraph. So your point is that gender roles aren’t static and men and women don’t neatly fit into gender roles, yet men and women are totally different and totally different in the stereotypical way. Also, no one but the invisible strawman in your head says that men and women aren’t different. We are saying that men and women are both of the species homosapien and while there are differences, they aren’t sufficient to deny women basic human rights. 

  • firehead

                Drugs are illegal.  I’m sure people still find a way to obtain them if they want.  This is doesn’t mean the law should change because it is inevitable that someone who really wants drugs will get them.     I understand that the whole process would be incredibly time consuming and difficult unless simplified.  You’d have pretty much keep watch on all women between puberty and menopause because you don’t know when they will reach puberty or when they reach menopause.   So that would be a lot of woman to keep tabs on even just to determine if they are fertile.  Then finding the manpower to ensure all these woman are following the law.  I understand that its sounds ridiculously complicated if taken to the level mentioned above. 

    However, There are a lot of people who like/want drugs.  The cops aren’t able to watch everyone in the US because they don’t know everyone who wants drugs or may decide to start drugs.  They become aware of people who use drugs and traffic drugs.  They try to stop the rings.  However, I doubt that the police are able to arrest and dissolve all people attempting to obtain drugs.  The target population would be anyone old enough to understand what drugs are and make an action to obtain them.  This includes both genders and an even wider age range.  There is more people to police per say.   The police don’t arrest and watch every person who could want/obtain drugs.  They look into matters only when they become suspicious based on evidence, whether material or behavioral.  Why can’t it be just like that?  Yes, they may miss people, but the police aren’t able to stop all crimes everywhere otherwise there be like a non-existent crime rate.  Doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be laws against something that is wrong. 

    A woman should be obligated to carry to term unless there is a medical condition that necessitates a decision because only one can survive. Abortion should never be an option because it is murder.  So unless the unplanned pregnancy naturally miscarries, there is no other option to an unwanted pregnancy. 

     

     

    I do not see how standing up for murder makes me selfish. If anything I’m being selfless in this particular action because I’m trying to save lives. I fail to see how I’m hyprocritical.  Anybody who tries to prevent murder is not considered fascist.  Everyone thinks murder is wrong. 

                Just because a drink is available all around the world does not make it necessary for like.  Water really is the only liquid necessary.  Just because something isn’t popular doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.   Also, I am not catholic.  However you’re using ad hominem attacks which do not add to your credibility or argument given that ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies. 

                Actually given that the main concern is fertile woman drinking caffeinated products, men would be allowed to drink caffeinated beverages. Alcohol under the age of 21 is prohibited.  This doesn’t stop parents from possessing alcohol in their house.  Also if one is innocent, one should never have fear from being questioned or investigated.  If one is innocent until proven guilty, there should not be any false convictions.  I think alcohol would only need limitations.  Small amounts are not fatal. So one would only have to give up alcohol once one knows they pregnant.  So if drunken in small amounts when not pregnant, there should not be a problem.

                You are listing rare conditions.  These do not happen to the majority of woman.  I do think my husband will be faithful to me no matter what sickness may come my way.  The vows are for sickness and in health. The fetus is not murdering the woman. Pregnancy is a natural process.  Pregnancy can stress the body and make life-threatening conditions even harder, but it is not the baby’s fault.  It does not seek to kill you. 

                Abortion is murder.  If someone is forcing someone to murder someone, they should get in trouble for that.  The reason they don’t is not enough people think abortion is murder.  If they did, those people would get their trouble. 

     

                I bring this up because I have a problem with embyrocide and feticide, as well as infanticide.  Murder is wrong no matter what age a human is. 

                Actually there may be two books. From what I can gather from the one book, it was a scientific survey of 404 guys between the ages of 15 and 20 living in the United States.  Also the book was heterosexual dating/relationship book so it was of only heterosexual young men.  However, I only own the book for younger woman/girls. I was younger when I got the book. There is also one for adult woman that echoes what this book found. I’m not sure, but I think there may even be books for young men and men.  This one talks about a man’s desire for respect.  The majority indicated to respect to be most desired.  I’m summarizing too.

                The other book asked 7,000 people this question:  When you are in conflict with your spouse or significant other, do you feel unloved or disrespected?  83% of the men said “disrespected.”  72% of the women said “unloved.  The book was written by an author with a PhD. Decision Analysts, Inc., did a national survey on male-female relationships, one question for men read: “Even the best relationships sometimes have conflicts on day-to-day issues. In the middle of a conflict with my wife, I am more likely to be feeling: A. That my wife doesn’t respect me right now. B. That my wife doesn’t love me right now. 81.5 percent of men chose “A.”  This book was about showing that woman want to feel loved and men want to feel respected.  It doesn’t mean they don’t want to feel loved or respected as well. 

                You were willing because you had sex.  You knew that your actions could create life if bc failed.  That is why I keep saying that one cannot claim the right to childless sex.  One has the right to try to prevent conception from taking place, but there is not a fool proof bc method.  Police ask the man to drop his weapon. The man who charged with knife knew he was doing something wrong or ignored their warning.  That is his fault.  He got himself killed.  Similarly, one who has sex has been warned that sex creates babies.

     

    I never said I was in support of killing women.  I said there is a decision between mother or baby that takes place.  I said this was harder to judge meaning that I wasn’t going to say a certain answer was right in all circumstances.  I gave my personal choice in a circumstance, but never said it had to be everybody’s choice. 

                When I was referring to the founding fathers writing the declaration of independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I wasn’t referring to the founding fathers specifically talking about abortion.  I was using that excerpt.  We’ve learned more about the human body and how things work since then.  We know scientifically it is human and is alive.  Much more effective birth control did not come about until the 20th century.  Just because people were misled about when life begins doesn’t mean we should still be following on that path. Also just because history and popularity isn’t on your side does not mean that something is not right.  Popularity never makes something right.  I know this is kind of a lame cliché example but if everyone is jumping off a cliff, doesn’t mean you should to.  Also just because everybody 100 years ago or more jumped off cliffs doesn’t mean it is right.  My opinion may be in the minority but that is irrelevant if I am right.  Being right is the important thing.  I know human life starts at fertilization.  No one can disprove this.  Human life is sacred and valuable.  Murder is wrong.  It’s pretty clear that abortion is murder.  It is not an opinion it is a fact. 

                You are right in saying that you both have equal rights to life.  Since you both can live (unless the rare medical condition that could happen) there is no circumstance in which either of you would have to terminate your right to life.  It is a win win. 

                Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right.  There are circumstances in which the mother/father have been forced to give a transfusion because the court didn’t think the parent’s refusal was right/ethical.  So apparently parents should have to give a transfusion to their children.  Also it is hard to say whether a transfusion is really needed and if it will really save the child’s life.  Until the unborn baby is a certain age, removal from the womb would guarantee without question death. 

                The only time I would even think of an exception for abortions is because of the rare cases of medical conditions. Prosecuting someone doesn’t kill him or her?

                It should be a person in the legal sense.  Just because it isn’t doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be.  Most of my life I haven’t owned pets.  I had a hermit crab once and I remembered that I sort of owned a kitten for a very short period of time.  Probably forgot because it was such a short period of time. We were not allowed to have pets in the apartment so eventually they had to go.  My roommate who now owned both of them gave them to a friend.  We did not kill them or refuse to feed them.  Hermit crabs are not the cuddliest/talkative kind of pet to feel like it was part of my family as much say maybe a dog or cat could feel like.  But I haven’t really had pets to become part of my family.  I understand for some people their pets are just like their children. I’ve never had that experience though.  Oh man, this is going to sound bad, but I remembered I had fish in college too.  Pets haven’t felt like my family for me at least not in the same way a sibling or parent does. Hypothetically, let’s say you owned a cat and had a son.  The house catches on fire.  Which one would you be trying to get out of the house first?  For me, I would be going for my son first.    I think it’s sad when people would rather donate money to homeless animals/pets than to starving people in third world countries. I’m not saying they can’t donate money to animals or that animals shouldn’t be cared for, but that starving humans should be a higher priority because human life is more sacred than animal life.

                Being inside or outside the womb is just a location.  It doesn’t magically make the baby more human or more a person than before it left the womb.  That’s like saying I’m more human when I come out of the shower.

                What about elderly people with Alzheimer’s?  They start forgetting the memories.  They are still human without memories.  They still have a value.

                What about people in a coma?  They are not actively displaying emotions and feelings.  They’re unconscious just like an embryo is unconscious.  People in a coma are still human.  They still have value. 

                It’s sadistic to create life only to murder it.  Actually, I read that the DNA of a cell that becomes cancerous becomes mutated. Well it’s more like the DNA becomes mutated causing the cell to become cancerous. Most of the time, this DNA gets mutated to the point that is no longer classified as human DNA.  Before the mutation(s), the DNA would map to be human, but after it no longer is able to mapped to be human.  Typically, cancer cells do not contain human DNA.   Besides the fact that cancer is a disease resulting from the mother’s own body.  An embryo/fetus has separate DNA from the mother. It is not a disease.  It is a normal function. Cancer is not; hence why it is abnormal tissue growth. An embryo/fetus is developing into an infant that will develop into a toddler and so on.  It is working towards life for both mother and child.  Cancer cells can work towards death for the mother. 

                 There is no reason why one cannot be encouraged to eat healthy foods.  We can have complete control over what foods we eat.  We cannot have complete control over whether bc works or fails. 

                I agree that both men and woman should have equal rights, just not that they are equal/the same.  They are different. However, equal rights does not mean that woman have the right to pregnancy/babyless sex.  Because men and woman are different, that right does not exist for women. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Abortion is murder.

     

    Actually, no, it’s not. But I can see how your entire worldview depends on pretending that it is!

  • thalwen

    You clearly have no grasp of history or biology. You also clearly have no desire to learn any history or biology because it threatens your worldview with pesky little facts. You’ve also twisted and misread everything everyone has posted to you so I have some concern about your reading comprehension.

    As I see no reason to continue a substantive dialogue with someone who doesn’t believe in facts I will just say that you are entitled to your opinions, as sickening as I find them, but you are not entitled to your own facts and reality.I am damn glad that we had an election this week that summarily rejected your views, especially your view that you get to make up your own information and call it factual. 

    I also hope you don’t  ever have an animal, they deserve love and you clearly do not have the capacity to love them. 

  • thalwen

    Thank you for the “dook, dook, dook”s. Everytime I read a stupid comment now, I think “dook, dook, dook” and it makes the stupidity hurt less :)

  • firehead

    A Worldview dictates one actions, not the other way around.  One’s actions/speech show what they believe.

    Just for the record, I have a bachelor’s degree in biology.  I spent 4 years of my life studying biology because I wanted to learn more about it.  I also have taken a bioethics class. 

    I didn’t make up my own information.  I based it off how I know the reproductive system works.

      You’ll be happy to know that our apartment does not allow pets; however the cat at the lady I babysit for loves me.  She licks, purrs, and headbutts me.  She must feel loved by me or at least consider me part of her family since her behavior indicates that.

     

  • give-em-hell-mary

    So it’s just us other human females you dismiss as disposable incubators!  I would hate to have you for a neighbor, especially in a burning building with a fertility clinic.  I picture you shoving aside screaming grannies and toddlers while you race to save the petri dish “babies”.

  • prochoiceferret

    A Worldview dictates one actions, not the other way around.  One’s actions/speech show what they believe.

     

    Especially when what they believe in is a fantasy concocted to support that worldview.

     

    Just for the record, I have a bachelor’s degree in biology.  I spent 4 years of my life studying biology because I wanted to learn more about it.  I also have taken a bioethics class.

     

    Thus nicely illustrating the difference between “knowledge” and “wisdom.”

     

    I didn’t make up my own information.  I based it off how I know the reproductive system works.

     

    Apparently, when it comes to your consideration of the needs of (over) half the population, that’s the only thing that matters.

  • ldan

    Yep, not much point in arguing here. Seeing nothing wrong with banning something for all fertile women (and men with uteruses) because they *might* be pregnant is saying that their role as incubator is more important than their freedom to live a normal life. You’re not changing your mind and you’re not likely to change any minds here with a message that has so little respect for women, so it’s pretty troll-like.

     

    I stopped caring or respecting the opinions of the ‘just don’t have sex…ever’ crowd who feel that having sex = giving up one’s rights to not be considered an incubator whose rights are less important than the zygote/embryo/fetus being incubated. It’s the exact same message, only stepped up a notch to ban sex (a strong instinctive drive in most people) instead of caffeine (a far more trivial drive (save at 8 a.m. after an all-nighter)).

     

    People want the choice to decide when they risk their health nurturing a potential person into an actual one. No murdering of children here.

     

    Your concern for the ‘intent’ behind ingesting substances that increase miscarriage risks makes it clear that your concern is not for the non-existent ‘children’ so much as policing the incubators. It’s ok if someone is drinking lots of espresso and accidentally miscarry, but it’s not ok to purposely boost consumption because one suspects they might be pregnant? Nobody would say it’s ok to accidentally run over their child because they don’t pay attention when backing their car up, but it’s not ok when they purposely stop paying attention to backing their car up because their child tends to run around the driveway. Even if I planned to have children, I’d ignore any laws dictating my life based on my potential fertility and conceptions.

     

    The logical extension of forced birth rhetoric is that people with uteruses are incubators. Meanwhile, there is no logic to the rhetoric that an embryo is a person with the same value as walking, breathing, actual people,  plus the additional right to force said people to be incubators and gestate them.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    So well said!  And if she really believed her own crap, she’d be holding “baby” tampon funerals every month!

  • thalwen

    I didn’t make up my own information. “

    Hahahahahahaha. Excuse me. Sorry. Just.So.Funny.

    Ahem.

    “cancer cells don’t contain human DNA.”

    “The founders were anti-abortion”

    “I don’t want women to die”

     “if one is innocent, one should never have fear from being questioned or investigated”

    “I know human life starts at fertilization.  No one can disprove this.  Human life is sacred and valuable.  Murder is wrong.  It’s pretty clear that abortion is murder.  It is not an opinion it is a fact. “

    “It’s not ok to abort a pregnancy but it is fine to deny a life-saving transfusion because I’m going to pretend like it’s not a life-saving transfusion because it makes my point”

    “human life is more sacred than animal life.”

    And that’s just skimming one of your TL:DR posts full of grammar so terrible it makes me want to get out my red pen and mark up the screen. 

    Your understanding of human reproduction from your posts is on an elementary school level of sperm meets egg = baby. If you really have a degree or actually studied biology, not only would you have better trollability but you would understand the scientific method which means you wouldn’t keep stating your own personal opinions as facts.

    And it isn’t the cat’s behaviour I worry about, it’s yours. I’m well aware of animals’ capacity for love, it’s the human side I worry about when they talk about animals dying so casually. And by the way, if there was a fire, and I had a young kid, I’d save both because both are valuable to me. And if my kid was old enough I’d hope I’d raise them well enough to never forgive me if I left an animal to die needlessly. 



  • ldan

    That’s a nice summation. While I won’t dispute her degree (I have one too, and knew enough of the sort willing to put their beliefs over their science to dismiss the liklihood of this being another one), things like the assertion of animal life being more sacred are obviously not remotely scientifically based. None of those arguments are save that yes, a human life starts at conception (in that one can trace back their ‘life’ to that point, after which it splits into the individual gametes that made it).

     

    Nature places no value on those lives, or the ones that make it to birth, other than in regard to their fitness to survive long enough to possibly reproduce. Value is something we humans create and give things. Human life is special because we’re human, and have empathy for other humans, and some drive to see the species as a whole survive, etc. Non of that gives inherent value to potential people. I find an actual person weighs heavier on every scale because they can actually think and feel and suffer. Frankly, I weigh my cat heavier on that scale than a 10 week embryo for the same reason, even though they don’t ‘think’ at a very profound level.

     

    If it were possible to just lift those potential people into artificial wombs and let them develop and be adopted, I wonder if that would make the forced-birthers happy? I suspect not, because the human incubators are being let off the hook that way. They’re not fulfilling their function. They’re not being appropriately punished for thinking they could have sex and still deny the use of their body to the incubatees. And, of course, that would eventually lead to some kind or grumbling about the state expense of those artificial incubators that was being run up on account of these incubators who didn’t want to incubate.

  • beenthere72

    Wow, someone really needs to pop that special bubble you live in.

  • jennifer-starr

    You’d have pretty much keep watch on all women between puberty and menopause because you don’t know when they will reach puberty or when they reach menopause.   So that would be a lot of woman to keep tabs on even just to determine if they are fertile.  Then finding the manpower to ensure all these woman are following the law.  

     

    Tell you what. Why don’t you install a state registry system? Every girl who reaches puberty will have to register with the state and have their fertility tracked through mandatory pelvic exams each month. Additionally the state can also check their purchases to make sure they’re not buying chocolate, coffee, tea or soda. Each police station can also have a ‘Uterus Police Division’ to investigate miscarriages and potential breeches of the law. Can’t let those incubators get out of control and start thinking they’re people who can run their own lives, now can you? After all it’s the all-holy sacred fetus that counts more, right? Because it’s all ‘innocent’ and has ‘more years to live’, right?   * snort* 

    I understand that its sounds ridiculously complicated if taken to the level mentioned above. 

    Oh it’s more than just ridiculously complicated, sweetie. If you think  that banning caffeine products for fertile women or any of the measures listed above sound reasonable in any way, shape or form, you are a sick person. I do not say this lightly, and I do not say it in jest. You are truly sick. Conservatives are funny, you know?  You scream bloody murder over things like the regulation of trans-fats, the FDA, even seat-belt and helmet laws, but you’re fine with the government regulating every aspect of women’s bodies. Truly weird. 

  • give-em-hell-mary
  • firehead

    Look, if there was medicine that was 100% reliable in preventing pregnancy, then it’d be your choice or right to use it.  However, since there is not, I view people responsible for their actions if it results in life.  My goal is not to have the whole population of woman pregnant and giving birth constantly.  My goal is for the unborn child to not be terminated. 

                Also, the goal in a fire is to get everyone out.  I’d probably direct everyone to get out.  If I was able to save the embryos as well I would too.  However, they all have a right to live.  The embryos lives are equally valuable to the grandmas and children.  So I wouldn’t just ignore other lives.  

     

    Again, a worldview dictates one’s beliefs.  It makes no sense to create a world that supports a worldview.  The worldview would create the world, nor the other way around.  However, I do not believe we all live in fantasyland. 

                I’m not exactly sure what your point is about knowledge/wisdom.  Knowledge is needed in order to have wisdom. 

                I understand that you probably referring to half the population as the population who feel they need to choose abortion/pills.  However, I’m looking out for the population who has no voice. People should never need to kill someone. 

     

                I didn’t make that up.  I looked it up. I found someone who said that cancer cells usually mutate to the point that it no longer is considered to contain Human DNA. 

                I never said the founding fathers were anti-abortion.  They may have been.  Doesn’t mean their view was right.  What I did say was that they wrote the declaration of independence, which supports the right to life even if they didn’t realize that the unborn child was alive and human at that time. 

                Again, you either aren’t reading what I’m saying or I’m not being clear enough. I never said women have to die so that the unborn child can be born.  I said that decision was up to the particular parties involved.  It is difficult to say that one person’s life is more valuable than another person’s life.  Hence, why I was saying it would be harder to tell someone this is the absolute right thing to do in this situation every time. 

                Okay, maybe people could still fear becoming the innocent suspect in an investigation, but usually if one innocent they know they should be found innocent.  In theory, they know they didn’t commit a crime so they shouldn’t be sweating bullets.  One should worry if they are guilty, not if they aren’t.  I know sometimes people can be framed, but generally the innocent shouldn’t be worried because they are not guilty. 

                I still hold that abortion is murder.  You haven’t disproved that to me.  Science has shown since 1970’s that life begins at fertilization.  The argument has moved into less of a biological argument into more of a philosophical argument. When does personhood begin?  When is someone considered a person with value etc.?  I say it starts at conception.  There is no marker as which to say now it is a person.  It cannot be based on one’s opinion.  One person could say they think life starts at 60 days. Another could say it starts at 90 days.  However, they both cannot be right because it is not consistent. There has to be one exact time or reference point.  Since there is not a reference point as which we can say now this unborn baby is a person, then must conclude that it starts at conception.  That is why abortion is murder.  This is why it is a fact, not an opinion. 

                I was pointing out that life saving transfusions are rare and hard to accurately determine to be life saving or necessary.  But if there is a situation where this was the case, I said that a judge made the parents give the life saving transfusion because he viewed their denial/refusal as cruel and unethical.  My point being to show that people do think that life saving transfusions should be given and should not be left to “choice”. 

                Human life is more sacred than animals.  We eat meat for food.  If a cow’s life was equal in value to a human life, we would not kill it for meat.. Also humans are able to think and rationalize.  Animals while they can make decisions do not hold the same capacity for rational thinking like humans do. They do things based on instinct. We are superior to animals. We can control the urge to mate or kill someone for example.  If given the choice between shooting an innocent animal and innocent 5 year old, who would be chosen? I would kill the animal.  I don’t care if this animal was like part of the family, I would also choose to save my son or nephew or even some stranger’s kid over my own pet.  I’m not saying we should go around shooting all the animals because they are inferior to us.  We should still celebrate life where we are able to or choose to when it comes to animals.  However, human life is more important than animal life.

                I’m sorry if my grammar is atrocious.  I try to use the computer check some, but I guess I still miss some.  

                I understand how reproduction works.  Yes, sperm meets egg=baby is a simplific way of saying it.  I could go dig out my textbook and give a more detailed description of the whole thing, but not everybody speaks medical terms/biology. I also don’t see how a detailed description would help more.  I know when life begins and that is really what is important in the discussion.  I also know there is not a reference point that we can look at and say this is when these growing cells/embryo is a person.  Hence, it must start at conception. 

                I understand the scientific method.  (Hypothesis, testing of hypothesis multiple times leads to theory, testing of theory multiple times leads to law.) Ability to disprove any at any point debunks them.  Science can not prove anything.  At any point one experiment could be done that would “disprove” that law, theory, or hypothesis. So we have experiments that have shown thus far that whatever law or theory is true.  Thus far, we have discovered life to begin at conception.  We don’t know if it’ll be discovered to begin at another point.  Until then we should act as though this is the truth because that is what we know to be the truth presently. 

                I never said I wouldn’t try and get the cat as well.  My hypothetical situation was set  up so that you could get one or the other but not both.  Of course in real life, one is able to try and find the cat as well.  However if the fire became really bad, I’m not risking my life or my son’s life for a cat.   The firefighter can attempt it if he thinks it won’t cost him his life.

     

                You’re right that value is not something an experiment in a lab can show.   One can observe from behavior and speech the value one places on another.  It’s not something physically tangible other that. At what point are they potential people? If  they are a person at the start but are merely growing then they still have value.  Otherwise, we could look a baby and say this is potential adult.  It doesn’t have value because its only potentially an adult someday.  The infant still has to develop its mind and body.  An infant for the first few years does not have the capacity to remember things and think at the same level as an adult.  So are you going to say a baby has less value than adult?  I would hope not.  Also, I mentioned this before, but there are grown adults that are in comas.  They are not able to conscious to be able to think, feel, and suffer.  Do they lose their value while in a coma?  If not, you can’t say an unborn baby does not have equal value then.

                I think that most pro-life people would say they would rather help prevent pregnancies than have woman go through an unwanted pregnancy.  It’s not about punishing people, its about saving the lives of the unborn person.   Artificial incubators would be better than killing the unborn baby.  Instead of the money going to pay for abortions, it could go for paying for an incubator.  I think that would create a win win.  Mothers who couldn’t or didn’t want to carry to term wouldn’t have to and nobody would have to die. 

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Again, a worldview dictates one’s beliefs.  It makes no sense to create a world that supports a worldview.  The worldview would create the world, nor the other way around.  However, I do not believe we all live in fantasyland.

     

    Agreed. It’s only you.

     

    I’m not exactly sure what your point is about knowledge/wisdom.  Knowledge is needed in order to have wisdom. 

     

    That’s what people mean when they say “necessary but not sufficient.”

     

    I understand that you probably referring to half the population as the population who feel they need to choose abortion/pills.  However, I’m looking out for the population who has no voice. People should never need to kill someone. 

     

    So what is your view on (1) the military, (2) the death penalty, and (3) firearms?

     

    I still hold that abortion is murder.  You haven’t disproved that to me.

     

    I don’t need to disprove it, just like I don’t need to disprove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster.

     

    Since there is not a reference point as which we can say now this unborn baby is a person, then must conclude that it starts at conception.  That is why abortion is murder.  This is why it is a fact, not an opinion. 

     

    No, the notion that “it [personhood] starts at conception” is just your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions…

     

    Animals while they can make decisions do not hold the same capacity for rational thinking like humans do. They do things based on instinct. We are superior to animals.

     

    And yet you want to reduce the value human sexuality to mere reproduction… just like animals.

     

    I understand how reproduction works.  Yes, sperm meets egg=baby is a simplific way of saying it.  I could go dig out my textbook and give a more detailed description of the whole thing, but not everybody speaks medical terms/biology.

     

    I think you need to dig out that textbook, because it’s not clear at all that you understand how reproduction works. The fact that you insist on calling a fetus a “baby” is a pretty clear sign.

     

    I also know there is not a reference point that we can look at and say this is when these growing cells/embryo is a person.  Hence, it must start at conception.

     

    Or hence, it must start at birth. And given that birth is a pretty conspicuous event, rather than a hidden one that most people don’t notice, I think birth is a better reference point for personhood.

     

    So we have experiments that have shown thus far that whatever law or theory is true.  Thus far, we have discovered life to begin at conception.

     

    Experiments have shown that the egg and sperm cells were not alive prior to conception?

     

    An infant for the first few years does not have the capacity to remember things and think at the same level as an adult.  So are you going to say a baby has less value than adult?  I would hope not.

     

    No, but if a baby or adult were attached to a woman and sucking life support from her body, she would have the right to sever the connection, regardless of whether the baby/adult dies as a result. It doesn’t mean that the baby/adult is worth less than the woman, but that the woman has the right to her own body.

     

    I think that most pro-life people would say they would rather help prevent pregnancies than have woman go through an unwanted pregnancy.

     

    Considering how many “pro-life” people have advocated against greater accessibility of contraception and comprehensive sex ed, I wouldn’t take this as a given.

     

    It’s not about punishing people, its about saving the lives of the unborn person.

     

    No, it’s actually about punishing people. Why do you think the same people who pass laws against abortion also slash funding for prenatal care, WIC programs, and schools?

     

    Artificial incubators would be better than killing the unborn baby.  Instead of the money going to pay for abortions, it could go for paying for an incubator.

     

    Artificial incubators, if they were to exist, would be a lot more expensive than an abortion. Would you be willing to cover the difference?

     

    I think that would create a win win.  Mothers who couldn’t or didn’t want to carry to term wouldn’t have to and nobody would have to die. 

     

    And you would be a few million (billion?) dollars in debt, and presumably unable to afford an Internet connection that allows you to post your anti-choice delusions on reproductive-justice Web sites.

  • give-em-hell-mary
  • firehead

    Ok, when I said that I meant killing of innocent life or even life that is not ours to take.  I understand that death is a product of war and sometimes in war, killing is necessary.  I’m against the death penalty. I’m not sure about firearms.  It’s nice to know that some psycho can’t obtain a firearm, but yet if a psycho attacked me, I may be wanting the firearm to protect myself. 

    Actually, I haven’t heard that phrase or can’t remember it.  I know what it means when someone assume something.  So you think it is just my opinion. 

    Again, I never said that.  I said I would be okay if others wanted to use a method/medicine that was 100% effective.  Also, I also said that my goal is not to have woman constantly pregnant.  I do not see how that means I want sex to only be reproductive.  I’ve stated before that sex is twofold, pleasure and procreation.  It’s not possible for every act to result in a pregnancy, unless you only do it that often I guess.  So a lot of the time, sex is only achieving pleasure.  I’m not mandating strict pxrocreation only sex.  I just do not think that it is right to kill the sometimes unwanted product of sex. 

                I know that at different stages of a pregnancy the child is referred to with different terms.  I just don’t remember them all off the top of my head.  I refer to it as a baby because I guess it sounds more like it is a person if you call it a baby.  However, a fetus is a person just as much as an infant.

    Ok, so correct me if I’m wrong about what you believe.  You believe that personhood begins at birth.  If a woman was pregnant with a child, would you consider it a single homocide or double homocide if she was murdered?  Also, since when did where a person was affect their value?  If you have a 40 week old baby still in his or her mother’s womb.  Five minutes later, the baby is out of the womb.  How did the birth drastically change the baby developmentally from when it was inside the womb?  Yes, it starts breathing on its own and can now obtain food/shelter the same way adults do with their help, but really what changed about the baby?  Developmentally, it is the same. 

    Of course, the sperm and egg were alive prior to conception.  The sperm contained the father’s DNA and egg contained the mother’s DNA.  When the egg is fertilized, a new set of DNA different from mother or father is created.  A new person is created. 

    You may be right that politicians do that. I haven’t followed that aspect very closely so I am less informed about that.  I think that prenatal care and school programs are important.  I don’t know a whole lot about WIC.  But for those that need it, it looks to be important. I don’t know why the politicians that support life and children would cut those programs.   We need politicians that are consistant.  If you are pro-life support the things help contribute to a pro-life world, not tear them down.  Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. 

                The chance that an incubator could be more expensive than an abortion is probably fairly accurate assumption.  What about money going to planned parenthood?  The government taxes people and uses part of that to fund planned parenthood.  So why not cut that funding and use the money from the abortions to fund the incubators.  I mean it’s hard to say how much money it would actually cost without a working model/estimate, so it’d be hard to say how much would be needed.  Obviously, unless filithy rich, the average American would probably not have enough to cover the costs of lots of incubators.  If I had infinite money or was actually filthy rich, I could contribute some of my money towards that.  However, I possess neither currently. 

                I can always use a library’s internet for free or find a wi-fi spot.

     

                I looked at the story.  I don’t know all the details exactly of the case nor am I a doctor/PA yet.  It looks like she was having a miscarriage that ultimately resulted in septicemia because her body was not naturally expelling the baby.  I don’t know if she had any other conditions previous to her arrival/miscarriage.  I also don’t know the regular procedure for determining if a miscarriage is occurring.  I can understand their desire to want to make sure a miscarriage was indeed happening, but at the same time if the doctor was able to definitely know that this woman was miscarrying then I don’t see the need to wait.  I guess I would want to know what determines miscarriage from a doctor’s point of view.  If the woman kept deteriorating would not that even more so confirm a miscarriage?  If they really suspected a miscarriage, they should have known that septicemia could result without proper treatment.  At the very least (if they insisted on waiting), if they suspected possible infections to result, jacked her up with anit-biotics at the onsite of increased pain/decreased health. They should have either allowed her to terminate an already dying life if indeed it could not be saved or took more preventative measures to combat possible infection if they insisted on waiting.  It should have been handled differently.  The woman shouldn’t have had to die.  

  • prochoiceferret

    Ok, when I said that I meant killing of innocent life or even life that is not ours to take.

     

    War, the death penalty, and guns have killed lots of innocent people (whose lives are not ours to take) year after year after year. Perhaps you should be more concerned about this?

     

    It’s nice to know that some psycho can’t obtain a firearm, but yet if a psycho attacked me, I may be wanting the firearm to protect myself.

     

    Funny you should mention that—women like having the option of an abortion for much the same reason!

     

    I know that at different stages of a pregnancy the child is referred to with different terms.  I just don’t remember them all off the top of my head.  I refer to it as a baby because I guess it sounds more like it is a person if you call it a baby.

     

    The same goes for cars, too. (“This baby can do zero to sixty in 4.5 seconds!”) But that doesn’t make it good terminology to use in a debate where things like “personhood” are supposedly at issue.

     

    However, a fetus is a person just as much as an infant.

     

    If you say so. Most people don’t use the term “person,” in the non-hypothetical sense, to refer to someone who hasn’t been born yet. But a woman’s right to have an abortion doesn’t hinge on whether the fetus is a person or not. The fetus could be a brilliant, violin-playing super-person with the kindness of Jesus and Gandhi and knowledge of a cure for cancer and all the world’s ills, and the woman would still have the right to abort her pregnancy.

     

    Ok, so correct me if I’m wrong about what you believe.  You believe that personhood begins at birth.

     

    I think that’s the only reasonable starting point at which talking about an offspring’s “personhood” makes sense, yes.

     

    If a woman was pregnant with a child, would you consider it a single homocide or double homocide if she was murdered?

     

    I’d be fine with considering it a double homicide, since killing a pregnant woman could be considered worse than just killing a woman. If people like you are going to insist on using that quirk of the law as an excuse to take away womens’ basic human rights, however, then I’ll settle for a separate single-homicide category.

     

    Also, since when did where a person was affect their value?

     

    What makes you think that a woman’s right to an abortion has anything to do with the “value” of the fetus?

     

    If you have a 40 week old baby still in his or her mother’s womb.  Five minutes later, the baby is out of the womb.  How did the birth drastically change the baby developmentally from when it was inside the womb?  Yes, it starts breathing on its own and can now obtain food/shelter the same way adults do with their help, but really what changed about the baby?  Developmentally, it is the same. 

     

    Yes, but the difference as far as the woman’s body and health in concerned is pretty severe, wouldn’t you say? It’s because of that that women have the right to an abortion. The value and/or developmental status of the fetus is irrelevant.

     

    Of course, the sperm and egg were alive prior to conception.

     

    So life doesn’t actually start at conception, then.

     

    The sperm contained the father’s DNA and egg contained the mother’s DNA.  When the egg is fertilized, a new set of DNA different from mother or father is created.  A new person is created.

     

    Your argument isn’t very convincing when you refer to a zygote as a “person.”

     

    You may be right that politicians do that. I haven’t followed that aspect very closely so I am less informed about that.  I think that prenatal care and school programs are important.  I don’t know a whole lot about WIC.  But for those that need it, it looks to be important. I don’t know why the politicians that support life and children would cut those programs.   We need politicians that are consistant.  If you are pro-life support the things help contribute to a pro-life world, not tear them down.  Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

     

    It makes a lot more sense when you consider that these “pro-life” politicians are not, in fact, motivated by the desire to save the lives of “unborn babies.”

     

    The chance that an incubator could be more expensive than an abortion is probably fairly accurate assumption.  What about money going to planned parenthood?  The government taxes people and uses part of that to fund planned parenthood.  So why not cut that funding and use the money from the abortions to fund the incubators.

     

    Because that’s like saying, let’s stop funding fire departments, and instead use the money to just rebuild the houses/buildings that burn down. Have you heard the saying, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?” The money that goes to Planned Parenthood is that ounce.

     

    I mean it’s hard to say how much money it would actually cost without a working model/estimate, so it’d be hard to say how much would be needed.  Obviously, unless filithy rich, the average American would probably not have enough to cover the costs of lots of incubators.  If I had infinite money or was actually filthy rich, I could contribute some of my money towards that.  However, I possess neither currently.

     

    Most people are in the same boat. And Donald Trump sure hasn’t expressed any interest in this.

     

    I can always use a library’s internet for free or find a wi-fi spot.

     

    Maybe then you’ll post that “incubators instead of abortions” isn’t such a hot idea after all.

     

    The woman shouldn’t have had to die.

     

    And yet, because of people who really had no business doing so interfering with the medical choices available to her, she did.

  • thalwen

    It’s the block of text that never ends!

     

     I understand the scientific method. 

    Then you understand that it isn’t scientific to keep bringing out your hypothese as fact without data to support them? 


    I didn’t make that up.  I looked it up. I found someone who said that cancer cells usually mutate to the point that it no longer is considered to contain Human DNA. I.e. I went on some anti-choice site, or pulled out one of my right-wing books, or I rectally derived this piece of information. Yes cancer cells contain human DNA, they are living human cells, some even go on to grow human teeth. Every cell in our bodies is living and human and contains human DNA, I really should not have to explain this to someone who supposedly understands biology. 


     I never said women have to die so that the unborn child can be born.  I said that decision was up to the particular parties involved

    Do you want to ban abortion? Do you want to ban contraception? Do you want to prosecute women for abortions or miscarriages? Do you want doctors to be prosecuted for being involved in those decisions? If the answer to any of those is yes then you want women to die because that is what will happen.


    “I said I would be okay if others wanted to use a method/medicine that was 100% effective. “

    There is very little 100% in life. Every operation, no matter how minor has a risk. The number of random things you can die from is limitless. You can go about your life and have a piano fall on your head and squish you. That doesn’t mean that we need to live our lives in a bubble or take safety precautions and that also applies to women. I can go for a drive and hit an oil patch, involuntarily swerve, hit another car and kill someone, that is a risk of driving, I can minimise my risk of killing someone but it’s always there. However, I doubt you’re suggesting we ban driving.


    Ok, when I said that I meant killing of innocent life or even life that is not ours to take. 

    So people who are born are no longer innocent and can be killed because hey, war happens.


     I never said the founding fathers were anti-abortion.  They may have been.  Doesn’t mean their view was right.  What I did say was that they wrote the declaration of independence, which supports the right to life even if they didn’t realize that the unborn child was alive and human at that time. 

    Again, your research skills astound me. “the founders never said a thing about abortion but they used the word ‘life'” which means we can ban abortion. The Declaration of Independence has bubkis to do with abortion. The “life” mentioned comes from John Locke’s “life, liberty and property” and was very much about existing human life. Also, Declaration of Independence – not law. Also, abortion existed then, it existed at Jesus’ time and NO mention of it at all. Curious, it’s as if they thought it was a personal family decision. 


     I still hold that abortion is murder.  You haven’t disproved that to me. 

    I still hold that you are a pathetic exuse for a troll. Though I have to say, you prove that more and more with each post.


     I said that a judge made the parents give the life saving transfusion because he viewed their denial/refusal as cruel and unethical. 

    No, that is the law. If you go into court and try to force someone to give a life-saving transfusion, you will lose because the courts weigh the morality of the decision with the intrusion on bodily autonomy. And yes, most people find it immoral and yet would not want that kind of thing to be a matter of law but rather a personal decision. 


    Also, I mentioned this before, but there are grown adults that are in comas.  They are not able to conscious to be able to think, feel, and suffer.  Do they lose their value while in a coma?  

    No, but because they are not conscious, they cannot make medical decisions for themselves, we leave that to their immediate family or a guardian and yes, sometimes they choose to terminate life support and we do not call it murder. 


    Okay, maybe people could still fear becoming the innocent suspect in an investigation, but usually if one innocent they know they should be found innocent. 

    You clearly have no historical or legal knowledge. Even now people spend years in prison who are innocent. People on death row have been released after spending decades there because they were innocent. But that isn’t the point. The point is your digusting view that women can be judged guilty for having a miscarriage. 


    I understand how reproduction works.  Yes, sperm meets egg=baby is a simplific way of saying it.  

    It isn’t your use of terms that is at issue. It is the fact that you think sperm meets egg is pretty much what makes reproduction is what makes you look extremely ignorant.


    What about money going to planned parenthood?  The government taxes people and uses part of that to fund planned parenthood.  So why not cut that funding and use the money from the abortions to fund the incubators. 

    Because all Planned Parenthood does is abortions? PP happens to be the largest preventor of abortions in the country. Reducing their funding will result in two things – more and less safe abortions  and women being denied access to basic reproductive checkups. 


    They should have either allowed her to terminate an already dying life if indeed it could not be saved or took more preventative measures to combat possible infection if they insisted on waiting.  It should have been handled differently.  The woman shouldn’t have had to die.  

    Yet that is the same policy you want to be law in this country. If you ban abortions (even with a life exception) this is what will happen and has happened and will continue to happen.


    Also, since when did where a person was affect their value?  

    Since when did a person’s gender affect their value? We are talking about legal rights. You contend that a woman loses her legal rights to bodily autonomy, to decision-making, to her right to work and travel based on her pregnancy status. By giving the foetus the rights that you suggest, you are necessarily denying personhood to the woman. Also, stop with the 40 week old abortion fantasy, it’s old, it’s dumb and it doesn’t happen.


    However, a fetus is a person just as much as an infant.

    Again, your opinion.To use your sadistic little fire analogy, if an embryo and an infant was in a fire and you could only save one. Who would you choose?


    You believe that personhood begins at birth. 

    Yes, that’s why we celebrate birthdays not conception days. The law requires clear bright lines and in this case, birth is the most practical line you can draw. 

     

     Human life is more sacred than animals.

    Says you. Again, saying something, does not make it a fact. 

    We eat meat for food.

    Lions eat antelopes for food. Are lions more valuable than antelopes? 

    Also humans are able to think and rationalize.  Animals while they can make decisions do not hold the same capacity for rational thinking like humans do. 

    Animals can and do think and rationalise. And since you’re putting value on the ability to think and rationalise, do you think that the mentally disabled or people in comas are worth less? Or your precious fetuses? My cat may not be able to write a TL;DR post on the internets (though I think he has more sense than that) but he certainly is capable of reasoning and thinking about what’s important to him. 

    And please shut up about killing animals. It’s disturbing. 

  • magnificent

    Oh I just love how the author throws that word anti-choicer around as if pro-lifers are nothing but a bunch of sexist right-wing religious fundamentalists who just wanna keep women down. I’m not against women’s rights or their choice to do what they want with their lives. We all have choices, but our rights are limited by the more fundamental rights of other people, and abortion takes away the most fundamental right of all; the right to live.

    I’ve heard many pro choicers say that a fetus lacks awareness or lacks some degree of awareness; therefore it is not a person. If that’s their standard of person-hood then I staunchly disagree with it. In the same way I disagree with a position disqualifying Alzheimer patients from person-hood just because they may not be as aware as most of us. We’re going down a dangerous path when we try and decide who is a person and who isn’t.


  • prochoiceferret

    Oh I just love how the author throws that word anti-choicer around as if pro-lifers are nothing but a bunch of sexist right-wing religious fundamentalists who just wanna keep women down.

     

    Oh, I’m sure there are a few anti-choicers out there who don’t fit into that category….

     

    I’m not against women’s rights or their choice to do what they want with their lives. We all have choices, but our rights are limited by the more fundamental rights of other people, and abortion takes away the most fundamental right of all; the right to live.

     

    So what are your thoughts on (1) the death penalty, (2) using a firearm in self-defense, (3) insurance companies denying coverage for life-saving treatments, and (4) “collateral damage” in wartime?

     

    Perhaps this “right to live” isn’t so fundamental after all?

     

    I’ve heard many pro choicers say that a fetus lacks awareness or lacks some degree of awareness; therefore it is not a person. If that’s their standard of person-hood then I staunchly disagree with it. In the same way I disagree with a position disqualifying Alzheimer patients from person-hood just because they may not be as aware as most of us. We’re going down a dangerous path when we try and decide who is a person and who isn’t.

     

    Indeed, because a woman’s right to a safe abortion has nothing to do with the personhood (or lack thereof) of the fetus. That whole argument is a distraction.

  • magnificent

    Oh, I’m sure there are a few anti-choicers out there who don’t fit into that category….”


    Ha, you agree with me but still use that term. How would you feel if I call you guys pro-abortionists or baby haters? I am a pro-lifer, feel free to call me baby sympathizer. When it comes to firearms, I’m for gun control and I don’t think anyone has a right to shoot someone who is unarmed, unless they are in serious danger. But in any case they should give warning shot or at least aim NOT to kill. So exercise self-defense accordingly. I’m against the death penalty, I think insurance companies are criminals, and I’m against war. What’s your point?

    You think you got me all figured out just because I’m pro-life, eh?


    I have a question for you, would you be against executing a convicted double murderer knowing all evidence is stacked against him and no reasonable doubt that would clear him?


    “Indeed, because a woman’s right to a safe abortion has nothing to do with the personhood (or lack thereof) of the fetus. That whole argument is a distraction.”


    The author questioned person-hood of the fetus that’s why I brought that up. A woman’s right to an abortion is her right to kill a separate being.


  • give-em-hell-mary

    ALL abortions are self-defense.  Why do you despise us women as sub-human throw-away incubators for pedophile priests?  Are you a pedophile priest?

  • prochoiceferret

    Ha, you agree with me but still use that term. How would you feel if I call you guys pro-abortionists or baby haters?

     

    That would be about as accurate as calling us Luddites.

     

    I am a pro-lifer, feel free to call me baby sympathizer.

     

    No, we’ll call you an anti-choicer. You’re certainly not pro-the-pregnant-woman’s-life, nor do other folks of your stripe care much about born babies when it doesn’t serve as a convenient excuse to control women.

     

    When it comes to firearms, I’m for gun control and I don’t think anyone has a right to shoot someone who is unarmed, unless they are in serious danger.

     

    But what about that someone’s inviolable right to life??

     

    But in any case they should give warning shot or at least aim NOT to kill. So exercise self-defense accordingly.

     

    That’s basically what most women already do. They typically use contraception (“aim NOT to kill”), and sometimes the morning-after pill (“give warning shot”). Only when they have no other choice do they get an abortion. So they indeed “exercise self-defense accordingly.”

     

    I’m against the death penalty, I think insurance companies are criminals, and I’m against war. What’s your point?

     

    There are a lot fewer people advocating against those things than there are against abortion. Why are you here?

     

    You think you got me all figured out just because I’m pro-life, eh?

     

    No, we’ve got you all figured out because of the 4,593,851 other “pro-lifers” who have come here before you and spouted their anti-woman claptrap. (It’s especially cute when one of you thinks your “ultimate pro-life argument” is new to us.)

     

    I have a question for you, would you be against executing a convicted double murderer knowing all evidence is stacked against him and no reasonable doubt that would clear him?

     

    Yes. Because that makes things a lot simpler when we have an alleged double murderer with incompetent legal counsel and a questionable-at-best conviction.

     

    The author questioned person-hood of the fetus that’s why I brought that up. A woman’s right to an abortion is her right to kill a separate being.

     

    Separate? You’re not too clear on how this whole pregnancy thing works, are you?

     

    That aside, you seem to be okay with using a firearm, potentially lethally, in self-defense. And that is definitely the right to kill a separate being. I guess you’re only a part-time “pro-lifer.”

  • magnificent

    I’m not gonna dignify that ignorant question with an answer.

  • magnificent

    “Yes. Because that makes things a lot simpler when we have an alleged double murderer with incompetent legal counsel and a questionable-at-best conviction.”

     

    Ya the unborn didn’t even have a counsel or lawyer. It was a hypothetical question assuming the man is guilty, but based on your interpretation and avoidance of answering the question at face value, you probably are against executing him, as am I. But I don’t understand how someone can be okay with unborn babies killed and not okay with executing a convicted murderer, there is something twisted here.   

  • prochoiceferret

    Ya the unborn didn’t even have a counsel or lawyer.

     

    Neither does the person threatening you whom you would shoot dead in self-defense. But no one’s arguing that the lack of counsel/lawyers should stop you from doing what you need to do to protect yourself, are they?

     

    But I don’t understand how someone can be okay with unborn babies killed and not okay with executing a convicted murderer, there is something twisted here.

     

    Yes, that would be your inability to remember that these “unborn babies” are inside the bodies of women, women who do not want to remain pregnant, and that no one (let alone a fetus) has the legal right to use the body of another person against their will. Even if being severed from that body results in death.

  • firehead

    If anything, I should be equally concerned about those issues.  It doesn’t mean I should I neglect this issue.  It is just as important as the others.  However, I more medically focused.  I do not have a military or justice background.  My efforts are better geared at this issue given my background. 

                A baby is not a psycho.  Also (except in medical exceptions) a pregnancy never kills you, so you don’t need a self defense against an innocent person who isn’t even trying to kill you. 

                So you’re claiming that the fetus could indeed be a person, but that the matter is irrelevant because you think woman should have a right to an abortion?

                What makes it worse to kill a pregnant woman?  If  a fetus isn’t a person, then you shouldn’t consider it worse to kill a pregnant woman.  Some part of you must think it has more personhood than you want yourself to know. 

                If a woman thought that her unborn child (at any development stage) was a person or had value, then it would be a whole lot harder for her to be okay with killing. 

                So a unborn child/infant’s personhood is based on how many changes a woman’s body goes through while carrying it?  The woman’s changes don’t affect the unborn person developmentally. The changes a woman goes through can not logically determine one’s personhood. 

                No, a new human’s life begins.  Yes, the egg and sperm were alive prior to conception.  When they join however, it is a new person’s DNA; not identical to mother or father’s DNA.   The life of that new person begins at that moment.  That is why their life starts at conception.

                Well why can’t schools or doctor’s offices provide the prevention resources planned parenthood provides.  We  still promote prevention without abortion.  I would much rather a pregnancy be prevented, than aborted. 

                The capacity for human incubators is not there yet.  I think some people are actually researching/looking into that, but it not an available option yet.  Donald Trump couldn’t express interest in something that hasn’t been invented yet.  I guess maybe you mean funding for the research.  He could do that I suppose. 

                I don’t think I’ll ever support abortion unless it’s medically necessary. 

                I actually just heard about that story I asked to read in my newsletter I receive.  The article speculates that the husband’s account may not be accurate.  It said that people were not to pre-judge the case .  It looks like the reason she died may have nothing to do with abortion laws.  I’m not saying this definitely.  I am saying that whether this is truly the case has not been determined yet, but the media wants to say that this is why she died before they have finished the investigation and know all the facts. (if you want to read if for yourself… http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/10318#comments)

                If I knew that the fetus was not viable because of miscarriage, I would have given the option to the woman to terminate it. 

     

    There is a difference between looking at the embryo/fetus from a biologically point of view and a philosophical point of view.  You can use the scientific part on the biological side, but I don’t think people use the scientific method in philosophy.   The question of personhood is part biology and part philosophy.  From the biological side, I am right that infant’s life starts at conception.  We already have data that supports that.  Philosophically, I believe I am also right.  It is important to be logical and consistent when it comes to philosophy. I’ve given several examples as to why I think it is logical and consistent to say the unborn life is a person. 

                Do you understand that the cell’s DNA mutates to the point that it no longer performs its usual function?  Its “instructions” become messed up and ends up on repeat mode.  I believe you are referring to a teratoma.  They can result in teeth, etc. from unpurposeful cell division.  The difference here is the purpose.  There is no way a teratoma can ever become a person because it is not set up to become one.  If it does in fact hold human DNA it is part of the female or male’s DNA.  So it is not a separate being from themselves.  It is some cells that grew uncontrollably and produced teeth, etc.  There is a major difference.  A embryo has purpose.  It is a separate being and it is developing. 

                If it were up to  me, I would ban abortions except in medical necessary cases.  I would ban hormonal contraceptives until it is known for sure whether it causes chemical abortions.  I would not ban barrier method contraceptives.  I don’t have a law background, but I don’t see how one can be charged guilty until proven guilty.  That’s the way the law is now.  I understand realistically it would be hard prove an intentional versus unintentional unless someone saw a woman in the act.  I’m not sure how much medical examination would be able to show as to whether it was intentional or unintentional.  If the doctors help a woman abort or miscarry (unless for medical reasons), then yes I would prosecute them. If needed, a doctor can get a second opinion on whether the abortion is medically necessary.  The doctor can also list the reasons given for the procedure.  The rest would the mother/family’s decision if it was a my life or his/her’s life scenario.  Woman would not die unless they want to.  Pregnancy does not equal death to all woman.  If I really wanted woman to die, I would say scrap all the contraceptives and say the fetus has the right to life over the woman in medically necessary situations. 

                Have you ever seen that show “1.000 ways to die”?  We have certain standards of safety.  If someone walks around in a bubble because they are a germophobe, most of us would say that is overboard.  However, we buckle our seatbelt when we drive because we know that it’s there for our safety should we crash and that’s normal.  Crashing is a risk for both sides. I could kill someone or be killed. Either way, the crashing is accidental. If you’re willing to risk that one’s birth control doesn’t work, then one must be ready for what comes.  We do that everyday when we drive.  We are willing to drive even if we end up dead. 

                Everyone does things they shouldn’t.  We still consider a kid who disobeys all the time to be innocent if he were shot.   I think war should be about liberating the oppressed (like the jews in nazi germany), not about who gets the own the next biggest oil supply.   I wasn’t including the scenario of war into what I was saying because it’s different.  You sometimes have to kill people in war if they won’t listen any other way.  Should innocent soliders fighting for the right thing die, no of course not. 

                Ok, conception occurs.  Now new human life exists.  I don’t see why life shouldn’t include all human life that exists.  They may not have been thinking about the unborn child when they talked about the right to life.  It doesn’t mean the right to life shouldn’t extend to the unborn child now.  Somebody at some point mentioned founding fathers and slavery.  Slavery did indeed occur and for some time not all people thought it to be wrong, but maybe the slaves.  It doesn’t mean it should not exist now.  Indeed, slavery has been abolished in this country.    Maybe not law, but the principles upon which our nation were founded.   Yes,  I understand abortions/contraceptives existed before the 20th century.  Slavery existed before even the United States was formed.  Doesn’t make it right.  Just because someone always did something one way, does not make it right. 

                I still see no relevance in ad hominem attacks.  They don’t add to your point. 

                I remember reading about a parent that the courts forced give the transfusion.  The baby/child won in that courtroom, not the parents.  Are you saying had it been something more intrusive, that the judge would have said no?

                The baby is not able to choose for themselves.  If I was at the beginning of my life, I wouldn’t want it cut way short. There is no reason to suppose that this baby does not want to live or become conscious by further development.  Those in coma are unsure if they will ever become conscious again.  The unborn baby is sure to become conscious short of a defect. A doctor wouldn’t suggest you decide to terminate a patient who he is confident will regain consciousness. 

                I understand that people can be found guilty who are innocent.  It happens in isolated, uncommon scenarios.  It would be no different with a new law.  To say that law shouldn’t be enacted because sometimes the wrong person is found guilty is not a good reason.  It happens sometimes just like you said.

                What exact part of reproduction do you want to know that I understand?

                If Planned Parenthood is not defunded, then its funds should only go to reproductive knowledge, prevention, and checkups.  We can use whatever the difference in funds is to support more life.

                In Ireland, they are still working out the kinks with their law.  I believe that the law can exist and woman should not be afraid for their lives.

                Again, a woman exercised her “right” to/desire for  sex.  I think there is a sense of responsibility in creating the child even if unintentional or unwanted.  Also she is not giving up her personhood.  She remains a person the whole time.  She may have to give up doing what she wants to do with her life for the next 9 months, but that doesn’t make her less of a person.  People think they have the right to do whatever they want, when they want and nothing bad happen.  Just in case someone tries to say I’m for punishing, I’m for supporting the rights of both the woman and embryo/fetus/infant to live.  Sometimes people can’t live the way they want.  People wish they were rich so they could get a brand new car.  Well it isn’t their right.  One has the right to work to become rich, but off the bat, one can not claim the right to be rich.  If I had the right to be rich, then why couldn’t I go steal money from a bank?  I mean it might as well be mine since I have a right to it, right?  People want the right to do drugs.  They can’t claim the right that nothing bad will happen to them from drug use. 

                Well I’m assuming you mean a Petri-dish embryo because there are no other scenarios besides pregnant woman and Petri-dish embryos. If you mean an Petri-dish embryo, I would probably save the baby because the embryo is not currently growing inside of a woman.  It can not grow without a woman.  The average IVF success rate for one embryo is like 1%, which is why they place so many embryos inside hoping it increases the odds.  So I would be risking the chance that this embryo would survive IVF over a infant that has already been successful in growing inside a womb.  Doesn’t mean the Petri-dish embryo shouldn’t be saved if possible.  But since you asked me to save only one, there is my answer.  Also, a fetus in a mother’s womb has a much better chance at growing into an adult than a embryo formed in a Petri-dish.  I still claim a fetus and an infant to both possess personhood.  I only picked one over the other because of chances of survival, not personhood. 

                Birth is the easiest line to draw only because determining the exact day of conception can be challenging.  I kind of wish we would start picking days to be our conception day and celebrate those.  Seems better than celebrating when one comes out of the womb.  I mean the day I was conceived and starting growing from one cell seems so much cooler, not that it’s not cool to be able to experience life outside of the womb. 

                No, but I guess you’re allowed to think your cat’s life is equal in value to your own.  Animals may make decisions based on nature and desire, but you can’t ask a cat to do math or learn about history.  The don’t have that intellect.  I absolutely think mentally retarded, coma patients, and fetuses are people with value.  They are human people so of course they have value.  He may decide things, but it’s from basic instincts and desires.  

                Would it be less disturbing if I said in my biology classes we had to dissect cats, sharks, and other animals as part of our learning?  I didn’t kill them.  They were already dead when we got them. 

  • magnificent

    How do you feel about sex selective abortions? Where fetuses are being aborted just because they’re female?


  • thalwen

    And you know banning abortions, even banning ultrasounds does nothing to reduce sex-selective abortions?

    What does reduce sex-selective abortions are efforts taken to empower women, to make girls valuable, to fight patriarchal gender stereotypes that see girls as a burden. That’s why sex-selection is an issue in rural parts of India and China and not industrialised countries where a girl has as much of a chance as a boy. Empowering women, and yes, making sure they have reproductive rights, is the way you eliminate sex-selection, just like birth control is the #1 way to reduce abortions as a whole, yet somehow most people who oppose abortion oppose those things as well. 

     

  • magnificent

    Based on your statement you would be against a ban on sex selective abortions. You’re reasoning was they way we fight these is by empowering girls in China and India (I agree they’re sexist societies) but not to ban sex selective abortions, well I’m sure those poor dead baby girls will be glad to know this.

     Isn’t denying babies their right to live simply because they’re girls the most extreme form of sexism?

    So why are some feminist okay with it?

  • prochoiceferret

    If anything, I should be equally concerned about those issues.  It doesn’t mean I should I neglect this issue.  It is just as important as the others.  However, I more medically focused.  I do not have a military or justice background.  My efforts are better geared at this issue given my background. 

     

    So much for taking the road less traveled.

     

    A baby is not a psycho.

     

    We’re not talking about infants.

     

    Also (except in medical exceptions) a pregnancy never kills you, so you don’t need a self defense against an innocent person who isn’t even trying to kill you. 

     

    You may want to read up on the whole “maternal mortality” thing, as well as the myriad number of ways that pregnancy can permanently damage the health of a woman even without killing her. Women do have the right to an abortion even when their lives are not at stake, you know.

     

    So you’re claiming that the fetus could indeed be a person, but that the matter is irrelevant because you think woman should have a right to an abortion?

     

    No, I’m saying that whether or not the fetus is a person is irrelevant, because a woman has the right to an abortion irrespective of that, because no one is entitled to use her body but herself.

     

    What makes it worse to kill a pregnant woman?  If  a fetus isn’t a person, then you shouldn’t consider it worse to kill a pregnant woman.  Some part of you must think it has more personhood than you want yourself to know.

     

    No, I simply think there’s something more perverse in killing a pregnant woman than a non-pregnant woman—for the same reason that I would give up a seat on a bus to a pregnant woman, but not a young, healthy non-pregnant woman. Pregnant women are undertaking a big cost to themselves to perpetuate the human race, and that is something that arguably should be respected and rewarded.

     

    If a woman thought that her unborn child (at any development stage) was a person or had value, then it would be a whole lot harder for her to be okay with killing.

     

    Yes, which is why many women don’t take the decision to have an abortion lightly. Not that you’ve ever bothered to listen to them.

     

    So a unborn child/infant’s personhood is based on how many changes a woman’s body goes through while carrying it?  The woman’s changes don’t affect the unborn person developmentally. The changes a woman goes through can not logically determine one’s personhood.

     

    Why are you so hung up on personhood? Even if the fetus were the most personable person in the world, that would make no difference to the woman’s right to have an abortion.

     

    No, a new human’s life begins.  Yes, the egg and sperm were alive prior to conception.  When they join however, it is a new person’s DNA; not identical to mother or father’s DNA.   The life of that new person begins at that moment.  That is why their life starts at conception.

     

    So the life of a new person starts when this person’s DNA is determined? Then why should conception be the defining moment? If you had one egg cell and one sperm cell, then the DNA is already determined. So this person could be considered “alive” before conception.

     

    Well why can’t schools or doctor’s offices provide the prevention resources planned parenthood provides.  We  still promote prevention without abortion.  I would much rather a pregnancy be prevented, than aborted.

     

    Most schools and doctors’ offices already have a hard enough time competently offering the services that they are expected to provide, without taking on a new set of responsibilities better addresse by a dedicated provider.

     

    The capacity for human incubators is not there yet.  I think some people are actually researching/looking into that, but it not an available option yet.  Donald Trump couldn’t express interest in something that hasn’t been invented yet.  I guess maybe you mean funding for the research.  He could do that I suppose. 

     

    I don’t know of any rich anti-choicers putting their money where there mouth is (let alone Trump, who has a mouth the size of Staten Island)

     

    I don’t think I’ll ever support abortion unless it’s medically necessary. 

     

    Wait till a loved one of yours has their health ruined because “medically necessary” is interpreted to mean “only if you’ll actually die if we don’t give you the abortion.”

     

    I actually just heard about that story I asked to read in my newsletter I receive.  The article speculates that the husband’s account may not be accurate.  It said that people were not to pre-judge the case .  It looks like the reason she died may have nothing to do with abortion laws.  I’m not saying this definitely.  I am saying that whether this is truly the case has not been determined yet, but the media wants to say that this is why she died before they have finished the investigation and know all the facts. (if you want to read if for yourself… http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/10318#comments)


    I’ll let the RHRC staff deal with the story. I take their reporting at face value because the same thing has happened before, many times.


    If I knew that the fetus was not viable because of miscarriage, I would have given the option to the woman to terminate it. 


    What if you were only 50% sure that the fetus was viable? What if performing an abortion absent an immediate risk of death is a criminal offense in the country you’re working in? Hindsight is 20/20. What’s to say you wouldn’t have “tried to save them both?”


    If it were up to  me, I would ban abortions except in medical necessary cases.  I would ban hormonal contraceptives until it is known for sure whether it causes chemical abortions. 


    Some people, if it were up to them, would bring back slavery and take away womens’ right to vote.


    If Planned Parenthood is not defunded, then its funds should only go to reproductive knowledge, prevention, and checkups.  We can use whatever the difference in funds is to support more life.


    The public money going to Planned Parenthood already does not fund abortion services. They use a different pool of money, from private donors, for that.


    In Ireland, they are still working out the kinks with their law.  I believe that the law can exist and woman should not be afraid for their lives.


    How many more women have to die before they should?


    Again, a woman exercised her “right” to/desire for  sex.  I think there is a sense of responsibility in creating the child even if unintentional or unwanted. 


    Oh, so you’re okay with abortion if the woman became pregnant due to rape?


    Just in case someone tries to say I’m for punishing, I’m for supporting the rights of both the woman and embryo/fetus/infant to live.  Sometimes people can’t live the way they want.  People wish they were rich so they could get a brand new car.  Well it isn’t their right.  One has the right to work to become rich, but off the bat, one can not claim the right to be rich.  If I had the right to be rich, then why couldn’t I go steal money from a bank?  I mean it might as well be mine since I have a right to it, right?  People want the right to do drugs.  They can’t claim the right that nothing bad will happen to them from drug use. 


    So why bother with the whole silly notion of “rights,” then? Sometimes people can’t live the way they want, especially when they want to live as free people.


    Birth is the easiest line to draw only because determining the exact day of conception can be challenging.  I kind of wish we would start picking days to be our conception day and celebrate those.  Seems better than celebrating when one comes out of the womb.  I mean the day I was conceived and starting growing from one cell seems so much cooler, not that it’s not cool to be able to experience life outside of the womb. 


    Most people would rather celebrate “the anniversary of the day I was born” than “the anniversary of my parents having sex in Vegas.”

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Bubblehead, all your blathering proves only that you are a compulsive blathering bubblehead.  You should consider a career in RCC theology, which is just blathering PR spin for predatory pedophiles.

  • prochoiceferret

    How do you feel about sex selective abortions? Where fetuses are being aborted just because they’re female?

     

    It’s a bad thing. But that needs to be addressed by working to improve the standing of women in society—i.e. the reason why female babies are less desirable in the first place. Putting legal barriers to abortion because of this won’t address the problem, as women would remain undervalued, and people can always lie about why they want the abortion. But such laws would certainly help to make abortion less accessible in general, which is why anti-choice politicians love the idea.

  • prochoiceferret

    Isn’t denying babies their right to live simply because they’re girls the most extreme form of sexism?

     

    So why are some feminist okay with it?

     

    It’s not that feminists are “okay” with it. It’s that we recognize that heavy-handed abortion prohibitions are a terrible (and ineffective) way of addressing the problem.

     

    It’s kind of how people can support the First Amendment, and the right of the American Nazi Party to hold a publicity event, without being “okay” with Nazi ideology.

  • thalwen

    I oppose banning abortion because it does not work. In India, sex-selective abortion is illegal, ultrasounds are illegal, and sex-selective abortions are rampant. Banning abortion does not end abortion. Banning abortions also hurts women. Empowering women does work, and is the solution for eliminating sex-selective abortions. In societies where men and women are relatively equal and where women have reproductive rights, sex-selective abortion is not an issue. So yes, as a feminist and as someone opposed to sex-selective abortions, I support the most effective policy possible instead of one that will only result in more sex-selective abortions and more deaths of real, living women. 

  • thalwen

    Also (except in medical exceptions) a pregnancy never kills you.

    Tell that to Savita and the millions of women that die in childbirth every year. Tell her family that she deserved her death because she chose to have sex with her husband. It’s people like you that have the blood of these women on your hands. 


    I don’t think I’ll ever support abortion unless it’s medically necessary. 

    And I pray you never end up in a situation where it is medically necessary and the doctor is more concerned about a non-viable fetus than your own life.

     

    Do you understand banning birth control and abortion will not result in less abortions? They will result in dead women. Pre-Roe there were relatively the same amount of abortions per population as there are now. The difference was that many of them were conducted in unsafe conditions which resulted in women dying or developing life-long health problems. Prosecuting doctors will result in doctors being reluctant to act even if a woman is dying as long as the non-viable fetus is alive, that will result in women dying. Prosecuting miscarriage will lead to women not going to the doctor when they have a miscarriage which will result in them dying from infections. You can’t say you don’t support women dying when you support policies, the logical and proven result of which is dead women. 

     

     If I really wanted woman to die, I would say scrap all the contraceptives and say the fetus has the right to life over the woman in medically necessary situations. 

    That is what you are saying.


    Either way, the crashing is accidental. If you’re willing to risk that one’s birth control doesn’t work, then one must be ready for what comes.  

    But we do not ban driving because one might have an accident and take a life. We do not prosecute someone who was reasonably careful and had an accident. With sex, we allow people to reasonably avoid accidents and then to take responsible means if they have an accident whether that be childbirth or abortion.


    think war should be about liberating the oppressed (like the jews in nazi germany), not about who gets the own the next biggest oil supply. 

    WWII was not about liberating the oppressed or saving the Jews, it was about money and power like all wars are. 


    YOU were the one who brought up the founders and now you are fighting your own point?


    Maybe not law, but the principles upon which our nation were founded.

    The DoI was just that, declaring colonial independence from England. It was not meant as a founding document nor was anything in that document to do with domestic social policy or something that was thought to be a family matter at the time. 


    I remember reading about a parent that the courts forced give the transfusion.  The baby/child won in that courtroom, not the parents.

    Citation? 


     I still claim a fetus and an infant to both possess personhood.  I only picked one over the other because of chances of survival, not personhood. 

    So you are a hypocrite. Why value one because it has more chances of survival? They’re both equal lives right? You’ve heard of “snowflake” adoptions? The technology to save your precious embryo and implant it in a walking womb exists and you’re just going to let it die… sad.


    She remains a person the whole time.  She may have to give up doing what she wants to do with her life for the next 9 months, but that doesn’t make her less of a person. 

    I am talking about legal rights as a person not whether she is actually physically a person. You are talking about denying her the rights she has as a person under the law. 


    People want the right to do drugs.  They can’t claim the right that nothing bad will happen to them from drug use. 

    So a baby is something bad? A punishment perhaps? 


    I mean the day I was conceived and starting growing from one cell seems so much cooler, not that it’s not cool to be able to experience life outside of the womb. 

    And you are welcome to do that, but you do not get to make that policy for everyone. As a practical legal matter, we use birth as the line at which personhood begins in the legal sense. Again, you seem to understand that there is a difference between the biological and the philosophical/legal but you do not seem to have any comprehension as to how that works.


    No, but I guess you’re allowed to think your cat’s life is equal in value to your own. 

    And you are allowed to think all your extreme positions. Again, my opinion, your opinion, neither is a fact.





  • give-em-hell-mary

    Ha! — I’m right! — you are a pedophile priest!  Busted!

  • crowepps

    Personally I think sex selection abortions are a HUGE improvement over the traditional methods like the midwife holding her hand over the infant girl’s mouth and nose to prevent it from taking a first breath, or dropping the newborn into a bucket of water.  The cure for sex selection abortion is educating girls so that they are an economic asset to the family.

  • firehead

    Ok, the mortality rate in 2010 was 21 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US.  That’s like 0.00021%.  It is not very common in the US.  It seems everyone wants to point out the uncommon scenarios that take place.  The norm is for a healthy baby to be born with little to no complications.  While currently legally one may have permission from the government to obtain an abortion, I do not think that it should be that way.  Unless woman’s lives are at stake, I don’t see how abortion can be anything but murderous and selfish. 

                You used your body to get yourself pregnant.  You (or a male) forced yourself to get pregnant even if it was not your desire to get pregnant.  You brought it upon yourself.  You gave the baby the ability to be conceived.  Nobody forced you to conceive the child. 

                But if you really think they are carrying no one of value or worth (I mean to you it’s not a person) then why should you care if they are pregnant or not?  I mean if they are just non-prego and overweight, you wouldn’t give up your seat.  So if there is no person in there, why should you care that the pregnant woman is carrying extra weight with her?

                I’m glad that they at least think about it, but I don’t think abortion should ever be an option (unless medically necessary).  I also have not had any personal experiences with people that have chosen to get an abortion.

                I’m hung up on personhood, because I think it is important for everyone to view the unborn embryo, fetus, infant that way.  If not, then we are still left debating the personhood of the unborn.  At the beginning of a debate, you must list definition/terms that will be used.  I am listing a person to include the unborn from the moment of conception until death (hopefully at an old age).

                Because talking about joining two things is not the same as the two things actually joining.  Planning your vacation is the same as actually going on your vacation.  You wouldn’t be happy with just planning it. 

                Ok, well I know of places not run by planned parenthood that off services to woman.  Why can’t we just make more clinics like those?  Defund planned parenthood.  Give the money to these other places and to open more places like them. 

                Ok, I wouldn’t expect them to give the woman an abortion unless her or they baby’s life is in jeopardy. My friend told me a story of how a woman waited to receive chemotherapy because she was pregnant.  She waited.  She gave birth.  She started after giving birth.  She went into remission. I’m not a PA/MD yet (someday maybe).  I wouldn’t expect my relative to abort their baby unless they were going to die.  That is why I say medically necessary. 

                I would need to be confident (more than 50%) sure that the woman was miscarrying.  I would do my best to save both.  If need be, treat the woman like she could get a life-threatening infection.  I would do my best to make sure that the baby indeed was dying.  Obv. At some point if the woman starts dying, the baby will too.  So it is important to keep both healthy.  I don’t know if there is or isn’t a 100% way to know if a woman is miscarrying.  I don’t know if it’s a best guess/judgement call or is it a definite observation.  Can test be done to see if the levels of HCG are lowering when they should be climbing?  Do we know if leakage of amniotic fluid always ends in miscarriages?  I  need to know a lot more about miscarriages in order to be able to understand the call of the doctor.  I think that maybe the law just needs better clarification. These instances are considered life-threatening for example.  In these cases, woman should be given the option to terminate.  Have two doctors look at the woman.  They can sign off/vouch for each other.  I don’t know. 

                I really think they just need to find a better practical system to enforce it. I don’t know. Then woman wouldn’t have to worry about their lives.  

                No, in the case of rape it is all the guy’s responsibility in doing so.  It is his sole responsibility for creating the child that the woman now carries.   Only one person has to choose to have sex.  Rapists should have to pay child support.  The rapist made the decision for the woman.  That’s part of why rape is so bad. 

                We all have rights to life.  People are free to do whatever they want, but in that freedom comes responsibility.  You steal from a store; you better be ready to get caught for your “freedom”.  If we didn’t have some kind of rights, then people would do ywhatever they wanted to whomever they wanted and get away with or get murdered because someone was exacting revenge on them. 

                I guess it could be awkward if you focused on parents having sex part,            

    But I think if one looks past it, then conception day is really cool.  That’s the day that determined what hair color you would have and cool things like that. 

     

     

    I don’t think she deserved that death.  I don’t know exactly what happened, because the article I read says it may have had nothing to do with abortion laws as to why she died.  I think they should have figured out what was going on sooner or something. Again, I don’t understand it completely because I’m not a PA/MD yet.  If it was me, I’d find a way to save both as much as I can, save the mother when it becomes clear the baby will not survive, and give the option to the mother when it is an either or situation.  Least  amount of unnecessary deaths as possible.  

                I never said the laws would be easy to put into practical methods. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to implant them in a way that is least fear paralyzing.  I mean I hope it would be relatively clear why a doctor is performing a procedure.  I’m not sure how an abortion can be mistaken for a documented examination or procedure? As soon as the doctors know it’s non-viable because of miscarriage, they can have it terminated.  Or take preventative measures if they want to make sure first.  There’s got to be a way to have a law in place that works that isn’t like what you describe, one that works but also saves the unborn as much as possible.

                  No, I said I would scrap hormonal contraceptives.  Barrier and timing methods are still up for grabs.   Both woman and fetus have a right to life equally.  But I’m saying let the family decide who to keep.  I’m saying save who you can when you can, but cut your losses when you it happens that way. 

                  Abortion is not responsible.  It’s generally selfish.  Responsible would be putting it up for adoption or sacrificing the life you wanted to raise the child yourself.  Selfish is putting your needs before everyone elses. 

                   My point was that they supported life in that everyone should have a right to life.  Maybe they didn’t think the unborn was a person then, but since we know it is a person now, it should have the same right to life that everyone else has.

                  http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0112/transfusion.html I think from re-reading that it may have not have been the actuall parent’s blood being transfused.  However, I was told by the head of a biology department that “A parent cannot be forced to provide medical care only when there is a clear, historically accepted religious position (and even this is being challenged).” 

                 I don’t know how long an embryo can survive without being frozen.  If there is a fire, the chances of this are probably greater given heat would thaw the embryo.  I never said I wouldn’t try and save both.  If I wasn’t willing to save both, then it’d look bad.  You asked which one I would save, not which one is more valuable. Also, I know that an Embyro’s chances of survival even when implanted in a womb are like 1%.  So even if it survives the fire, there is still a chance it will die.   It’s kind of like asking who would you give a life-saving kidney to?  A 10 year old child or a 90 year old woman.  Both are human, but the 10 year old is going to get more use out of It.  Aren’t there donation boards that weight stuff like when they determine who gets a kidney and doesn’t based on their health and age, etc. 

                I guess I am talking about both.  I think both a woman and an embryo are people (persons).  One has been given legal rights; one has yet to receive legal rights.  I think that embryos need to receive legal rights or some sort of right because they are persons who are being denied their right to live. I think all people deserve the right to life            even if they are not given a “legal right”. 

               A lot of people think a baby is a bad thing.  Of course, babies are not  bad things.  They might not be convenient or wanted sometimes, but that’s not their fault and is not a reflection upon their worth as a person with value.  My point is you can’t always do what you want and get the desired outcome you want. 

                  I’m an idealistic person.  Ideally, I think there has to be a realistic way of banning abortions/hormonal birth control in a way that it doesn’t adversely affect woman the way you say It will.  There must be a way to ensure woman’s health and the life of the unborn as much as is possible.  Make the woman happy they are not needlessly dying/being prosecuting unfairly and unborn gets a chance at life where it wouldn’t have.  The goal should be to make both woman happy and the unborn happy. 

                 I’m not the only one who believes this way.  I’m not alone. I know one person. There are probably others I don’t know that share in my beliefs too.  

  • crowepps

    You’re entitled to your beliefs, but the thing you seem to be missing is that other people are entitled to their beliefs as well.  It doesn’t matter if you and a hundred of your friends believe the same thing, other people STILL have the right to believe something else.  In a country with freedom of conscience, you do not get to use civil law to impose your philosophical or religious beliefs on other adult women instead of allowing them to live by their own.  This is true even if the person with strong beliefs is a provider of medical services, the patients are still entitled to make their own decisions.

    You label yourself “idealistic” but frankly, 88% of abortions are done at 12 weeks or less, and at 12 weeks the fetus weighs half an ounce and is about two and a half inches long, so talking about making “the unborn happy” sounds ridiculously sentimental.

  • firehead

    My problem is that abortion is murder.  I have a problem with someone’s beliefs when they say that murder is alright.  We don’t let people who believe in human sacrifices murder other people because they are entitled to their beliefs.  We know murder is wrong.  We protect the lives of people.  If I ever become a medical provider, I will not write prescriptions for hormonal birth control.  I will also explain why thinking “personhood” starts at pregnancy/implantation is flawed biologically and philosophically.

                  Ever hear of “Horton Hears A Who”?  A person is a person no matter how small.

  • crowepps

    My point is that your having a problem is exactly that, your problem, and other people aren’t obligated to rearrange their lives to suit you.  You talk a lot about “we don’t let” this and “we” protect that, but you speak only for yourself.  You are entitled to your opinions.  Other people are entitled to think they’re naive and silly.

    Ever heard that Dr. Seuss’s widow, who surely knew his intent, may sue you for using that copyrighted phrase in your analogy?

    The book (most notably Horton the Elephant’s recurring phrase “a person’s a person, no matter how small”) has found its way to the center of the recurring debate, in the United States, over abortion. Several pro-life groups have adopted the phrase in support of their views. Geisel’s widow, Audrey Geisel, “doesn’t like people to hijack Dr. Seuss characters or material to front their own points of view.” [6] According to Geisel biographer Philip Nel, Geisel threatened to sue a pro-life group for using his words on their stationery.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horton_Hears_a_Who!#Use_in_the_United_States_abortion_debate

     

  • prochoiceferret

    You used your body to get yourself pregnant.  You (or a male) forced yourself to get pregnant even if it was not your desire to get pregnant.  You brought it upon yourself.  You gave the baby the ability to be conceived.  Nobody forced you to conceive the child.

     

    Unless, of course, the woman was raped. And then you would totally be okay with her aborting that pregnancy, right?

  • prochoiceferret

    My problem is that abortion is murder.  I have a problem with someone’s beliefs when they say that murder is alright.

     

    I’m very sorry that you have this problem. You may be able to find someone who can help you with it here.

  • firehead

    So apparently ya’ll don’t think abortion is murder.  Otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this discussion thread. The way I see it is that personhood and whether a woman should have to carry an unwanted child are the two main things that everything keeps pointing back to.  I’ve presented several reasons why personhood starts at conception.  I’ve also listed a reason as to why an unwanted pregnancy is not a forced pregnancy. Rape while not the fault of woman, is still the fault of the man because he made the decision for her. 

  • thalwen

    So apparently ya’ll don’t think abortion is murder.  

    Ding! Ding! Ding! 

    Most of the people on this thread also have the radical notion that women are entitled to legal personhood rights. Shocking!

    Rape while not the fault of woman, is still the fault of the man because he made the decision for her. 

    And yet you still support forcing a woman to have her free-gift-with-rape.

  • jennifer-starr

    I feel kind of sorry for your future patients–instead of getting someone who will look out for their health and needs they’re going to be preached and prosyletized to by you, Miss ‘Moral’ Guardian. And I’d love to see the reaction when you tell a rape victim who needs EC that you don’t want to give it to them because you don’t want to mess with ‘what God intended’ if their rapist gave them a baby.  Sick. 

  • crowepps

    In your view, the woman’s MIND is unnecessary, even unwanted in a creature primarily a self-sustaining support system for the uterus, and the primary purpose for her existence is so she can be impregnated any time some man decides to beat her to the ground and force sex on her.  Some of us don’t have quite so — agricultural a view of femininity.  Your ideal ‘woman’ could serve her assigned role for society after having a lobotomy remove her higher brain functions, or while in a coma for that matter.  Considering you believe her body is not her own, but instead a public service utility available to any man or fetus that makes a claim to use it, no matter what effect that has on her, perhaps I should say could BEST serve society mindless, since that would also cut off the inevitable attempts at escape through suicide.

    Sorry, but in my opinion, the absolute minimum to show proper respect for the fact women have brains that think and feel emotions and on-going relationships with people and are living actual LIVES is to allow them to escape a life-long coparenting relationship with their rapist.  Women are persons too, and there is far, FAR more value in their thoughts and emotions and physical health than there is the mere accident of existence of any one particular conceptus with a slim chance of ever reaching live birth.

    Here’s some additional reading you might find interesting:

    http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydatidiform_mole

  • freetobe

    but they have it all wrong! The main problem with the entire world is that people have no self-respect which makes it impossible to have respect for anyone else.  if two people get married and the man is whole or self-respecting and the women is a half or not self -respecting than the marriage cannot be whole. It takes two self respecting people to make a marriage work.

    I find this book incredibly STUPID How can anyone in their right mind not demand respect from someone else? Its mind boggling to me. The very first thing I learned in life is that no man that does not respect me is good enough for me. I respect all people regardelss if of what gender they are or what color they are, they still deserve that respect. Even down to the smallest ant that crawls on the earth! if someone trys to hurt me well then that is a different story. No I will not be their doormat and let them continue to hurt me! Then they have LOST my respect.

    I think you you are listening to right wing trash lies because you mentioned that women can be resourceful and not go on welfare. Well DUH! I have never been on welfare yet I have been raising my daughter alone for well over 20 years.  Explain that? I guess I was either lucky or self resourceful. Not all women have it that good however but I guess you think that we should just let them suffer and die their children along with them in the streets?

    When I was a child I trashed all my dolls for wagons,train sets and outdoors stuff. Gee i guess i must be a confused little woman. NO we are all not the SAME regardless of our genders. Put us all in a box and throw a lable on it!   NOT!  THINK for yourself why don’t you?

  • crowepps

    A rape victim who arrives promptly in the ER for treatment likely isn’t even pregnant yet, since it takes days for the sperm to reach the egg.  That means refusing EC is actually *assisting* the rapist by insisting the victim *wait helplessly* dreading a pregnancy that may be established days later.

  • jennifer-starr

    Forgive me, but it sounds as if you basically want to use a medical career as a platform to preach to and impose your personal belief system on your patients. You’re longing for the day  to be able to write prescriptions so you can refuse birth control to your patients?  Really?  

  • crowepps

    There have always been two types of OB/GYNs, those who love women and babies and are thrilled to assist the women to have the babies, and those who find female sexuality disgusting and want to have the power to punish women by inflicting as much pain on them as possible.  Sounds like she’d fit neatly into the second category, although frankly, since she and her husband are apparently using one of the more unreliable birth control methods, the chances are slim that she’ll ever have the money or time to become a medical professional.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Fetuses murder, maim and bankrupt their hosts.  All hosts have the right to expell fetuses for their own self-defense.

    “I will not write prescriptions for hormonal birth control”

    You’re criminally unfit to practice medicine because you just admitted you will commit Munchausen by Proxy medical malpractice against female patients on behalf of spoiled pedophile priests.  And what about BC pills for acne, ovarian cysts, etc.?

  • give-em-hell-mary

    And I wonder what flat-earth “med school” she is attending?

  • ljean8080

    millions of women get pregnant on purpose every year.2 of my friends did it to force their parents to allow them to get married.1 has been married for 20 years,the other 35

  • jennifer-starr

    Did anyone ever say that women DIDN’T get pregnant on purpose??? You have a habit of saying pointless things. 

  • crowepps

    I’m not sure I’d be real thrilled to know I existed because my parents needed a hostage.

     

  • thalwen

    It was very common to do this in the middle ages, and in some very patriarchal societies where young people don’t have a say over who they marry – so the “hostage” pregnancy/wedding is a tradition that goes way back and is not necessarily bad – people trying to buck their patriarchal culture in a practical manner. Of course, since we do not live in the middle ages, it’s far better to just not buy into the patriarchal Kool-Aid.

     

    And yes, Jean – we know people voluntarily have babies. Contrary to the anti-choicers, people who support abortion rights don’t hate babies (they are delicious! almost as good as those stir-fried foetuses with broccoli). But yeah, snark aside, most pro-choicers want every baby and every pregnancy to be wanted.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    And millions of women dread pregnancy and its deadly, bankrupting results.

  • Pingback: These Aren’t Hurdles, These Are Brick Walls | ETSU Women's Studies