Anti-Abortion Laws Are Crimes Against Women

We know that reproductive rights are human rights, so clearly abortion laws are crimes against women. When I first wrote that, one of my friends wondered if it might be a bit melodramatic. Let’s just step back and a take a serious look.

We live in a world in which there are an estimated 68,000 deaths and millions of hospitalizations of women every year that are entirely preventable. Many of these women are already mothers—so their deaths destroy not just their lives, but the lives of their young children as well. To prevent these we wouldn’t need to spend millions of dollars, or even one dollar, searching for a miracle cure. All it would take is for men to give up their pathological need to control women. Politicians cause these horrors. Across the planet they know very well that the cost of their moral tyranny is women’s lives.

In the United States, 40 years of safe, legal abortion make that terrible reality seem like a nightmare of the past. But in at least 11 states (Alabama, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Indiana, Idaho, Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan, Mississippi, and Virginia), far-right-wing politicians are passing or attempting to pass dozens of unconstitutional laws directly aimed at making abortion illegal or inaccessible. They know very well that the cost of illegal abortion is women’s lives. And they pass these laws anyway as if the legislature were a private club for sociopathic boys. Then they brag and congratulate themselves on their righteousness. Laws that make safe abortion illegal or inaccessible are crimes against women, whether they are promulgated in Mississippi or Madagascar, North Dakota or North Africa. It is time we named them crimes. They steal our lives, our dignity, our freedom, our privacy, our spiritual autonomy, and our families.

It is all too obvious that all the laws being enacted to make safe abortion illegal are coming from the same right-wing, anti-woman, anti-abortion sources. The public is solidly in support of maintaining Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that ruled that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, but we need to make certain that people understand that Roe is worthless where there is no access to safe abortion services.

Whether and when to become a mother is one of the most serious and important decisions a woman can make. For most women, having a baby means more than just giving birth. It means taking on the sacred responsibility to raise a child and nurture it to adulthood. Undermining a woman’s ability to make that choice seriously and responsibly, according to her own faith, circumstances, and values is a deep affront to women’s personhood. It reflects a worldview in which women are not trusted as full human beings. It makes a mockery of faith.

Crimes against women are crimes against children. When women are harmed, children are harmed. Women are not the enemies of their children—even those they decide not to bring into the world. Often women have abortions because they are loyal to the children they already have. Tragically, many of the states in which anti-abortion laws are being enacted or attempted are already dangerous places for women. These are states with high rates of poverty for women with children, high rates of maternal and child mortality, high rates of domestic violence, a shortage of education and affordable health-care services, a lack of sex education and birth control, low wages, and depressing circles of despair. Safe, legal, accessible, and affordable abortion services do not magically solve the deep-rooted problems of poverty and lack of education, but without them women have little chance of breaking the cycles that may have kept their mothers and grandmothers from realizing their dreams.

Some of the most vocal supporters of laws to make abortion illegal care deeply about the Constitution—when they are protecting the gun lobby. Yet they have no respect for Roe v. Wade. They often claim that it is their deeply held Christian faith that causes them to oppose abortion. Yet they neglect to mention that although abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, it is not prohibited, or even explicitly mentioned, in the Bible, which does go to pains to tell us about many other sins, including wearing two different kinds of cloth together. And they shame and humiliate women, which Jesus never did.

They often pretend to care about life. Yet they neglect to mention the politicians who do their bidding don’t even support ensuring food or shelter or health care for children.

In the name of “pro-life,” they claim that their consciences prevent them from allowing abortion services at their hospitals, even when those services save women’s lives. Yet they neglect to mention that people who support safe, legal, accessible abortion also have deeply held beliefs and act according to their consciences.

Their hypocrisy is profound. Their arrogance is breathtaking. One in three of their girlfriends, wives, daughters, sisters, and mothers has had an abortion. And they were no different from any other good woman who has had to make that choice.

I understand that the people who commit these crimes against women are deeply afraid of losing their power and position in the world. They are terrified of losing their certainty and their conviction that they are good and all others are bad. They are scared that everyone will see that they are not God. They are the very definition of a bully. It is possible to try to forgive them. But we cannot allow them to terrorize us.

Melodrama? I only wish it were, but this is all too real. In our modern world, we have come a long way toward declaring certain inalienable human rights, but too often issues that disproportionately affect women are left out. Only women are blessed and burdened with the ability to bring new life into the world through our bodies. Reproductive justice—the ability for women to make their own most personal choices, to have the families they want, and to raise them in a society that values and ensures adequate food, shelter, health, and safety—is an inalienable human right.

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

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact

  • Niall Foley

    Denial of safe legal and free abortion services means that women with problem pregnancies are treated like farm animals: somebody else decides the outcome.

    • HeilMary1

      Comment without moderated link:

      I just learned of a former pastor at St. Maria Goretti, in Scottsdale,
      AZ, who bought an orphanage in South America with a known pedophile
      priest! No wonder people with FIDS (Fetal Idolatry Derangement
      Syndrome) don’t care if women die birthing pedophile priests’ next

  • William J. Green

    This is a BEAUTIFUL Example of an egregiously errant attempt at a logical syllogism:

    It is fallacious and mendacious:

    Reproductive rights are human rights,
    Therefore abortion laws are crimes against women.

    WRONG. Every syllogism MUST have at least TWO premises for it to be True. Yours does Not and is thus illogical and false.

    It is a complete non sequitur.

    Try again.

    en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Syllogism

    • Jennifer Starr

      I’m guessing you don’t see women as human, then? That seems to be the case with most ‘pro-lifers’. And you seem to have thrown a lot of big words around without actually saying very much at all. Anything else?

      • Ingrid Heimark

        Of course we see women as humans, as well as the fetus they carry. It is you that only recognizes one part and pretends the other doesn’t exist in the abortion issue

        • Jennifer Starr

          You may very well feel that way. But Mr. Green up there seems to see us as walking uteri to throw five-dollar words at. Perhaps you’d like to take this up with him?

        • cjvg

          Logically and scientifically seen there exists only one person The woman) during a pregnancy until 26-29 months of gestation.
          Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, bilaterally synchronous
          electroencephalograpic are seen at 26 to 29 weeks gestation.

          When people, including physicians, generally talk about “brain waves” and “brain activity” they are referring to organized activity in the cortex.
          A more scientific exactitude of “electrical clinical significant brain
          activity” would be better to avoid confusion.
          No embryo or fetus has ever been found to have “brain waves,” before 26-30 weeks gestation, although extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies.

          A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important
          criteria used to determine death. If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, is it then not only logical that the onset of the same clinical brain activity defines were live begins?!

          Since this if way past the time that a legal abortion can be obtained (24 weeks at most) your arguments and assertions are spacious at best and flat out deceitful otherwise.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            A fetal EEG will not be flat, in order to taste f example, or suck ones thump, there are brain activity. But Yes, that could be an interesting discussion, would you agree to outlaw abortion if the fetus has brain activity?

          • cjvg

            Are you willfully ignorant or are you just that uneducated about fetal development ?
            Either way, you need to educate yourself before you take the liberty to make decisions for others based on false, or just flat out misleading statements.

            Your glib and unsupported statements clearly will not hold up to any sort of scrutiny from an unbiased and educated mind.
            I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that you are just plain uneducated so I will spell out reality of fetal development and the development of sentience and awareness to you.

            A brain-dead person with a functioning heart/lungs/brain stem
            will still show electrical activity in the brain, but they won’t show the
            particular “brainwaves” that are characteristic of the higher
            cortical functions of cognition. So the whole EEG isn’t “flat”, just
            the part of the EEG profile that shows a thinking person is using that brain tissue.

            (A better description would be the more scientific exactitude of “clinical significant electrical brain activity” would be better to avoid confusion.)

            At this point no “person” with sentience or awareness is present in
            the body, and it is legal to discontinue life support, and harvest organs for transplant, as without a functioning brain the body is just a collection of tissue.

            People who are diagnosed as clinically brain dead are routinely disconnected from life support and used to provide the organs for transplantations (no murder charges have ever been filled for this and none ever will be)
            A fetus does not have the bilaterally synchronous electroencephalographic patterns in the cortical area of the brain
            to be considered alive until 26-30 weeks of gestation, exactly like those who are diagnosed as clinically brain dead by physicians.

            People who are considered clinically brain-dead, have brainwaves (and sometimes even a beating heart), just not in the part of the brain that means that they are still alive.
            At this point doctors can start organ harvesting or turn off life support, no murder charges have ever, or will ever be been filed.

            A fetus younger then 26-30 weeks does not have all the brain structure (cortex) or the synapse, neurons etc in place to show more brain activity then a person who is clinically brain dead, as measured with the same machine (EEG)
            The heart might beat, but nobody is home.

            No embryo or fetus has ever been found to have “brain
            waves,” before 26-30 weeks gestation, although extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies.

            In fact a fetus does not have a functional cortex before
            20-24 weeks gestation, no neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them are physically present.
            (Pretty hard to show activity in a structure that is not even present yet)

            Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record the clinical significant electrical brain activity indicative of any form sentience and awareness prior to 20-24 weeks. (at that point the cerebral cortex can display some small intermittent non synchronous activity (“stutter”)
            This is not surprising since it is pretty hard to show activity in a brain structure that is not even present yet.

            Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns, bilaterally synchronous
            electroencephalograpic are ONLY seen at a minimum of 26 to 29 weeks gestation.

            Studies used are;
            -Hamlin,H. (1964), “Life or Death by EEG,”Journal of the American
            Medical Association, October 12,113
            -J. Goldenring, “Development of the Fetal Brain,” New England Jour. of Med., Aug. 26, 1982, p. 564
            -K.J.S. Anand, a leading researcher on pain in newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM

            So until the fetus has the same level of clinical brain activity
            (first seen at 26-29 weeks gestation, well after abortion becomes unavailable) as the woman in question, it is very dishonest (to say the least) to award the fetus more human rights then the woman.

            “human beings at any stage of development are persons”
            This clearly illustrates that you consider a single cell organism as just as much a person as the woman.
            That whole concept is incredibly ludicrous to anyone who has ever taken the time to look at a woman and at a fertilized egg!

            So up to the 26 week point the only actual person involved
            is the woman, the fetus just has the potential to eventually become equally a person like the mother already is.

            You do not have the right to mandate that another woman should have her body used for the benefit of a third person.
            What makes you believe it is alright to violate her human and civil rights to the sanctity of her own body for a potential life that has not even manifested yet?!

    • Sarah Eilerson

      “Neither God nor Biology has found another purpose or raison d’etre for women’s uteri OTHER THAN to provide a sanctified, safe, and secure place for a precious new human life created in the Imago Dei to be nurtured for the first 9 months of his or her life.

      PROVE ME WRONG!!!!”

      Good thing I was able to get that useless and troublesome thing sorted out fairly early in my life, then. Uteri really should be optional body parts.

    • Arekushieru

      Oh, hello BornAgain. Last I checked everyone understood what reproductive rights meant. Last I checked the the vast majority of people not living under a rock somewhere, if not all, understood the argument that reproductive rights are human rights. Just because someone doesn’t clarify their argument for you because you know yourself to be oh-so-special, and believe you SHOULD have everything clarified, doesn’t mean the rest of us DON’T live in reality.

    • wjgreen314

      The FACT that I FACTUALLY exposed the logical fallacy in the #Prochoice Argument & 14 Illogical & Irrational women gave me a thumbs down only goes to PROVE how our just & moral society can NOT and should NOT Trust women to make sane, logical, rational & moral decisions.

      We can’t trust anyone whose immorality places a mother’s convenience ABOVE that of a precious baby’s — made in the Imago Dei — Creator endowed unalienable RIGHT to LIFE!

      • Rachel Jonitis

        So you would rather trust “moral” decisions to a corrupt government that sells out its citizens everyday for a dime than let women have control over their own bodies? What about a womans right to life? Does the fact that we have the ability to create life somehow negate our own unalienable right to life? Do we suddenly become less of a person as soon as we have something growing inside of us? It isn’t about convenience there are a lot of reasons why women get abortions, why don’t you try walking a mile in someone elses shoes before you judge.

        • wjgreen314

          The government LEGISLATES MORALITY. That’s why there are laws in opposition to, and punishment for, homicide, filicide, infanticide, rape, robbery, burglary, assault, & even JAYWALKING, etc. Government’s job is to ensure that as people exercise their liberty they do NOT infringe upon other person’s Life, Liberty & pursuit of Happiness.

          I will gladly support legislation that promotes the LIVES of BOTH women and their babies over legislation that has given rise to abortions which have killed 58,000,000 prenatal babies and ~ 400 moms since 1973.

          • Rachel Jonitis

            Ok, since you’re gonna be choosy about words, you trust a CORRUPT government to LEGISLATE MORALITY when their own moral compass is so far off that taking bribes and passing legislation that only pushes their own agenda rather than that of the people is an everyday occurence? You never answered why the pregnant woman doesn’t have a right to live once she become pregnant. And why don’t you also tell me how telling a woman that she can’t get an abortion regardless of her situation doesn’t infringe on that womans life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, because last time I checked men have the liberty to do whatever they want with their sperm and the rest of their bodies so why do women not have that same liberty? Why is our right to life infringed upon simply because we can create it? Why does the government have the right to tell women how their lives are going to be because that is what you are doing when you’re making legislation about whether a woman can choose whether she wants to keep her baby vs. choose not to have it, rather than letting her be the judge of where she is in life, the situation of the father, and whether or not it’s a wise idea to bring the baby into the world, not to mention whether the baby was conceived consensually and whether or not the mother or child are in danger if a pregnancy is continued. It is sad that abortion has caused deaths, but that number pales in comparison to the 500 women who die PER YEAR before, during, or directly after their pregnancy. So 400 women in 40 years vs. 500 per year. I think that your priorities are off. This is a medical decision, NOT a legal one. If you don’t want abortion, it starts at home and in school with responsible adults that teach children responsibility and respect and proper education about sex and its ramifications.

          • wjgreen314

            I nowhere stated a pregnant woman “does NOT have a right to live.” In fact, according to the law applicable to 99.999999% of the population in that existential moment both she and her daughter have our Creator endowed unalienable right to live.

            It may or may not infringe upon her perceived pursuit of happiness but it does NOT force her to end her life nor to give up a portion of her liberty that ~ 9,000,000,000 women before her have not also done temporarily w/o for the short span of 9 months, about 0.93% of a person’s life for the sake of creating a precious new life.

            If you wish to introduce MEN into the debate then you will have to confess that all men, including biological fathers, will be prosecuted for 1st degree MURDER for killing their own sons & daughters, even as young as 6 weeks gestation. To wit: John Andy Welden, et al.

            You have been hanging around or listening too long to post-botched abortion baby-slayer Obama who regards his own grandchildren as “punishments” if not wanted at the exact precise moment chosen by his own daughters. That’s sad if not evil.

            A gestating baby girl or boy is not an “it.” S/he is a fully human being created in the Imago Dei and regarded by the law as a person if any one of some odd 315,000,000 Americans kill him or her.

            Wisdom has a preferential option for life & if his or her own mom can’t mother him or her there are 2,000,000 loving couples waiting to adopt newborns.

            And your number pales in comparison to the 58,000,000 babies rotting in unmarked graves, the 1,211,000 killed per year; 3,300 every day!

  • Ingrid Heimark

    It is so extremely sad to see how you don’t even try to understand your opponents views. Most of the pro-lifers are women, most of us really care about the woman. Most of us even understands the pro-choice position, but disagrees because we believe the human fetus should have the right to life.
    So many of us want the full range of reproductive rights, but don’t view abortion as such as it involves another being. We want contraception availability more than now, we want free prenatal care, social rights for women who have babies, STD testing, sex ed etc,
    We understand you pont of view while disagreeing, how come you don’t even try to understand ours? It seems that not only do we disagree on fetal rights, but you seem to argue that anyone who actually believe the fetus should be a subject in the abortion debate is anti-woman.
    Well, no matter the reason for the abortion, no matter the view on the fetus, the end result of abortion is a dead fetus.
    When you are calling anyone pro-life anti-woman you pushes away us that could be partners in real reproductive rights such as contraception, safe pregnancy and everything else. It is weird that those of us who disagree on abortion and agree on everything else are foes and anti-woman. But then, that’s up to you. It is not the argumentation expected from grown people though

    • Jennifer Starr

      Being from Norway, (which by the way is a gorgeous country), I’m not sure how much exposure you’ve had to the typical American ‘pro-lifer’. Because most of them here absolutely do not support more contraception availability, free prenatal care, social rights for women who have babies or sex ed. If they did, we might sometimes be able to find common ground, but they just don’t. In fact, a woman who testified before congress about contraception availability for women with health issues was called a slut and denigrated and slandered by several well known ‘pro-life’ people. And yes, I do understand your position–more than you know because some twenty-some odd years ago I used to share your position. But things happened and now I am proud to call myself pro-choice.

      • Ingrid Heimark

        I have not been in the US, read about it though. In Norway all abortions are done in pub lic hospitals, at the women’s ward where alot of other women also are present, there are no protestors here. I myself work at the local hospital, at psych ward. I truly believe norwegian pro-lifers are far more realistic than the american, we are not right-wing, prob because welfare society are in our genes or something :)

        i Understand why women have abortions, I know people close to me that has had abortions. And I am not gonna condemn that choice, I simply say the law should say it is not a choice to be made. I cannot accept abortion, not because of the women resorting to it, but because the law takes away the right to life for human beings that did nothing wrong.

        And calling women that use contraception sluts are nuts in my christian mind, sex in our society are extremely common, both inside and outside marriage, and people are gonna have sex anyway. Contraception simply gives people the possibility of having sex without having trouble afterwards. I cannot epect anyone that doesn’t share my beliefs to live by them, but I can say the fetus is human and choice should be made before the onset of pregnancy. It of course warrants the methods be available.

        • Marina

          And what about the women whose pregnancies put them at risk of losing their lifes? Or the ones who carry a fetus with deformities that wouldn’t allow it to live more than a few hours? Or the ones who aren’t christians and don’t want their reproductive choices made for them by people who adhere to a religion and a set of morals that they don’t share? The ones who are raped and don’t want to give birth to their rapist’s child? The ones abused by their family members, or in a domestic violence situation when she doesn’t have access to contraception?

          Don’t they deserve to be able to make their own choices like the human beings they are? Aren’t they worthy of deciding on their own bodies and when and when not to reproduce?

          Because if you are saying that the law shouldn’t give women a choice to willfully terminate their pregnancies because thats what they want to do you are denying them that right. You are saying that those wmen should be forced to give birth, and thats one hell of a traumatic experience, espcially coupled with the forced nine months of forced pregnancy. And if she is unlucky enough to have a dangerous pregnancy that is going to kill her unless she has an abortion? Are you seriously saying that they should they be left to die????

          Because thats exacty what you are saying. That you should get to make that choice both for yourself and every other woman. Because you are a christian and obviously know better than every other woman in the world. Thats why I’m calling you an anti-woman. Because you aren’t pro-life, you are pro-birth. You aren’t pro-life, you are pro-death of women and anti-women rights and anti-reproductive rights. And just so you know, contraception is not 100% safe, it lowers the posibilities of pregnancy by a lot, but it doesn’t nullify them completely.

          If you never ever want to have an abortion then you are in your right to not do it. But neither you nor your religion have the right to decide for every other woman in the planet. It should be a CHOICE that everyone gets to make.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Here is so much false accusations I don’t know where to begin. I believe in abortion to save the mother’s life. Abortion is right if it is to save a life where 2 (or 1) would otherwise die. I believe it is wrong to take a life when 2 would otherwise live.
            It has nothing to do with religion, I don’t believe in imposing my religious views on people that don’t share my faith, such as voluntary sex between two adults is something I won’t interfere in even though I believe in sex in the marriage setting. THat is also why I support sex-ed and contraceptive availability for everyone who needs it.
            I am not pro-forced pregnancy, I support as mentioned, contraceptive availability. But when pregnancy is a fact, there is another human being in the picture, whom has the same right to life as his or her mother.
            In cases of rape, I don’t believe abortion is the right thing, but I wiould allow it to save 95% of the lives lost to abortion rather than none. Also here, focus should be on supporting the rape victim to seek medical attention as soon as possible, both to avoid pregnancy and also STDs.
            Any other things you want to claim I mean?

          • choiceone

            When I was just 21, I was raped by a maniac.

            Abortion was illegal even in cases of rape in the majority of US states, and even where it was legal, the exception made in the law required that the abortion be approved by a 12 member hospital committee of doctors, who, at that time, were virtually all men. If just one of them had the view that you do, the application would be denied even in the case of a 9-year-old rape victim.

            Fortunately, I was not pregnant, but well before I was able to find that out, in the days before home pregnancy tests and Plan B, I understood that, if I were pregnant by the rape and not able to get an abortion, legal or illegal, domestic or foreign, I would commit suicide because I would not allow my body to grow a product of a crime I personally consider worse than murder.

            As far as I’m concerned, Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court decision that guarantees a woman’s right to decide whether to continue or end a pregnancy, is proof that God exists and is worth worshipping, because it answered my prayer on behalf of all women in my nation in great detail.

            That right is more important than my life and more important than the lives of many billions of people, because the liberty to control one’s own body is the only reason human life is genuinely worth living.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I am so sorry for what you experienced, and no, I would not refuse you an abortion on grounds of rape, I would not refuse any 9-year old any abortion, because of the case of life endangerment. I do not agree on abortion in case of rape if the woman is not at risk, but I would not prevent anyone from doing it, I support rape exception, not because I believe it is less human (the fetus) but because of the huge trauma to the woman

          • cjvg

            That is even less logical!
            So a fetus who according to you is alive at the moment of conception and fully innocent and deserving of life can be murdered if rape was the cause of conception?!
            But other then that, women should not be allowed to murder that innocent and deserving fetus?!
            How can you even justify that?

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I can’t, but after rape the mental issues for the woman might be at a level where her life might be at risk, and since mental health is difficult to consider according to group (rape victims) I err on the side of caution, not risking the mothers life

          • cjvg

            Amazing how you are able to lie and still claim like you are being victimized!

            -I do not mandate you should have an abortion,
            -I do not mandate you should work in an abortion clinic,
            -I do not try to pass laws to take away your option to not have an abortion,
            -I do not mandate that you should be forced to support abortion (you can have birth support groups all you want)
            -In fact I or any other pro-choice supporter do not mandate any course of action at all,
            -I and other pro-choicers mandate is that you or any other woman have the CHOICE to decided that for yourself!

            See how that works, I do not tell you what you should believe or what you should promote or work towards!
            YOU however want to mandate to everyone who does not believe like you do, what they are allowed!

          • choiceone

            You really do not get it. Who the h— are you to have the right to decide what happens inside my body boundaries or inside the body boundaries of any woman except yourself?

            My internal body is private, and nobody has any rights regarding it unless I am suspected by the police, on the basis of warrantable evidence, of illegally smuggling drugs or other contraband inside my body or of having a contagious disease that could cause a pandemic.

            I have the right to keep everyone in the entire world from saying what happens inside my sex organs and the right to kill in self-defense to keep everyone out of them, and so does every other woman.

            You don’t realize it, but the fact that you think you have any rights regarding my sex organs is, frankly, the mentality of a rapist.

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to citizens at birth.

        • cjvg

          However, the fetus is not nearly in the same ballpark as the woman in question when you are debating the humanity of both!
          Most abortions take place in the first trimester or early second trimester, the fetus does not have the brain structure in place to be considered alive in any possible way other then abstractly in the same sense that my arm or a tumor is alive.
          A fetus can not achieve awareness, sentience until 26-29 weeks of gestation so no justification for disregarding the sentient aware women in favour of a fetus before that time is valid.
          The woman however is alive, aware and very much a person!
          If a (forced) continuation of a pregnancy harms the woman in any way, either physical, mental or even social, how can you justify that?!
          Is the life of an already born living breathing, feeling, aware woman not as valuable and in need of save-guarding as that of an unrealized, unaware, non sentient potential life?!
          Why should your feelings about who’s live is more valuable and deserves more protection even matter, since you are not the one who has to live or die from the consequences of a choice you make for another?!
          It is NOT possible to claim concern and respect for a woman, if you are willing to disregard the fact that she is a competent, aware, fully sentient human being.
          You are willing to claim that she should not be allowed to make the most intimate of decisions of all, decisions about the sanctity of her body!
          You are willing to force pregnancy and childbirth on her against her will, you are willing to codify into law that she herself does not have the right to chose who can and can not have the use of her body!
          The right to ownership of your own body is the most basic right of all, when that is lost you really do not have anything at all.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Again, I support sex-ed and contraception, even plan B. I support the continuation of present pregnancy, NOT forcing a woman to become pregnant, and I support abortion in case of life endangerment and would allow it in case of rape.

            The argument that the fetus is likened with a tumor is false. When removing a tumor you remove cells that does not harm the person when it is rempoved, the person lives on. During an abortion, the entire fetus, and its life, are over.

          • Dez

            Simply we disagree with your opinion about a fetus being a person, yet you want to force your beliefs on us. The only one being disrespectful and immature is you.

          • cjvg

            The fetus is not alive until it actually shows the pass the same clinical mile stone that is routinely used to determine if a person can be removed from life support and used for organ harvest!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            In fact, in order to declare brain death so as to allow transplant, the EEG needs to be completely flat, that is why one only have hours or days after brain death in order to transplant or the organs are destroyed no matter the life support.

          • cjvg

            Flat out lie!

            The only thing that has to be absent is any activity in the cerebral cortex which houses the “thinking part” or “personality” of the brain.
            Plenty of times family members are told that their loved one is brain dead and will not recover and life support can no be disconnected.
            This is the same insidious lie used to claim a fetus is a person because it has a heart beat at 6 or 8 weeks

            For instance, the adrenal medulla is the part of the brain responsible for the release of adrenaline, when the adrenaline is released into the blood, the SAN is stimulated to work faster and increase your heart rate ( fight or flight response).
            The heart is not controlled by your brain as it is a myogenic muscle (self-exciting) this means that if you were to remove the heart from a body it would continue to beat. The sino-atrial node is responsible for the excitation of the heart.

            A brain-dead person or fetus before 26-29 weeks gestation with a functioning heart/lungs/brainstem will still show electrical activity in the brain.

            However they won’t show the particular “brainwaves” that are characteristic of the higher cortical functions of cognition. So the whole EEG isn’t “flat”, just the part of the EEG profile that shows a thinking person is using that brain tissue.
            At this point no “person” , sentience or awareness is present in
            the body.

            Some brain activity can be seen in a fetus and the clinically brain dead, this does not preclude a diagnosis of no electrical
            clinical significant brain activity IE clinical brain death.

            Breathing is a function that is primarily involuntary but can be somewhat controlled (we do not have to actively think about breathing to continue to do so, but we can hold or breath)

            Breathing as well as heart rate, blood pressure, and alertness is controlled by the brain stem also sometimes referred to as one of the “primitive” parts of the brain .

            A patient with working heart and lungs who is determined to be brain dead can be pronounced legally dead without clinical death (the cessation of blood circulation and the subsequent loss of consciousness within several seconds, measurable cerebral brain activity stops within 20 to 40 seconds) occurring.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            So people in a PVS is not alive? I am not gonna contradict your saying that the fetus doesn’t have that conscious thing, after researching it. I do know when I am wrong, and i admit it. But being brain-dead as to being declared dead is not just the absense of counsciousness, but the absense of brain wawes altogether. At least thats how it was when they declared my friend dead, she had no brain activity and was just on life-support

          • Marina

            The fetus is not a person. period. A fetus doesn’t have a life, it’s only alive in same sense that tumors are alive, by being able to metabolize elements from the body of the host in order to grow. And like a tumor it can cause serious distress to the person whose body is in, both of the physical kind and of the mental health kind.

            A fetus doesn’t interact with the world. A fetus doesn’t feel. A fetus doesn’t have brain activity until the 34-35 week of pregnacy. A fetus is a potential person, but is not a person YET, therefore its rights shoulnd’t be above the ones of its mother, who is a actual person at that time and is able to take decisions about her body, her life and reproductive health.

            Life doesn’t begin at conception, the only reason you think that is because your religion told you so, and again, you are welcome to live by those values, but you can’t impose them on other people who may or may not follow your religion to the same extent, disagree with that part, or don’t follow you religion at all. That’s what a fundamentalist would do.

            So good job on allowing the bare minimum of choice to women about women’s health, but I can’t respect you as a person if you would still consider yourself and the way you interpret your religion to be the final arbitrer on when and when not to let a woman decide for herself about her body and her ability to reproduce or not to. Having to jump trough innumerable legal hoops to take a simple decision about a woman’s own health, body and life while having someone else asking “are you sure?” “think about the poor baby” and trying to guilt her into second guessing her decision at every step of the process because they don’t agree with it is infantilizing and frankly insulting. Its pure and simple bullying in which the prolifers publicly shame a woman for takeing control of her own life.

            And the only reason its done its to force her to obey them. Them the religious fundamentalists, and the mysogynists who think that a woman is barely a human being or not a all. They are the ones who think that they should be the ones making the decisions about our bodies, because they can’t stand women having their own voice and not listening to their “wisdom”.

    • Trollface McGee

      So you’re in favour of making organ donation mandatory? I mean after all a person can live with one kidney in most cases, and the denial of a kidney will result in death. Same for mandatory blood transfusions, and of course no one should have the right to deny their organs post mortem.
      It is only in pregnancy that people are so adamant about forcing one person risking their body, life and health for another.
      If you consider a foetus to be a person then you have to decide at some point whether the rights of a living human being (yes women are human beings) should be superseded by the rights of another potentially male human being. In the case of mandatory blood and organ donation we balk at the idea even if would save the life of an already born living person. In the case of pregnancy we only seem to care until the foetus is born, then it can go suffer and die like the rest.

      • Ingrid Heimark

        You are not reading what i write. I don’t believe a born child should be left on its own, I believe in support for the mother and the child. When it comes to comparing pregnancy with organ donation, that is not a fair comparison. The woman have the choice not to let the fetus come into being in the first place, that is her right. When the fetus is present, by no fault of its own, it has the right to life. That is why sex-ed and contraceptive availability is so important.

        Women and men makes the choice of having sex, unfortunately, only the woman has the ability of becoming pregnant and carry the fetus. Still it is no fault on the fetus’ part. It just happened to become alive when the woman and her partner had sex, being with or without contraception. But it is still a human.

        I don’t believe abortion is wrong if the mothers life is at risk, again you are showing you are not reading what I write

        • Trollface McGee

          Women and men make the choice of driving. If their driving should cause bodily harm, in the form of an accident to another driver, why should that driver be deprived of blood and organs through no fault of his own. The driver injured, also a human and has a right to life.

          I don’t understand why you are so insistent that a foetus is a human being entitled to have another human sacrifice her body in order to support it but would deny the same to a living born human being. Oh right, teh sex. Teh sluts have teh sexy sex and need to suffer the punishment of teh baybeez.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            It has nothing to do with se, but sex IS the way the fetus is created. I myself is alive due to a blood transfusion a few years ago, but still that can’t be compared, as the fetus is a human being, it is alive, and it became alive through no fault of it’s own.

            Do you believe the fetus has absolutely no value?

          • Trollface McGee

            Ok, so you’re driving, being super careful, and through no fault of your own you’re hit by a driver and injured. Why should that driver, whose actions directly caused your accident, not be required to donate his blood, organs or w/e you need so that you can continue living? Are you a human being? Do you think you have less value than a foetus? Why should a woman be FORCED to donate her body for the foetus and the driver who caused an accident to a living person be exempt?
            Yes, it has everything to do with sex and punishing women for having sex because the whole “it’s an innocent baybee” argument is utter crap when you flush it out.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Well, if you think it bas to do with sex, and I say it don’t at least for me., and you don’t believe me, we really have nothing to discuss, do we? For me everything is about the fetus as a human, if the fetus came into being by a car crash, i would be just as pro-life as now. But I am discussing with someone that wants to not understand, that has no meaning to me

          • L-dan

            You realize that this stance means that, should some shady operation decide to set up a ‘surrogate’ shop that is actually a bunch of women being implanted with the embryos of wealthy infertile couples against their will, you’re basically arguing the case that they are obligated to carry those embryos to term once they’re there? This isn’t really that far-fetched an idea btw. Some third world surrogacy operations are pretty shady. Some of the women are desperate. Etc.

            That is what forced pregnancy looks like when you take the sex out of the equation. Incubators.

            I have the right to control of my body. This is ongoing. Just because I had sex with someone once, doesn’t mean they get to assume I’ll have it with them again. Just because I had sex that resulted in the fertilization of an egg doesn’t mean that I’m giving consent to the use of my body and organs for pregnancy.

            Every pregnancy is different. Every situation is different. You keep arguing that the life of a fertilized egg is more important than the health and circumstances of the person supporting it. You keep arguing that *you* therefore know more about the circumstances and morality of every case where an abortion is desired or needed. Can you see why any given individual might find that insulting? That you feel your values should determine what is appropriate for me in my circumstances, whatever they are? And, for that matter, that you know best for those embryos as well?

            You’re fine with life-saving abortions. You’re fine with abortions in cases of rape because maybe, that might, possibly, push someone into suicide. Ok…so what about those that might want to commit suicide but did not get pregnant from rape? What about those pregnancies that merely threaten someone’s health if they carry to term? Who decides those cases? Why should strangers get to pick and poke and split hairs about this while the person seeking an abortion sits there growing more desperate, trying to prove that the abortion they want is one of the *good* ones that’s allowed and not one of the *bad* ones that aren’t. Why should we, instead of the doctor and the pregnant person, be deciding what is important?

            You say we don’t pay attention to the value of the unborn, that’s because we trust the people involved in that decision to know what its value is and factor that into their decision. When so many are fighting so hard to force that decision, we’re on the side of those being forced, those actually living these decisions that are being made that much harder. We’re also on the side of born children, who stand a much better chance in life when they’re wanted.

            The potential people that never end up existing? No, I really don’t care about them. They can’t feel or suffer. I have only so much energy and empathy to give. I save it for those who can actually use it.

          • cjvg

            Alive is not the same as sentient.
            My arm is alive and so is a tumor, no one advocates that these can not be removed when needed.
            You are playing a dishonest and inane game of semantics that is fooling nobody.

            You are not explaining why the rights of a fetus
            with person hood potential, can superseded the rights of a living breathing feeling sentient and fully aware person, the woman!
            Quit possible because there is no way to make it even remotely reasonable to argue that a life that exists right now, should have far less rights then a potential life that has not realized, and may never realize.

            To promote the abrogation of bodily sanctity with the reasoning that a potential body could possibly have its bodily sanctity violated before it can even claim a body is insane.

            So a person in need of an organ can not forcefully demand an organ donation from you to save their life (current law, and supported by you).
            And a woman distraught and unwilling to stay pregnant can not demand the right to make the choice if she is willing to have her body used by a fetus (proposed law as supported by you)
            But a fetus younger then the cut off for legally available abortion (24 weeks at best) without the brain structures, let alone the brain activity present that denotes that it is clinically alive, has more rights then both of the previous mentioned actual sentient aware and living people (?!)
            You can not give three groups with the same “person hood” (according to you) different rights because of your personal feelings on the subject.
            They are exactly the same.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            You cannot claim the fetus does not have a body, have you seen abortion pictures? The fingers, the head, the ribs? This is not a potential body, it is a body.

            To avoid this tiny being from having to die, it depends upon the woman’s body, that is correct. And since the only alternative to carry to term is a violent procedure that results in fetal death, the fetus has the right to cling to life. And since only women can become pregnant, and also because of the unique position of fetalmaternal relationship and dependency,tje society has the duty to provide the woman with whatever care she needs, medically, economically and otherwise, including free and available contraception so as to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

            But since every attempt to separate the fetus from the woman will result in the death of a human, abortion should not be an option except in extremely rare cases. It would be interesting if you pro-choicers could actually admit that the choice of abortion results in a dead body

          • Dez

            I call bullshit. I’ve had a first trimester miscarriage. There’s nothing there but a bloody clump. Most abortions happen at this time. Nice try with the emotional rhetoric.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I am not using emotional rhetoric, I am simply using pictures. If it as a bloody clump, it was before very long in to the first trimester

          • Dez

            Yes it is. Most abortion happen in the first trimester. Lying “pro- life” posters show abortions in the second and third trimester. Your dishonesty is insulting to the intelligence of women. You do not have to lie to women if you are telling the truth. Inside you lie with emotional rhetoric to manipulate women to your beliefs.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            I know most abortions are done in the first trimester, most of them before 9 weeks, and I do not believe in deceiving pictures. I know what i first trimester and what is not. My point being, if you have seen “life befire birth” on NGC, you know the fetus is formed after 10 weeks, although the proportions are not right

          • Dez

            So what? How does that change my rights to an abortion? Again your personal views of fetus should not trump mine. I am intelligent woman capable of reviewing the scientific evidence of a fetus and come to my own conclusions.

          • cjvg

            The fetus is not alive in any clinical sense!, I have posted that over and over, I have given you all the scientific and clinical information needed to support that fact.
            And yet, still you pretend to not see it.

            Obviously you are unwilling to address any medical and scientific reality that clearly shows that you are wrong at every level with your unsupportable assertions that the fetus is alive!

            At this point I can only conclude that you are just a simple fanatic unwilling to ever face reality or acknowledge any truths that just can not be made to fit your preferred narrative.

            You keep claiming that those who are pro choice are rude and unwilling to listen, but we have listened and we countered every single statement you made with real science instead of emotional appeals ( it looks like a baby it must be alive?)
            However you do not even attempt the courtesy of a real informed conversation.

            I have had enough of your bullying and passive aggressive insinuations that all those who do not believe that it is our place to claim ownership over other woman’s bodies, are sooo mean and do not respect your need to mandate what others are allowed to do according to your believes!

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Actually, what we disagree on, is whether the fetus is a person with rights, it is alive, it has brain vawes, it has a body. It just seems to me you cannot grasp that anyone is willing to give the fetus any sort of value.
            YOU are the one saying the fetus has no brain activity
            YOU are the one saying the fetus is like a tumor
            I am willing to discuss facts

          • Dez

            The difference between you and us is that we are “pro-choice” and that means we respect your right to believe a fetus is a baby and not to have an abortion. Yet you want to force your views onto those who do not believe a fetus is a baby. You don’t seem to get that your the one saying your beliefs are the only valid ones.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            The point is though, IF I do believe the fetus is a baby, then me being vocally opposed to abortion should be understood

          • choiceone

            Nobody wants to deprive you of your right to vocal opposition. What we want is for you to stop attacking the legal right of women to have abortions based on their own decisions and doctors to perform abortions based on their own decisions together with the decisions of the woman. Because other people’s sex organs and their contents are simply not your legal business, and the fact that you think they are makes you a menace to civilized society.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Then I wonder, how do you feel abortion providing care for born alive infants after abortion? Then they are no longer in the womans body….. Do you support Obama and PP, or the babys right to life?

          • Dez

            Since it’s after birth then the law against murder applies. We are no longer talking about abortion then.

          • choiceone

            When an infant is born, it is a person. Of course it should receive proper medical care and of course it has a right to life. I’m not going to touch the issue of whether or not Obama or Planned Parenthood supports this.

          • Dez

            You have that right, but not the right to force your views onto me when I do not believe a fetus is a baby. The opposite is true also. We are vocally in support of abortion and that should be understood by you.

          • Marina

            Vocally opposed to your own right to not have an abortion? YES OF COURSE, THATS YOUR RIGHT.

            Vocally opposed to the right of any other person to have an abortion? FUCK NO, YOU’RE A SCUMY BIGOT.

            The problem is not that you don’t want to have an abortion and think that the fetus is already baby, which is a nice little fantasy to have, but has been repeteadly disproved in this conversation.

            The actual problem is that you want to pass laws that won’t allow other women to make the choice to have an abortion, therefore you think that only your own beliefs are the correct ones, and that everybody else should abide by them. And thats not only an exptremely arrogant and selfish position to take, but THOSE POLICIES HURT, AND HARM AND EVEN KILL WOMEN. And thats why your views on abortion are harmless when you are living by them because you choose to, but UNNACCEPTABLE when made into the law.

            Were you living under a rock when Savita Halappanavar died because they denied her a lifesaving abortion? Didn’t you hear about Beatriz in El Salvador? Because she would be dead if it weren’t because us, the pro-choice crowd, made it a big enough of a scandal that the goverment and the church couldn’t hide her murder under a rug.

            Yes murder. Because they would have willingy caused the death of a living, feeling, thinking, aware woman. Thats what actual murder looks like, not getting rid of a unwanted clump of cells and tissue, or of a more developed fetus with deformities so severe it wouldn’t survive its birth.

            And thats how prolife laws end up if they are allowed to exist, prohibiting every and all abortions. The exceptions of rape, incest, severe fetal malformation and danger to the mothers life were milestones won by the prochoice people after fighting the prolifers and the fundamentalists at every step of the process.

            You don’t get to claim them as reasons to be prolife and to separate “good abortions for good girls, yes ” and “bad abortions for bad girls, no”, you huge hypocryte.

          • cjvg

            Sentience is determined by brain function, again if you can not even follow a fairly simple biological fact to its logical conclusion I can not help you!

            If no conscience thought can be formed because the brain structure that houses consciousness has not developed yet, you are not and can not be aware or considered sentient!

            If you can not understand this or if you contest this simple routine medical knowledge, then answer me this: do you object to discontinuing life support from those who are declared clinically (brain) dead?!
            And if so, do you object to organ harvesting and transplantation?!

            You must be, or you are the biggest hypocrite alive!
            I have explained to you numerous times that a beating heart or reflexes are not a sign of consciousness or sentience, I have also explained why this is so in fairly great detail while trying not to confuse you.

            However, you deliberately and dishonestly try to conflagrate every single thing that can possibly be used as an emotional appeal of being “heartless” on my part.

            I have never said the fetus has no brain activity, I said the fetus has no brain activity in the part of the brain that houses sentience/awareness/consciousnes
            Big difference!

            I have never said the fetus is a tumor, I said the fetus is alive like my arm or a tumor is alive, neither of those have sentience or awareness either.
            Just like the fetus they lack a cerebral cortex and as such will not house a “person”.
            The fetus can eventually develop one, my arm or a tumor can not!

            You are not willing to discuss any facts and you do not have even the slightest intention of being honest as your obvious and deliberate misquoting and flat out lies show!

            Like I stated before, I have no need or intention to debate with someone who is this patently incapable of above board behavior.
            It is however quite typical to the people like you who have no moral qualms about forcing others to live with their choices without any consequences to them.
            People who have no moral, ethical or scientific justifications to for their insistence that a fetus should have more rights then a woman.
            People who can not explain why a third party has no right to insist that they should be forced to donate organs and tissue to those children already here and dying on the donor list, but who continue to insist that a woman should be forced to donate her body and health to the gestational needs of a fetus!

            My facts are REAL facts, you explain to me what exactly physicians measure to determine clinical brain dead then!!
            You tell me were and how that is different from what I said!!!
            Now you give me one, just one legitimate peer review study that shows that a fetus has an present and active cerebral cortex before 26-29 weeks gestation!

            Just to let you know, the studies listed were used and approved by the anti-choice crowd you favour to “proof” that a fetus had “brain” function (what they forgot to also “proff” is what the rest of these studies say, that IT is NOT THE SAME ACTIVITY AS SEEN IN A LIVING BREATHING SENTIENT HUMAN since they do not have the physical structure that houses sentience yet!)

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Then I know what we are talking about. Yes I am a supporter of organ donations, and I am so sorry I am on meds so I cannot donate a kidney or a liverpiece,I tried to give bone marrow for a young child, but could not. I had a friend, she was brain dead, and she had absolutely no brain activity, each time they turned off the repirator, she went into cardiac arrest. I think that if you should compare a fetus to anything non-sentient,braindead is the wrong word, maybe PVS is a bether one.
            Actually I don’t try to be disrespectful, I don’t try to impose mye views on anyone, and we have been talking past one another. But I will try to find that, and I will admit it if I don’t find it

          • Cactus_Wren

            Ingrid, you are demanding that a fetus be given more rights than the woman upon whom it battens.

          • L-dan

            err.. we have no proof that a fetus can taste things. We have a fair bit of evidence that it does not have measurable ‘brain waves’ so much as some electrical activity that indicates nerves learning to work.

            We’re also talking very different levels of development here. The vast majority of abortions take place before 13 weeks. No thumb sucking, no organized brain waves. You want to focus on the tearing of limbs from later abortions, which are a tiny percentage of all abortions. Most are a tiny sac that you’re likely to miss if you don’t look hard for it.

            Of that small number of later abortions, the vast majority occur because of fetal deformities, often incompatible with life, and maternal health. Those are very difficult decisions to make, and strangers should have no part of it. Many of those that don’t fit this category occur because of the difficulty in accessing earlier abortion.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            Yes, I know most abortions happens early, my point is the fetus is formed early on, though very small, so the øpiuctures of first trimester abortions are misleading as of size, that is true. in Norway 94% of abortions are first-trimester, and 70% before 9 weeks. The embryonic phase is over at week 10. So yes, the fetus is small, undeveloped, but formed. The fetus has the ability to taste at the exchange of 1/2 trimester, I do not know whether this is instinctive and not sentient, it very well might be.instinctive.
            I am not trying to portray the fetus as something it is not, I believe that if I can’t defend my views based on facts, then I should shut up. And that is why I say that I know the immaturity of the fetus, I just don’t think that should exclude it from having the riight to life. Believing the fetus, though dependant and immature, is a human being does not mean I believe the woman is less human. I recognise the desperation of unwanted pregnancy, and would then, in a pro-life society, hold the belief that no woman should ever be punished, judged or condemned for having an abortion, even though I don’t believe society should propagate the view that the fetus is less worthy than the born. Because losing a woman’s liffe or making her get trouble are not pro-life

          • L-dan

            The taste buds begin to work well before the brain is in shape to actually process those messages as ‘taste’. It’s not instinctive so much as the cells that process signals that are then sent to he brain to be interpreted as taste are working. Much like the cells that will eventually become a heart start working well before there is an actual heart or circulatory system. That means they contract and ‘beat’.

            Just because it is ‘formed’, is alive, and has human DNA does not make it a person at that point. And again, even if it does make it a person, no person has a right to life that includes using another person as life support without the consent of that person. So arguing that abortion, particularly before viability, is an issue of the fetus’s right to life is saying that the fetus’s rights override those of the person it’s living in. That is messed up. They’re people with a full set of rights…until an embryo shows up in their body through any means at all? I prefer that life be a gift freely given, not one that is coerced.

            You don’t seem to see that believing that the fetus is alive, human (not a person, but human) does not mean that it should have *more* rights than anyone else.

            I would greatly prefer to settle the argument here with standards like Canada’s…which is to say there are no restrictions on abortion save those supplied by medical standards of patient safety. If we could stop spending so much time, energy, and resources just ensuring that reproductive rights were considered basic and unalienable rights, we could spend those resources on sex education, support of pregnant people who want to give birth, and support of those children. As it is, while I support those things as well, I’m stuck arguing over and over and over again that abortion is moral, sane, and absolutely necessary so long as pregnancy exists.

          • Lynnsey

            I know I’m late to the party, but I just wanted to let you know how awesome this is:

            “Oh right, teh sex. Teh sluts have teh sexy sex and need to suffer the punishment of teh baybeez.”

        • cjvg

          Assuming that a fetus is an actual “living” person, use of another persons body against their will and consent an illegal and criminal act in most countries unless slavery is not against the law.
          No third party has the right to demand the use of another’s body!

          I do not have the right to demand you make live donations of your organs or bone marrow, liver sections etc to sustain or preserve my already existing life.
          Of course I would also demand that you carry all the financial, physical and health cost related to these procedures required to obtain your organs to save my life.

          This kind of use of another’s body against their will and without their consent is not legal and can not be forced.
          Not even to save the lives of already living, existing, aware and fully sentient children and adults that are literally dying on the transplant list.

          Unless you forcefully and actively are promoting laws to make saving these existing lives possibly by forced live organ and tissue donation, you are a hypocrite.
          Why then should a fetus be allowed to demand the use of a woman’s body at great physical and financial cost to her, and against her will?

          Then there is the assertion that the fetus is alive in the same manner as that the woman is alive.
          This assertion is most empathetically NOT supported by science.
          A fetus younger then 26-29 weeks gestation does not have the brain structure (cortex) in place to exhibit the manner of brain activity routinely used to determine if some one is considered clinically alive, or if life support can be discontinued and organ harvesting can begin.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            From wikipedia on brain death:
            Brain death is the irreversible end of all brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of brain oxygenation. It should not be confused with a persistent vegetative state. Patients classified as brain dead can have their organs surgically removed for organ donation. Even after brain death, the working of the heart might continue at a slow pace, but there will be no respiratory effort.
            You probably refer to PVS, where there is brain activity, but not sentient life. To use organs, you have to be flatlined on EEG, which the fetus is not, though it seems the fetus would be described as a mix of PVS and sleep. Several of the studies I read assumed intrauterine environment was so pleasant the fetus was sleeping, and not being aware. Total brain death is what my friend was, her heart stopping when they turned off the respirator. Total brain necrosis, tissue death.
            And by the way, I don’t believe the woman should have any financial responsibility for the pregnancy at all, it should be free.

          • Arekushieru

            Actually, living donor’s do exist. If we were to use your logic, btw, the fetus cannot use the uterus because it’s EEG is not flatlined. Also, if you want to treat everyone equally to a pregnant woman, you would compel them to donate their organs with the same fervency that you apply to pregnant women for fetuses, even though you would not deny either the pregnant woman or the living donor financial assistance.

          • cjvg

            Again with the selective excerpts of information.
            (by the way Wikipedia is not the most reliable information, pick up a medical text or some medical research.
            I have posted some links in previous reply’s that are published and peer vetted, and well respected in the medical community. But fine I’ll go with Wikipedia)

            “Brain death is the irreversible end of all brain activity (including involuntary activity necessary to sustain life) due to total necrosis of the cerebral neurons following loss of brain oxygenation. It should not be confused with a persistent vegetative state. Patients classified as brain dead can have their organs surgically removed for organ donation. Even after brain death, the working of the heart might continue at a slow pace, but there will be no respiratory effort.”

            “Brain death, either of the whole brain or the brain stem, is used as a legal indicator of death in many jurisdictions.

            If not the whole brain is dead some activity can still be seen in the “living” parts!

            “In the UK the Royal College of Physicians reported in 1976 and 1977, rejecting the whole brain death criterion as scientifically worthless, and adopting the notion of irreversible brain stem dysfunction as an indicator of death.”

            My point
            This is the now generally accepted guideline in all modern western countries, pay particular attention to “rejecting the whole brain death criterion as scientifically worthless”!!!!!

            “Brain death may result in legal death, but still with vasopressors helping the heart beat, and with mechanical ventilation all other vital organs may be kept completely functional providing optimal opportunities for organ transplantation.”
            “The non-living donor is kept on ventilator support until the organs have been surgically removed. If a brain-dead individual is not an organ donor or consent is not given by the legal next of kin, ventilator and drug support is discontinued, circulation stops and the organs cease to function.”

            My point
            Like I stated before the body can be, and sometimes is kept alive after death is diagnosed, for transplant purposes

            A patient with working heart and lungs who is determined to be brain dead can be pronounced legally dead”
            “some courts have been reluctant to impose such a determination over the religious objections of family members”

            Conclusion, clinical death and legally dead are not always the same, however that is mostly a difference that has no functional meaning were an actual living breathing person (the woman) is negatively impacted by forced incubation of a fetus who has not reached a living state yet.
            All this is taking rights from a living person in order to force her to provide her body as the source for a fetus to eventually reach the same state of sentience she already possesses!

            How does it make sense to deny her the right to self possession that every sentient aware living human has, and award more rights then she has to fetal tissue without that sentience, consciousness or awareness that is in effect not even living yet?!

          • Marina

            You are completely delusional. Pregnancy is not free. A pregnancy is costly both in the sense that its after effects can fuck up the womans health for the rest of her life, but it means that the pregnant person has to leave her job in order to not harm the fetus. And depending n how complicated that particular pregnancy is, that could happen around the second trimester.

            And not all jobs have paid maternity leave. SOme don’t pay fr the time you can’t work. Some don’t allow you to sit down, or drink water in your job hours, or outright fire you if get pregnant because they think are not as productive while pregnant as they want you to be.

            And in households were the womans job is the main source of income an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy can easily mean falling into poverty for the whole family. It can mean not getting to have a roof over your head, or food for the pregnant person or any potential children she may already have.

            And by the way, if you want pregnant women to not be able to end their pregnancies. you are pro-forced pregnancy are. Getting someone pregnant agianst her will is forced impregnation, forcing someone to continue a pregnancy when they don’t want to be pregnant is forced pregnancy.

            Its not your place to decide whether anyone that isn’t yourself should be forced to stay pregnant or give birth. And it shouldn’t be.

          • Ingrid Heimark

            The question then is, shouldnt women have the right to paid maternity leave, regardless of gestation, have the right to work adjustments without discrimination etc?
            Well, amybe I do support forced pregnancy after she is pregnant, but only because the result of not doing it is a dead fetus. If a woman don’t want children, she should use ciontraceptives

          • Marina

            Then we don’t have anything more to talk about, since you have revealed your true views on abortion, reproductive rightsand woman’s rights. The mask has come off, and your true face is that of bigotry, misogyny and religious fundamentalism.

            You are willing to oppress, harm and shame women and their reproductive choices because you and your religion don’t agree with them. You are an arrogant fool who is not able to look any farther thar her nose or is unwilling to consider any other circumstances different than yours. EIther that, or you just don’t care about the real, living, sentient, fully developed people who could be seriously harmed by an unwanted pregnancy and forced childbirth.

            So, if a family were to become homeless, and starve or anything other terrible things were to happen to them because of an unwanted pregnancy, then its the woman’s fault and she deserves it huh? And I suppose that the people who depended on her, like other living children, you know, the ones that are alive and out of the womb, unlike a clump of cells and tissue, them the breaks should have told mommy not to be a slut.

            And the only reasons you have given for taking away a woman’s reproductive choice, the control of her body, the control of her career and the control of her life are:

            1 Mah religion!1!1!!1


            2 its a bayyybeee it looks like a bayyybeeehhh, why you so bad to bayyyybeeeeehhhh


            4 But it sucks its thumb!!!

            I DON’T CARE

            But it has tastes bud?!?!


            5 BUt abortion is tearing its liiiiiimbs.


            6 But it already looks like a fetus early on, it just shaped weirdly and out of proportion



            You don’t have any actual arguments, science has completely disproved your claims about the fetus being alive and aware of it, so you are appealing to our pity for the fetus, but at the same time you’re trying to convince us to have absolutley no empathy towards the pregnant woman, unless she is one of the arbitrarily defined “good girls” who have a right to abort.

            And the only reason you give is that abortion squicks your out, so you want to take that right away from all the women on Earth. But hey, thats fundie logic for you. In other words, completely unfounded, lacking any actual logical thought to it, and absolutely arrogant to boot.

        • canaduck

          I have a question for you. What if you were in a car accident, and the only way to save the other driver’s life was to give her one of your kidneys?

          You had a choice to get in that car or not.

    • Rachel Jonitis

      Because we don’t understand why this “right to life” doesn’t extend to the woman who is pregnant. We don’t understand why in America, an unborn fetus has more rights than a living, breathing woman.

  • Mary Chittenden

    This is a good article, but you should know that I rarely open links from RH Reality Check (and several others) when I see them on Facebook due to your intrusive pop-ups.

  • frank Hassett

    Amazing to see comparison of the fetus to a tumor. Actually, the fetus has a DNA different from that of the mother. Moreover,it is human DNA. Tumors share the mother’s DNA. The tumor, arm, etc are part of the mother, but the fetus is a new human. That,dear friends, is Science.
    We have many examples where humans were not considered to be persons: slaves, Jews, homosexuals, etc. A human who is not a person has no protection under the law.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Regardless. Still inside the mother’s body–still her decision on what to do with it.

    • goatini

      Rights accrue to persons at birth.

    • Arekushieru

      Amazing to see that the comparison went right over your head…. Oh… wait…. Even though it was laid out in it’s entirety throughout the whole thread for you. The fetus was not being compared to a tumour. The fetus lack of clinically significant brain activity was being compared to the tumour’s lack of clinically significant brain activity. Please read more carefully, next time.

      To deny that a tumour has human DNA is to deny that the WOMAN has human DNA. To deny that the tumour’s DNA is genetically distinct is to deny that the WOMAN (not mother) has genetically distinct DNA. Since that is the sole source of your contention, I cannot say that you have presented it very well. Well, at least in favour of your own argument, that women should be denied the right to self-determination.

      Finally, Pro-Lifers are the ones who want to equate rights with personhood. Not us. After all, Jews, slaves and homosexuals were denied rights that they should have had REGARDLESS of whether or not they were considered persons. YOUR ilk wants to grant MORE rights to a fetus than anyone born on the basis that they consider them persons. Gee, I wonder who THAT reminds me of???

      • cjvg

        Thank you for the relief spot, I am so thoroughly feed up with posting the same thing over and over in the most simple and easily understandable terms.

        I’m starting to feel like a broken record.

        What really gets me is when they then subsequently claim that I am a biased source, although any medical instruction book, as well as any and all respected peer reviewed published clinical research papers will show the exact same information.

        Even when I post the links to the exact same studies routinely used by the anti choice crowed them self’s to “proof” brain activity in a fetus.

        (what they conveniently forget to mention is that these same studies unequivocally conclude that a fetus has no clinical significant brain activity until at least 26 weeks. That these studies conclude that a fetus is most certainly NOT a sentient or aware organism. That the research was done on countless premature babies and is accepted as completely accurate by every accredited medical organization in every modern country)

        At this point I truly do not know if these anti choicers are just incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest, however I continue to be extremely disconcerted by the summarily dismissal of the woman as a human being with a right to self ownership.
        Again thank you for this accurate and to the point correction to the massive fail of logic and coherency from a man who loses nothing when woman are declared lesser beings then a potential.