Anti-Choice Advocates Urge GOP Male Candidates to ‘Speak Humanely’ About Abortion


Read more coverage on the 2014 Campaign for Life Summit here.

Speak more humanely about abortion, don’t opine on the female body’s abilities if you’re not a doctor, and mislead voters on your intentions to criminalize abortion.

These were some of the suggested messaging strategies on how Republican male candidates should engage female voters, offered by female members of Congress and conservative pundits at the Susan B. Anthony List’s Campaign for Life Summit in Washington, D.C., last week.

“We, of course, want to make abortion illegal,” said S.E. Cupp, a conservative commentator and co-host on CNN’s Crossfire. “We can’t be afraid to talk about that, but I think politically right now it’s probably more beneficial for our candidates to say, ‘Look, I’m not going to Washington to overturn decades-old legislation. I’m going to fight to keep abortion safe and rare.’ That’s how we get pro-life candidates elected and in positions of power to actually do something about abortion, to roll it back.”

Leading up to this year’s mid-term elections, Republicans have been trying to figure out how to appease the anti-choice views of their base while simultaneously appealing to female voters repelled by anti-choice policies and statements made by congressional candidates in 2012. Outrage over some of the more insensitive comments (such as failed Senate candidate Richard Mourdock declaring that “even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen”) and the downright bizarre (former Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO] musing, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”) has left the GOP somewhat vulnerable when it comes to the women voting bloc.

These episodes explain some of the advice from Cupp and female congressional leaders for candidates to appear more “humane” when discussing issues related to women’s reproductive health, such as abortion.

The SBA List’s Campaign for Life Summit—one in a series of fundraising events that the anti-choice lobbying group hosted last week—was geared toward the group’s donors and political allies. SBA leaders, media pundits, and members of both the U.S. House and Senate discussed campaign strategies for the GOP to gain electoral ground in the forthcoming elections, including targeted funding in select states. Speakers also discussed ideal framing of the anti-abortion message.

“We’ve got to be compassionate,” said Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) at Wednesday’s donor conference. “Let’s face it, there is no easy answer. For a woman that faces an unplanned pregnancy it is a difficult situation. And I think that’s what our guys need to do—since they can’t be in a situation of actually carrying the child—is empathizing with that woman, to say, right up front, ‘I am pro-life.’ Just acknowledge it; get it out there. ‘But I understand, this is a really, really tough situation, and I want to help you. I want to help you to make the best decision.’”

“And now you’ve gone all the way from all that rape and incest stuff,” she concluded.

Reps. Ann Wagner (R-MO) and Jackie Walorski (R-IN) echoed Black’s advice of extending compassion to women facing unplanned pregnancies and humanizing the discussion.

During a panel discussion titled “Exposing the War on Women,” Cupp and National Review Online’s Kathryn Jean Lopez furthered the idea that candidates should speak with compassion in order to crush the Democrats’ “war on women” narrative during this election season.

“They need to speak humanely about this issue,” Lopez said, referring to conservative candidates talking about abortion.

In addition to coaching candidates essentially to lie to voters, Cupp called on other conservative pundits and politicians to avoid appearing “mean” when discussing socially liberal issues, such as abortion and LGBT rights.

“Calling Wendy Davis ‘Abortion Barbie’ I don’t think is helpful,” Cupp said, referring to conservative writer Erick Erickson’s nickname for the Texas state senator running for governor. “That’s not a humane way to talk about the abortion issue. … That’s a missed opportunity. That allows Democrats and the media—liberals in the media—to characterize us as mean and anti-woman when our impulse on this fight is pro-woman, is pro-health.”

She similarly advised the GOP not to focus exclusively on banning abortion, but to take positive stances on adoption.

“After the [2012] election, I wrote a number of times and talked a lot about talking more about abortion in better ways,” Cupp said. “And one of those ways that I thought would help us is if we championed that third option, adoption, and became the face of the adoption movement and adoption reform. In some cases I think that would require us to champion gay adoption, as well. But that’s not for everyone.”

Cupp’s advice to the audience at times resembled political media consulting in lieu of simple commentating. CNN did not respond directly to RH Reality Check‘s question regarding public-speaking guidelines for representatives of the network.

Alluding to Akin’s flameout after he articulated his scientifically creative ideas about “legitimate rape” in 2012, Cupp suggested that lawmakers should stop playing doctor—at least rhetorically speaking.

“When we are not scientists or medical doctors, we do not need to opine on what the female body does when it is raped,” she said. “That is an inappropriate line of answers and a rabbit hole that we don’t need to go down. So it’s talking better and, in some cases, talking a little less.”

Perhaps missing the lesson on empathy, Weekly Standard Executive Editor Fred Barnes, who moderated the discussion between Lopez and Cupp, made light of reports that women were being forced to travel long distances to access abortion in their states due to legislative restrictions that have forced clinic closures, particularly in Texas—something RH Reality Check has been tracking. Barnes said he finds these stories to be good news.

“The New York Times specializes in stories about how difficult it is and how many miles women have to drive to get an abortion,” Barnes said. “Well, you know that it’s efforts to get mainly Planned Parenthood but other abortion clinics closed. It means there have been successes. The New York Times doesn’t realize when I read these stories how encouraged I am.”

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly named the executive editor of the Weekly Standard. It is Fred Barnes, not Frank Barnes. We regret the error.

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

Follow Sofia Resnick on Twitter: @SofiaResnick

To schedule an interview with Sofia Resnick please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • Donnie McLeod

    Christian conservatives are habitual system 1 thinkers. They don’t give their system 2 thinking process any resources. System 2 is too inquisitive for God believe. System 1 is also narcissistic. Being right even if causes others pain is common behaviour of a habitual system 1 thinker.

    • ansuz

      For anyone interested, the idea of System 1 and System 2 thinking can be read about in Daniel Kahneman’s book Thinking, Fast and Slow. It’s a very good book, a relatively easy read, extremely informative, and contains a re-printing of the paper that won him (a psychologist) a Nobel Prize in economics.

      • King Rat

        I’ve had that on my to read list for a while.

        • ansuz

          There’s a government questionnaire-thing that closes today on the legal status of sex work in Canada. If you have any strong feelings on the subject, you may want to participate.
          It’s linked through this article on rabble dot ca:
          /blogs/bloggers/mercedes-allen/2014/03/six-answers-public-consultation-on-sex-work

          Also, I feel like VID is ignoring my comments on that one thread. *sigh*

          • King Rat

            Sure, I will take a look at it.

            She is dishonest as all hell. She loves pregnancy, so can’t possibly understand how anyone could consider it a violation.

            We are not allowed to make certain analogies, because it is all an appeal to emotion – yet she is allowed to talk about the humanity of a mindless embryo – cuz it has body parts and stuff!!!

          • ansuz

            I don’t know if it’s dishonesty, but I do wish she’d acknowledge my comment about ‘human in any meaningful sense’ and stop calling the people who elide whatever-word-she-appears-to-be-using-to-denote-equal-value-to-full-human-beings and person/human/human being ‘dishonest’. I also wish she’d address my post with the explanation of consent that asks about the difference between unwanted pregnancy and rape, because unless she thinks that only stranger-in-the-bushes is rape, the things she’s said about the comparison between unwanted pregnancy and rape make no sense at all.

            Her legal positions are perfectly fine, though. So I gave her a kitty, and she didn’t acknowledge the kitty. So that gave me a sad.

            (ohmygod, this is full of awkward sentences.)

          • King Rat

            Want me to ask her to answer the rape question?

            ” ansuz asked a really good question…would you mind answering”

            I can’t say why she is ignoring you, but I suspect it’s because she is overwhelmed with replies and you are not as aggressive as the other posters.

            And I can’t think of why anyone would purposely ignore a kitty!

          • ansuz

            XD
            I know I’m whining a bit, but teh sadz: they don’t always make sense.
            And only ask if you think an answer would add value to the conversation. It’s not intended to be a ‘gotcha’ question with no right answer, but a place to figure out where our views are different.

          • King Rat

            Actually…I have been waiting for her to answer it. Before you even mentioned it – tis a very good question.

          • ansuz

            Thanks!

          • King Rat

            Just to be sure, it’s this one right:

            “”It is a fact that pregnancy is not an instantaneous or short thing. It is a fact that we cannot control conception. It is also a fact that I may or may be consenting to pregnancy when conception takes place, and that the state of my consent may change over the course of the pregnancy*.

            If you are saying that I may not remove the zef from my body (using the minimum amount of force that will get the job done without further injuring myself) how, exactly, is that different from saying that I may notremove a rapist from my body?

            *it is my understanding that it is universal or nearly universal among humanists to understand consent as being about my right to define my own experiences, and to label something as Want or Do Not Want.
            Here is an example:
            If I eat something and revoke my consent for it to be digested, I can induce vomiting, I can take laxatives, I can take tablets that inhibit my ability to absorb nutrients from the food, I can hate myself, I can feel sick, I can cry, I can hyperventilate, I can self-harm. Some of those things are voluntary reactions to lack of consent, some of those are involuntary symptoms of lack of consent.
            (I have an eating disorder)”

            I also liked this one, and it’s a shame she didn’t acknowlege it:

            “”Rape is bad because it amounts to psychological torture of the victim.
            Unwanted pregnancy is bad because it amounts to psychological torture of the pregnant person.””

          • ansuz

            Yep, that one :)

          • King Rat
          • ansuz

            I’m glad that you didn’t say anything you didn’t mean :)

          • King Rat

            I am still not as charitable as you. Comparing gestation to changing diapers is intellectual dishonesty at it’s finest.

          • ansuz

            Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if she was just having difficulty reframing the discussion in her head so that she didn’t really realize the implications of what she was saying. Brains are not always cooperative, and that thread was complicated, with lots of people using the same words in different ways.

          • King Rat

            Possibly. I mean, it did take me a while to understand the distinctions. It is not immediately obvious, because pregnancy has been so normalized, and always thought to be a good/natural/positive thing in our society. She is definitely having trouble understanding that what is just one of life’s travails for her, could be a big*fucking*deal for someone else.

            Originally, I didn’t make these connections: 1) of course it’s killing, but it’s regrettable killing – with no other means of escape, what other choice does the pregnant person have *but* abortion? 2) if people have the right to defend themselves from non-violent rape and even torture, then why can’t this apply to pregnancy?

            In regards to #2, I had some problem with this at first, because a majority of people frame it was ‘you can only take a life if your life is on the line’ – but clearly, if you can kill to avoid rape/torture, when there is no other means of escape, then what is so wrong with abortion? It’s the same damn thing.

            But anyhoo, these two points are most definitely *not* immediately obvious.

          • ansuz

            Yup, to all of that.
            In less charitable interpretations, I was also put in mind of xkcd comic #774; I’ve been getting the sense that she doesn’t really think there’s anything we have to say that’s worth listening to.

            So I think all of those things are factors. I’m going to operate on the assumption that the one I just added isn’t one, though, until discussion starts looking pointless.

          • King Rat

            Indeed. Moral superiority is a powerful drug:P

            Which reminds me…

            http://www.jimtonkowich.com/libidodominandi.php

            Sometimes when making a strong point in a discussion with my wife, I
            feel an odd thrill. It’s not the thrill of pursuing the good, true, and
            beautiful in partnership with someone I love. Instead it’s the thrill of
            winning or, to put it more accurately, it’s the thrill of her losing.
            I’m dominating. It feels good at home, on the job, in the Church, and in
            the Public Square. It’s giving in to libido dominandi and is cause for
            repentance. Loving truth is good; loving being right and lording it over
            others is sin, plain and simple.

          • ansuz

            An anti-choicer on the post “A Rebuttal to the Pro-Life Atheist” just told me to read Thinking, Fast and Slow, and to learn some logic and critical thinking.
            It was hilarious. I’m like, ‘Actually….’

            Ooh, and I got a smiley face from VID in response to my kitty!

          • King Rat

            Yep, I just replied to her. And you, upthread here.

            http://www.sundriesshack.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Irony-Meter-Explode.jpg

          • ansuz

            That’s a great image.

          • King Rat

            I am going to watch a movie while my phone is recharging. Hopefully VID will answer you at some point. And grats on the kitty acknowledgement.

          • ansuz

            Have fun. I will attempt to ignore disqus for a while so that I can get some homework done.

          • King Rat

            She answered: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/03/the-totally-unoriginal-atheist-case-for-abortion.html#comment-1289298212

            FFS, why do people keep flagging her comments. She is not being rude.

          • ansuz

            I dunno. It’s really annoying, though.

            Her beliefs seem to fall under ‘intent matters more than actual harm’ and biological determinism (in the comment to which my comment #1289295894 is a response*).

            *

            smrnda says:
            If you punch someone, it is assault. If you get punched during a boxing match, you have consented to being punched and so has the other person. James Butler was charged with assault for punching his opponent after the fight in the ring. Consent is 100% of it.

            vid says:
            I think the difference between being assaulted by a person, and being pregnant with an unwanted fetus, is more subtle than just “consent’. Our bodies function in such a way that we conceive, even when we take steps to prevent it – occasionally, even if we’ve taken drastic steps. So comparing it to assault…in a way, it’s almost like you are being assaulted by your own body, because your body makes you crave sex when you are at your most fertile, and your body sometimes overrides your birth control and conceives.

            I say:
            I take exception to the idea that the language of violence is inappropriate when referring to things my body does without my permission.
            First of all, I get to define my experiences.
            Second, what else would I call it when my body does things that make me hate it, and think that it’s worth dying to get away from? I have crying, vomiting panic attacks with my periods. I have scars from where I tried to fix my body, because my body is wrong. I damn well experienced violence and violation — violence to and violation of my self — at the hands of my body. And, no, the physical violence I enacted upon my body is not what I’m talking about.

          • King Rat

            Her beliefs seem to fall under ‘intent matters more than actual harm’ and biological determinism

            Exactly.

            First of all, I get to define my experiences.

            Not according to pro-lifers!

          • ansuz

            “Not according to pro-lifers!”
            In order to properly express my reaction to them, I need a cat that is flipping off the viewer.

          • King Rat

            Savvy is killing me. So little self-awareness for a self-proclaimed critical thinker.

            Anyhoo, off to bed, night!

          • ansuz

            The guy on the “Who’s to blame when a woman experiences abortion regret?” thread is hilarious.

          • King Rat

            I like how he ends everything with an exclamation! He is so concerned about the violence of abortion! bloody limbs hacked off!

          • ansuz

            He’s asking all these questions like they’re these amazing ‘gotcha’s, and I’m like, I have this answer and it gives me no trouble at all.

          • Shan

            Holy moly, is that one still going?

          • ansuz

            Not really, it’s just the one guy right now.

          • King Rat

            OMG, my irony meter is broken.

            Savvy has taught critical thinking for years? Which is why, apparently, she was able to: 1) hope for a miscarriage, while simultaneously 2) castigating any person for aborting

            And now she is citing statistics?? Unless there is non-zero risk, you can’t force a person to put it all on the line for another???

            W T F

          • ansuz

            Listened to Tim Minchin’s “The Good Book.” Sad is now gone.

      • Donnie McLeod

        Thank you. It is nice when some one supports knowing about the book.

        • ansuz

          You’re very welcome; I love that book.

  • Shan

    “That’s how we get pro-life candidates elected and in positions of power to actually do something about abortion, to roll it back.”

    This is horrifying. Do they think nobody is actually LISTENING to them?

    • rosie

      100% I am listening. Listening to all the reasons NOT to vote for them. :)

      • Shan

        Heh. But I’m pretty sure you weren’t at risk of doing that BEFORE reading this article!

    • Jennifer Starr

      I don’t think they realize that we’re listening at all. I’m convinced of this when I encounter an anti-choicer who tries to convert me with tired old talking points because he’s sure that i haven’t already heard them a thousand times before. Very patronizing.

      • bitchybitchybitchy

        Anti-choice people at heart do not believe that women should do anything other than be wives and mothers. They don’t think that women should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their lives.

  • lady_black

    Translation: They think we’re stupid.

  • lioness

    She similarly advised the GOP not to focus exclusively on banning abortion, but to take positive stances on adoption.

    Because the rule about taking women’s concerns more seriously doesn’t apply to birth mothers, who report experiencing longer and greater distress from giving a child up for adoption than from abortion. Their voices never, ever count for squat.

    • L-dan

      pretty much. You know their main stance on adoption is “lots of people want children but can’t have them.” They erase pregnant people whether they’re talking abortion (all about the fetus) or adoption (all about the adoptive parents).

      • fiona64

        They also erase the thousands and thousands of kids already available for adoption.

        • L-dan

          Yep. Because they honestly don’t care about them either; nor the kids that would be adopted in their fantasy world where the women they badger all just go “oh yay, adoption”.

        • Mandy

          Exactly. Telling women adoption exists as an option A) really doesn’t do shit to address the issues of unwanted pregnancy. B) does nothing to address the difficulties surrounding the adoption process.

          Now I’m actually curious when the last serious attempt to reform the adoption system was. Anyone know? It seems like a problematic system in the extreme but I’ve never ever heard a politician talk about how to start fixing/changing things.

          • Bonzai

            The adoption lobby has the politician pretty firmly in their pockets. It’s a multi-billion industry with virtually no regulation. Adoptee rights groups can’t even get records opened, even though (or possibly because) sealing records was a ruse by a baby stealer/killer (Georgia Tann) to hide her crimes and had nothing to do with “protecting” mothers from their own children. The industry is in need of, not just reform, but a complete demolition and rebuild.

            And when will these people get it through their heads that adoption and abortion have nothing to do with each other? Abortion is a decision to not be pregnant, adoption is a decision (frequently coerced or the result of lack of assistance) not to parent. Women prevented from getting an abortion usually end up parenting.

          • goatini

            Reuters has an article today on the incredibly cruel and depraved practice of “private re-homing”, in which adopters dump their adopted children on the open market with NO oversight whatsoever. Search today’s news for “Nita Dittenber”, the adopted child who is the focus of the story.

          • King Rat

            I searched it, can’t find anything anywhere. Even went to Reuters, no luck.

          • goatini

            Try Yahoo News, it’s a featured article, “Special Report: Girl harbored dark secret, fearing she’d be sent away”

          • King Rat

            http://news.yahoo.com/special-report-girl-harbored-dark-secret-fearing-shed-131717019.html

            And this as well:

            http://www.reuters.com/investigates/adoption/#article/part1

            This quote stood out to me:

            She discussed why she was so motivated to be a mother. “It makes me feel important,” she said.

            And she described her parenting style this way: “Dude, just be a little mean, OK? … I’ll threaten to throw a knife at your ass, I will. I’ll chase you with a hose.

            “I won’t leave burns on you. I won’t leave marks on you. I’m not going to send you with bruises to school,” she said. “Make sure you got three meals a day, make sure you have a place to live, OK? If you need medication for your psychological problems, I’ve got you there. You need therapy? You need a hug? You need a kiss? Somebody to tickle with you? I got you. OK? But this world is not meant to be perfect. And I just don’t understand why people think it is.”

          • bitchybitchybitchy

            That article is appalling.

          • Jennifer Starr

            That’s just disturbing.

          • ansuz

            I found it at reuters dot com /investigates/adoption-follows/

          • King Rat

            Thanks. I found it. My android kept taking me to ca.Reuters and there was no ‘ investigates’ menu.

          • fiona64

            CPCs are often fronts for religious adoption centers … and we all know that the GOP is deeply in the pocket of the Religious Right. It’s been a mess for a long time, and unlikely to change any time soon.

      • lady_black

        I’m always fond of reminding them that I don’t owe those “lots of people” squat. And neither does any other woman need to become a public baby-oven to provide selfish people who only want infants with infants. They deserve nothing, and if they really wanted a child they would adopt an older child, or one who wasn’t perfect in every way.

        • L-dan

          Pretty much. “but think of the childless parents!” doesn’t really have the same pearl-clutching ring to it, does it?

          Being childless when you don’t want to be can be awful. But I know of no decent people in that boat who think the answer is to limit abortion so they can get babies.

          • lady_black

            I agree that not being able to have a child when you want one is awful. So is being so self-centered that you’ll only accept a white infant. The gay couples are taking the older ones, and the ones with issues, and doing a beautiful job. My hat’s off to them. Goddess bless them.

          • Mandy

            Yeah, you notice how 99% of these anti-choice people who just yell that all adoption is the only choice for all women are also against A) gay marriage and B) allowing LGBT people/couples to adopt? They care so much about “the babiez” that they’d rather them be alone and age out of the system with no family then let them go to a gay couple. Disgusting.

  • rlpincus

    Fantastic that SE Cupp is willing to lobby publicly for lying.

    • Shan

      And they think nobody NOTICES this stuff?!

      • Jennifer Starr

        Listen, I’m currently having a discussion with a man who’s been assuming a woman’s identity online and pretending to be post-abortive–Maggie aka Kevin. How strange is that? I think they have absolutely no shame and that they really believe that women won’t figure it out.

        • Shan

          I’m going to go look at that…and trying to stop feeling like a stalker…

        • Shan

          Okay, that’s just creepy.

        • goatini

          I’d say, as a very conservative estimate, that at least 90% of the “post-abortive female” whiners and false guilt merchants on the internet are males.

  • fiona64

    Why does this feel like the so-called Southern Strategy?

    • Shan

      Because they forgot everything after 1959 happened?

  • red_zone

    Really, if they think people aren’t going to notice, they will be sorely disappointed.

    Abortion is not going to be made illegal. doing so would cause irreparable harm to women, families and society as a whole. It’s a reality that must remain legal for the health and safety of ALL women.

  • Jennifer Starr

    Being civil about it seems to be just another way of saying “We still want to take your rights away, but we’ll pretend to do it nicely, with polite smiles.” Ugh.

  • cjvg

    In the mean time we the legislators will still propose bills forcing unneeded and unwanted cost-increasing medical procedures, as well as outlawing needed life saving medical procedures, even though we the (male) legislators will never feel the consequences and are not doctors and REAL doctors are against these bills!

    They can be as polite about it as they want, in the mean time they are still screwing people (read women and girls) over and practicing medicine without a license.

    Of course they did do it in a polite and friendly way, so women should just nod their little heads and accept it!

    Even if you talk civilly about passing uncivil and cruel laws, that does not mean that these laws are no magically better!

  • Mandy

    Actions speak louder than works. They can lie and twist pretty words all they want but when we continue to see them passing laws that hurt women and not only pregnant women but laws that are put forth that hurt actual born children: how many Republicans complained and voted against free or reduced lunches at schools this year? How many times have they voted against the ACA, which helps new mothers get access to things like breast pumps that weren’t covered by their insurance in the past? Not to mention how the ACA’s birth control mandate could help lower the number of unplanned pregnancies and thus lower the number of women who need an abortion! Their actions show they don’t really give a rat’s ass about women OR children. It’s all about controlling women and their sexuality.

  • Mandy

    When one side is trying to take away my rights and force women everywhere to give birth against their will (which is what they are proposing by their goal of banning legal abortions) there is no being civil here. Especially when 99% of the people talking about and pushing laws about this medical procedure are men who will never be effected by the laws they are passing. That is bullshit. The time for being civil has passed. When they start sneaking these laws in on completely unrelated (abortion rider on the motorcycle insurance bill) things you can tell they have no interests in a civil discussion. There is no longer any place in this fight for politeness.

    • By The Way

      OK well S.E. Cupp is a woman, as long as there isn’t a different S.E. Cupp runnning around, and it sounds like she is saying that the male members of the republican party who talk about these things need to start speaking empatheticly and trying to understand where the true problems lie, instead of making up terms like “legitimate-rape.” Again, as long as they aren’t just talking that way, but rather actually behave that way, how is that not an improvement. I know you think this is a total outrage, but that’s not how democracy works.
      If you say that you aren’t going to be civil because someone disagrees with you then how can you expect people who disagree with you to give you the same respect. I understand that they haven’t been particularly empathetic or intelligent so far, but if they are going to start then that’s a good thing. Isn’t it?

      • goatini

        There is a vast chasm between “disagreeing”, and actively lobbying to strip female US citizens of their civil, human and Constitutional rights. The latter is a direct threat to the liberty and rights of citizens, and as such requires NO “respect”.

        • By The Way

          Why do I get the feeling that the same argument you just made would be exactly what people who disagree with you would say to you? This is why everyone needs to be more civil about this topic.

          • goatini

            If you get that particular feeling, then you’d be quite disingenuous, because those who support and fight for reproductive justice, and for the protection of the civil, human and Constitutional rights of female US citizens, are threatening NO rights and NO choices of ANY citizen.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Why do I get the feeling that the same argument you just made would be exactly what people who disagree with you would say to you?

            How so? We have no desire to force any woman who is against abortion to have one.

          • By The Way

            Here I’ll take your argument and change only a few words.

            “There is a vast chasm between “disagreeing”, and actively lobbying to terminate human life and strip them of their human and Constitutional rights. The latter is a direct threat to the liberty and rights of all human life, and as such requires NO “respect”.

            There are is a distinct difference between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, which is their view of human life, when it starts, and when it should be protected. While trying to figure out what we can all agree on it would be nice for both sides to avoid dehumanizing, degrading, and ignoring the validity of the other side.

          • By The Way

            sorry Goatini’s point.

          • King Rat

            Rights only accrue to persons, not mindless genetic material. Furthermore, no human has the right to use another persons body as life support. Equal rights for embryos = they are denied the right to inhabit another persons body , like the rest of humanity.

          • By The Way

            Brainwaves can be detected and recorded at 40 days. I’m sure you’ll say a “brain is not a mind,” but that is really a more philosophical debate. For example I’m sure that I will be called “mindless” before the end of this discussion, that doesn’t make it so. I shouldn’t be killed because someone’s opinion is that I’m mindless. I have brainwaves; I’m a unique human entity.

          • King Rat

            So before brainwaves are detectable, the zygote/embryo is not a ‘ unique human entity’ is that what you are trying to say?

            And what makes you think that primitive brainwaves originating from the brain stem are morally significant in any way?

            Lastly, do you even have a clue what you are talking about?

            P.S. minds can be measured, BTW. At 40 days there can be no mind, because the structures that give rise to the mind are neither developed nor functional, and the bilaterally synchronous brainwaves that are associated with thought/ sentience do not exist until at least 25 weeks.

          • By The Way

            No it’s a unique human entity from fertilization. But your argument was that it was mindless, and again “mindless” is not a scientific term it’s a philosophical term taking into account all sorts of thoughts feelings and emotions that create a “mind.” My point was we could argue about what makes an entity mindless, for already born persons. People on life support and in vegans give states, for example but they still have rights. Again I’m pointing all this out because this all needs to come back to some sort of civil discussion while we try to balance two different lives that are involved.

          • King Rat

            It is not philosophical. Specific brain structures produce the brainwaves associated with sentience. These brainwaves can be measured. We can discern between a totally paralyzed person who is still sentient but ‘ locked in’ and someone who is braindead. A pre-viability fetus has the same brainwaves as a beating heart cadaver. Essentially brain dead. All scientifically measurable with EEG and the provable fact that a previable fetus lacks the thalamortical structures that give rise to sentience .

            Just a body does not = a person. We are our minds, not our bodies. Which is why beating heart cadavers are often unplugged from life support. No mind, no person. They no longer have rights.

            And wtf is this about vegans? Are you a moron?

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think ‘vegans give states’ is supposed to mean ‘vegetative states’, but I’m not completely sure. Maybe an auto-correct thing? Don’t know. I just got done editing an online essay by a teen that talked about ‘high self of steam’??

          • King Rat

            I know. However, I couldn’t resist to point out his dumbassery.

            BTW, Faye Valentine has been a hoot. She keeps trying to accuse me of being a eugenicist because I believe that personhood starts with sentience, and apparently she has worked with *profoundly* impaired people!!! Yeah…and they were all sentient you dumbfuck, not beating heart cadavers.

            I also followed her twitter feed to her blog…lol:

            https://twitter.com/xalisae

            She is pulling the righteous indignation card on me and it’s so funny.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Now that is funny.

          • By The Way

            Sorry I edited that just now. I’m on my phone; it was supposed to say “vegetative.” And now to your point: you pointed out that it impossible to determine when someone’s brainwaves effectively equal a mind. When in fetal development does that occur, please? Secon those people do not lose their rights there is still a series of steps that need to be followed before they are disconnected, and it isn’t because their rights disappeared it’s because that is the decision they made usually in a living will. If someone does by have that living will the process is complicated, because there is a need to determine what that person would have wanted. Finally, there are also situations where people in vegatative states are expected to recover. A situation in which a person doesn’t have function brain activity, but is expected to within a brief period should be treated differently then one where ther is no chance of recovery.

          • King Rat

            Here is an essay, written by a neurobiologist friend of mine (cjvg, she posts here), followed by numerous citations. Scientists can in fact tell you 1) where consciousness originates from 2) measure the brainwaves associated with sentience.

            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” to avoid confusion.)

            Capacity:

            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
            -2010 http://www.rcog .org .uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice
            -2005 http://jama .jamanetwork .com/article.aspx?articleid=201429

            ———–

            The latest research on the subject, which only confirms the previous post:

            “The development of the subplate and thalamocortical connections in the human foetal brain”, Kostovic et al.

            The cortical subplate (a key transient structure that helps in the eventual development of the cortex) forms in the 21st week of pregnancy (19 weeks post conception) and nerves from the thalamus penetrates it in the 26th week of pregnancy (24th week post conception).

            “Thus, the available evidence suggests that the human foetus can receive a thalamic input through the transient subplate zone at the end of the midfoetal period [end of 2nd trimester](2,11,12,20,46). Although that period of connectivity development has been described as non-driven by sensory input (2,3,30), one cannot exclude the possibility of an extrinsic influence during the end of the midfoetal period. In relation to this intriguing question, it should be noted that the development of the thalamocortical input occurs more or less simultaneously in all sensory cortices (11,15,16).

            During the 22 and 23 PCW (25th week of gestation) (preterm infants with extremely low birth-weight), the majority of thalamocortical axons reside in the superficial subplate of sensory and associative (Fig. 2C) cortical regions (1,11,13–15), whereas few axons have already entered the cortical plate. This dual pattern of thalamocortical connectivity with transient (to the subplate) and permanent (to the cortical plate) component was described as a salient feature of the preterm cortex (2,12). Thus, preterm infants at 22–23 PCW do possess an anatomical substrate for extrinsic cortical input from both sensory and associative thalamic nuclei. Of all the layers of the foetal cortex, the subplate is the most active in the generation of action potentials (30,38,52) and contains the synaptic machinery for the most well-known cortical neurotransmitter systems, including monoaminergic and cholinergic arousal and activating systems (3,53). Thus, the cortical system of very young preterm infants is on the verge of transition from an endogeneous spontaneous processing (30,42) to a sensory-expectant functioning (2,12). The presence of thalamocortical synapses in the subplate is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for the conscious cortical processing, which was emphasized in attempts to explain cortical mechanisms of responding to a painful stimulation (3,5,6,18). The general agreement seems to be that due to the functional immaturity of thalamocortical connections, there is no cortical processing and no feeling of pain before 23 PCW, i.e. 25 weeks of gestation (7).”

            —————–

            All of the above means that a pre-viability fetus:

            1) Lacks the brain structures that give rise to consciousness

            2) Lacks the necessary wiring that give rise to consciousness

            3) Consciousness can be measured, in the form of brainwaves. The brainwaves that are associated with sentience are not present in a pre-viable fetus

            A completely paralyzed patient who is still conscious within their body has measurable brainwaves – the brainwaves associated with consciousness. A person in a PVS state who is permanently damaged has no such brainwaves:

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120106110214.htm

            Finally, there are also situations where people in vegatative states are expected to recover. A situation in which a person doesn’t have function brain activity, but is expected to within a brief period should be treated differently then one where ther is no chance of recovery.

            People in PVS do not recover. It’s permanent. And now, with the technology listed in the link above, it is possible to tell which people are conscious if paralyzed.

            A fetus is not at all analogous to someone in a coma who will simply ‘recover’. The person in a coma has already achieved the capacity for sentience, and is currently NOT using it, but will again once they recover. Furthermore, the majority of coma patients are purposely put into coma to allow the brain to heal.

            A pre-viability fetus has NEVER had the capacity for sentience, and it might NEVER gain that capacity. That is not the same as someone with said capacity regaining it after a period of time. Potential is not actual. Until a fetus can function as a sentient being, it isn’t a sentient being. One day you will be a corpse, but we can’t start treating you as a corpse right now, even though it is inevitable.

          • By The Way

            Thank you for the information on brain development(100% sincere). I have often looked for good information an fetal brain development, but without access to serious academic journals it becomes difficult to know which ones to trust. Most places where you get information seem to have an axe to grind, and the information seems biased. This information seems pretty reliable, so again thank you.
            Unfortunately, (and I’m sure you saw this coming) it does not really change my mind. I used the example of someone without brain activity potentially regaining it, not because it necessarily has happened but because it is the closest approximation, of what is happening in a developing fetus. Like most situations the developing human is unique, and distinctly different from a human who experienced a trauma that resulted in brain death. I think it is an interesting point to compare to because it has some similarities. The fact that a fetus MIGHT never gain the capacity does not change that they more than likely will if left to their natural progression.
            As for your point about us all eventually becoming corpses, I do believe that is a very strong point. You can’t treat someone like something they aren’t until they become it; that’s fair. My response to that is that I would ask you to consider how many guidelines we have for the treatment of corpses. If someone doesn’t want to be harvested for organs, they aren’t. There are laws against desecrating corpses, against dismemberment of the dead, or in general really doing anything which that person did not request in life. Certainly a living human entity that is developing and not dead should be afforded similar courtesy. Humanity is sacred (don’t get too caught up in the religious overtones of that word, feel free to think of it in terms of secular-sacred which is still afforded to certain objects), and as such it should be treated with a certain amount of respect in all its forms. Even if that form is a rotting corpse, or a temporarily mindless collection of genetic material.
            Final note, the woman carrying the developing life is sacred too, but there should be a balance with the other life as well.

          • King Rat

            My response to that is that I would ask you to consider how many
            guidelines we have for the treatment of corpses. If someone doesn’t
            want to be harvested for organs, they aren’t

            Why do you believe that corpses should have more control over their bodies than living women?

            Final note, the woman carrying the developing life is sacred too, but there should be a balance with the other life as well.

            Empty words. If you want to force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term you are essentially enslaving her. And granting her less rights over her body than that corpse.

          • By The Way

            That was somewhat dramatic, don’t you think? A pregnant woman is hardly being “harvested for organs.” She will not lose her organs, and I have also seen new studies that suggest that the stem cells from the baby she is carrying will repair damage done to her organs. (I’ll post the link as a response to this comment, because I’m not sure how it will get mediated with a link)
            Your second suggestion is also a pretty extreme exaggeration. It’s not slavery to suggest that a parent is responsible for the life of his or her child, so why would it be slavery for a pregnant woman to be responsible for the life of her fetus.
            I’m just going to get in front of one particular counter argument that I have heard. It goes like this: If a parent with a child wants to get rid of his or her child that child can be put up for adoption; a pregnant woman can’t do that for months so the equivalent is to abort.
            Just to prevent that from becoming an issue, until the child is actually taken into custody by another party, the parents would still be responsible; that’s not enslavement its responsibility there is a difference.

          • By The Way

            It’s being moderated now.

          • By The Way

            http://singularityhub .com/2013/02/05/new-studies-show-cells-from-fetus-end-up-in-mothers-brains-and-hearts/

            I think it got filtered, not sure. Here it is with a space before the “.com ” if you are interested you can cut and paste, and delete the space.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            The potential benefits do not outweigh the risks involved. If pregnancy was such a boon to woman, you would expect that nuns would be dying off in droves vs. women who have had lots of children. This is not the case.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Pregnancy maims and kills. Try having a bowling ball sized item shoved up your rectum. Tell us how it feels.

            Women have lost teeth, bone density, developed diabetes, had vaginal tearing, and loads of other *permanent* harms inflicted upon them by pregnancy. Some even die.

            And yes, parents are expected to be responsible for their kids – and if they do not consent to it, they can drop the unwanted child off at a shelter. It happens all the time. Parents cannot be forced to give blood or bone marrow to their born children – and those losses are not permanent and cause less damage to a body than pregnancy.

            Pregnancy is a full body donation. Another body is using your organs continuously to survive. It has no right to be there without your continued consent. Forcing a woman to remain pregnant as some sort of incubator is to objectify her, and treat her as a mere delivery system for a fetus. That is slavery.

          • By The Way

            “Pregnancy Maims and Kills?” I know it might seem like a minor difference, but Pregnancy “can Maim and Kill.” it’s not an inherent part of the experience. I have never heard someone suggest that a terminal pregnancy is not a legitimate reason for an abortion.

            You won’t loose your teeth if you brush them regularly, just like every other day, but yes there is an increased risk of dental problems. What you said isn’t wrong, but if the answer is as simple as “not if you brush your teeth” it seems odd to cite it as a “pregnancy problem” and not a hygiene problem. Bone density is easily recoverable, diabetes now has a cure, and tears heal. Hardly permanent.

            Parents cannot be forced to give blood or bone marrow, but that is a passive decision not an active cutting off of supplies.
            They are required to feed the children in their care.
            They are still responsible for bringing that child to a safe shelter, if they don’t they have committed a crime, and rightfully so. As a parent, willing or unwilling, you have a certain level of responsibility for your child. I think this answer also addresses your next point about forcing, objectifying, and enslaving. I’m not treating any woman as an object, I’m treating them like a parent. I believe that the fathers should also be held responsible for taking on any additional burdens that they can.

            Finally, the mention of shelters isn’t analogous, because those exist as a system to preserve life when an unfit parent is unable to handle their responsibility, not as a means to terminate the life. None of the systems that allow parent to abdicate their responsibilities exist as a way to ensure the freedoms of parents from their responsibility they exist as a way to preserve life despite the existence of negligent or unfit parents. If we had some sort of processing plant where children could be brought to be terminated by their parents when they were no longer capable of handling them, then that would be better for your argument. But considering that is the most horrific thing I have ever typed, I think you wouldn’t want to align yourself with that method.
            Asking someone to take responsibility for something they created isn’t enslavement it’s justice.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            I know it might seem like a minor difference, but Pregnancy “can Maim and Kill.” it’s not an inherent part of the experience.

            And rape can maim and kill. So, unless the rapist is killing you, you can’t act in self-defense, because your body isn’t realllly being violated unless you’re about to die.

            You completely missed my earlier point, which is that we do NOT force people to put life and limb on the line if the risk is non-zero. We do not forcibly violate people’s bodies to save lives. Such a burden is what is known as an *extraordinary* burden, vs. a mere ordinary burden. Feeding your child until you can give it up for adoption is an ordinary burden. Forcing you to donate blood to your child until you can give it up for adoption is an *extraordinary* burden, and it has the effect of treating people like objects, commodities. Which is one reason why blood and tissue donation is NOT mandatory, even though it can save lives. And it’s possible to lock your kid up in a room, and feed it a few times a day and change it’s diapers until you can give it up for adoption. Can’t do that with a fetus that is inside your body.

            And you completely sidestepped my point about having a bowling ball sized item shoved up your rectum. If the pain of childbirth was induced by other means, it would be considered torture by Article V of the UN Declaration of Human rights. We do not subject people to grievous bodily harm and torture to save lives.

            Parents cannot be forced to give blood or bone marrow, but that is a passive decision not an active cutting off of supplies.

            And if a parent is donating blood to their child, the parent can also actively cut off the blood donation, even if said child will die. Because people are not required to give bodily support to save others.

            I’m not treating any woman as an object, I’m treating them like a parent. I believe that the fathers should also be held responsible for taking on any additional burdens that they can.

            A pregnant woman is only a parent in the biological sense. And biology is not destiny. Furthermore, unless you want to force fathers to donate their bodies to save their child’s lives DURING and AFTER pregnancy then maybe you have a point. But until you demand that dad’s donate blood/tissue/organs to save their offspring, you are talking out of your ass, and putting the burden of ‘responsibility’ entire on women for the apparent crime of having sex while female.

            Asking someone to take responsibility for something they created isn’t enslavement it’s justice.

            Forcing a woman to labour on behalf of another, to have her body violated, and to risk death and permanent injury is indeed slavery.

            And if no born person has the right to use another persons’ body as life support, then why should a mindless embryo have that right? You are giving embryo’s rights that no person has, while taking rights away from women (for having sex while female).

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Pregnancy Maims and Kills?” I know it might seem like a minor difference, but Pregnancy “can Maim and Kill.” it’s not an inherent part of the experience.”

            Yes, maiming certainly is an inherent part of the experience. Either I have to push an 8 lb object out of my vagina or I have to undergo major abdominal surgery, both of which carry the risk of death and have extensive recovery periods. If any other person were to attempt to cut open my abdomen or stretch my genitals without my consent, that would be aggravated assault.

            “Parents cannot be forced to give blood or bone marrow, but that is a passive decision not an active cutting off of supplies.”

            Please explain why the difference between active and passive cutting off of supplies is morally or legally relevant. Your argument assumes, without proving, that there is such relevance.

            “Hardly permanent.”

            Whether the use or the harm is permanent is not relevant. Sex is not permanent; we don’t force people to allow others to use their genitals against their will. Blood regenerates; we don’t force people to donate against the will. Try again; you’re flailing.

            “I’m not treating any woman as an object, I’m treating them like a parent.”
            Then why aren’t you advocating that men be required to donate blood to their children who need it?

          • By The Way

            I’m not flailing. If you abort you are cutting off the fetuses food supply. That is the point; that is illegal. You don’t have to give them your organs or blood but you do have to give your child food while it’s in your care.
            So, you can take your pound of flesh, but not a drop of blood. That’s fair right?

          • Jennifer Starr

            If you abort you are cutting off the fetuses food supply. That is the point; that is illegal.

            Actually, that’s not illegal, because abortion is not illegal. You may argue that it should be illegal, but it’s not.

          • By The Way

            Sorry J. Starr, you are right. Cutting it off to the fetus is not illegal. Cutting it off from your child is illegal, and that was the comaprison I was trying to make. Thank you for catching that.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Having a born child and being pregnant is not the same thing.

          • By The Way

            No situation is the same ever. We still have guidelines for these situations, that we refer to as laws.

          • Jennifer Starr

            That’s not what I’m talking about, and you know it. Pregnancy and being a mother to a born child are two entirely different things. And not just a question of ‘location’.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            If you abort you are cutting off the fetuses food supply. That is the point; that is illegal

            And the embryo is also using every one of your organs to stay alive, irrespective of food. Your blood, nutrients in your blood, your kidneys and liver (to process waste). It uses all of the woman’s organs. And she has the right to deny it that use. Because the right to life does not include the positive right to use another person’s organs as life support.

          • By The Way

            Yes but you can’t do that one thing which you consider moral without also doing the immoral/ illegal thing. You are familiar with the pound of flesh reference I made correct?
            I’m sorry if I am missing some of your points, I promise it’s not intentional but there are two of you now, and you’re both making similar but slightly different arguments about how there should be no responsibility on the person who creates a life, and its getting hard to address and refute so many little differences at one time. I never said I thought this was a simple and direct topic just that while discussing it everyone should be civil while we figure out what we all consider acceptable.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “I never said I thought this was a simple
            and direct topic just that while discussing it everyone should be civil while
            we figure out what we all consider acceptable.”

            I have no desire to be civil to someone who
            will not debate honestly. You change the
            goal posts on your argument and frankly, simply aren’t even offering arguments
            that are coherent, much less new or different than anything we’ve all heard a
            million times before. Further, I do not
            care what you consider “acceptable.”
            Your opinions do not factor in to my right to decide how my body is used
            whatsoever. I am under absolutely no
            obligation to compromise my bodily rights until you consider it acceptable.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            It’s pretty simple:

            1) the right to life does not include the positive right to use another person’s entire body/blood/tissue/organs either temporarily or permanently

            2) the right to life does not include the right to harm another – even if that harm is psychological in nature (this is why, for example, rape is a crime, even if it does not at all physically harm the victim, the crime is in the bodily violation)

            3) just because YOU think that the risks of pregnancy ‘ain’t a thing’ it isn’t up to you to decide what the person facing the risk should expose themselves to. Just like I can’t force you out of an airplane to save a life, even if your risks of dying are lower than from pregnancy

            4) people are not objects to be used as a mere means – which is why forced organ and tissue donation is illegal, and why forced pregnancy falls under the same considerations.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Excellent response :). Apparently I’m feeling nasty today and don’t feel like spelling things out for someone who isn’t even trying….

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Your replies are great. BTW is just a garden variety special pleading for embryos misogynist.

          • By The Way

            The problem with all of those arguments is that your acting as if this was some kind of spontaneous intrusion, like a virus or parasite.
            It isn’t and unless it was forced on someone, then there was consent to possible complications.

            It’s not that I don’t think the complications “ain’t a thing” (why are you quoting something I never said) its that I think that a unique human life is an equally important thing.
            I’m all for improving our healthcare for pregnant women to address those issues.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            The problem with all of those arguments is that your acting as if this
            was some kind of spontaneous intrusion, like a virus or parasite

            You go to Africa. You drink from a dirty puddle. A guinea worm eggenters your body, and takes up residence in your gut. It is not a spontaneous intrusion. A known consequence of drinking from dirty puddles in Africa is a guinea worm infestation. You have thus consented to letting it use your body, and you cannot withdraw consent, even if it hurts you. It’s just doing what it evolved to do.

            It’s not that I don’t think the complications “ain’t a thing” (why are
            you quoting something I never said) its that I think that a unique human life is an equally important thing.

            Yet you don’t think that unique human lives are important enough to force fathers to donate blood/organs/tissue/bone marrow to save the lives of their born children. You don’t think unique lives are important enough to even take organs from corpses. You ONLY apply this to fetuses and women, because apparently, which is the special pleading fallacy. And you have yet to justify it other than to say that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, and that pregnancy is natural. Neither of those are valid arguments.

            I’m all for improving our healthcare for pregnant women to address those issues.

            Healthcare can’t predict a lot of things. It can’t predict vaginal tearing, obstetric fistulas, and post partum death. And a whole list of things.

          • By The Way

            Your Africa example is not the natural state is is an exception, and those are parasites and not human.
            I most certainly do think that parents should have to save their child if they can through tissue donation. If you could provide me with an example of when that happened, I promise to be thoroughly outraged. I believe that parents are responsible for their children until they come of age.
            Your last point is addressed in the previous comments.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Your Africa example is not the natural state is is an exception, and those are parasites and not human.

            The principle still applies. You say that if you invite something into your body through your actions, you cannot revoke consent. The fact that the embryo is human is irrelevant – more special pleading from you.

            I most certainly do think that parents should have to save their child if they can through tissue donation

            Should parents be legally compelled to donate tissue to their children, yes or no?

            Your last point is addressed in the previous comments.

            Yes, and if you force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, and it kills her, you have essentially imposed the death penalty on her for having sex. We don’t even torture prisoners, take tissue from them, or kill them simply because they hurt someone in the commission of a crime.

            Unless you are operating from the assumption that when a woman has sex, she has done something worse than a criminal stabbing you in the kidneys?

          • By The Way

            Special pleading for special situations. I think human life is special. More special than that of parasites.

            Yes if the legal guardians are a match why would they not be compelled to save the life of their child.Again, please provide me with an example of when a guardian didn’t do this, and I will be outraged.

            I have said many times a woman dying as a result of the pregnancy is not acceptable, and is a legitimate reason to abort.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            I have said many times a woman dying as a result of the pregnancy is not acceptable, and is a legitimate reason to abort.

            Post partum hemorrhage cannot be predicted. Neither than severe vaginal tearing, prolapsed uterus and post partum psychosis and depression and a myriad of life threatening auto-immune diseases.

            Yes if the legal guardians are a match why would they not be compelled to save the life of their child

            They are not compelled. Do you think they should be? Do you think a law should be put on the books right now, that all parents should be forced to donate tissue to save their children’s lives?

            Curran v Bosze: a father of three wants hid youngest sons (whom he does not have custody of) tested to see if they could be bone marrow donors for his dying 12 year old. Their mother refused, courts sided with the mother. Sue Argabright sued her sons father to compel him to donate bone marrow. Bioethicists observing the case all said the same thing, that forcing the donation would be the wrong decision and set a horrible precedent. Fortunately for the kid, the father had a change of heart and volunteered, and the suit was dropped.

            A judge in Washington refused to order a C-section to increase the survival chances for the fetus at the expense of the woman’s health. In the decision, the judge wrote that since he couldn’t force a mother to give a kidney to an already born child, he didn’t see what grounds he had to force someone to undergo a C-section.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Shimp v. McFall. Guy took his family member to court to compel him to donate bone marrow. Court ruled against him, ruled that it would be unacceptable to force organ donation. Again, we don’t even require CORPSES to donate body parts. Why do you think women should have less control over their bodies than corpses?

          • Unicorn Farm

            The fetus uses my body for much more than “food supply.” Try oxygen delivery system and waste disposal
            system, for starters. The reality is
            that the fetus uses my body to sustain its life and I have every right to
            withdraw bodily support. The fetus has
            no right to use my body, just like a born baby doesn’t, just like a man doesn’t. Again, you didn’t even respond to my other
            points.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            And you can also tell us…if a pregnant person does not eat enough during pregnancy, and the prenate miscarries from lack of nutrients, is the pregnant person guilty of starving it and therefore a MURDERER?

          • By The Way

            I haven’t called anyone a murder in this discussion as far as I can remember. But not to look like I am copping out on your point I will say that if we were to discuss this in the framework of murder, then I think that it would be a murder only if it could be proved to be intentional.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Manslaughter then? Neglect?

          • By The Way

            I just answered your question, but I never suggested that this be put in terms of Murder; you did. If you would like to continue arguing against yourself have at it.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            You compared not feeding your child to not gestating it:

            They are required to feed the children in their care.

            If not feeding your child ends in its death, then that is certainly neglect/murder, yes?

            Then surely, you are saying that if a woman intentionally does not eat while pregnant, that she is guilty of murder, yes? Or at least manslaughter?

          • By The Way

            I don’t see why we would have to keep a framework that doesn’t match the situation. But I do believe it is morally wrong, and has as much a reason to be addressed legally as any other immoral action.

          • Jennifer Starr

            That’s not a straight answer. What do you believe the legal penalty should be?

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Well what should the legal penalty be?

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Jennifer Starr

            By The Way

            34 minutes ago

            That’s not a straight answer. What do you believe the legal penalty should be?

          • By The Way

            For unintentional termination- nothing. For the intentional deprivation of resources of a fetus that came about as a result of consensual sex, something similar to the verdicts given to Gosnell, his assistants, or Melissa Drexler.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Why nothing for unintentional? If a parent neglects their kids and fails to feed them due to certain personal issues, should they walk free?

            And nice, that you would put a woman in jail for life, and treat her the way you would treat a hardened criminal, simply for starving herself to cause a miscarriage. Unbelievable. You must really hate women.

          • By The Way

            You can disagree with my statement, but please do not try to give me a motive. You don’t know me. You don’t know my motives.
            Nothing for unintentional, because it is possible to not even know you are pregnant, and I don’ think it’s right to punish someone for something they didn’t know. I already said it’s not a perfect match for the murder comparison.
            Second point, saying “simply” doesn’t make it less intentional or wrong. I also think that a man should go to jail simply for stabbing someone.

          • Jennifer Starr

            But if a woman knows she’s pregnant and miscarries, do you do think it should be investigated for possible intent? You don’t find that thought kind of disturbing?

          • By The Way

            I find it extremely disturbing that we live in a world where the intentional termination of human life by a mother is something that would need to be considered in an investigation, yes.
            I find that very disturbing, yet here we all are discussing why they should or should not be allowed to do it.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            If you want to grant fetuses personhood, then every miscarriage will be a possible crime scene, yes.

            If abortion is illegal, you will have to assume that women will do anything to terminate a pregnancy. So every miscarriage = possible murder or manslaughter.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Women have been terminating their pregnancies and finding ways to prevent them since the very beginning. We have always lived in ‘that world’. And you did not answer my question.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            The thing is, you have compared feeding your kid cream wheaties to disconnecting it from your body. As far as the law is concerned, feeding your kid cream wheat is an ordinary burden. Having that kid surviving off your blood and organs is an EXTRAORDINARY burden, which is why tissue donation is not forced – even if you put the kid in the situation where it needed the tissue.

            And no parent has been forced by the law to provide bodily donation to save their kid’s lives. You are comparing apples and oranges, and then saying that women cannot absolve themselves of this burden, and if they do, they are right up there with hardened criminals, because consent to sex + not allowing someone to use your body is the equivalent of first degree murder.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So if someone deliberately does not eat, and that causes the pregnancy to terminate, you think they should be in prison?

          • ansuz

            I have an eating disorder. My eating disorder gets worse when my body is doing things things that I do not give it permission to do. My eating disorder is connected to my gender-related physical dysphoria, and the fact that my mind processes all of the normal things for a female body to be doing — storing weight in the hips, growing breasts, menstruating — as being wrong.
            I starve myself. I throw up — sometimes intentionally, sometimes it just happens. I get crying, vomiting, hyperventilating panic attacks with my periods. I have scars on my abdomen from where I tried to fix my body.
            If I became pregnant and starvation was the only means I had of terminating the pregnancy, I would do so. I probably wouldn’t make it that long unless I were strapped down, though; I’d rather just kill myself.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            VID, so far, has refused to answer that question.

          • By The Way

            VID? sorry I might have missed that. Would you mind repeating it. Like I said you guys are posting at least twice as often as me. I’m really trying. I promise.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            It does not concern you.

          • By The Way

            Sorry. I was just trying to reply to a comment to a reply on my comment.

          • By The Way

            I said it above but it’s easy enough to retype. You my friend are the exception not the rule.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You act as if the physical risk of pregnancy is no big deal, which is fine and dandy–if you’re the one who’s pregnant. But unless you’re the one assuming the risks, it’s not up to you to decide how much risk someone else should be willing to assume. That should be up to the woman who is actually pregnant.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Pregnancy and health:

            Each year in the U.S., about 800 women die of pregnancy-related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. An additional 34,000 barely avoid death.”

            Data modeling suggesting 22/100,000 US maternal mortality rate

            In 2004/2005, 1.7 million women per year suffered adverse health effects

            http://search.worldbank.org/data?qterm=us%20maternal%20mortality%20rate&language=EN

            http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/campaigns/demand-dignity/maternal-health-is-a-human-right/maternal-health-in-the-us

            http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/why-are-so-many-u-s-women-dying-during-childbirth/article_dd916b4b-38f0-5bae-ba42-ddee636e4cf4.html

            http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/dec/10/torn-apart-by-childbirth

            http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-buzz/opera-singer-suing-hospital-episiotomy-left-her-severe-162302400.html

            Maternal death in the US is about 22/100,000, or about 0.022%

            A further 30,000 women will nearly die, and 50,000 will suffer severe and potentially life-threatening complications that leave them hospitalized for at least some period of time. That’s about 2% of births per year.

            A full quarter, 25%, will suffer permanent physical maiming or damage.

            So tell me. A 27.22% risk of adverse, permanent consequences- is this somehow not enough risk for you? And why do you get to choose and not the woman facing the risk?

            stats for U.S.):

            Postpartum depression: 5 to 25%
            PTSD from childbirth: 5.9%
            Miscarriages: 11 to 22% (related: ectopic pregnancies and early pregnancy hemorrhages)
            Maternal mortality in the U.S: 24 per 100,000 live births
            Stillbirths: 1 in 160
            Pre-eclampsis: 6-8%
            Post-partum hemorrhage: 13%

            Pregnancy worsens lupus, thyroid disease, and diabetes.

            Normal, frequent
            or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

            exhaustion (weariness
            common from first weeks)

            altered appetite
            and senses of taste and smell

            nausea and vomiting
            (50% of women, first trimester)

            heartburn and indigestion

            constipation

            weight gain

            dizziness and light-headedness

            bloating, swelling,
            fluid retention

            hemmorhoids

            abdominal cramps

            yeast infections

            congested, bloody
            nose

            acne and mild skin
            disorders

            skin discoloration
            (chloasma, face and abdomen)

            mild to severe backache
            and strain

            increased headaches

            difficulty sleeping,
            and discomfort while sleeping

            increased urination
            and incontinence

            bleeding gums

            pica

            breast pain and
            discharge

            swelling of joints,
            leg cramps, joint pain

            difficulty sitting,
            standing in later pregnancy

            inability to take
            regular medications

            shortness of breath

            higher blood pressure

            hair loss

            tendency to anemia

            curtailment of ability
            to participate in some sports and activities

            infection
            including from serious and potentially fatal disease

            (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with
            non-pregnant women, and
            are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)

            extreme pain on
            delivery

            hormonal mood changes,
            including normal post-partum depression

            continued post-partum
            exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section
            – major surgery — is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
            fully recover)

            Normal, expectable,
            or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

            stretch marks (worse
            in younger women)

            loose skin

            permanent weight
            gain or redistribution

            abdominal and vaginal
            muscle weakness

            pelvic floor disorder
            (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers
            and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal
            incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life — aka prolapsed utuerus,
            the malady sometimes badly fixed by the transvaginal mesh)

            changes to breasts

            varicose veins

            scarring from episiotomy
            or c-section

            other permanent
            aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed
            by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)

            increased proclivity
            for hemmorhoids

            loss of dental and
            bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

            higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer’s

            newer research indicates
            microchimeric cells, other bi-directional exchanges of DNA, chromosomes, and other bodily material between fetus and
            mother (including with “unrelated” gestational surrogates)

            Occasional complications
            and side effects:

            complications of episiotomy

            spousal/partner
            abuse

            hyperemesis gravidarum

            temporary and permanent
            injury to back

            severe
            scarring
            requiring later surgery
            (especially after additional pregnancies)

            dropped (prolapsed)
            uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other
            pelvic floor weaknesses — 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele,
            and enterocele)

            pre-eclampsia
            (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated
            with eclampsia, and affecting 7 – 10% of pregnancies)

            eclampsia (convulsions,
            coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)

            gestational diabetes

            placenta previa

            anemia (which
            can be life-threatening)

            thrombocytopenic
            purpura

            severe cramping

            embolism
            (blood clots)

            medical disability
            requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of
            many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
            or baby)

            diastasis recti,
            also torn abdominal muscles

            mitral valve stenosis
            (most common cardiac complication)

            serious infection
            and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)

            hormonal imbalance

            ectopic pregnancy
            (risk of death)

            broken bones (ribcage,
            “tail bone”)

            hemorrhage
            and

            numerous other complications
            of delivery

            refractory gastroesophageal
            reflux disease

            aggravation of pre-pregnancy
            diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5%
            of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment
            prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)

            severe post-partum
            depression and psychosis

            research now indicates
            a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments,
            including “egg harvesting” from infertile women and donors

            research also now
            indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity
            in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy

            research also indicates
            a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary
            and cardiovascular disease

            Less common (but
            serious) complications:

            peripartum cardiomyopathy

            cardiopulmonary
            arrest

            magnesium toxicity

            severe hypoxemia/acidosis

            massive embolism

            increased intracranial
            pressure, brainstem infarction

            molar pregnancy,
            gestational trophoblastic disease
            (like a pregnancy-induced
            cancer)

            malignant arrhythmia

            circulatory collapse

            placental abruption

            obstetric fistula

            More
            permanent side effects:

            future infertility

            permanent disability

            death.

          • By The Way

            I think that that is dependent on how the person was initially put in this situation. If you know that those are risks involved don’t participate in an activity that will lead to it, or put someone else in that situation. If you think that the benefits outweigh the risks that doesn’t change that you are accepting the risk by participating in an act that could lead to it.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            So in other words, women shouldn’t have sex if they don’t wanna risk death and disability, because consent to sex is consent to death, is that what you’re saying?

            And if you drive, you are consenting to permanent injury and death, and if you should become injured, you should be denied treatment, because you consented to the injuries.

            And if you go skiing, you also consented to the risk of a broken leg, so you should also be denied treatment, because you consented to the injury by choosing to ski.

            Yeah, that makes perfect logical sense.

          • By The Way

            Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy and complications.
            You started to answer your own question but then left out a crucial aspect. If you consent to driving and get injured you should recieve any treatment that will improve your situation without terminating another human life. You don’t get to kill someone to make yourself healthy.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            You don’t get to kill someone to make yourself healthy.

            You do, if they are violating and assaulting you. And the complications, and general state of pregnancy constitute an assault on the pregnant person’s body.

          • By The Way

            Saying it doesn’t make it so. If that were the case we would try babies the second they were born.
            Also, in this situation if your actions put them on life support who’s to say that you didn’t assault them, and put them on life support. As the instigator you can’t use the self-defense, defense. I can make outlandish comparisons too you see.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Also, in this situation if your actions put them on life support who’s
            to say that you didn’t assault them, and put them on life support.

            Well then you agree that fathers should also be forced to donate their blood/tissue/organs to save their born children, since the fathers had an equal hand in assaulting the prenate by ejaculating inside a woman, yes?

            And that if you injure someone in a car accident, you should also be forced to donate blood/tissue/organs because you have assaulted them, yes?

          • By The Way

            Sure why not make fathers have to help in whatever way they can to keep the child they are responsible for alive. I addressed this below, but could you do me a favor, and provide me with an example of when a legal guardian didn’t try to save their child. If you can I will be upset about that as well.

            Nope, but if they die as a result of your actions you should be tried. So I would encourage you to donate to prevent them from dying to prevent worse charges being brought against you.

          • ansuz

            Dystopia. Yay.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Curran v Bosze: a father of three wants hid youngest sons (whom he does not have custody of) tested to see if they could be bone marrow donors for his dying 12 year old. Their mother refused, courts sided with the mother. Sue Argabright sued her sons father to compel him to donate bone marrow. Bioethicists observing the case all said the same thing, that forcing the donation would be the wrong decision and set a horrible precedent. Fortunately for the kid, the father had a change of heart and volunteered, and the suit was dropped.

            A judge in Washington refused to order a C-section to increase the survival chances for the fetus at the expense of the woman’s health. In the decision, the judge wrote that since he couldn’t force a mother to give a kidney to an already born child, he didn’t see what grounds he had to force someone to undergo a C-section.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Excellent post :)

          • Jennifer Starr

            Ugh. My brain hurts.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’re still acting as if the fetus is the same as a separate, born individual, which prior to birth is simply not true. If they were separate, then they could be separated from the woman without any problems. And they can’t be.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Yeah. Your argument presupposes that 1) the prenate is the equal of a born person 2) that you would go shoot a random person in the head.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            “Another” can go and get me a cup of coffee. Sloppy thinking and language skills. Such bathos “another human life.” Barf.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Look at these pictures, read about the vaginal tearing, and tell me that people should be forced to undergo such 1) torture 2) maiming to save lives:

            http://www.birthdiaries.com/diary/birth030/

            No, only women? Why is that ByTheWay? Is having sex while female a crime that should be punished with torture? Would you agree with me that having a large object shoved up your rectum to save a life is the right thing to do? What if your child would starve to death if you wouldn’t accept a bowling ball up your ass? Well then, your ass and injury vs. the life of a child. It sounds easy to me. So bend over, please.

          • By The Way

            The size comparison you’re making is accurate, but the body parts are not. Rectums are not designed to stretch as much as the vaginal canal, but if you would offer a more reasonable comparison. Perhaps kidney stones, which I have heard are as painful (not sure if I believe it, honestly who came up with that comparison), I would gladly agree that is the right thing to do to save a life. But now we are moving away from the topic, and you are starting to try and put words in my mouth and resorting to vulgarity, which is not how a civil discussion (what this article was all about in the first place) is carried out. So I won’t be addressing any more comments that are quite so accusatory.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Aww, so you cop-out by complaining about language? Typical and weak. I am not surprised.

            And no, even IF the vagina is ‘designed’ to stretch, it is by no means non-painful and non-damaging. The pain with a vaginal birth is just as extreme as having a bowling ball shoved up your rectum. Also, some persons, such as Mr. Goatse, have in fact succeeded in inserting bowling ball sized objects up their rectums – so, clearly, the rectum CAN handle very large objects.

            Perhaps kidney stones, which I have heard are as painful (not sure if I
            believe it, honestly who came up with that comparison), I would gladly
            agree that is the right thing to do to save a life

            So you assert that, up to 3 days of constant searing pain, with a painful and damaging exit of something from a tiny hole in your body, should be something that all people should be forced to undergo should it save lives?

            And no, osteoperosis, diabetes and dental loss are not reversible. Neither is permanent pelvic floor damage, and certain obstetric fistulas.

          • By The Way

            I think that they should undergo it to save a life that they have endangered or are responsible for. I don’t think they should HAVE to for any person who is in danger, but I do want to live in a world where people freely would do that for each other as well despite any extenuating circumstances putting them in the responsible category.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Oh, so more special pleading for fetuses. And this only applies to women, naturally?

          • By The Way

            You’re acting like i was my decision to only have it apply to women. I can’t help that men can’t carry human life. If they could then i think that everything I said should apply to them as well.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Still special pleading for fetuses, and subjugation of women.

            To apply equal rights before the law, all people should be legally obligated to done their physical bodies in order to preserve life. If, as a general principle, you believe that fully bodily donation, at risk of permanent injury and death, is necessary and moral to save a life in the case of pregnancy, then it must apply in all other situations otherwise you are simply engaging in special pleading for fetuses and discriminating against women.

          • By The Way

            I addressed these below. Could we stick to one spot? We keep repeating ourselves in two different areas.

          • ansuz

            That’s not what that is. That’s a (probably) frustrated thingy noting just how conveniently this restricting-bodily-autonomy-thing falls along the lines feminist/anti-racist/kyriarchy theory would predict, with people mysteriously finding it easier to justify restricting the rights of women than men, Black people than white people, trans* people than cis people, disabled people than abled, etc.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Men can donate blood and organs. Will you get out there and advocate that men be required by law to donate blood, bone marrow, liver? Why or why not?

          • ansuz

            I am incapable of doing what you think is the right thing, and I refuse to accept any moral condemnation on account of that.

          • By The Way

            Well then it wouldn’t apply to you just like it wouldn’t apply to men who don’t have the equipment. You are the exception not the rule. We have exceptions in our laws for specific situations.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            I know 5 people who would rather kill themselves than deal with the violation and pain and yes, torture of pregnancy and birth.

          • By The Way

            Anecdotal. That doesn’t make it the majority. Also suicidal thoughts are a sign of mental health issues, perhaps you should seek counselling for them. Committing suicide is never the answer.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Counseling is not the cure all you think it is. You are woefully ignorant about the violation that forced use of one’s body is. It is akin to rape if you do not want it there.

            Women have in fact killed themselves rather than be pregnant. About 47,000 women die per year worldwide from unsafe abortion because they would rather risk death than give birth.

          • By The Way

            Mental illness is a different issue. I’m not denying that it affects pregnant women, but it should be addressed separately from other abortions.

          • ansuz

            1. People choosing to risk their lives in unsafe abortions rather than endure what they evaluate to be worse… is not mental illness.
            2. *runs out of steam*
            I’m going to sleep.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Right, because every woman who doesn’t want pregnancy, baybeez and motherhood must be mentally ill. *snort* The thing is, ending abortion, despite what you might imagine, is not going to make women suddenly happy to be pregnant because you give them no other choice. It’s just going to make some women more desperate to end their pregnancies by any means possible.

          • ansuz

            And good luck getting proper treatment if you’re pregnant.

          • ansuz

            Plus, I get ridiculous amounts of therapy. It only does so much. I (mostly) consistently weigh over a hundred pounds. I have never attempted suicide, though I have come very, very close. I haven’t had any panic attacks in public this year, and I’ve only thrown up in public twice since Christmas.

            This is progress, but I’ve been working on these issues for five years, now.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Also, certain mental illnesses require that the pregnant person go off their meds for the duration of the pregnancy. Counseling can’t fix certain forms of schizophrenia and depression.

          • ansuz

            “when an unfit parent is unable to handle their responsibility,”
            I am psychologically unfit to handle the responsibility of pregnancy. You’d never know it to look at me, but it’s true; I can go into detail if you’d like.
            Who are you to make the judgment of what someone should be capable of doing, when you know nothing about them?

          • By The Way

            I was never attempting to appoint myself as the mediator of this situation, I don’t think its unreasonable to think that there be a legal guideline to follow though.

          • ansuz

            You are judging. You are saying that, in order to pass a basic moral standard for decency, pregnant people who do not wish to be pregnant must endure months of having their bodies used and changed against their wishes, followed by a period of intense pain or major abdominal surgery.

            …And, fuck, I’m crying.

          • Lieutenant Nun
          • ansuz

            <3

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Remember Albert from TFA? This guy is just recycling the same set of tired old arguments.

          • ansuz

            They’re pretty much all the same. They all seem to think that rape is bad because rapists are bad, and not because victims are hurt.

          • By The Way

            I’m truly sorry that you are crying. Like I said this all doesn’t necessarily apply to you nor does it specifically apply to any person. I hope you feel better. I’m sure people will call me a liar for saying this, but I am sorry this is making you cry. This is a very very difficult issue, and I promise I take it seriously. I think you should be proud of yourself for taking it seriously too. If you are having trouble with this thread just take a quick break. I understand why you might feel compelled to talk about it(lord knows I do), but take a break. Lt.Nun is addressing these issues just fine.
            I promise I have not judged any of you once. I have not accused any of you of being bad or evil. I understand that each of you believe that this is an infringement on your human rights. I just believe that the other human life is as important.
            We just disagree. Please don’t cry.
            We’re all just internet commentators don’t worry about us too much. I know it might not make you feel better, but I am not doing this to get a rise out of anyone, I’m saying these things because I believe that what I’m saying is somewhat important to someone.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Like I said this all doesn’t necessarily apply to you nor does it specifically apply to any person

            Bullshit. Ansuz is the anecdata you just blithely dismissed. Ansuz’ would rather be dead than give birth. So would I. But that doesn’t matter. Because our personal life experiences don’t count to you – all that matters is that a mindless embryo be given the chance to live at the expense of an actual breathing, suffering person.

          • By The Way

            I’m going to let all of these comments slide, because I don’t want to upset Ansuz anymore than I have. I’m sorry you guys think, I’m evil. I promise you wouldn’t if you met me.
            I think it would be very interesting to meet all of you. I haven’t said anything that I wouldn’t say to another human being in person. maybe you haven’t either, but I hope you are a bit more polite to humans in real life. I’ll chalk it up to the feeling that you need to be shocking when it’s just typing instead of speaking.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I really don’t think anyone here has been that rude to you.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            He is playing the victim card so he can avoid difficult questions should they arise. Claim hurt feelings and refuse to answer. I have seen this trick before.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            You seem to think that having a uterus = consent to pregnancy.

            Way to objectify women and treat them as easy bake ovens.

            You are not the victim here, and stop pretending that you are. You came to a pro choice forum to tell uterus owners that should they become pregnant, they no longer have a right to their bodies, because the contents of their uteri are more important.

            That is misogyny in a nutshell, and this is why you are getting such pushback. I would like for you to try to tell a forum full of black people that you think slavery should be up for discussion, because it was good for the economy, and black people are naturally good at picking cotton.

          • Unicorn Farm

            What a patronizing pile of crap. We don’t “just disagree.” You believe women, which many of us are, should be forced into bodily servitude. That is not a view that deserves respect.
            If you believe “the other human life” is just as important, then you are welcome to gestate any pregnancies that you would like. But you are NOT welcome to tell me that I must do so.
            You may think you are “just” an internet commentator, but the reality is that you advocate for policies that have profound impact on women’s lives, mine included. Maybe you would become physically upset if someone was telling you that your body should be co-opted by the state for forced gestation and childbirth. I know I do.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            promise I have not judged any of you once. I have not accused any of you of being bad or evil

            You have actually judged us as being of less worth than a microscopic embryo.

          • Unicorn Farm

            *internet hugs*

          • Unicorn Farm

            “That was somewhat dramatic, don’t you think? A pregnant woman is hardly being “harvested for organs.” She will not lose her organs….”

            It is absolutely not dramatic. No one can be forced to provide bodily support for another. Use of another’s body, even when temporary, is never forced. A woman doesn’t lose her vagina when she has sex, either, and yet, we don’t force women to have sex against their wills because the use of the vagina by another is only temporary. You’d never say it was “dramatic” to say rape is wrong, correct?

            “Your second suggestion is also a pretty extreme exaggeration. It’s not slavery to suggest that a parent is responsible for the life of his or her child, so why would it be slavery for a pregnant woman to be responsible for the life of her fetus.”
            Because a parent’s responsibility to her born child does not require the physical use of her organs and bodily systems. This isn’t complex.

          • By The Way

            Of course rape is terribly wrong.In order to refute the first point this comment is going to get pretty descriptive, so I hope it doesn’t get moderated.
            If a woman consents to sex with a man on the condition that he wears a condom, and then the condom breaks and he ejaculates into the woman that is not rape(or any other crime), because that is an understandable progression of events that could commonly occur during that interaction. Why would the natural progression of consensual sex leading to pregnancy be considered a “rape” of any kind.
            If you only use half of an analogy then of course it will support your point.

            Your other point I address in response to Lt.Nun’s comment.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Why would the natural progression of consensual sex leading to pregnancy be considered a “rape” of any kind.”
            This response does not address my point at all. You are changing the goal posts. Your first argument was “temporary donation is ok,” which I refuted with the sex analogy. You switched your argument to “consent to sex = consent to pregnancy” which you have not supported at all.
            Try again.

          • By The Way

            No your point doesn’t apply, because I am saying it is a consent to a risk that something will happen. I’m saying that the temporary use isn’t a concern because you have consented to that possibility occurring if you consent to the first step, and a reasonable logical progression of events then occurs. Consent to a risk is consent to the results of that risk.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Very glib and easy to say when you’re not the one assuming the risks. Pro-lifers love to wax poetic about the beauty of sacrifice as long as they’re not the ones who have to make it.

          • Arekushieru

            Omg, THIS! I just fucking love this. YUP, that’s pretty much it in a nutshell!

          • Unicorn Farm

            Sigh. So basically you have abandoned your first argument that forced pregnancy is ok because the use of the body is “temporary,” and are now simply trying to argue that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. Lame, boring, heard it all before. You can barely keep up with the conversation, much less be in a position tell me which point doesn’t apply.
            Do you also think that consent to driving a car is consent to living with your injuries from the accident?

          • By The Way

            Yeah I totally do. Just like every other human being. Otherwise you could sue the car company for your injuries even if the crash wasn’t their fault.
            I addressed 90% of what all three of you said below in terms of receiving treatment. You should get treatment, but you will still have to live with the consequences of the injuries that just how life works. Maybe the consequences will go away in a few weeks or maybe they will be with you forever, but like I said you can’t sue the car company if it wasn’t their fault.
            As for the abandoning that argument. It wasn’t an abandonment it was a development to that point of forced vs. unforced in that use. I was already working from the assumption that the temporary use was unforced. You introduced the idea that it could have been forced, so then I addressed that. I was addressing a developing argument, not abandoning my original.
            Now please stop saying I’m stupid when I’m not. I haven’t called single person on here stupid despite disagreeing with many of your points.
            All of these commentators are acting like this is a clean cut debate. I assure you if it was we would have had a a solution by now. Half the population isn’t stupid or evil, maybe portions of it are, but not half.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            You should get treatment, but you will still have to live with the consequences of the injuries that just how life works.

            You are not denied treatment for your injuries. Pregnancy itself is not a state of wellness, it is a serious medical condition. High blood pressure, loss of nutrients from your body, hormonal injections from the prenate, and toxic biowastes forced into your blood. If any of these side effects were caused by anything else, you would not be denied treatment. But you believe that pregnant people should be denied medical treatment (ending the pregnancy) for their condition simply because they chose to have sex. Furthermore, if the side effects from the car accident were 100% for sure, at the end of 9 months, going to end in torturous pain and possible death, the hospital would remove whatever was causing those injuries. Yes, even if it did result in the death of someone else – because, the right to live does not include the right to torture someone else.

          • By The Way

            I’m not denying that they should receive treatment. I’m denying that their treatment should include the termination of another human life.

            You’re right if any of those symptoms was caused by anything else you would not be denied treatment, but it’s not anything else its a human life that the sufferer is responsible for, so why are you even bringing it up? We’re talking about abortion not something else.

            I already agreed you can’t really be forced to put up with those things, but if you put the person in that situation you are still responsible for the outcome. So, sure no one can force you to put up with the pain, but you can still be tried for ending a human life.

            Let’s use a concrete example. If a person were dumping materials that cause a bone disease, and someone who got that bone disease was put on life support and about to die. The original dumper could donate bone marrow (a very painful procedure, from my understanding), but no one could force them to donate their marrow that’s true. BUT they could still be tried for that persons death. Is that not accurate. Sure they can’t be forced, but their actions are still the cause of the end of the human life, so they are held responsible.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            but no one could force them to donate their marrow that’s true. BUT
            they could still be tried for that persons death. Is that not accurate.

            Yes. So even if a criminal stabs you in the kidneys, you cant take their kidney, the criminal is punished instead, because we don’t commodify people by using their bodies as a mere means to an end.

            Also, by your logic, any pregnancy gone wrong should result in the woman being punished, since, she put ‘someone’ in a place of need, and if that person dies (for any reason) she is the responsible party and should be either fined or thrown in jail for manslaughter/murder.

            Kind of like what they do in El Salvador if a woman miscarries:

            http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24532694

          • By The Way

            This is getting ridiculous and circular. It’t not a perfect match for murder. I’ve admitted that time and time again. I believe that if you are actively trying to kill something, and that something is defined as human you have committed a crime(excepting that you will die as a result of not killing that human life). Accidental death in this situation is not even close to a similar comparison. You are repeating arguments that no one is making. No one here has said that a miscarriage should be treated as a crime, because it was accidental. Yes, Manslaughter is accidental, but that is still very different.

            All I am saying is there is only one thing you can never choose to do, and that thing is kill someone. That is all I’m saying. I’m not making judgments on whether you are good or bad, or somewhere in between. You never get to choose to kill another human if your life is not in immediate danger.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            All I am saying is there is only one thing you can never choose to do, and that thing is kill someone

            You can choose not to donate, even if that ‘someone’ will die. Even if you put them in that place of need. you are not, and never will be, legally obligated to give biological life support to *anyone*.

            Pregnancy is no different.

          • By The Way

            That’s because I did not naturally become connected to anyone through my own actions. If that happens then I think I would have to maintain it.

          • Arekushieru

            Yep,. you just told women who are infertile that they are responsible for not becoming naturally connected. After all, if women have as much control over becoming pregnant, they ALSO have as much control over NOT becoming pregnant. UGH, I just PUKED.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Naturalistic fallacy.

            Special pleading.

          • Arekushieru

            Because he knows cismen will never be put in that position. Even IF they do somehow become able to procreate, now, I doubt it would be through sharing of bodily resources like it currently is with cisfemales.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Upthread you said that the woman wasn’t required to donate her body because it was “her fault” that the fetus was connected to her; rather, she was required to donate because “she is responsible for the child.” Why are you changing your argument now? Why don’t you get your @ss to an anti-choice blog and start brow-beating the men into donating bone marrow?

          • By The Way

            Right away UF.
            I never used the words “her fault.” I know this because I just CTRL+F ed to find it and the only occurrences on the entire page is your use. so why are you quoting me? Perhaps that’s how you paraphrased my assertion.
            P.S. -anti-choice is such a dishonest term.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You may not have used those exact words, but you seem to have a desire to punish women who have sex.

          • By The Way

            I have no desire to punish anyone. I want to protect the human life that was created. If your actions made you the responsible party I believe you should have responsibility. It’s not a punishment. Did you consider it a punishment when you have to take a shower? Your body produces smells. It’s not a punishment that you are responsible for bathing yourself.

          • Jennifer Starr

            A pregnancy is a punishment for a woman who does not want to be pregnant. If you can’t be pregnant for her, why do you think you have the right to make her reproductive decisions and decide how much risk she should assume?

          • Arekushieru

            Ugh, every time I think you just MIGHT grasp the concept, you go spewing your BS, again. It’s a punishment if someone is FORCED to do it. And ESPECIALLY so if someone is guilted into taking responsibility for something which no one else would be required/guilted to do/into doing.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            If the woman does not want to be pregnant and you force her to remain in that condition..you are punishing her for having sex.

            If the woman has suffered bodily injury from the pregnancy, you have punished her through torture…

            If the woman dies from the pregnancy, you have just imposed the death penalty on her for having sex…

          • Unicorn Farm

            So you *are* arguing that it’s her fault she became pregnant so she must gestate. And yet, you still have not explained why the *fault* argument does not apply to any other class of people except pregnant people.

          • Arekushieru

            She’s not quoting you. She is using those apostrophes BECAUSE she is paraphrasing you. Oi. Also, anti-choice is THE MOST HONEST term.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Well, you’ve used words like “her responsibility,” you’ve talked about pregnancy being the natural consequences of sex, you’ve likened pregnancy to dumping toxic waste on a person. Since I’ve so erroneously misinterpreted your position (hint, its called paraphrasing), why don’t you take the opportunity to correct me? Go on then, explain what exactly your position is, because I’ve been waiting for you to articulately answer any of our questions all afternoon.

            “P.S. -anti-choice is such a dishonest term.”

            The hell it is. Also, who do you think you are to call out other people for being dishonest, when you’ve spent the entire afternoon changing your arguments and refusing to discuss in good faith?

          • Lieutenant Nun

            you’ve likened pregnancy to dumping toxic waste on a person

            That made me LOL irl.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            P.S. -anti-choice is such a dishonest term.

            You don’t believe that women should have a say at all in whether or not they remain pregnant. That is anti-choice. It is forced gestation.

          • Jennifer Starr

            How close to death do you require a person to be in order to be ‘deserving’ of an abortion?

          • By The Way

            I’m guessing closer than you. Like I said, “immediate danger.”

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Yeah so, if someone is raping you, and the only way to escape is to use lethal force, you can’t use the force unless the rapist is actually going to kill you? If ze is just going to torture you without killing you, well then, you don’t have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself, do you?

          • By The Way

            I’m not responding to anymore comparisons of consensual sex leading to pregnancy in the context of rape. It’s totally dishonest to compare your body doing exactly what its supposed to do, to being assaulted. If you think it isn’t then you are delusional.

          • Arekushieru

            Your body IS being assaulted by pregnancy. And that you are saying that it is not, that it is natural, that it is dishonest is what is fucking dishonest and DISGUSTING and misogynistic and hypocritical. UGH.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Nothing dishonest about it at all. You just don’t like the comparison because you can’t argue against it. Your entire argument is based on the fact that, should a woman be fertile, that she has automatically ‘invited’ the zef in. By that logic, should a woman own a vagina, she has automatically ‘invited in’ the rapist.

            But fine, I can play your game. There are lots of things your body does ‘naturally’. All things that we try to prevent, because ‘natural’ does not equal healthy. Our bodies are supposed to waste away and die, but we do whatever we can to stop it and to prolong life. By your logic, we can’t meddle with the aging process, because OUR BODIES ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE MADE FOR.

          • By The Way

            By my logic you couldn’t do anything that resulted in the death of another person to prevent yourself from withering away and dying. I’ve been pretty consistent on that message. Anything that won’t result in the death of another human is fine by me.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            By your logic, the right to life includes the right to use another person’s body to prolong one’s life – except it doesn’t. And it never will.

          • ansuz

            It is not dishonest. Try imagining being pregnant and not wanting to be pregnant. First, go do some research about what happens to the body during pregnancy. There’s a good (factually accurate, IIRC, with the right tone) Cracked dot com article that shouldn’t be too hard to find.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            I showed him my big list of side effects, and he said the pregnant person signed up for it when ze had the sex, and that abortion should only be permitted when said person is in imminent danger of dying.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Seven Terrifying Things they don’t tell you about pregnancy:

            http://www.cracked.com/article_19298_7-terrifying-things-they-dont-tell-you-about-pregnancy.html

          • Lieutenant Nun
          • Jennifer Starr

            So they have to be flat lining? Bleeding out?

          • By The Way

            There are dozens of specific cases that would apply, I’m not going to list off everything that would constitute immediate danger. I’m sure some legal textbook has done it already.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Just keep talking. You’re really reminding me of why I switched sides.

          • Arekushieru

            So, you’re not a medical expert, but you’re pretending to be one. So typical. Btw, IF pregnancy WAS NOT so dangerous, by the time most of these risks materialize it would NOT be TOO LATE.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Why are we using a LEGAL textbook to describe when someone is MEDICALLY close to death. What is this I don’t even.

            Have you ever thought about the abortion issue before, at all? I remember the hot second of my life when I was “pro-life.” I was in the first grade. Some one asked me if I was pro-choice or pro-life. I chose “life” because “it seemed more important.” Then I realized we were talking about pregnancy and I realized I was pro-choice. I was SIX when I figured out we can’t force people to support others with their bodily resources. What’s your excuse.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So well said. Thank you.

          • ansuz

            As the offspring of both a doctor and a lawyer, and having lived with the two of them for most of my life, so much YES to this:

            “Why are we using a LEGAL textbook to describe when someone is MEDICALLY close to death.”

            The spheres of expertise do not really overlap.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Ugh. I’m a lawyer.

            This analogy fails on a number of levels. What you have just described is a type of negligence action. The reason that the toxic-waste dumper is held liable for the persons death is NOT because he refused to donate and someone died, but because his actions placed the injured person in a position of harm (needing bone marrow) that he wasn’t before. The legal term for this is that the dumper “breached his duty of care” to the victim. The dumper owes a duty of care to all persons not to place them in a position of harm by his actions of dumping waste. If he harms a person (“tort” means “harm” in French, which is why the cause of action is called a “tort”), and he donates bone marrow, he has done what’s called “mitigating damages.” He will still be liable for pain and suffering, but not death, because he harmed a person. If he chooses NOT to donate, he may be liable for death- but he will be liable because he dumped waste, thus, breaching his duty- NOT because he failed to donate. To summarize- he has a legal obligation not to cause harm by dumping waste- he has NO legal duty to mitigate his damage by donating his body.

            The corollary to your analogy is that a pregnant woman places a fetus in a position of dependency by having sex and becoming pregnant.* Thus, she can donate her body, and not be liable, or she can choose not to donate, and be liable for the fetus’s death. Where this analogy falls apart, however, is that it implies that the woman OWES a duty to a nonexistent fetus NOT to conceive it, and that she has harmed the fetus by becoming pregnant. The woman is not responsible for the fact that nature makes a fetus dependent on the woman. She has not reduced it from a healthy state to a harmed state, because it never existed before she conceived and it is impossible for a fetus to exist in a non-dependent state. Your argument basically means that the woman is negligent for becoming pregnant. It doesn’t make sense.

            In both scenarios, whether the actor is “in trouble” does NOT turn on whether bodily donation occurs. In the first scenario, a person is “in trouble” because he breached a duty-REGARDLESS of whether or not he mitigates damages by donation. In the second- the woman is NOT in trouble by becoming pregnant, because there is no DUTY not to conceive. It is not her fault the fetus is not viable, and she, like the dumper, is not in trouble for failing to donate.

            *My argument will not address the ways in which the proximate cause elements of the two scenarios are not analogous.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Your argument basically means that the woman is negligent for becoming pregnant. It doesn’t make sense.

            Exactly. They presuppose that pregnancy = harming the zef by accepting a penis into one’s vagina, which is ludicrous.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Perfectly stated. TL;DR for my post– what Lt. Nun said ^^^

          • Lieutenant Nun

            I like the way you explained it. In such detail. I will be saving that post of yours.

            The idea has been banging around inside my head for a while, but I haven’t been able to express it properly. Nature makes the zef dependent, the woman doesn’t ’cause harm’ by having sex.

            Again, notice how all of these analogies cast female sexuality in a negative, almost criminal light?

          • Unicorn Farm

            Please feel free to use! You’re exactly right- it is not the woman’s fault that the fetus is dependent. It doesn’t make sense and the outcomes are absurd results (ie, a woman is liable for all miscarriages, a woman is liable if the zygote fails to implant). And yet, I’ve seen anti’s use that sort of line more and more frequently.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            He is sidestepping the miscarriage thing, but the logic would automatically follow that if you put the zef in a ‘place of need’ and that zef dies, you are responsible for it’s death.

            Like, say, you injure someone in a car accident, and they die, you are responsible for their death, yes? Even if it’s the brain hemorrhage that killed them, you caused the accident that led to the brain hemorrhage so…you are a murderer.

            Same logic applies with the miscarriage. If you have sex, you have’ harmed’ the zef by putting it in a place of need, and if it dies, for any reasons, you are 100% to blame.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Exactly. Beautifully concise and clear. He is in way over his head and doesn’t know it. Amateur hour.

          • By The Way

            Didn’t side step it’s not the same. I know its not the same. Accidental death is not the same as intentional destruction of human life.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            No, that is your logic. Completely. Your logic is that if you put someone in a place of need (fertilization, car accident) that you are biologically responsible to keep them alive. If you refuse to offer up your body tissues, you are guilty of ending a life. However…if the patient dies BEFORE you can donate your tissues, how are you ANY less responsible? If you kill a person in a car accident, you are just as guilty as if they die because you refused to give them your kidney.

          • By The Way

            It’s not the woman’s fault that the fetus is dependant, but that doesn’t make her any less responsible for its care. It’s not a parents fault that a newborn is completely dependent, but that doesn’t make the intentional termination of that life any less their fault. Notice the word “intentional” not accidental.

          • Unicorn Farm

            So why do you think she is required to let it use her body?

          • By The Way

            I think that you are required not to actively pursue it’s death.

          • Unicorn Farm

            But WHY. Why do you think there is a difference between refusing to donate bone marrow and refusing to gestate?

          • By The Way

            Because you need to take action to interrupt one to stop it. If you want to not save your child you just have to sit there. If you want to abort you have to go out of your way to kill.

          • Arekushieru

            See, this is what I don’t get about Pro-’Lifers’. They say every one has inherently equal QUANTITATIVE value. Yet, when a person dies from not having their organs replaced, they’re JUST as dead as a fetus who no longer receives sustenance from the woman’s body. Yet, they never make a peep about that!

          • Lieutenant Nun

            If you are in the middle of donating bone marrow to your child, and halfway through the donation, your child will die, you would still be within your rights to withdraw consent.

            An abortion is no different. You are revoking consent where the use of your body is concerned.

          • Jennifer Starr

            This sounds like the same sort of rotten analogy that Catholic hospitals use when they mutilate a woman by removing a tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy instead of using methotrexate, so that it’s not a ‘direct’ abortion. Rubbish.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Jesus Christ, really? Your argument really comes down to the alleged moral difference between active and passive killing? Why do you think there is a difference in active and passive killing? Have you ever read James Rachels? He wrote a thought experiment about two uncles who wanted to kill their nephew so they could inherit money. One uncle creeps into the bathroom, sees his young nephew in the tub, drowns and kills him. The other creeps into the bathroom, sees his nephew flailing in the tub, and gleefully watches as the nephew drowns. WHY do you think there is a moral difference between the two uncles? Why is the one who held his nephew’s head under the water morally worse than the one who was prepared to, but didn’t, because he was already dying?
            Further, gestating and giving birth requires a LOT of work. It is not simply choosing to let the fetus live, but actively working with your body to sustain and give it life.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            There was a self-proclaimed ‘critical thinker’ on The Friendly Atheist who admonished the rest of us for being illogical and immoral baby killers and then dropped this bomb…

            She thought she was pregnant, and she prayed and prayed for a miscarriage, because she really didn’t want to have a kid.

            But, all human life is precious, so precious, that immoral pro-choicers should be forced to gestate that precious life…

          • Unicorn Farm

            steaming pile of unicorn sh*t. “the only moral abortion is my abortion.”

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Will you give bone marrow?
            ::: Moves mouth and tongue and says ::: NO! ::: walks out of hospital room and waves good bye :::
            Oh my, I think that was an action. And as a result, there will be a death.
            Oh too bad. Oh too sad.

          • By The Way

            I have never seen a bone marrow drive. I donate blood, on a regular basis. Twice a year, I do the Alyx machine. I would donate Marrow if there was ever a call for it. It’s my understanding that it’s only done for individuals on a specific need basis. If it isn’t please tell me. I’ll start donating as frequently as humanly possible. I swear I’m a nice person, and I avoid hypocrisy whenever I can.

          • Arekushieru

            The only way to avoid hypocrisy would be to tell anyone who doesn’t donate blood that their violating the rights of the person who dies as a result.

          • Jennifer Starr

            How long ago have you given blood? Because the last time I gave blood they asked me if I’d also like to be included in the bone marrow registry and I said yes. Now obviously they don’t take your bone marrow then and there, but they take extra blood for typing. No one has ever contacted me, so I assume I’ve never had a match, but if I was a match and I was contacted, I would have the option to say yes or no.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            So full of shyte your eyes are browning.

          • ansuz

            I don’t consider there to be a moral difference between sitting by when you could be doing something and actively killing someone.

          • Arekushieru

            Then you ARE saying she is at fault for its dependency. Because NO ONE ELSE is required to undergo similar conditions because of their biological processes. Kthx.

          • ansuz

            But its death is beside the point. Abortion is the minimum amount of force that will end the nonconsensual use of the pregnant person’s body by the zef.

          • Arekushieru

            If the woman is not at fault for making the fetus dependent, she is NOT any MORE responsible for its care, than a man is for making sure that his prostate cancer remains healthy and thriving, because, after all, it is human life, too, and he would be the one responsible for it IF he was ‘at fault’..

          • By The Way

            It’s only posed in a criminal light when the final outcome is going to be the termination of life. Of course it will seem like the whole pregnancy is criminalized if it ends in the death of another human.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Nope. Your premise is that pregnancy = purposely put another human being in harm’s way. If they die for any reason, you are at fault, because you are responsible for their being in need.

          • By The Way

            NO my point is they are in harms way whether it was chosen or not, and the mother is responsible for them. Both parents are responsible for the state of the child, and I think that the fathers should be contributing in whatever way they can.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Right, so forced organ donation for dads, yes?

          • By The Way

            If that would help in any way, I would find any man who didn’t repulsive.

          • By The Way

            Of Course a woman is not responsible to not become pregnant, but parents are responsible for their children. As the mother she is responsible for the child until there is a way to safely abdicate that responsibility. So even though she did not create any problem she is the responsible party in this case. The first half of that analogy was simply to get a real life example in the situation I have been being told all day is not acceptable. I can’t think of any example where two people would be dependent on each other, because pregnancy is unique. If you are responsible for a life, you don’t have to do anything to stop it from ending, but you do have to deal with the results of it ending… if you are the responsible party.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            I can’t think of any example where two people would be dependent on each other, because pregnancy is unique.

            Technology exists now where millions of lives could be saved with forced organ donation. There is absolutely no reason that all people can’t be legally obligated to donate tissue to save lives.

            Pregnancy no longer needs to be unique.

          • By The Way

            And in any situation where you are the responsible party. I.E. parenthood you should be responsible for that life.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            So forced organ donation for:

            criminals
            car accidents
            random accidents
            parents
            anything else that applies where you put someone in a place of need

            Agreed?

          • By The Way

            No, but that doesn’t change the fact that if they don’t stop the death in someway they would still be tried.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Yes or no on forced organ donation for people who injure others either with intent or in accidents.

          • Arekushieru

            And the difference you STILL can’t get is that bodily donation is NEVER one of those ‘results’. Otherwise you ARE saying that a woman is just as responsible for BECOMING pregnant as she is for NOT becoming pregnant.

          • Unicorn Farm

            ****swoooooooosh thud****
            That is the sound of my point flying over your head.
            If the child is born with a genetic disease that requires her bone marrow, is she required to provide it? Why or why not? After all, she is still the responsible party.

          • By The Way

            Please tell me of a case where a parent didn’t do that for their child, and then tell me that the person who didn’t do that is worthy of defense.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Curran v Bosze: a father of three wants hid youngest sons (whom he does not have custody of) tested to see if they could be bone marrow donors for his dying 12 year old. Their mother refused, courts sided with the mother.

            Sue Argabright sued her sons father to compel him to donate bone marrow. Bioethicists observing the case all said the same thing, that forcing the donation would be the wrong decision and set a horrible precedent.

            A judge in Washington refused to order a C-section to increase the survival chances for the fetus at the expense of the woman’s health. In the decision, the judge wrote that since he couldn’t force a mother to give a kidney to an already born child, he didn’t see what grounds he had to force someone to undergo a C-section.

          • Arekushieru

            And, please tell me of a case where a Pro-Lifer stated that a person was NOT worthy of defense if they didn’t do that, nor ever called them to be FORCED to do that. Urp.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Answer my question. You have yet to after hours of “debate”. I personally would not judge a parent for not donating body tissue to a child. Even if I thought it was a poor moral choice, it is NOT my decision to make because the parent’s body is NOT my body.

          • By The Way

            It’s not the same. Pregnancy is a naturally occurring connection that isn’t forced on anyone, you know there is a chance that you will become pregnant after participating in consensual sex. It’s not a fair comparison, to say that a naturally formed connection being severed is the same as not creating a new connection to save someones life.
            But to give your question somewhat of an answer, I would be disgusted by anyone who did not do everything in their power to save their child.

          • Arekushieru

            Again, the point flies RIGHT over your head. A woman does not CHOOSE to have the fetus dependent on her body, ESPECIALLY as a naturally occurring connection, and something that is NOT a choice IS forced.

          • By The Way

            And Drunks don’t choose to get drunk and have alcohol hamper their reflexes all the time. They drink and their body takes care of the rest, but that doesn’t make them more allowed to drive around. If you know that your body could naturally do it then you got to make your choice, now you have to act according to that choice.

          • Arekushieru

            Because THEIR body would harm SOMEONE ELSE. The woman’s body does not harm the fetus once pregnancy takes place. It’s THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

          • Unicorn Farm

            No, you don’t have to act according to that choice. If I have sex and get the clap, I go to the doctor and get it treated. I am not forced to live with the clap.

            If I have sex and get pregnant, I go to the doctor and get an abortion. I am not forced to live with pregnancy.

            If i get drunk my liver metabolizes alcohol. I drink fluids and eat a cheeseburger at 5 am to feel better. You don’t seem to understand that we don’t force people to “live with the consequences” of their bodies’ natural processes.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Naturalistic fallacy? Really?

            Do you support a rape exception, if you believe that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy?

            Get thee to a pro-life board and start harassing men into organ donation.

          • Unicorn Farm

            “Yeah I totally do. Just like every other human being”
            Cool. I’m going to have my abortion if I get pregnant, then.
            If you don’t want to be treated like you’re stupid, don’t disingenuously recite tired old arguments that we have heard a million times and pretend you’re telling us something logically sound. This debate IS clean cut. The fact that half the population is stupid, evil, or sexist doesn’t change that. A majority of people used to think the earth was flat, but you wouldn’t think they were right, would you? Geeze, you’re stupid.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            You have conveniently ignored a bunch of our rebuttals of your crappy logic.

          • Arekushieru

            Funny, I haven’t called you ‘stupid’ but you were refusing to respond to my arguments. In fact, I clearly avoid calling you such, as I think it’s rather ableist. I wish the others would avoid those particular insults, myself, but I’m not here to hold their hands, nor am I their mommy. The ONLY reason we DON’T have a solution is because half of our society IS comprised of misogynists.

            Medical treatment is NOT a one-sized fits all prescription, nor would you call it such if this were applied to ANYTHING else other than pregnancy. Which makes you at the very LEAST sexist. Abortion is medical treatment because it returns a woman to her former state of health. So, if you want to say that pregnancy is natural, this is the very reason why it is not. A non-pregnant woman’s state of health would not be natural if pregnancy were natural, after all.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Well then, no medical treatment for you next time you go skiing and break your leg. You consented to the broken leg, and must live with the temporary and permanent disabilities/injuries that may result.

          • ansuz

            …how is that different from saying that because X person invited Y person back to her place zie is consenting to the risk that sex will take place, whether or not zie wants it to, and that zie therefore has no right to fight back?

          • Lieutenant Nun

            You clearly don’t understand the concept of ‘consent’ do you.

          • Arekushieru

            Where did the MAN do anything that the woman didn’t consent to in your scenario? The condom broke. Unless he poked holes in it (which would, then, of course, mean that it WAS rape), the condom breaking was CLEARLY an accident an had nothing to do with him. Seriously, think about it, it’s REALLY not that hard. The man and the fetus are different, why is it so fucking difficult to understand that the VAGINA and the UTERUS are JUST as different?

          • By The Way

            The man didn’t do anything wrong, neither did a fetus that is the point. the man and the fetus are not the same but the progression of events was similar enough to negate the idea that conception is rape.

            The man was inside the woman without a condom, unintentionally, but it was still not what she wanted. It’s not a crime when things play out in a reasonable fashion even if that is not what was desired.
            So If a woman has sex but does not want to get pregnant she is like the woman who only wants penetration IF there is a condom. But if the condom breaks that is not a violation on the mans part just like it is not a violation if a fetus begins to develop, because that is a reasonable outcome to expect if you participate in consensual sex. The fetus is innocent of any wrong doing, and so it is not fair to compare an unwanted pregnancy to rape.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            The fetus is innocent of any wrong doing, and so it is not fair to compare an unwanted pregnancy to rape.

            Intent is immaterial. Schizophrenic patients have killed people, and walked away from prison, because they did not intend to hurt anyone – they are not found guilty, because of their break from reality. The point is that the woman’s rights are being infringed upon, and she has the right to remove whatever is violating her body from her body.

            Furthermore, she does not force the sperm and the egg to meet. She does not force the blastocyst to travel down her fallopian tubes and attach itself to her uterine wall. It does it all on it’s own. If sperm/eggs and blastocysts could be controlled, there would be no need for fertility treatments.

          • By The Way

            she has the right to remove whatever is violating her body from her body.

            I don’t agree with the assertion that fetuses has violated anyone by existing within the context of consensual sex.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            It is genetically programmed to violate her body. And she is within her rights to remove it.

          • By The Way

            It’s not a violation it’s how reproduction works. It is completely natural, and essential. I can’t think of anything that is less of a violation. Your never within your rights if you are killing without need.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Naturalistic fallacy. Sex is also natural. It doesn’t mean that vaginas have to automatically accept any penis that is inserted into them.

            And yes, abortion is a NEED, because it maims and kills women. It is self-defense.

          • By The Way

            Not a fair comparison. One is carried out by another person, one is your body going through its normal cycles. Periods aren’t a violation, no matter how painful they are.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Nope, your analogy applies equally to rape. Sex is necessary for the continuation of the species, and vaginas were made to accept penises, just as uteruses were made for embryos.

            P.S. Technology exists to stop the unwanted and painful period from recurring.

          • By The Way

            The existence of technology to stop something doesn’t make it a violation when it does occur.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Your period is your body doing something you don’t want it to do. Just like cancer. Just like the guinea worm (which evolved alongside humans btw, and is perfectly acclimated to living inside our guts) and just like pregnancy.

            And you are within your rights to stop all 3 from hurting you, and in the case of the pregnancy and the guinea worm, removing the invaders from your body.

          • Jennifer Starr

            If you’ve had my periods, you would call them something much worse than a violation. A string of four-letter words comes to mind when I think of mine.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I’m on the pill so they won’t be so painful and debilitating. I suppose you disapprove of that and think I should just accept nature. Like hell.

          • ansuz

            I take exception to the idea that the language of violence is inappropriate when referring to things my body does without my permission.
            First of all, I get to define my experiences.
            Second, what else would I call it when my body does things that make me hate it, and think that it’s worth dying to get away from? I have crying, vomiting panic attacks with my periods. I have scars from where I tried to fix my body, because my body is wrong. I damn well experienced violence and violation — violence to and violation of my self — at the hands of my body. And, no, the physical violence I enacted upon my body is not what I’m talking about.

            (repeating because appropriate)

          • Arekushieru

            I can’t think of anything that’s MORE of a violation, if it’s unwanted. Oops.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Fool. It is also a violation for the state to FORCE ME to gestate and give birth. I am ALWAYS within my rights to stop something from using my body.

          • By The Way

            It’s not a “something” it’s a human, that you had a reasonable expectation of having to care for. Stop dehumanizing fetuses.

          • Lieutenant Nun

            Can’t dehumanize mindless human DNA, sorry bud.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Stop dehumanizing born women.

          • Unicorn Farm

            Ooh so now you’re back on the consent to donation argument. Look kid. I’ve been having sex for many years and never been pregnant. Id hardly call that high odds creating a reasonable expectation. Also, it doesn’t matter to me of the fetus is human. Ill dehumanized it or humanize it as I see fit.

          • Unicorn Farm

            You still haven’t answered my question why women are required to remain pregnant but not to donate bone marrow to children born with genetic diseases.

          • Arekushieru

            We aren’t dehumanizing anything. After all, it’s not US that wants a fetus to have more rights than anyone born. You, however, ARE dehumanizing born women, like Jennifer said.

          • ansuz

            I take exception to the idea that the language of violence is inappropriate when referring to things my body does without my permission.
            First of all, I get to define my experiences.
            Second, what else would I call it when my body does things that make me hate it, and think that it’s worth dying to get away from? I have crying, vomiting panic attacks with my periods. I have scars from where I tried to fix my body, because my body is wrong. I damn well experienced violence and violation — violence to and violation of my self — at the hands of my body. And, no, the physical violence I enacted upon my body is not what I’m talking about.

            (copypasta from myself elsewhere)

          • Arekushieru

            You STILL cannot grasp the idea of consent, CAN you? If a man is inside a woman without her consent, whether OR NOT he did so with intent OR even knowledge (meaning if he enters a fugue state), it is still rape. If a condom breaks, however, outside of the man poking holes in it, that is not something the MAN did. If the condom breaks, the woman becomes AWARE of it, then asks the man to withdraw, and he does not, that is RAPE. You CANNOT, in other words, consent or revoke consent to something to which NEITHER of you were party, in any way, during, before OR after, which means that once at least ONE of you HAS become party to it in some manner, giving, denying and revoking consent is a HUGE factor. Similar to pregnancy, once the woman becomes aware that she is pregnant or that there is a POTENTIAL for pregnancy, she has a right to deny, give or revoke consent to pregnancy. Because there is at least ONE person who is party to it, and that is the person who is on the donating end of bodily donation.

          • Arekushieru

            Again, fail at reading comprehension. WHY am I NOT surprised?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Jello has brain waves. Could your argument get anymore hackneyed and stupid? I do not think so.
            http://io9.com/5946010/why-you-cant-prove-that-jello-is-legally-brain-dead

          • Jennifer Starr

            There’s a big difference between pregnancy and a born person. The uterus is not ‘just a location’.

          • Arekushieru

            You have difficulty with reading comprehension, I see. The way you worded the quote is in EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE manner that Jennifer JUST told you we supported. Here, THIS is ACTUALLY what your argument SHOULD have looked like: “There is a vast chasm between “disagreeing”, and actively lobbying to maintain a woman’s power to choose to terminate OR MAINTAIN her own PREGNANCY and deny special rights to fetuses not granted them as either human OR Constitutional rights….”

            Pro-Life thinks human life is more valuable at the beginning of its life stages, that it begins and ends at any of the developmental stages AND that the fetus deserves MORE protection than ANYONE born. Yeah, it would be nice if Pro-Lifers could stop dehumanizing and degrading women and ignoring the actual validity of our side, but we know THAT is never going to happen.

      • Jennifer Starr

        Basically what it sounds like is PR and damage control. And all the pretty packaging and nice talk in the world can’t disguise the fact that they still want to remove a woman’s reproductive rights.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          And steal babies. They were a lot more open about baby stealing in; the 50s and 60s and 70s.

  • Michael D. Ray

    I want to help you; but, first let me either cut or eliminate any and all programs that may be able to help you because it might interfere with corporate profits in some way.

  • By The Way

    All right folks. I have to step away from my computer now. I tried to respond to all your points civilly despite your many barbs. I’m sorry I didn’t respond to everything. I refreshed the page, and lost my place in a number of sections, but I tried.
    I just wanted to say that this was a very interesting discussion, and despite what you may think of me, I still respect your disagreement with my point of view despite seeing it as completely unfounded.

    My departing words are just a reaffirmation of much of what I said below. Women are important from the time they become life, until the time they die, and even a little after that. I hope that my calm assertions that life should be protected in all it’s forms has made you at least consider the validity of the other side.
    If not, then I’ll just say even if you think you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. You may still believe that it’s totally acceptable to kill a human fetus, but that doesn’t mean people should. I don’t know why you would defend something that shouldn’t be done. Protect life in all it’s stages, goodnight.

    • Lieutenant Nun

      FYI, the majority of abortions are in the embryonic stage. Not the fetal stage.

    • Unicorn Farm

      “I tried to respond to all your points civilly despite your many barbs.”

      Boohoo.

      “I just wanted to say that this was a very interesting discussion, and despite what you may think of me, I still respect your disagreement with my point of view despite seeing it as completely unfounded.”

      You found this discussion interesting, and yet you seem to have failed to learn anything. Interesting. You still think women’s opposition to being forced to let other “people” use their bodies against their will is “unfounded.” Demented.*

      “I hope that my calm assertions that life should be protected in all it’s forms has made you at least consider the validity of the other side.”

      Calm assertions? Try side stepping all the points and failing to respond to anything asked of you. Consider the validity of the other side? Been there, done that. Many of us have been debating this for years. I’ve debated published professors on the subject. Your tired, recycled, barely cogent old arguments are nothing new.

      “Protect life in all it’s stages, goodnight.”

      You’re more then welcome to donate your own organs to protect life. Just stay away from mine. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

      *No disrespect meant to those suffering from dementia.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Oh for heaven’s sake–I think the posters here were very polite to you despite disagreeing with you. You were not mistreated.

      • Unicorn Farm

        Totes agree. I will admit that I was a little antagonistic today but I was frustrated with how slow he was being (probably intentionally) and was cranky to come back to work after a long weekend.