Its because pro-choicers know that everything you say is crap. You don't care about "life." You only want to outlaw abortion, drive it underground where it will be unsafe. If you were for life, you would work with us to increase funding for childcare, maternity care, maternity leave, sex education and birth control which would decrease the abortion rate.
Jackie, what you're saying is just not true. Most women that have abortions, would have their babies if abortion was illegal. Women wouldn't take to coat hangers and such, because they aren't that stupid. How much has the abortion rate dropped since legalizing it? Exactly! The more you preach sex ed and birth control, the more abortions rise. Men and women abstaing from sex, is the only way to prevent pregnancy, and decrease the abortion rate.
LOL! Who do you think has been funding those all along, dumbass? Unemployed loudmouth college kids like yourself? NO-taxpayers like me. You're welcome.
'Work with US?' On what? Obama just cut $600 million from public health care centers. Please quit pretending you care about the poor. All you care about is your agenda. There are so many prochoice charities that help single mothers huh-exactly 0. Pay for your own babykilling.
Armored Saint : First of all, don't speak to me in that manner.
Second of all, we wouldn't be cutting if our former pro-life president screw up the economy. As the pro-life Republican tea baggers are say, "We have to cut spending!!!!!!" Where they were six years ago is a mystery..
I suggest you read "When Abortion Was A Crime" by Leslie Reagan and "Wake Up Little Susie" by Ricky Solinger to get a sense of the pre-Roe America. In addition, the CDC didn't start tracking abortions until 68 so all we can go on are the hundreds of thousands of stories of women dead or butchered by back alley abortionists. I know one of the new talking-points of the anti-choice crowd is that back alley abortions are a figment of the pro-choice imagination. Facts like hospital records and septic wards as well as newspaper reports do not support that.
In addition, it is a know fact that where abortion is illegal the abortion rate is higher than where it is legal. (you can easily look it up) The exception to this rule is Ireland because most women can travel to England to get an abortion.
By the way, your thinking that if abortion is illegal women will have no choice but to carry the fetus to term is disgusting. Pregnancy, childbirth and parenting should never be compulsory. It should always be a choice.
"While abortions have been typically portrayed as grim "back alley" operations, she finds that abortion providers often practiced openly and safely." - From the description of "When Abortion Was A Crime" by Leslie Reagan, the book you cited http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520216570
There is no doubt in my mind that some women took desparate, and dangerous measures to end their pregnancies. This is the 21st century, not the 19th. Why don't we work on fixing the problems that make women so desparate, rather than just killing off their young?
"Pregnancy, childbirth and parenting should never be compulsory." It's not, it can be prevented by not having sex.
Why don't we work on fixing the problems that make women so desparate
Sounds like a prime idea to me.
Here are the issues that you'd have to address:
Low-cost or free child care. Low-cost or free health care for both the woman's pregnancy and delivery and subsequent treatment for any medical complications the child or woman may have as a result. Extensions of (or replacements for) food-stamp benefits, insurance coverage, etc. that do not penalize working-class women for trying to work their way out of poverty, as well as providing enough food so that these poor people are not going hungry. Better public schooling. Forcing the educational system to work with low-wage mothers who get pregnant and need to care for young children. The current higher education system is wildly insufficient in this respect. Doing a better job of protecting women (and girls) from rape and incest. Lastly, providing sex ed. to all young men and women that is based on reality and not Puritan moralizing. In this respect, you should want to keep Planned Parenthood open, because they're a source for birth control, family planning counseling, women's health check-ups, and social/medical services beyond abortion.
If you are able to make progress in all these issues, then I dare say you would see a drop in abortions. There would still be abortions out of medical necessity, but you'd be significantly addressing the socioeconomic factors that lead to abortions.
Now, guess what the anti-abortion movement doesn't do here, and what the party it has attached itself to does do to the poor and working class.
"Low-cost or free child care" - Why not families taking care of their own? It's not a hard concept. The family unit, mom, grandma, grandpa, aunts, uncles.. taking care of their own flesh and blood. No? That's how it was done a long time ago. People took care of, and responsibility for their own families. Oh wait, that's the 'moral' thing to do.
"Low-cost or free health care" - Medicaid is already available.
"Doing a better job of protecting women (and girls) from rape and incest." - Most rape/incest goes unreported. How about we put rapists in jail where they belong? That's the only way to decrease the problem.
Planned Parenthood, the billion dollar 'non-profit'. You figure that one out. There are other public health clinics that women can go to, to get the care they need. PP is nothing more than a PAC who's purpose is to lobby for legal abortion, their cash cow, it's all about money.
Other than public education, which does need to be improved, every thing you've list is an entitlement. You are making the state responsible for the actions of an individual.
I don't have problems taking responsibility for my actions at all. As far as killing innocent human beings, nope I've never done that either. There's a huge difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing a human being. But that dehumanizing language you use is why people kill innocent human beings, heros like Dr Tiller, in the name of life. Your language is nothing but violent hyperbole and there are consequences to such language.
And I will repeat is once again. The pro-life movement in rooted in violence and misogyny. You may not have solid ties to the pro-life terrorists, but you definitely support them with your violent dehumanizing language.
BTW, people have sex for other reasons besides procreation. Thats a fact thats been around since the beginning of time. Even ancient Egyptians were know to use contraception and perform abortions. The act of having sex, for me anyways, does not forfeit the right to my autonomy. If you feel that sex is for procreation only, then I suggest you practice that. Other than that, mind your own business. Its so strange how obsessed you people are with other people's sex life. Its actually pretty sick and creepy.
Who's dehumanizing? "There's a huge difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing a human being". Terminating a pregnancy KILLS a HUMAN fetus.
"Your language is nothing but violent hyperbole and there are consequences to such language." - Is that a threat? Because it sure sounds like one.
Yes Jackie, we already know you're not willing to give up an orgasm to save the life of an innocent human being.
Yes, that's right- a human fetus. A human fetus is a potential human being but its not a human being.
Its not a threat its a statement. Calling women murderers does not happen in a vacuum. When you dehumanize women like you do, others who feel the same way may take it to the next level. And anti-abortion violence is a real threat people who work for women's rights deal with on a daily basis.
Just admit it...this is not about life its about imposing your morality on women. If a woman has sex for an orgasm (to continue with your language) and gets pregnant and doesn't want a baby she should be punished with it anyway because in your eyes she's a selfish slut.
What is a human 'being' anyway? A fetus fits the definition of a being. "the state or fact of existing". A fetus exests, so it is a human being. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=being
Potential? We all have potential, don't we?
I attempt to refrain from referring to post abortive women as murderers, because I know it's hurtful. That's not to say I've never said it, or that I will never say it again. I try not to though.
No one is dehumanizing women. You can't say that about what abortion advocates do to fetuses. Anti-abortion violence is done by extremists. To remain silent 'just in case' someone else takes it to the extreme, is just wrong. I know pro-aborts would love nothing more than to silence pro-lifers like me, but it's not going to happen. "anti-abortion violence is a real threat people who work for women's rights deal with on a daily basis" - That would be their choice.
This IS about life, and also about morality. Who doesn't need morals? Geez, what would the world be like without morals and decency?
"If a woman has sex for an orgasm (to continue with your language) and gets pregnant" - She should give HER baby life. That's not a punishment, it's the right thing to do. And it takes a STRONG woman to do it. If you don't want to get pregnant, take precautions so you don't.
This IS about life, and also about morality. Who doesn't need morals? Geez, what would the world be like without morals and decency?
Like yours.
Just look at how you excuse the risk from anti-abortion violence as just a choice that these women have to face, as if it were a natural phenomenon instead of something that you and your ideological cohorts could stop at once if you wanted to.
You recognize that calling women who get abortions "murderers" is hurtful, but you refuse to refrain from doing so.
So yes, morality and decency don't mean a damn to you. As far as you're concerned, the ends justify the means.
P.S. Thanks for your clear rejection of any attempt to ameliorate the socioeconomic conditions that cause women to seek out abortions. It goes to show that the anti-abortion position isn't about helping children, or indeed about anything except seeing that the fetuses are born. After they're born, they couldn't care less about what happens. In fact, for many of your ilk the worse the things are for these women the better, because that'll teach the 'sluts' to spread their legs in the first place, right?
I also couldn't help but notice that your ideological blinders caused you to completely misread my statement about education as if I were talking about public education, rather than what I was actually saying about making higher education more accessible to mothers.
What is a human 'being' anyway? A fetus fits the definition of a being. "the state or fact of existing".
Actually, a fetus does not fit the quoted definition because a fetus is not an abstract concept, whereas "the state or fact of being" is an abstract concept.
Furthermore, in your dictionary-driven sophistry, you are ignoring the apt definition for "being" in this context:
3 : a living thing; especially : person
To equivocate on these matters by saying a fetus is of course a being if it exists is dishonest, when the question at hand is about the personhood of the fetus. There is no rational reason to convey individual rights upon a non-individuated being, which is why pro-choice advocates rightly reject the notion that a fetus is a legal "person".
Nullifidian - What suggestions would you make to me, so that I can still be a prolife activist, and not have some nutcase take the message to the extreme? WHAT??? Your intention is to silence prolife, and it's NEVER going to happen!
You question my morality, but PROLIFE IS NOT THE ONE'S KILLING BABIES. Got that?
"I also couldn't help but notice that your ideological blinders caused you to completely misread my statement about education as if I were talking about public education"
Your quote ---> "Better public schooling".
The question at hand is NOT about the personhood of the fetus, though you would like it to be. It's about the humanity of the fetus, a concept pro-aborts just don't get.
Being: The quality or state of having existence; Something concievable as existing; something that actually exists.
What suggestions would you make to me, so that I can still be a prolife activist, and not have some nutcase take the message to the extreme?
Well, you could tell your fellow ideologues to tone down the "Abortion is murder" and "killing babies" rhetoric. Considering that you have used that very rhetoric in this thread, though, and have a site called "CHOICE IS MURDER!" on your blog roll, I doubt you're ever going to do that. Nevertheless, it is that kind of rhetoric that allows people to rationalize the murder of abortion providers, the firebombing of abortion clinics, and so on.
You question my morality, but PROLIFE IS NOT THE ONE'S KILLING BABIES. Got that?
Neither is the pro-choice side. This kind of rhetoric may work on the simple-minded, but it's not going to sway anyone who has seriously considered the issue.
I concede that I had mentioned public school then forgotten about it. No doubt given the rest of your reactionary rhetoric, you think improving public education is synonymous with gutting it, which is naturally not what I was talking about. In fact, the best way to improve education would be to eliminate "high-stakes testing", introduce effective remediation, hire people who know what they're doing, pay them enough to make it worth their while, and then step out of the way and let them do it. Every time the statehouse or Congress has another notion about how to "improve" education (despite few, if any, being professional educators) they always manage to screw it up. If they want to have a practical and helpful role in education, Congress should establish panels of experts in the humanities and sciences to draw up national textbook standards that are based on the best available scholarship and encourage their adoption nationwide. That way, education wouldn't be a patchwork quilt of pseudoscience, abstinence education, and historical folderol like the Texas state social studies standards. I would also recommend grounding education with a logical background, so that students can evaluate both informal and formal logical fallacies and misleading rhetoric.
I have absolutely no hope of any program like this ever being adopted. After all, where would key "red meat" social issues like anti-abortionism be if people were capable of reasoning over them?
The question at hand is NOT about the personhood of the fetus, though you would like it to be. It's about the humanity of the fetus, a concept pro-aborts just don't get.
If the issue is the humanity of the fetus, then your playing around with dictionary definitions won't get us there either. Obviously not everything that exists is necessarily human, simply by virtue of its existence. My cat exists, but my cat is not a human being. A fetus exists, but a fetus is not a human being either.
IF... there were no babies dying due to abortion, there wouldn't be an issue, would there?
And if there were no fanatics trying to impose their Puritanical vision on all dissenters, then there wouldn't be an issue either. Now, given the choice between a theocracy that bans abortions and some place where people's autonomy and right to make their own medical decisions in private is respected, I unhesitatingly affirm my support for the latter.
If you would prefer things the other way, there are several places where modern-day Savonarolas have banned abortions entirely—Nicaragua, for example, where over eighty women died in the year after the abortion ban was enacted.
The fact is, human fetuses are babies, their just not yet born.
By that standard, we're both corpses who have yet to die.
I said I try not to use the term murderer. I did not say I didn't believe abortion is murder. It is murder.
How is abortion murder?
In your liberal world, you would like to indoctrinate school children with your pro-abortion rhetoric.
I've already told you once that I am not a liberal. Also, I have said nothing about indoctrinating children with any rhetoric of any kind. If you want to continue this conversation, please have it with me and not your strawmen. As to the term "pro-abortion", it is just laughable. You want to restrict all women's access to abortions, but the converse doesn't hold for me. I'm not out trying to convince all pregnant women to go get an abortion. I simply think that it is an imposition on their bodily autonomy and their right to make their own medical decisions to say that abortion must be banned. Hence, pro-choice.
How about the 3 R's? Basic learning skills so they can think when they grow up.
I already addressed that. See my comment about grounding students' education in logic, with particular emphasis on how to recognize both formal and informal fallacies and misleading rhetoric. Also, my comment about remediation, which cannot happen without some core subject matter for which remediation is needed.
Rather than regurgitate pro-abort liberal rhetoric like you do.
What a way you have of projecting your own characteristics onto others. I disagree with you, therefore I must be a "liberal". You regurgitate rhetoric that is unfounded by the faintest flicker of an argument, so I, who disagree with you, must be doing the same thing in reverse. Instead, I've presented several arguments with reasons and all you've done is ignore them or "respond" with empty sloganeering.
Cats are NOT human. Human fetuses are. Both are beings.
All right, then. What about my kidneys? Are they human beings? After all, they aren't dingo's kidneys, bee's nephridia, or anything else. And since you've so adroitly pointed out that everything that exists is a "being", and my kidneys exist, therefore they must be human beings, right?
My intent is not to silence you. My intent is to point out that the pro-life rhetoric fuels the fire of extremists. And its about time you people take responsibility for that. Its clear from your dismissiveness of the real violence faced by medical professionals that you don't care. That is very sad to me and makes me question exactly how "pro-life" you are.
"This IS about life, and also about morality. Who doesn't need morals?"
Who will be the people who decide what morals we follow? You? Are you saying we should turn America into a Christian theocracy?
"She should give HER baby life. That's not a punishment, it's the right thing to do. And it takes a STRONG woman to do it. If you don't want to get pregnant, take precautions so you don't."
A woman can take precautions and still get pregnant. And it may be the right thing for YOU to do but not the right thing for someone else. Again we're going back to applying other people's standards/ morals onto the entire population. Iran does that...I don't think there's a place for such beliefs in a free, democratic society such as America.
Speaking of being pro-life, are you just as passionate about the hundred of babies and children who starve to death in Africa every day? What are you doing to "save" them? What about the children dying in Iraq and Afganistan? Sex trafficking of little girls? What about all them?
Your corpse analysis is right on. We will all be corpses someday; however, we don't make the leap to refer to ourselves as corpses.
As far as education, as a college professor I am shocked by the lack of critical thinking skills. I spend at least half the semester working on looking at issues from different perspectives to help students think about issues in a more complex way. We need a complete overhaul of our public school system where humanities is taken more seriously and science is better funded. For these students to be paying 30K a year at college to learn skills that they should have mastered in 9th grade is horrifying.
Nullifidian - "Now, given the choice between a theocracy that bans abortions and some place where people's autonomy and right to make their own medical decisions in private is respected, I unhesitatingly affirm my support for the latter." You support fetuses in the womb being killed? Because that's what abortion does.
What gestational limit to abortion should there be?
"By that standard, we're both corpses who have yet to die" Are you consumed w/ death? Fetuses are developing human beings, who have yet to live their life as you and I are right now. Abortion strips that privelege from them, taking them straight from "unborn" to "dead", with no life in between. How powerful prochoicers must feel to be able to do this to them, legally.
"How is abortion murder?" - You're relying upon the legal definition of the term murder. What if abortion wasn't legal, and fetuses were granted personhood? Would you consider abortion as murder then?
"As to the term "pro-abortion", it is just laughable." - Then why does it bother pro-aborts so much?
"I simply think that it is an imposition on their bodily autonomy and their right to make their own medical decisions to say that abortion must be banned." - First, they should have thought about the possible 'imposition' prior to having sex. Second, a fetuses body is not the womans body. What about his/her bodily autonomy?
You've already failed on logic. Both logically and scientifically, a new life begins at conception. "See my comment about grounding students' education in logic, with particular emphasis on how to recognize both formal and informal fallacies and misleading rhetoric." and all you're doing is attempting to justify killing that new life.
"You regurgitate rhetoric that is unfounded by the faintest flicker of an argument" Unfounded? Are fetuses alive? Does abortion kill them? Think logically about that.
Kidneys are an organ, not a being. There is no possibility of a kidney (or a cat) ever becoming a human 'being'. They will never think like a human being, they will never 'feel' (sense things) like a human being. A fetus will, by nature.
Jackie - "My intent is to point out that the pro-life rhetoric fuels the fire of extremists." Let me pose the same question to you that I asked Nullifidian. What suggestions would you make to me, so that I can still be a prolife activist, and not have some nutcase take the message to the extreme?
"Who will be the people who decide what morals we follow? You? Are you saying we should turn America into a Christian theocracy?" No one decides on morals for you. We all know right from wrong in our hearts. I believe abortion is wrong. I'm a Christian. What do you think?
"A woman can take precautions and still get pregnant." And most women that get pregnant, failed to use birth control consistently.
Iran? Iraq? etc.. what about them? It's a big world, and sadly, babies and children do die every day from starvation and disease. You're using starving babies in Africe to justify abortion in the USA. Sad
What gestational limit to abortion should there be?
Birth. The fetus is not individuated until it is independent of the mother's circulatory, alimentary, and respiratory systems. I reject the idea of extending individual rights to non-individuated beings as nonsensical and destructive of the rights of the women who will be forced to gestate these fetuses.
Are you consumed w/ death?
No, just pointing out the absurdity of calling a fetus a baby that is not yet born.
What if abortion wasn't legal, and fetuses were granted personhood? Would you consider abortion as murder then?
If the murder statute were expanded to encompass fetuses (it's not a sure thing that it would be, even if we granted "personhood" to them), then obviously abortion would fit the legal definition of murder. It wouldn't change my opinion of the stupidity of such legislation.
Now, do you have an argument for why abortion is "murder" or not?
First, they should have thought about the possible 'imposition' prior to having sex.
Great. So this is all about punishing women for having sex. If that attitude weren't blinding you, it stands to reason that you'd see that you're begging the question. You're assuming that abortion isn't a rational and valid approach to dealing with an unwanted pregnancy when that is the very issue under discussion.
And it also demonstrates how little the anti-abortion lobby cares about the children after they're born. If you browbeat women with their unwanted pregnancies by telling them that's the consequences they face for deciding to have sex, that is not likely to lead to a loving and respectful mother-child relationship. It's much more likely to lead to a situation where the mother abandons the newborn or abuses her child out of resentment for ruining her life.
Second, a fetuses body is not the womans body.
That's exactly what it is. It is physically attached to and dependent on the mother's physiology in order to survive.
What about his/her bodily autonomy?
The fetus isn't individuated, so it logically cannot have any autonomy.
You've already failed on logic. Both logically and scientifically, a new life begins at conception.
Please explain how, especially the "scientifically" part. I'm longing to hear how it is scientifically established when life begins.
Unfounded? Are fetuses alive? Does abortion kill them? Think logically about that.
I'll reserve my answer pending your demonstration that life begins at conception. If it's sufficiently convincing, I will have to change how I answer.
Kidneys are an organ, not a being.
But "Being: The quality or state of having existence; Something concievable as existing; something that actually exists."
Surely kidneys actually exist! Or is this definition you trotted out as authoritative and unanswerable not quite sufficient for this context?
There is no possibility of a kidney (or a cat) ever becoming a human 'being'.
This is the nub of why anti-abortion rhetoric fails. They talk endlessly of "possibility" and "potential", but crimes are defined in the here and now. If I steal a losing lottery ticket from you, I will only be charged with petty larceny. I will not be charged with grand theft because it could have been a winning ticket, and any prosecutor who tried filing such charges would be laughed out of court. And yet we're supposed to regard allegedly snuffing out a "potential life" as murder. If so, every masturbating man is a murderer thousands of times over, because one of those sperm could have fertilized an ovum. The logic of murder of the "potential" leads inexorably to "Every Sperm Is Sacred" scenarios.
The fact that you support abortion at nearly full term is not surprising, but it is sad. The baby is fully viable at that time, and abortion would kill it.
I've already stated that the term 'murder' is a legal definition. Though I believe abortion is murder, you will continue to lean on the legal definition. No sense arguing this.
"So this is all about punishing women for having sex." No, it's not. Babies are not a punishment, and should never be thought of as such.
"You're assuming that abortion isn't a rational and valid approach to dealing with an unwanted pregnancy when that is the very issue under discussion." I realize you think it's a rational and valid approach, but I don't.
"Please explain how, especially the "scientifically" part. I'm longing to hear how it is scientifically established when life begins." Think carefully on this. When did your existence (life) begin? I could link you to posts and articles referencing quotes from doctors and scientists, that life begins at conception. However, they would all be prolife sites and you would discount them as propaganda.
How about you link me to scientific articles proving that life does NOT begin at conception?
The baby is fully viable at that time, and abortion would kill it.
Always assuming that the fetus is "alive" at that point, which need not be granted. "Viable" doesn't mean "alive", it simply means potentially capable of surviving outside the mother's womb. These things are never certain and the earlier the pregnancy the worse the prognosis for the premature baby (which, even if it survives, may have a lifetime of medical problems due to the underdevelopment of its organs).
I've already stated that the term 'murder' is a legal definition. Though I believe abortion is murder, you will continue to lean on the legal definition. No sense arguing this.
That's exactly when this should be discussed. You accept that "murder" is a word with a legal definition. Since abortion is not murder in a legal sense, you cannot be using the standard legal definition, so the obvious next question to ask is which definition you are using. I call abortion "apple pie" if my definition of "apple pie" happens to be "any procedure for terminating a pregnancy, or the act of terminating a pregnancy".
Babies are not a punishment, and should never be thought of as such.
As it happens, I agree entirely. That's one reason why women should not be forced to give birth if they do not wish to, why every child should be a wanted child, and is decidedly not the message sent when abortion opponents say, in crudely misogynistic terms, that women should have "kept their legs shut" if they didn't want to get pregnant.
I realize you think it's a rational and valid approach, but I don't.
I know you don't. That's not the issue. The issue is that you are begging the question when you take it for granted that women should be forced to bear a conceptus all the way to gestation. This is a highly controversial view that you haven't begun to prove is right.
[In two parts because it was just over the maximum character count, which is clearly not designed for in-depth discussion.]
Think carefully on this. When did your existence (life) begin?
I have thought carefully about this. One possible response is that life began roughly four billion years ago and hasn't stopped since. This is the metabolic view, and I can see the merit in it, but the obvious consequence is that it means the sperm and the egg are as alive as you or I (*starts humming a verse of "Every Sperm is Sacred"*). One drawback is that it doesn't also address the issue of when I as an individual person came to exist. Since preformationism is bunk, we can no longer say that my existence was implicit in the sperm (or still less so in the DNA).
So, if asked to pinpoint where I as an individual person began, I would answer that I became an individual person at birth, when I was finally made independent of the maternal circulatory, respiratory, and alimentary systems.
I could link you to posts and articles referencing quotes from doctors and scientists, that life begins at conception. However, they would all be prolife sites and you would discount them as propaganda.
I would discount them as examples of the argument to authority. The problem with the argument to authority is that it looks convincing only if you're kept in the dark about other authorities that disagree. The "prolife" sites carefully massage their citations so that no hint that this is an issue about which scientific authorities can disagree. Sometimes they also engage in egregious quote mining. Doing these things does make them propaganda. Maybe you should try taking a wider view, and studying embryology from textbooks and scientific articles, rather than getting it filtered and secondhand through the "prolife" movement. After all, if your views are correct, you have nothing to fear from a comprehensive look at the issue.
How about you link me to scientific articles proving that life does NOT begin at conception?
Because that would be a wholly illegitimate shifting of the burden of proof, and doubly so since I am not appealing to the authority of science to settle the issue. If I were, then you'd be right to demand scientific citations. All I have to do, if I have to do anything at all, is point out the existence of scientifically viable views like the metabolic view of life and the integrated physiology view of life which undermine your claims of scientific consensus both from "above" (or later in development) and "below" (or earlier). I can also name at least four other views of when human life begins that are not the view that it begins at conception.
I am too tired to answer you point for point, so let me just say this.
Neither a sperm nor an egg have the capability to become a human being on it's own.
Your life began when a sperm was lucky enough to be the first one to penetrate the egg which your mother ovulated. That union made you unique, it made you special, from that very moment. No other human being on the planet is exactly like you. Every minute of every day, you developed, and you continue to do so until death. If at any point during your gestation, your mother would have chosen abortion, you wouldn't be here. You were granted a gift by your mother, the gift of life. And every other zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/toddler etc., deserves the chance to live their life.
Your life began when a sperm was lucky enough to be the first one to penetrate the egg which your mother ovulated.
I would like to see some evidence or rationale backing up this assertion.
If at any point during your gestation, your mother would have chosen abortion, you wouldn't be here. You were granted a gift by your mother, the gift of life.
My mother was a raging harridan with a severe undiagnosed case of either bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder. The idea of her choosing to have an abortion rather than to bring me to term to live with her and her near-psychotic rages is not one that troubles me in the slightest. Instead, it would have been the most sensible act of her life. If she would have aborted, I would have gone from a completely oblivious existence to non-existence without ever having missed anything, instead of having been born and subjected to abuse and mind games every day of my life until I grew sick of it and moved out.
Forgot to address this: Neither a sperm nor an egg have the capability to become a human being on it's own.
Neither does a zygote. If you doubt this, then put a zygote in a Petri dish with an agar substrate and let the thing develop into a human being on its own. It won't work. Developmentally, the process is too reliant on maternal effect proteins, protein-protein interactions, protein-cell interactions, cell-cell, cell-tissue, tissue-protein, and tissue-tissue interactions, as well as being reliant not only on the sustenance and waste disposal provided by the mother's body but also the uterine environment to guide development.
This is why I reject the claim that human life begins at conception, for the simple reason that nothing like a human being is the outcome of the fusion of ovum and sperm into a zygote. To get an actual human being requires a lengthy period of fetal development that is not implicit in the DNA of the zygote, whatever the anti-abortion lobby may claim.
"Neither does a zygote." Oh yes it does, as long as left in it's natural environment.
Sorry you had such a rough childhood. I'm finding more and more that mental illness is behind a lot of the abortion proponents cause. And I say that from an observation standpoint only.
Just so you know, mine wasn't perfect either. I honestly can't say if my mother would have chosen abortion if she had that option. She just may have. She wasn't Catholic (neither am I). But I'm still glad I had my life.
Oh yes it does, as long as left in it's natural environment.
In other words, as long the zygote isn't on its own, then it has the capacity to develop into a human being on its own. Awesome.
But in fact, that isn't even true. There are plenty of things that will stop development and cause a spontaneous abortion after fertilization of the ovum. It's estimated that about half of pregnancies end this way, with the mother none the wiser. If she detects any effect at all from it, it's just a slightly heavy menstrual flow. Your god, if it exists, commits abortions on a scale against which all the induced abortions in history pale into insignificance.
She wasn't Catholic (neither am I).
I didn't think you were. Most Catholics don't link to Protestant fundamentalist websites like Answers in Genesis.
What is behind the "abortion proponents cause" is the recognition that women are real people with rights of their own, and that giving them over to be unwilling incubators places them in the position of slaves whose bodies may be exploited by others at will. The anti-abortion crowd would like to bestow on fetuses a 'right' nobody else has. I have no right to the products of your body, even if I really, really need them to live. I can't exsanguinate you if I find out that you're type-O and I need a transfusion. And since the fetus completely lacks agency, it is not the fetus that enslaves the woman, but a patriarchal society that is supposedly just "looking out" for the interests of the fetus.
However, the way they do so is repressive and completely out of line if the purpose of the legislation were just to "protect babies".
Take this bill passed by the Oklahoma legislature last year:
The governor of Oklahoma is considering tough new abortion bills that would allow doctors to withhold test results showing foetal defects and require women to answer intrusive questions.
The results of the questionnaires would be posted online.
Women would also be required to have a vaginal ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the embryo or foetus in a third bill passed by the legislature on Monday.
Can you explain to me the purpose of forcing women to answer detailed questions about their sexual histories and having the answer put online? How does that protect the fetus?
This is clearly not about fetal rights, but enforcing a kind of Puritanical sexual morality where the "sluts" get publicly shamed, the website being the modern age's version of the pillory. As a side benefit for the men who crafted the legislation, it allows them to satisfy their voyeuristic interests under the mantle of "upholding morality" and "protecting the unborn". What it doesn't happen to do is protect fetuses, but that was never the priority.
Being forced out of the natural environment, is a bit different than being left to stay there. You're using stats from the natural process of spontaneous abortion, to attempt to justify induced abortion.
"What is behind the "abortion proponents cause" is the recognition that women are real people with rights of their own, and that giving them over to be unwilling incubators places them in the position of slaves whose bodies may be exploited by others at will. " Yes women are real people, no one I know has implied otherwise. Banning abortion doesn't take away any other right, except the right to abort.
"And since the fetus completely lacks agency, it is not the fetus that enslaves the woman, but a patriarchal society that is supposedly just "looking out" for the interests of the fetus." In the interest of trying to protect them from being killed? Yes we are. Patriarchal, not so much. What would be ideal, is if women were respected simply becuase they are people. Pro-choice can't seem to accomplish that without killing their babies. How sick is that?
Did the bill pass? My guess is no. And no, I don't agree with the questionaire, and posting answers online is out of the question.
You're using stats from the natural process of spontaneous abortion, to attempt to justify induced abortion.
No, I am simply using the stats from spontaneous abortion to show that it is no sure thing that a human being must be the result of conception, even with the best will in the world.
Yes women are real people, no one I know has implied otherwise. Banning abortion doesn't take away any other right, except the right to abort.
Hah.
It is an implied statement that women are not real people if you force them to become incubators for unwanted fetuses for nine months. That is not something that anyone has had the right to do to another human being ever since we passed the 13th Amendment. It turns women from human beings into brood mares.
As to the idea that it doesn't take away any other right (as if that's sufficient justification in itself—would you accept a law that "only" took away your right to free speech, for example?) that is absurd on its face. If you force women to bear a fetus they do not want, then you are not only taking away their right to abort, but also taking away their bodily autonomy, their right to their own medical decisions, even such basic rights as freedom of movement and habeas corpus if the State, in its omnipotent prerogative, decides that the woman is a threat to her own fetus and locks her up until the fetus comes to term. This is already happening in the U.S. And these rights are rights that are abridged for every woman, because as soon as she's got that sacred clump of cells inside her, she is legally rendered unable to make decisions about her own body and her own medical decisions.
In the interest of trying to protect them from being killed? Yes we are. Patriarchal, not so much.
So then who gets to control women's bodies? Not the women themselves, as I've just shown. That leaves only one other answer, and that answer is "the patriarchy". Being anti-choice is an adoption of a patriarchal view of women's reproduction, no matter how many women are conditioned to buy into the prevailing ideology themselves (and some are).
As Sarah Blaffer Hrdy wittily points out in Mother Nature, the male anti-abortion opponents like Rick Santorum, like all other high-status male primates, are obsessively concerned about controlling when, where, and how females in his cohort reproduce.
What would be ideal, is if women were respected simply becuase they are people. Pro-choice can't seem to accomplish that without killing their babies. How sick is that?
So what would be ideal for you is if women were respected simply because they are people, but the instant that a sperm and ovum get together inside her body, she ceases having the rights and privileges of any other person, the fetus has rights and privileges granted to no other person (or rather the State takes the prerogative of enslaving women on the fetuses' behalf) and then she becomes an incubator for the next nine months. After which, she becomes a fully enfranchised member of the human race again.
Yes, there is a reason why equality for women doesn't work without abortion.
You don't have to guess. You could have either consulted the article or simply read my post where I told you that the bill passed the legislature. Not only that, if you had read the article, you would have found it was substantially similar to an earlier bill that was not only passed but signed into law, and which was struck down by the state's Supreme Court.
And no, I don't agree with the questionaire, and posting answers online is out of the question.
I'm glad you don't, but that's not the point. The point is that the anti-choice position provides cover for retrogressive, voyeuristic, and Puritan moralizers to treat women as second-class citizens. In many cases, these would be the people drafting the laws. If you were to dump these people from your movement, then that might give some color to your protestations that you'd like to address women on an equal footing. And you'd still have to address the fact that the physical burden of pregnancy is entirely carried by the woman, and that this has been the excuse behind keeping women unequal. They denied women the vote because raising children and caring for the household was the woman's domain. Later, they denied equal pay, promotions, and job security to women on the principle that they'd probably be getting pregnant anyway and leaving the firm. If you wanted to make women equal while still banning abortion, then you'd be addressing those very things you have previously refused because you claim they're all "entitlements". You're no more interested in women's equality than anybody else in the anti-choice movement.
Prayer is violence to the kingdom of darkness.
ReplyDeleteIts because pro-choicers know that everything you say is crap. You don't care about "life." You only want to outlaw abortion, drive it underground where it will be unsafe. If you were for life, you would work with us to increase funding for childcare, maternity care, maternity leave, sex education and birth control which would decrease the abortion rate.
ReplyDeleteJackie, what you're saying is just not true. Most women that have abortions, would have their babies if abortion was illegal. Women wouldn't take to coat hangers and such, because they aren't that stupid. How much has the abortion rate dropped since legalizing it? Exactly! The more you preach sex ed and birth control, the more abortions rise. Men and women abstaing from sex, is the only way to prevent pregnancy, and decrease the abortion rate.
ReplyDeleteLOL! Who do you think has been funding those all along, dumbass? Unemployed loudmouth college kids like yourself? NO-taxpayers like me. You're welcome.
ReplyDelete'Work with US?' On what? Obama just cut $600 million from public health care centers. Please quit pretending you care about the poor. All you care about is your agenda. There are so many prochoice charities that help single mothers huh-exactly 0. Pay for your own babykilling.
Armored Saint : First of all, don't speak to me in that manner.
ReplyDeleteSecond of all, we wouldn't be cutting if our former pro-life president screw up the economy. As the pro-life Republican tea baggers are say, "We have to cut spending!!!!!!" Where they were six years ago is a mystery..
Jackie - Common sense. All you have to do is look at birth/abortion rates before Roe.
ReplyDeletePlease, enough with the blame it on Bush.. Obama has had 2-1/2 yrs and he did what with the national debt? Unemployment rate is ???
Jackie - Common sense. All you have to do is look at birth/abortion rates before Roe.
ReplyDeleteRight, because we can be certain that every abortion provider pre-Roe was keeping meticulous records and reporting the number of abortions to the CDC.
I suggest you read "When Abortion Was A Crime" by Leslie Reagan and "Wake Up Little Susie" by Ricky Solinger to get a sense of the pre-Roe America. In addition, the CDC didn't start tracking abortions until 68 so all we can go on are the hundreds of thousands of stories of women dead or butchered by back alley abortionists. I know one of the new talking-points of the anti-choice crowd is that back alley abortions are a figment of the pro-choice imagination. Facts like hospital records and septic wards as well as newspaper reports do not support that.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, it is a know fact that where abortion is illegal the abortion rate is higher than where it is legal. (you can easily look it up) The exception to this rule is Ireland because most women can travel to England to get an abortion.
By the way, your thinking that if abortion is illegal women will have no choice but to carry the fetus to term is disgusting. Pregnancy, childbirth and parenting should never be compulsory. It should always be a choice.
"While abortions have been typically portrayed as grim "back alley" operations, she finds that abortion providers often practiced openly and safely." - From the description of "When Abortion Was A Crime" by Leslie Reagan, the book you cited http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520216570
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt in my mind that some women took desparate, and dangerous measures to end their pregnancies. This is the 21st century, not the 19th. Why don't we work on fixing the problems that make women so desparate, rather than just killing off their young?
"Pregnancy, childbirth and parenting should never be compulsory." It's not, it can be prevented by not having sex.
Why don't we work on fixing the problems that make women so desparate
ReplyDeleteSounds like a prime idea to me.
Here are the issues that you'd have to address:
Low-cost or free child care.
Low-cost or free health care for both the woman's pregnancy and delivery and subsequent treatment for any medical complications the child or woman may have as a result.
Extensions of (or replacements for) food-stamp benefits, insurance coverage, etc. that do not penalize working-class women for trying to work their way out of poverty, as well as providing enough food so that these poor people are not going hungry.
Better public schooling.
Forcing the educational system to work with low-wage mothers who get pregnant and need to care for young children. The current higher education system is wildly insufficient in this respect.
Doing a better job of protecting women (and girls) from rape and incest.
Lastly, providing sex ed. to all young men and women that is based on reality and not Puritan moralizing. In this respect, you should want to keep Planned Parenthood open, because they're a source for birth control, family planning counseling, women's health check-ups, and social/medical services beyond abortion.
If you are able to make progress in all these issues, then I dare say you would see a drop in abortions. There would still be abortions out of medical necessity, but you'd be significantly addressing the socioeconomic factors that lead to abortions.
Now, guess what the anti-abortion movement doesn't do here, and what the party it has attached itself to does do to the poor and working class.
"Low-cost or free child care" - Why not families taking care of their own? It's not a hard concept. The family unit, mom, grandma, grandpa, aunts, uncles.. taking care of their own flesh and blood. No? That's how it was done a long time ago. People took care of, and responsibility for their own families. Oh wait, that's the 'moral' thing to do.
ReplyDelete"Low-cost or free health care" - Medicaid is already available.
"Doing a better job of protecting women (and girls) from rape and incest." - Most rape/incest goes unreported. How about we put rapists in jail where they belong? That's the only way to decrease the problem.
Planned Parenthood, the billion dollar 'non-profit'. You figure that one out. There are other public health clinics that women can go to, to get the care they need. PP is nothing more than a PAC who's purpose is to lobby for legal abortion, their cash cow, it's all about money.
Other than public education, which does need to be improved, every thing you've list is an entitlement. You are making the state responsible for the actions of an individual.
Your last paragraph on entitlement was amazing. Yet, you think you're entitled to pass judgement on women's personal medical decisions. Unbelievable!
ReplyDeleteI don't have problems taking responsibility for my actions at all. As far as killing innocent human beings, nope I've never done that either. There's a huge difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing a human being. But that dehumanizing language you use is why people kill innocent human beings, heros like Dr Tiller, in the name of life. Your language is nothing but violent hyperbole and there are consequences to such language.
ReplyDeleteAnd I will repeat is once again. The pro-life movement in rooted in violence and misogyny. You may not have solid ties to the pro-life terrorists, but you definitely support them with your violent dehumanizing language.
BTW, people have sex for other reasons besides procreation. Thats a fact thats been around since the beginning of time. Even ancient Egyptians were know to use contraception and perform abortions. The act of having sex, for me anyways, does not forfeit the right to my autonomy. If you feel that sex is for procreation only, then I suggest you practice that. Other than that, mind your own business. Its so strange how obsessed you people are with other people's sex life. Its actually pretty sick and creepy.
ReplyDeleteWho's dehumanizing? "There's a huge difference between terminating a pregnancy and killing a human being". Terminating a pregnancy KILLS a HUMAN fetus.
ReplyDelete"Your language is nothing but violent hyperbole and there are consequences to such language." -
Is that a threat? Because it sure sounds like one.
Yes Jackie, we already know you're not willing to give up an orgasm to save the life of an innocent human being.
Yes, that's right- a human fetus. A human fetus is a potential human being but its not a human being.
ReplyDeleteIts not a threat its a statement. Calling women murderers does not happen in a vacuum. When you dehumanize women like you do, others who feel the same way may take it to the next level. And anti-abortion violence is a real threat people who work for women's rights deal with on a daily basis.
Just admit it...this is not about life its about imposing your morality on women. If a woman has sex for an orgasm (to continue with your language) and gets pregnant and doesn't want a baby she should be punished with it anyway because in your eyes she's a selfish slut.
What is a human 'being' anyway? A fetus fits the definition of a being. "the state or fact of existing". A fetus exests, so it is a human being. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=being
ReplyDeletePotential? We all have potential, don't we?
I attempt to refrain from referring to post abortive women as murderers, because I know it's hurtful. That's not to say I've never said it, or that I will never say it again. I try not to though.
No one is dehumanizing women. You can't say that about what abortion advocates do to fetuses. Anti-abortion violence is done by extremists. To remain silent 'just in case' someone else takes it to the extreme, is just wrong. I know pro-aborts would love nothing more than to silence pro-lifers like me, but it's not going to happen. "anti-abortion violence is a real threat people who work for women's rights deal with on a daily basis" - That would be their choice.
This IS about life, and also about morality. Who doesn't need morals? Geez, what would the world be like without morals and decency?
"If a woman has sex for an orgasm (to continue with your language) and gets pregnant" - She should give HER baby life. That's not a punishment, it's the right thing to do. And it takes a STRONG woman to do it. If you don't want to get pregnant, take precautions so you don't.
This IS about life, and also about morality. Who doesn't need morals? Geez, what would the world be like without morals and decency?
ReplyDeleteLike yours.
Just look at how you excuse the risk from anti-abortion violence as just a choice that these women have to face, as if it were a natural phenomenon instead of something that you and your ideological cohorts could stop at once if you wanted to.
You recognize that calling women who get abortions "murderers" is hurtful, but you refuse to refrain from doing so.
So yes, morality and decency don't mean a damn to you. As far as you're concerned, the ends justify the means.
P.S. Thanks for your clear rejection of any attempt to ameliorate the socioeconomic conditions that cause women to seek out abortions. It goes to show that the anti-abortion position isn't about helping children, or indeed about anything except seeing that the fetuses are born. After they're born, they couldn't care less about what happens. In fact, for many of your ilk the worse the things are for these women the better, because that'll teach the 'sluts' to spread their legs in the first place, right?
I also couldn't help but notice that your ideological blinders caused you to completely misread my statement about education as if I were talking about public education, rather than what I was actually saying about making higher education more accessible to mothers.
What is a human 'being' anyway? A fetus fits the definition of a being. "the state or fact of existing".
ReplyDeleteActually, a fetus does not fit the quoted definition because a fetus is not an abstract concept, whereas "the state or fact of being" is an abstract concept.
Furthermore, in your dictionary-driven sophistry, you are ignoring the apt definition for "being" in this context:
3
: a living thing; especially : person
To equivocate on these matters by saying a fetus is of course a being if it exists is dishonest, when the question at hand is about the personhood of the fetus. There is no rational reason to convey individual rights upon a non-individuated being, which is why pro-choice advocates rightly reject the notion that a fetus is a legal "person".
Nullifidian - What suggestions would you make to me, so that I can still be a prolife activist, and not have some nutcase take the message to the extreme? WHAT??? Your intention is to silence prolife, and it's NEVER going to happen!
ReplyDeleteYou question my morality, but PROLIFE IS NOT THE ONE'S KILLING BABIES. Got that?
"I also couldn't help but notice that your ideological blinders caused you to completely misread my statement about education as if I were talking about public education"
Your quote ---> "Better public schooling".
The question at hand is NOT about the personhood of the fetus, though you would like it to be. It's about the humanity of the fetus, a concept pro-aborts just don't get.
Being: The quality or state of having existence; Something concievable as existing; something that actually exists.
What suggestions would you make to me, so that I can still be a prolife activist, and not have some nutcase take the message to the extreme?
ReplyDeleteWell, you could tell your fellow ideologues to tone down the "Abortion is murder" and "killing babies" rhetoric. Considering that you have used that very rhetoric in this thread, though, and have a site called "CHOICE IS MURDER!" on your blog roll, I doubt you're ever going to do that. Nevertheless, it is that kind of rhetoric that allows people to rationalize the murder of abortion providers, the firebombing of abortion clinics, and so on.
You question my morality, but PROLIFE IS NOT THE ONE'S KILLING BABIES. Got that?
Neither is the pro-choice side. This kind of rhetoric may work on the simple-minded, but it's not going to sway anyone who has seriously considered the issue.
I concede that I had mentioned public school then forgotten about it. No doubt given the rest of your reactionary rhetoric, you think improving public education is synonymous with gutting it, which is naturally not what I was talking about. In fact, the best way to improve education would be to eliminate "high-stakes testing", introduce effective remediation, hire people who know what they're doing, pay them enough to make it worth their while, and then step out of the way and let them do it. Every time the statehouse or Congress has another notion about how to "improve" education (despite few, if any, being professional educators) they always manage to screw it up. If they want to have a practical and helpful role in education, Congress should establish panels of experts in the humanities and sciences to draw up national textbook standards that are based on the best available scholarship and encourage their adoption nationwide. That way, education wouldn't be a patchwork quilt of pseudoscience, abstinence education, and historical folderol like the Texas state social studies standards. I would also recommend grounding education with a logical background, so that students can evaluate both informal and formal logical fallacies and misleading rhetoric.
I have absolutely no hope of any program like this ever being adopted. After all, where would key "red meat" social issues like anti-abortionism be if people were capable of reasoning over them?
The question at hand is NOT about the personhood of the fetus, though you would like it to be. It's about the humanity of the fetus, a concept pro-aborts just don't get.
If the issue is the humanity of the fetus, then your playing around with dictionary definitions won't get us there either. Obviously not everything that exists is necessarily human, simply by virtue of its existence. My cat exists, but my cat is not a human being. A fetus exists, but a fetus is not a human being either.
IF... there were no babies dying due to abortion, there wouldn't be an issue, would there?
ReplyDeleteAnd if there were no fanatics trying to impose their Puritanical vision on all dissenters, then there wouldn't be an issue either. Now, given the choice between a theocracy that bans abortions and some place where people's autonomy and right to make their own medical decisions in private is respected, I unhesitatingly affirm my support for the latter.
If you would prefer things the other way, there are several places where modern-day Savonarolas have banned abortions entirely—Nicaragua, for example, where over eighty women died in the year after the abortion ban was enacted.
The fact is, human fetuses are babies, their just not yet born.
By that standard, we're both corpses who have yet to die.
I said I try not to use the term murderer. I did not say I didn't believe abortion is murder. It is murder.
How is abortion murder?
In your liberal world, you would like to indoctrinate school children with your pro-abortion rhetoric.
I've already told you once that I am not a liberal. Also, I have said nothing about indoctrinating children with any rhetoric of any kind. If you want to continue this conversation, please have it with me and not your strawmen. As to the term "pro-abortion", it is just laughable. You want to restrict all women's access to abortions, but the converse doesn't hold for me. I'm not out trying to convince all pregnant women to go get an abortion. I simply think that it is an imposition on their bodily autonomy and their right to make their own medical decisions to say that abortion must be banned. Hence, pro-choice.
How about the 3 R's? Basic learning skills so they can think when they grow up.
I already addressed that. See my comment about grounding students' education in logic, with particular emphasis on how to recognize both formal and informal fallacies and misleading rhetoric. Also, my comment about remediation, which cannot happen without some core subject matter for which remediation is needed.
Rather than regurgitate pro-abort liberal rhetoric like you do.
What a way you have of projecting your own characteristics onto others. I disagree with you, therefore I must be a "liberal". You regurgitate rhetoric that is unfounded by the faintest flicker of an argument, so I, who disagree with you, must be doing the same thing in reverse. Instead, I've presented several arguments with reasons and all you've done is ignore them or "respond" with empty sloganeering.
Cats are NOT human. Human fetuses are. Both are beings.
All right, then. What about my kidneys? Are they human beings? After all, they aren't dingo's kidneys, bee's nephridia, or anything else. And since you've so adroitly pointed out that everything that exists is a "being", and my kidneys exist, therefore they must be human beings, right?
The Anti Abortion Gang -
ReplyDeleteMy intent is not to silence you. My intent is to point out that the pro-life rhetoric fuels the fire of extremists. And its about time you people take responsibility for that. Its clear from your dismissiveness of the real violence faced by medical professionals that you don't care. That is very sad to me and makes me question exactly how "pro-life" you are.
"This IS about life, and also about morality. Who doesn't need morals?"
Who will be the people who decide what morals we follow? You? Are you saying we should turn America into a Christian theocracy?
"She should give HER baby life. That's not a punishment, it's the right thing to do. And it takes a STRONG woman to do it. If you don't want to get pregnant, take precautions so you don't."
A woman can take precautions and still get pregnant. And it may be the right thing for YOU to do but not the right thing for someone else. Again we're going back to applying other people's standards/ morals onto the entire population. Iran does that...I don't think there's a place for such beliefs in a free, democratic society such as America.
Speaking of being pro-life, are you just as passionate about the hundred of babies and children who starve to death in Africa every day? What are you doing to "save" them? What about the children dying in Iraq and Afganistan? Sex trafficking of little girls? What about all them?
Nullifidian -
ReplyDeleteYour corpse analysis is right on. We will all be corpses someday; however, we don't make the leap to refer to ourselves as corpses.
As far as education, as a college professor I am shocked by the lack of critical thinking skills. I spend at least half the semester working on looking at issues from different perspectives to help students think about issues in a more complex way. We need a complete overhaul of our public school system where humanities is taken more seriously and science is better funded. For these students to be paying 30K a year at college to learn skills that they should have mastered in 9th grade is horrifying.
Nullifidian - "Now, given the choice between a theocracy that bans abortions and some place where people's autonomy and right to make their own medical decisions in private is respected, I unhesitatingly affirm my support for the latter." You support fetuses in the womb being killed? Because that's what abortion does.
ReplyDeleteWhat gestational limit to abortion should there be?
"By that standard, we're both corpses who have yet to die" Are you consumed w/ death? Fetuses are developing human beings, who have yet to live their life as you and I are right now. Abortion strips that privelege from them, taking them straight from "unborn" to "dead", with no life in between. How powerful prochoicers must feel to be able to do this to them, legally.
"How is abortion murder?" - You're relying upon the legal definition of the term murder. What if abortion wasn't legal, and fetuses were granted personhood? Would you consider abortion as murder then?
"As to the term "pro-abortion", it is just laughable." - Then why does it bother pro-aborts so much?
"I simply think that it is an imposition on their bodily autonomy and their right to make their own medical decisions to say that abortion must be banned." - First, they should have thought about the possible 'imposition' prior to having sex. Second, a fetuses body is not the womans body. What about his/her bodily autonomy?
You've already failed on logic. Both logically and scientifically, a new life begins at conception. "See my comment about grounding students' education in logic, with particular emphasis on how to recognize both formal and informal fallacies and misleading rhetoric." and all you're doing is attempting to justify killing that new life.
"You regurgitate rhetoric that is unfounded by the faintest flicker of an argument" Unfounded? Are fetuses alive? Does abortion kill them? Think logically about that.
Kidneys are an organ, not a being. There is no possibility of a kidney (or a cat) ever becoming a human 'being'. They will never think like a human being, they will never 'feel' (sense things) like a human being. A fetus will, by nature.
Jackie - "My intent is to point out that the pro-life rhetoric fuels the fire of extremists." Let me pose the same question to you that I asked Nullifidian. What suggestions would you make to me, so that I can still be a prolife activist, and not have some nutcase take the message to the extreme?
ReplyDelete"Who will be the people who decide what morals we follow? You? Are you saying we should turn America into a Christian theocracy?" No one decides on morals for you. We all know right from wrong in our hearts. I believe abortion is wrong. I'm a Christian. What do you think?
"A woman can take precautions and still get pregnant." And most women that get pregnant, failed to use birth control consistently.
Iran? Iraq? etc.. what about them? It's a big world, and sadly, babies and children do die every day from starvation and disease. You're using starving babies in Africe to justify abortion in the USA. Sad
What gestational limit to abortion should there be?
ReplyDeleteBirth. The fetus is not individuated until it is independent of the mother's circulatory, alimentary, and respiratory systems. I reject the idea of extending individual rights to non-individuated beings as nonsensical and destructive of the rights of the women who will be forced to gestate these fetuses.
Are you consumed w/ death?
No, just pointing out the absurdity of calling a fetus a baby that is not yet born.
What if abortion wasn't legal, and fetuses were granted personhood? Would you consider abortion as murder then?
If the murder statute were expanded to encompass fetuses (it's not a sure thing that it would be, even if we granted "personhood" to them), then obviously abortion would fit the legal definition of murder. It wouldn't change my opinion of the stupidity of such legislation.
Now, do you have an argument for why abortion is "murder" or not?
First, they should have thought about the possible 'imposition' prior to having sex.
Great. So this is all about punishing women for having sex. If that attitude weren't blinding you, it stands to reason that you'd see that you're begging the question. You're assuming that abortion isn't a rational and valid approach to dealing with an unwanted pregnancy when that is the very issue under discussion.
And it also demonstrates how little the anti-abortion lobby cares about the children after they're born. If you browbeat women with their unwanted pregnancies by telling them that's the consequences they face for deciding to have sex, that is not likely to lead to a loving and respectful mother-child relationship. It's much more likely to lead to a situation where the mother abandons the newborn or abuses her child out of resentment for ruining her life.
Second, a fetuses body is not the womans body.
That's exactly what it is. It is physically attached to and dependent on the mother's physiology in order to survive.
What about his/her bodily autonomy?
The fetus isn't individuated, so it logically cannot have any autonomy.
You've already failed on logic. Both logically and scientifically, a new life begins at conception.
Please explain how, especially the "scientifically" part. I'm longing to hear how it is scientifically established when life begins.
Unfounded? Are fetuses alive? Does abortion kill them? Think logically about that.
I'll reserve my answer pending your demonstration that life begins at conception. If it's sufficiently convincing, I will have to change how I answer.
Kidneys are an organ, not a being.
But "Being: The quality or state of having existence; Something concievable as existing; something that actually exists."
Surely kidneys actually exist! Or is this definition you trotted out as authoritative and unanswerable not quite sufficient for this context?
There is no possibility of a kidney (or a cat) ever becoming a human 'being'.
This is the nub of why anti-abortion rhetoric fails. They talk endlessly of "possibility" and "potential", but crimes are defined in the here and now. If I steal a losing lottery ticket from you, I will only be charged with petty larceny. I will not be charged with grand theft because it could have been a winning ticket, and any prosecutor who tried filing such charges would be laughed out of court. And yet we're supposed to regard allegedly snuffing out a "potential life" as murder. If so, every masturbating man is a murderer thousands of times over, because one of those sperm could have fertilized an ovum. The logic of murder of the "potential" leads inexorably to "Every Sperm Is Sacred" scenarios.
The fact that you support abortion at nearly full term is not surprising, but it is sad. The baby is fully viable at that time, and abortion would kill it.
ReplyDeleteI've already stated that the term 'murder' is a legal definition. Though I believe abortion is murder, you will continue to lean on the legal definition. No sense arguing this.
"So this is all about punishing women for having sex." No, it's not. Babies are not a punishment, and should never be thought of as such.
"You're assuming that abortion isn't a rational and valid approach to dealing with an unwanted pregnancy when that is the very issue under discussion." I realize you think it's a rational and valid approach, but I don't.
"Please explain how, especially the "scientifically" part. I'm longing to hear how it is scientifically established when life begins." Think carefully on this. When did your existence (life) begin? I could link you to posts and articles referencing quotes from doctors and scientists, that life begins at conception. However, they would all be prolife sites and you would discount them as propaganda.
How about you link me to scientific articles proving that life does NOT begin at conception?
The baby is fully viable at that time, and abortion would kill it.
ReplyDeleteAlways assuming that the fetus is "alive" at that point, which need not be granted. "Viable" doesn't mean "alive", it simply means potentially capable of surviving outside the mother's womb. These things are never certain and the earlier the pregnancy the worse the prognosis for the premature baby (which, even if it survives, may have a lifetime of medical problems due to the underdevelopment of its organs).
I've already stated that the term 'murder' is a legal definition. Though I believe abortion is murder, you will continue to lean on the legal definition. No sense arguing this.
That's exactly when this should be discussed. You accept that "murder" is a word with a legal definition. Since abortion is not murder in a legal sense, you cannot be using the standard legal definition, so the obvious next question to ask is which definition you are using. I call abortion "apple pie" if my definition of "apple pie" happens to be "any procedure for terminating a pregnancy, or the act of terminating a pregnancy".
Babies are not a punishment, and should never be thought of as such.
As it happens, I agree entirely. That's one reason why women should not be forced to give birth if they do not wish to, why every child should be a wanted child, and is decidedly not the message sent when abortion opponents say, in crudely misogynistic terms, that women should have "kept their legs shut" if they didn't want to get pregnant.
I realize you think it's a rational and valid approach, but I don't.
I know you don't. That's not the issue. The issue is that you are begging the question when you take it for granted that women should be forced to bear a conceptus all the way to gestation. This is a highly controversial view that you haven't begun to prove is right.
[In two parts because it was just over the maximum character count, which is clearly not designed for in-depth discussion.]
ReplyDeleteThink carefully on this. When did your existence (life) begin?
I have thought carefully about this. One possible response is that life began roughly four billion years ago and hasn't stopped since. This is the metabolic view, and I can see the merit in it, but the obvious consequence is that it means the sperm and the egg are as alive as you or I (*starts humming a verse of "Every Sperm is Sacred"*). One drawback is that it doesn't also address the issue of when I as an individual person came to exist. Since preformationism is bunk, we can no longer say that my existence was implicit in the sperm (or still less so in the DNA).
So, if asked to pinpoint where I as an individual person began, I would answer that I became an individual person at birth, when I was finally made independent of the maternal circulatory, respiratory, and alimentary systems.
I could link you to posts and articles referencing quotes from doctors and scientists, that life begins at conception. However, they would all be prolife sites and you would discount them as propaganda.
I would discount them as examples of the argument to authority. The problem with the argument to authority is that it looks convincing only if you're kept in the dark about other authorities that disagree. The "prolife" sites carefully massage their citations so that no hint that this is an issue about which scientific authorities can disagree. Sometimes they also engage in egregious quote mining. Doing these things does make them propaganda. Maybe you should try taking a wider view, and studying embryology from textbooks and scientific articles, rather than getting it filtered and secondhand through the "prolife" movement. After all, if your views are correct, you have nothing to fear from a comprehensive look at the issue.
How about you link me to scientific articles proving that life does NOT begin at conception?
Because that would be a wholly illegitimate shifting of the burden of proof, and doubly so since I am not appealing to the authority of science to settle the issue. If I were, then you'd be right to demand scientific citations. All I have to do, if I have to do anything at all, is point out the existence of scientifically viable views like the metabolic view of life and the integrated physiology view of life which undermine your claims of scientific consensus both from "above" (or later in development) and "below" (or earlier). I can also name at least four other views of when human life begins that are not the view that it begins at conception.
I am too tired to answer you point for point, so let me just say this.
ReplyDeleteNeither a sperm nor an egg have the capability to become a human being on it's own.
Your life began when a sperm was lucky enough to be the first one to penetrate the egg which your mother ovulated. That union made you unique, it made you special, from that very moment. No other human being on the planet is exactly like you. Every minute of every day, you developed, and you continue to do so until death. If at any point during your gestation, your mother would have chosen abortion, you wouldn't be here. You were granted a gift by your mother, the gift of life. And every other zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/toddler etc., deserves the chance to live their life.
Your life began when a sperm was lucky enough to be the first one to penetrate the egg which your mother ovulated.
ReplyDeleteI would like to see some evidence or rationale backing up this assertion.
If at any point during your gestation, your mother would have chosen abortion, you wouldn't be here. You were granted a gift by your mother, the gift of life.
My mother was a raging harridan with a severe undiagnosed case of either bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder. The idea of her choosing to have an abortion rather than to bring me to term to live with her and her near-psychotic rages is not one that troubles me in the slightest. Instead, it would have been the most sensible act of her life. If she would have aborted, I would have gone from a completely oblivious existence to non-existence without ever having missed anything, instead of having been born and subjected to abuse and mind games every day of my life until I grew sick of it and moved out.
In short, "Thanks for nothing, Mom."
Forgot to address this:
ReplyDeleteNeither a sperm nor an egg have the capability to become a human being on it's own.
Neither does a zygote. If you doubt this, then put a zygote in a Petri dish with an agar substrate and let the thing develop into a human being on its own. It won't work. Developmentally, the process is too reliant on maternal effect proteins, protein-protein interactions, protein-cell interactions, cell-cell, cell-tissue, tissue-protein, and tissue-tissue interactions, as well as being reliant not only on the sustenance and waste disposal provided by the mother's body but also the uterine environment to guide development.
This is why I reject the claim that human life begins at conception, for the simple reason that nothing like a human being is the outcome of the fusion of ovum and sperm into a zygote. To get an actual human being requires a lengthy period of fetal development that is not implicit in the DNA of the zygote, whatever the anti-abortion lobby may claim.
"Neither does a zygote." Oh yes it does, as long as left in it's natural environment.
ReplyDeleteSorry you had such a rough childhood. I'm finding more and more that mental illness is behind a lot of the abortion proponents cause. And I say that from an observation standpoint only.
Just so you know, mine wasn't perfect either. I honestly can't say if my mother would have chosen abortion if she had that option. She just may have. She wasn't Catholic (neither am I). But I'm still glad I had my life.
Oh yes it does, as long as left in it's natural environment.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, as long the zygote isn't on its own, then it has the capacity to develop into a human being on its own. Awesome.
But in fact, that isn't even true. There are plenty of things that will stop development and cause a spontaneous abortion after fertilization of the ovum. It's estimated that about half of pregnancies end this way, with the mother none the wiser. If she detects any effect at all from it, it's just a slightly heavy menstrual flow. Your god, if it exists, commits abortions on a scale against which all the induced abortions in history pale into insignificance.
She wasn't Catholic (neither am I).
I didn't think you were. Most Catholics don't link to Protestant fundamentalist websites like Answers in Genesis.
What is behind the "abortion proponents cause" is the recognition that women are real people with rights of their own, and that giving them over to be unwilling incubators places them in the position of slaves whose bodies may be exploited by others at will. The anti-abortion crowd would like to bestow on fetuses a 'right' nobody else has. I have no right to the products of your body, even if I really, really need them to live. I can't exsanguinate you if I find out that you're type-O and I need a transfusion. And since the fetus completely lacks agency, it is not the fetus that enslaves the woman, but a patriarchal society that is supposedly just "looking out" for the interests of the fetus.
However, the way they do so is repressive and completely out of line if the purpose of the legislation were just to "protect babies".
Take this bill passed by the Oklahoma legislature last year:
The governor of Oklahoma is considering tough new abortion bills that would allow doctors to withhold test results showing foetal defects and require women to answer intrusive questions.
The results of the questionnaires would be posted online.
Women would also be required to have a vaginal ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the embryo or foetus in a third bill passed by the legislature on Monday.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/antiabortion-bill-to-block-foetal-test-results-20100421-szqu.html#ixzz1PSaJQCz
Can you explain to me the purpose of forcing women to answer detailed questions about their sexual histories and having the answer put online? How does that protect the fetus?
This is clearly not about fetal rights, but enforcing a kind of Puritanical sexual morality where the "sluts" get publicly shamed, the website being the modern age's version of the pillory. As a side benefit for the men who crafted the legislation, it allows them to satisfy their voyeuristic interests under the mantle of "upholding morality" and "protecting the unborn". What it doesn't happen to do is protect fetuses, but that was never the priority.
Being forced out of the natural environment, is a bit different than being left to stay there. You're using stats from the natural process of spontaneous abortion, to attempt to justify induced abortion.
ReplyDelete"What is behind the "abortion proponents cause" is the recognition that women are real people with rights of their own, and that giving them over to be unwilling incubators places them in the position of slaves whose bodies may be exploited by others at will. " Yes women are real people, no one I know has implied otherwise. Banning abortion doesn't take away any other right, except the right to abort.
"And since the fetus completely lacks agency, it is not the fetus that enslaves the woman, but a patriarchal society that is supposedly just "looking out" for the interests of the fetus." In the interest of trying to protect them from being killed? Yes we are. Patriarchal, not so much. What would be ideal, is if women were respected simply becuase they are people. Pro-choice can't seem to accomplish that without killing their babies. How sick is that?
Did the bill pass? My guess is no. And no, I don't agree with the questionaire, and posting answers online is out of the question.
You're using stats from the natural process of spontaneous abortion, to attempt to justify induced abortion.
ReplyDeleteNo, I am simply using the stats from spontaneous abortion to show that it is no sure thing that a human being must be the result of conception, even with the best will in the world.
Yes women are real people, no one I know has implied otherwise. Banning abortion doesn't take away any other right, except the right to abort.
Hah.
It is an implied statement that women are not real people if you force them to become incubators for unwanted fetuses for nine months. That is not something that anyone has had the right to do to another human being ever since we passed the 13th Amendment. It turns women from human beings into brood mares.
As to the idea that it doesn't take away any other right (as if that's sufficient justification in itself—would you accept a law that "only" took away your right to free speech, for example?) that is absurd on its face. If you force women to bear a fetus they do not want, then you are not only taking away their right to abort, but also taking away their bodily autonomy, their right to their own medical decisions, even such basic rights as freedom of movement and habeas corpus if the State, in its omnipotent prerogative, decides that the woman is a threat to her own fetus and locks her up until the fetus comes to term. This is already happening in the U.S. And these rights are rights that are abridged for every woman, because as soon as she's got that sacred clump of cells inside her, she is legally rendered unable to make decisions about her own body and her own medical decisions.
In the interest of trying to protect them from being killed? Yes we are. Patriarchal, not so much.
So then who gets to control women's bodies? Not the women themselves, as I've just shown. That leaves only one other answer, and that answer is "the patriarchy". Being anti-choice is an adoption of a patriarchal view of women's reproduction, no matter how many women are conditioned to buy into the prevailing ideology themselves (and some are).
As Sarah Blaffer Hrdy wittily points out in Mother Nature, the male anti-abortion opponents like Rick Santorum, like all other high-status male primates, are obsessively concerned about controlling when, where, and how females in his cohort reproduce.
What would be ideal, is if women were respected simply becuase they are people. Pro-choice can't seem to accomplish that without killing their babies. How sick is that?
So what would be ideal for you is if women were respected simply because they are people, but the instant that a sperm and ovum get together inside her body, she ceases having the rights and privileges of any other person, the fetus has rights and privileges granted to no other person (or rather the State takes the prerogative of enslaving women on the fetuses' behalf) and then she becomes an incubator for the next nine months. After which, she becomes a fully enfranchised member of the human race again.
Yes, there is a reason why equality for women doesn't work without abortion.
[in two parts again]
ReplyDeleteDid the bill pass? My guess is no.
You don't have to guess. You could have either consulted the article or simply read my post where I told you that the bill passed the legislature. Not only that, if you had read the article, you would have found it was substantially similar to an earlier bill that was not only passed but signed into law, and which was struck down by the state's Supreme Court.
And no, I don't agree with the questionaire, and posting answers online is out of the question.
I'm glad you don't, but that's not the point. The point is that the anti-choice position provides cover for retrogressive, voyeuristic, and Puritan moralizers to treat women as second-class citizens. In many cases, these would be the people drafting the laws. If you were to dump these people from your movement, then that might give some color to your protestations that you'd like to address women on an equal footing. And you'd still have to address the fact that the physical burden of pregnancy is entirely carried by the woman, and that this has been the excuse behind keeping women unequal. They denied women the vote because raising children and caring for the household was the woman's domain. Later, they denied equal pay, promotions, and job security to women on the principle that they'd probably be getting pregnant anyway and leaving the firm. If you wanted to make women equal while still banning abortion, then you'd be addressing those very things you have previously refused because you claim they're all "entitlements". You're no more interested in women's equality than anybody else in the anti-choice movement.