It's all over the web, "Abortion Foes Push To Redefine Personhood", this particular article is on NPR's web-site. (I thought they were supposed to be non-biased)
Pro-Lifer's can't deny it, that's exactly what we're are trying to do. Since the 1973 decision in Roe v Wade, unborn human beings have been denied their personhood. We're working to get it back for them.
An article I just read, Semantics Don’t Change Truth: The social motivations behind new definitions, explains the semantics abortion advocates use to deny the unborn their human rights.
But what does “being pregnant” really mean? Some clever sleight of hand has been underway for years to allow “guilt-free” abortions by redefining the words involved.
The article goes on to explain:
The move to redefine conception actually started in 1959 when Dr. Bent Boving at a Planned Parenthood symposium pointed out “the social advantage of [implantation preventatives] being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy.”
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists followed Boving’s advice in 1965 by adopting this definition: “conception is the implantation of an ovum.” Since fertilization cannot be detected until the time of implantation—when the physical connection to the mother’s body allows a hormone from the developing placenta to enter the mother’s bloodstream—the reasoning was that the beginning of pregnancy could be redefined to the time when we can medically detect it. This reasoning is tantamount to asking whether a man alone on a desert island really exists if no one knows he’s there. Such reasoning amounts to philosophical meandering, not science.
So this is how it plays out. ACOG redefined when pregnancy begins to be at implantation. Now, the term conception is being applied to mean at implantation. Why? Birth control pills and IUD's can act to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. Emergency Contraception, the morning after pill, supposedly prevents conception (implantation). If fertilization is the same as conception (it is), then many birth control pills, IUD's, and the morning after pill would be considered possible abortifacients (they are). After all, if you're not considered pregnant, then you're not considered to have had an abortion. Make sense?
Had ACOG not changed the definition, pharmaceutical companies would have lost millions in sales. Money drives big pharma, and big pharma's money drives politics.
PersonhoodUSA, other pro-life organizations, and mom and pop pro-lifer's like me, are working to give human rights back to the unborn, rights which never should have been taken in the first place.
Even if someone could convince me that a fetus is a human being in the sense that it deserves all the rights of an actual human being, I still wouldn't see how that "human being" deserves the right to reside in my uterus for nine months against my will.
ReplyDeleteJackie - It's because the fetus is an actual human being, and deserves the human right to LIFE. Your uterus is the only way life can be maintained for that particular fetus. That's the power of women, who are the only ones that can give life, or in pro-choice's case, take life away.
ReplyDeleteI disagree on the theory that hormonal birth control causes abortions, Why? b/c there is no absolute proof it does and the pro-life community including myself are split on this issue
ReplyDeleteProSanity - The percentage of women that would apply to is nil... The baby would be viable before the mother is at great risk. If you have something to share that disproves that, I'd love to read it. On your second point you're right, doctors often won't sterilize a young childless women, and for good reason, they very well may want children later. I personally know a women who NEVER wanted kids. She got pregnant and didn't talk to her co-workers for 3 days! She now has 3 kids. Yeah, women do change their minds. :-)
ReplyDeleteChrisMan - Pretend you park your car near a playground. Do you look around your car before you get back in, just to make sure no kids are around/under it?
There are doctors that say it's possible for fertilization to occur while on contraception, but implantation may be prohibited. To pro-lifers like me, it's not worth the risk. Human life begins at conception.
Since you seem so apt at pulling out personal anecdotes, my mother is a prime example. If she becomes pregnant she could very well die from hernia complications because she has no abdominal wall after going through several surgeries for Chrones disease. The percentage shouldn't matter, what matters is there are such women and pregnancy is dangerous for even healthy women if they don't get the required medical and pre-natal care. That is a fact.
ReplyDeleteYes, a woman may change her mind later, but don't you believe that is part of making a decision? I believe a woman is very much capable of making a long-term decision such as that of sterilization. Should she change her mind later, she can adopt one of the many non-white non-infant children that are looking for a good home, wouldn't you agree?
ProSanity - Your mom would be a good candidate for sterilization, because she has already had her children. Did she? I disagree about the percentage not being a consideration. Less than 1% of abortions are done because of severe health risks to the mother.
ReplyDeleteDo you have children? Do you want children, ever? You may know the answer to that last question, but a lot of women don't. If a woman is sterilized, she will probably never be able to conceive, unless she's really rich anyway. As for adoption, it can't replace having a child of your own flesh and blood, though it will fill the void somewhat. Finally, please leave racist remarks out of the discussion.
How is it racist promoting for the equal adoption of non-white children?
ReplyDeleteMy mom did not get steralized because of her already major health problems they would not do surgery. My father did, however. Regardless, had she had no abdominal muscles before she had her children, she would still not have been a candidate for sterilization, even if she had wanted it. You are willing to allow 1% of women to die or go through extream physical and emotional pain simply because you believe birth control is an abortiaficant?
Disgusting.
Better to research a better birth control that meets your standards than to outlaw it. More likely to gain public support than saying "NO BIRTH CONTROL".
This stigma against adoption is just as bad as the one against abortion. Own flesh and blood? Why does that matter? Aren't you pro-lifers always saying a woman should not abort, to put it up for adoption instead? If so many crave their own flesh and blood, why would you promote adoption knowing that after infancy, and if the child isn't white, the chances of it being adopted fall so drastically low they pretty much have no hope? And don't assume people who want children have a 'void'.
Ridiculous.
"How is it racist promoting for the equal adoption of non-white children?" Because you weren't, you were discriminating against white babies. Think about it.
ReplyDeleteIt speaks well for your dads character that he would do that to protect your mom.
I am not against all birth control, just that which may allow fertilization. I have no problem with barrier methods.
The stigma against abortion is because it kills, every time. Not so with adoption.
You tend to do what most liberals do, blame white people for everything. Why do you blame white people for the high rate of black kids without forever families?
Please read up on infertility, and what it does to couples who want children. It's heart breaking.
I am white. Why would I blame white people for anything? I blame all people for sad cases such as the fact that minority babies are less likely to be adopted than white babies. It's a socio-economic problem that involves more than 'white people'. I wasn't discriminating against white babies. I was discriminating against the fact that more white people have the funds to adopt, and generally want (for some reason) to choose a child that looks like them, and as such white babies are adopted more than minority babies. Please actually read and comprehend before claiming I was discriminating against a race.
ReplyDeleteYet all infertile couples who want children do not have void. They might have a successful job, they might be a great aunt or uncle, or maybe even they are adoptive parents. To say they have a void is to say they are not complete, and to say such is an insult to a person who may want a child but does not feel a child completes them as a person. For those that do long for a child and have that void, my heart aches for them. However, I oppose the idea that just because I am capable of reproducing it is my moral obligation to do so at this (or any) point in my life.
If there are two babies up for adoption ,1 black 1 white, and a white couple chooses the black baby, then the white baby is left behind. We need to promote adoption for all babies. What you are doing is using the 'white privilege' rhetoric. Yes black babies need good homes, but so do white babies.
ReplyDelete"To say they have a void is to say they are not complete". Like I said, read up on it. Please feel free to post links to articles about infertile couples that do not feel a void.
What I was doing was saying that because a white couple is more capable of producing the money required for adoption, they are more likely to choose a white child. I never claimed the white couple SHOULD take the black child, but rather that our society needs fixed so more black couples can afford to adopt a black child.
ReplyDeleteYou aren't very good at comprehension, are you?
Regardless, as you seem to have enjoyed switching the subject, I still see you have no solution for those women with whom pregnancy can be deadly. Yes, 1% of abortions are medical, but that's only the women who seem to have bad luck.
There are countless women who have avoided pregnancy because of birth control as well as barrier methods. Put together, the two are what have kept many from becoming pregnant.What about those women? Women with heart problems, thyroid problems, uterine problems, or cancer? There are more illness, but it is a rather long list.
Because of birth control, these women have survived. Are you claiming they should stop taking birth control and risk becoming pregnant, a condition where they are very likely to die?
Because that's what making birth control illegal would do, and honestly, considering 98% of US women have used birth control in their life, I doubt it will ever become illegal.
ProSanity, What you was:
ReplyDelete"I never claimed the white couple SHOULD take the black child" Yes you did!
"Should she change her mind later, she can adopt one of the many non-white non-infant children".
Don't accuse me of changing subjects, when it's clear that YOU are the one who brought it up. Do you not see your lies and spin. Look closer!
For me, the ideal birth control would never allow conception to take place. NEVER! Because when conception occurs, a new life has begun.
Show me stats for birth control 'saving womens lives'. Without it, it's just more prochoice rhetoric.
Previous comment should start "What you said was"
ReplyDeleteI love how some people on this site rather call things rhetoric than actually go an look into the facts before replying.
ReplyDeleteSome people actually cannot have kids because it is a threat to their lives. Sheesh haven't you ever seen Steel Magnolias. Diabetes, heart problems, etc are reasons why some people have to be on the pill.
What about girls like me that were actually put on the pill for medical reasons. I found a fold ball sized lump in my breast when I was 14 years old. My doctor put me on the pill to help with my cystic breasts. I later became sexually active. You are telling me and others like me that I cannot have access to the medication? I later turned to the copper iud because the hormones after having been on the pill for 20 years was not allowing me to lose weight. My husband and I have chosen that we do not want kids. That means I have to go and get my iud removed because I am committing an illegal act by doing the right thing by ensuring I do not bring an unwanted child into this world?
Condoms are less effective. You have no right to tell me how I should run my family and marriage. Is the iud police going to come after me if I do not get it removed? How about a women that has her period but had a fertilized egg not attach so it is flushed in her cycle. What about miscarriage? Where does this madness stop?
PS. It is well known that white babies are adopted over minorities so he foster care system is overrun with minorities. The foster care system is quite broken.
Pps if you educate and people use birth control you will have less abortions.
Steel Magnolias? The character chose to give her baby life, don't forget that.
ReplyDeleteDoctors do put some women on the pill to combat other issues, like cystic breasts, heavy periods, and severe cramps. Not because it's birth control, but because the hormones in the pill alleviate the symptoms. The pill is the most convenient delivery method for the meds they need.
"How about a women that has her period but had a fertilized egg not attach so it is flushed in her cycle." What about it? It's a NATURAL occurence.
"What about miscarriage?" This is also a natural occurence.
"PS. It is well known that white babies are adopted over minorities" What's your point? Should white babies be left behind because YOU think white people should adopt black babies just because they are a minority? That what it sounds like to me.
"Pps if you educate and people use birth control you will have less abortions" Before birth control came into the picture, there was a LOT less abortion. When women got pregnant, they took responsibility for their baby. That was back when unborn babies were respected as human beings. Feminism changed that, at least for pro-aborts.
Michele, regarding the rhetoric, I've asked for links to proof of ProSanity's claims, twice. I've yet to see any.
ReplyDeleteHere is a link:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_adoption
I feel that women back in the day were put in their place and were "forced" to be the person to stay at home and have kids. That is what a family unit was and that women did not know anything different. Men loved that women stayed home and took care of them while they worked.
Yes the feminist movement changed a lot of things and from my perspective it was for the better. I would not have the choices that I have today if it were not for them. I am a successful career woman who has chosen to have a career and not a family. That is my CHOICE and no one else's. That is they way it should be and no one is going to take that away from me. My mother came from the mentality of staying home and having kids and I see the choices she had was nill. I did not want that for me at all. I do not need to depend on anyone. I choose to have a husband and partner because I love him not because I need a man to take care of me. We both do not want to start a family and that is our choice. If I want to be on the pill or use the IUD then I will and no one can tell me otherwise. It is my right to privacy and not someone's ideology. You have your opinion and that is great but you cannot force your views on others and not your religious views on others.
Many women worked damn hard to give me the choices that I have today and I honor and thank them.
Also the Pro Life side always make people who make the choice to end their pregnancy like they were going to McDs to order a Cheeseburger. No one makes these decisions lightly. It is a choice for some of being able to survive and putting food on the table. Some it is a choice of having to deal with a consequense of an unwanted child who would be abused. Some it is something that was forced on them through incest or rape. Others are told by their doctor that it is the right thing to do. I wish that other people would stop judging these women that have to go through some of the most difficult decisions in their lives. Not all women look at things like you do. Plus once the baby is born there are no programs in place to help those that have been placed in a low income situation due to the fact that the man that put in the order split or had other ideas. You want the baby to be born but that is it. No one wants to help these unwanted children to be productive members of society. You call it socialism and other names. It is just hypocritical all the way around.
I am placing this video for people to be able to watch and I am sorry about the language but I think that George really brings out the hypocricy on some subjects. Please watch and just think about what he is saying. I am not trying to change anyone's mind just as you will not change mine but at least look at different points of views instead of just one. I try to look at both sides but it is hard for me to align with anti choice because I look at the war on Birth Control that is going on and I just cannot see how this makes any sense at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w15OS2PdCKo
The things that you call natural may be but I have heard bills already being looked into that will investigate every miscarriage. How is that even fair? Should I have to be investigated because my zygote and my biological nature knew that it would not be a potential for life? This is what I mean where does it stop. You feel that those things are natural but will someone go as far to say that those things are not natural. Why does "God" choose to abort those potentials naturally all the time? Why is that okay with everyone. We are humans and we are biological things that work just like any other animal. We put way to much emphasis on things.
ReplyDeletePlus what about the "fertilized" eggs that sit in a frozen ooze. Is that fair to them as well? There are just too many what ifs and I really wish that people would allow us to have our own lives. You do not like these things then don't do it and do not take the Birth Control Pills or IUDs but I think that you should not take that right away from anyone.
Since fertilization cannot be detected until the time of implantation—when the physical connection to the mother’s body allows a hormone from the developing placenta to enter the mother’s bloodstream—the reasoning was that the beginning of pregnancy could be redefined to the time when we can medically detect it. This reasoning is tantamount to asking whether a man alone on a desert island really exists if no one knows he’s there. Such reasoning amounts to philosophical meandering, not science.
ReplyDeleteSo it's "philosophical meandering" to define things in terms of the empirically detectable, but it is apparently not "philosophical meandering" to define things in terms of the empirically undetectable. Wow. I learn something new every day. Who knew that science ought to be completely divorced from empiricism?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Since I never claimed our hypothetical woman was white, I never claimed whites should pick a minority over a white child. But, thanksfor playing.
ReplyDelete2. I couldn't have said it better than Michele. If you aren't willing to use common sense to depict that women with heart problems, kidney problems, or thyroid problems have immense danger in pregnancy, then you are clearly not as smart as you claim. 1 in 5 women has a heart problem, 26% of women are diagnosed with thyroid problems. Both can kill you in a pregnancy, especially one in which a woman does not receive adequate medical care.
3. Actually, even the scientific community cannot fully agree when life as we know it begins. Some say conception, and some say conception is nearly a part of the process that devolopes into life as we experience it.
Since ours is a world that relies on science and not religion for facts, I feel such an indiscretion of views is cause for NOT calling for the illegality of birth control.
Try reading 'America + The Pill'. It talks about how birth control has liberated not only women, but society as a whole.
I see the author is writing on behalf of Answers in Genesis. That explains the high amount of nonsense in the article and the fact that she's implicitly arguing for an anti-empirical 'science'. That's the only 'science' they ever do at AiG. It's even part of their statement of faith: when the evidence conflicts with their notions of Biblical literalism and infallibility, they throw out the evidence, or as they put it, "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
ReplyDeleteMichele - I can't argue with you about women being forced to stay at home, because I agree. Having said that, I still believe children should be raised by their parents, not day care. Not that stay at home dad's can't take care of business, but I believe women are better suited for the job naturally. Women didn't depend on men, any more than men depended on women. They depended on each other to do what was best for their family. Men worked outside the home, women worked inside the home.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like your mom didn't resent being a homemaker, but you seem to resent the choices she made. I hope you never look back on your life and regret the choices you made.
About the video, George is doing nothing more than spreading hate. As for the language, it's sad that liberals idolize people like that.
"Why is it that people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to f*** in the first place?" - George Carlin
Do you not see that as hate? I do. I also see it as sexist. So it's ok for him to speak of f***ing women? No, it's not. It's objectifying women as sexual objects. When he speaks ill of pro-lifers, he's bashing all of prolife women. For some reason that seems ok with you. Another sexist comment at 6:36 "If you think a fetus is more important than a woman, try getting a fetus to wash the s**t stains out of your underwear". I take offense to that type of remark, I'm sorry you don't. As for the balance of his routine, he's repeating the same lies prolifers hear every day. What does prochoicers do for women that choose to have their babies? Where are the prochoice charities that help those women and children? The answer to both, is nothing.
Michele - "I have heard bills already being looked into that will investigate every miscarriage" The first three words, I HAVE HEARD. It's rhetoric, research it for yourself.
ReplyDelete"Why does "God" choose to abort those potentials naturally all the time? Why is that okay with everyone." Is there any way to prevent miscarriage?
About the fertilized eggs in ooze, prolife is against that. Life begins at fertilization.
ProSanity,
ReplyDeleteYou implied that WHITE people should adopt black babies, even if that leave white babies behind.
When i see the stats that 98% of women will probably die from pregnancy, then I'll give you the other 2%.
Try using common sense (rare in pro-aborts). You started your life as a fertilized egg, so did I.
Nullifidian, I hope you got the point, though I doubt it. Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it's not there.
ReplyDeleteHere is a Guttmacher article listing the reasons women give when having an abortion. I don't see 'cause it's gonna kill me' on the list. See Table 2
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNullifidian, I hope you got the point, though I doubt it. Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it's not there.
ReplyDeleteOf course I got the point. Why on earth did you think I mentioned the anti-empirical argument? That is their anti-empirical position in a nutshell.
And the empiricist would respond that just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it is there, and the only reliable way of finding out if it is there or not is to look. At which point the hypothetical stranded person is no longer alone and the purely hypothetical conceptus is established to have become implanted (or not).
The point I was making, which I hope you got although I doubt it, is that it is absurd and anti-scientific to lambaste OBGYNs for adopting a definition of "pregnancy" that is empirical. The author was complaining that gynecologists were taking advantage of the latest scientific advancements to create empirically-based definitions of key terms in their field. I don't know why I should find this scandalizing.
In fact, you and your crowd should be delighted with this turn of events, because it means that we are able to establish the reality of pregnancy much earlier. The reason that "pregnant" meant something different to earlier physicians is not because it was ever detectable at that earliest stage, but because pregnancy wasn't detectable for several weeks or even months, when the woman realized that she was no longer menstruating. Now we have pregnancy tests that look at the levels of human chorionic gonadotropin and can tell for sure weeks before a woman might notice her lack of menstruation (which was never a sure sign anyway, as many things can cause intermittent or absent menstrual periods).
Here is a Guttmacher article listing the reasons women give when having an abortion. I don't see 'cause it's gonna kill me' on the list. See Table 2
ReplyDeleteTable 2 has a listing for
"Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus"
And
"Physical problem with my health"
I guess you must have missed that in your race to condemn women for having abortions for reasons that measure up to your high standards. Oh wait, you want to ban abortions, so it doesn't matter what their reasons are for seeking an abortion anyway.
Nullifidian - Being a pro-choicer, you wouldn't understand erring on the side of caution. Most women take steps to protect their baby, just in case is they're pregnant.
ReplyDelete"Physical problem with my health" does not mean the woman is going to die.
"Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus" could be a false positive for a lot of things. And if it's Down Syndrome, the baby has a 90% chance of being killed by abortion, though he/she more than likely would have led a full life.
Being a pro-choicer, you wouldn't understand erring on the side of caution.
ReplyDeleteAnd being a pro-birther, you wouldn't understand anything about how reasonable people actually behave.
Sure, if they have reason to believe they're pregnant, or are trying to become pregnant, many women may take precautions, but on the other hand a great many women are sexually active without worrying overmuch about the conceptus (it is not a baby) for a lot of reasons. Some, for example, may be on the pill, which is generally effective but does have a failure rate, which is why doctors who prescribe the pill recommend that women do regular pregnancy tests (the very kind this ignorant author finds is so unreasonably suspicious of). Some may be relying on their partners using protection. Some may have been educated in an abstinence-only sex ed class and so have no idea about how human reproduction actually works.
"Physical problem with my health" does not mean the woman is going to die.
To turn your own words back on you: it doesn't mean the woman isn't going to die either. The reason why medical surveys like this don't have a "it will end up killing me" component is because doctors are doctors and not psychics. They can only say, even in the most dire cases, that there is a chance of death. The only time a chance becomes reality is when the person is already dead, at which point any attempt at preventing it is moot.
"Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus" could be a false positive for a lot of things.
Unless you're saying that all diagnoses of poor fetal outcomes end up being wrong, then I don't think that "false positive" means what you think it means.
And if it's Down Syndrome, the baby has a 90% chance of being killed by abortion, though he/she more than likely would have led a full life.
Depending on how one defines a "full life". They may have a life full of medical problems, including cataracts, hearing problems, heart problems, hip dysplasia, vomiting, and so on. Aside from the effects on the Down syndrome patients theirselves, this poses a significant financial and emotional burden on caregivers, who either have to spend money on live-in nurses, homes, or lose wages by spending time at home if they can't afford the first two, so it's not surprising to find that these people are also at higher-than-normal risks of both sexual and physical abuse.
Secondly, and more importantly, unless it's your fetus, then your armchair quarterbacking of other people's medical decisions is completely inappropriate and would violate patient privacy rights if we were talking about real people and not just your statistical abstractions.
"And being a pro-birther, you wouldn't understand anything about how reasonable people actually behave."
ReplyDeleteReasonable people don't kill their children.
"a great many women are sexually active without worrying overmuch about the conceptus (it is not a baby)"
They SHOULD worry about it. Sex can cause pregnancy, it's procreation as it was meant to be. 'conceptus'? That's just another cold scientific term for a developing human being (and the surrounding tissue). The term 'baby', is a term of endearment. Endearment is something pro-aborts clearly lack when it come to a developing human being. Yes, the pill does have a failure rate, and when it fails, a developing human being is the result.
"To turn your own words back on you" - A liberal pro-abort must, an elementary debate tactic. Proof that you will twist another persons words, and the intended meaning behind them. No doubt this tactic is straight from Saul Alinsky's book.
"Depending on how one defines a "full life"." - My full life is different from your full life is different from a Down Syndrome persons full like. What you are practicing is eugenics. You are making the call whether or not someone should die. No one should have that right.
Not stepping in to stop the needless slaughter of 1.2 million babies a year in the US alone, is inappropriate.
'conceptus'? That's just another cold scientific term for a developing human being (and the surrounding tissue).
ReplyDeleteHuman being is another thing the developing fetus isn't. It isn't any sort of individuated being at all, and mentally extending individual rights to a non-individuated entity is what gets the anti-abortion crowd mired in confusion and sees them trying to subordinate the rights of actual adult human beings to their romantic notions about the potential being that is the fetus.
The term 'baby', is a term of endearment. Endearment is something pro-aborts clearly lack when it come to a developing human being.
No, it is a term of emotionalism. That's all the anti-woman crowd has in their arsenal. They realize there's no rational reason why one should stand between a woman and her making her own medical decisions, nor any rational reason why she should be treated like an incubator whose rights are subservient to those of a fetus that is not physiologically independent of her. So instead they yell "BABIES!" at everyone and assume that their highly romanticized notions—if that is not too generous; perhaps "mental spasms" would be more apt—ought to be treated as seriously considered position on public policy.
A liberal pro-abort must, an elementary debate tactic. Proof that you will twist another persons words, and the intended meaning behind them. No doubt this tactic is straight from Saul Alinsky's book.
LMAO! You people are nuts, do you know that? Have you even read Saul Alinsky, or do you all just use him as a conveniently Jewish bogeyman to frighten each other with?
Pro-tip: I am not a "pro-abort", whatever that is, and I'm not a liberal either.
What you are practicing is eugenics. You are making the call whether or not someone should die.
No, I am not. For one thing, I am male, so I regard it as not my place to make the call. Secondly, abortions =/= eugenics if there is no intent to improve the gene pool of the population at large. Let's take your favorite example of Down syndrome. This is not a genetic disorder, but a chromosomal one: trisomy 21. It happens during gametogenesis when one sperm or egg ends up containing, by chance, an extra copy of chromosome 21. You could have women aborting all fetuses likely to be afflicted with Down syndrome (which doesn't happen anyway) for millions of years and you'd still have the trisomy-21 mutation emerging again and again at the same predictable rate. And then there's the fact that the majority of the abortions are not done because of medical problems with the fetus itself. Frankly, most major problems work themselves out by natural abortion—miscarriage—often before the woman ever realizes she's been pregnant. Presumably you're religious, so doesn't it give you pause that God is apparently so unconcerned about these "babies" you're so obsessed about that He kills an estimated half of them long before any other abortionist even has the chance?
The reason many women with fetuses exhibiting the trisomy-21 mutation get abortions is because of the tremendous financial and emotional burdens I alluded to of caring for a child who is not only mentally far below average but also prone to all the Down syndrome health problems. And unless it is your fetus, then you do not have a say in that decision. It's all very well to sit on the sidelines from your position of privilege (it seems to be almost exclusively a movement for bourgeois white people) and claim that they should be doing something else, but when you're not making resources available to take the financial burden of caring for such afflicted children off of the parents, then you have no place to talk.
Not stepping in to stop the needless slaughter of 1.2 million babies a year in the US alone, is inappropriate.
Do you also call the SPCA whenever you go to the grocery store and find eggs in the refrigerated aisle?
I Never said I idolized George. He is a comedian. He actually does have some good points. You cannot assume an anti abortion pro choice is always a liberal. You make assumptions as well. I do not have to explain my political feelings or my religious views either.
ReplyDeleteNot all people have sex with procreation in mind. That is what birth control is for. I do not think day care is a good idea either. Studies have shown that children do better under their own mother or father's care. Another reason I have decided not to have children because I cannot quit my job.
You throw out rhetoric of pro life with no proof but you say pro choice people are liberal people who never have proof (I know it is hard to believe that science is proof enough these days.)
As for the made up bills http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/georgia-lawmakers-anti-abortion-proposal-punish-women-miscarriages
Just the fact that someone thought of this is just wrong.
Well if you must know my mother had no other choice of being a homemaker because she barely graduated highschool. She also has OCD cleaning so she did it because she had too. She also admitted she was not a very good mother and she was right. She was not a good mom and I act somewhat like her so again I have choosen not to have kids.
As for charities there are places like planned parenthood that is actully in place to help provide education and birth control to many that cannot afford it or families that choose to not talk to their kids about sex.
I also wondered about the hypocricy of the IVF procedure. If it is god's will for all babies to be born even though he chooses which ones how is it right for a couple to over write his will and force fertilization and implantation. Maybe god did not want them to have kids.
Michele - Sorry, I guess we all jump to conclusions. And no, you don't have to voice your political or religious views.
ReplyDelete"Not all people have sex with procreation in mind. That is what birth control is for." Back in the days of real suffrage, women were made to have sex with their husbands, whether they wanted to or not. Birth control helped women break the cycle of always being pregnant. Some women are still forced, raped if you will, by their husbands, and birth control helps keep them from always being pregnant. Having lived during that era (I was a child), I can at least understand what women went through. My mother had 8 kids, and I can bet she would have stopped at maybe 1 or 2 had she had the chance. Not by aborting later pregnancies, but by preventing them in the first place.
"Studies have shown that children do better under their own mother or father's care." How do we get there from where we are now? Children's well being is being sacrificed by our need to 'keep up with the Jones's. It's all about material posessions, bigger house, bigger tv, better cell phone, and on and on. The kids lose in the long run.
My mom was not so good either. She left when I was too young to remember, I was kid #6. My dad raised us. My mom had 1 more child later, then remarried, and they raised my half-brother. They had the nice house in the suburbs, nice car, etc. The younger brother had EVERYTHING, and to this day he's screwed up. We came to realize how lucky we were to be raised with the little we had.
"(I know it is hard to believe that science is proof enough these days.)" Proof of what?
I was talking about prochoice charities that help women when they make the OTHER choice, the one where they choose to give birth.
I believe that life begins at conception. Because it is fertilized eggs in that petri dish, I don't support IVF. I can fully understand why people have that drive to have a baby. Couples are choosing to wait until their careers are up and running, before trying to have a family. By that time, the woman has passed her prime time for fertility, which make the fertility doctors happy, and rich!
And what human being with rights has the right to use another persons body against their will for their survival? My rights to my body trump any one elses right to life. See McFall.vs.Shimp.
ReplyDeleteYour argument is discriminatory. It shows your presumed power, and your arrogance. Of all the things to pick on fetuses for, you pick the one thing that no one can possibly compare to? Yes, you have the right to do whatever you want with your body. but that right should stop at the baby's body (he/she is NOT you)
ReplyDeleteObviously the fetus is a separate being from me but it resides in MY uterus. And *my uterus* is a part of MY body. Therefor I can decide what things I agree to reside inside my body or remove. Just the same as an attackers body is not my body (btw state of mind or consciousness doesn't matter I still reserve the right to protect myself against anything I see as a threat or violation of my person) but I am still allowed to use any necessary force to end the violation or attack. Even if it means using lethal force if it is the only way to end the violation. Just because the other person also has a body doesn't mean I allow them to do anything they please with mine without defending myself and my bodily integrity by any necessary means. And FYI even if a fetus were to be removed intact it would still not survive. So there is unfortunately no other methods to remove a fetus without it being lethal. As the majority of abortions occur before the 9th week of gestation.
ReplyDeleteYou want to grant a right to fetuses that NO ONE else has. If you believe it to be indeed an equal human being with the same rights as any other person. Not even the dead have to give up any part of their bodies to save or support the life of anyone else! You want to give women fewer rights than the dead. Now that's discriminatory!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe following comment from GlorifyHisSon is apparently too large to post at one time.
ReplyDeletePart 1:
AAG called attention to Hachiko's comments via twitter, and I want to deal with the claim that the fetus has no right to use his or her mother's body.
First of all, you are clearly stretching your point in claiming that we are trying to give women less rights than the dead and that the fetus' use of the uterus is equivalent to the woman giving it up.
You claim that "even the dead have to give up any part of their bodies to save or support the life of anyone else" and compare this to the fetus' use of his or her mother's uterus. However, when I let someone else use part of my body, I have not given it up. When my children breastfed, I retained control of my breast. When I was pregnant, I had not lost control of my uterus. When I conceived my children, my vagina hadn't become my husband's. In fact, all of these parts were performing precisely as they are designed to perform. If I had not done these things, I might not have had to "share" these parts, but they would never have fulfilled what they were intended for. Certainly it is, and should be, my choice whether my vagina, uterus, and breasts do fulfill their intended function, but to claim because I have had sex, become pregnant, given birth, and breastfed my vagina, uterus, and breasts are not mine sounds much more misogynist to me than anything I hear pro-lifers say.
There are many rights which neither the fetus nor the dead have, and women do: the right to vote, for instance. Any "rights" a dead person has are due to the rights he or she had when alive to decide what would happen to his or her possessions and property after death, and some of this can be trumped by the wish of family members. It is considered good to honor the wishes of the dead, but I know of no law which would prevent the next-of-kin from insisting on a closed casket when the dead person had a written request for a closed one. Minor children really have very few rights compared to emancipated adults. They cannot choose their own educational options, they have no right to vote or own property, any contracts they enter into can be overturned by their guardians, and they can't even procure or consent to most kinds of medical care. However, they do have some rights which I (a woman) don't have.
Children do not have the right to work, to own property without the consent of their guardians, or to vote, and have very little say over their upbringing and care. In every civilized society, however, they retain a right not to be harmed. Not only that, but they have a right not to be neglected. Think about it--this is a special right a woman (or man, or dead person) does not have. I don't have a right to demand any person make sure I have a place to sleep. I can't ask anyone to feed me and have legal recourse if they do not. While there are places I could go to procure food, clothing, a roof over my head, and even education without having to pay for it, no one is obligated to provide me those things. My daughter, however, can ask my husband and I for food, a place to sleep, and clothes, and we are obligated to provide for her needs (not her wants, but her needs). The parents of a young child could even be charged with neglect for withholding affection. Is there anyone that you or I have the right to receive affection, affirmation, and physical touch from? Even a spouse is not legally required to provide them. But children have a right to hugs, to affirmation, to positive attention. I doubt you disagree with the statement that a minor child has this right--the right to the care and protection of her parents or guardians.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteIf a stranger walks into my home, hungry, and demands food--if he needs a new shirt, and his clothes are tattered, and he asks if I have one--if he wanted to sleep in my house--I can say "No, get off of my property." Perhaps I should charitably offer him some old clothes or some food, but there is no legal obligation. My 3-year-old daughter is not a stranger, because she is my daughter, and I have obligations toward her that I would not have toward a stranger. If she needs food, clothing, and a place to sleep, I must provide it. If she gets garage sale jeans and t-shirts instead of a princess dress she wants, and peas instead of cookies with her dinner, I have still fulfilled my obligation (maybe better in the latter case). But if my husband and I stopped feeding her, we could face legal charges as well as just being terrible people.
If the fetus is alive (by any definition he or she is, though not independent), and if he or she is human (there is nothing else he or she can be), and if he or she is the biological child of the woman whose uterus he or she is in (almost always), the fetus must be the son or daughter of that woman. (Even if he or she were not the biological child, it's fair to say she is the legal guardian.) If one were to consistently apply the standards we apply to children--that they have a right (universal to humans) not to be attacked or assaulted (say, by a curette) and a special right not to be neglected by their parents (entitling them to food and shelter), the woman does indeed have an obligation to use her uterus to provide for her son or daughter. Even if this causes her (non-life-threatening) harm, this does not negate her obligation to her child. The fetus, a minor child, requires a womb for housing and nourishment. Only his or her mother can provide this. They have a special parent/offspring relationship, and the fetus has special rights based on this. Thus, it is logically consistent to make up for this. Yes, it is a right that the woman doesn't have. She can't go back in her mom's womb, or even demand food and shelter from her parents if she is an adult. She instead has the rights to smoke, drink alcohol, vote, gamble, watch TV as late as she wants, decide what sort of education to pursue, and refuse to eat her vegetables and still get dessert. Minor children don't have the right to determine what they eat, wear, etc. Do you really want to trade?
And caring for a newborn requires the use of a parent's body every bit as much--probably more--than caring for a fetus. So unless you don't agree that a minor child has a right to his or her parents' protection and not to be neglected--not to mention not to be dismembered--you are the one whose argument is inconsistent.
-GlorifyHisSon
These parts continue to be yours because you are consenting to that certain use at that period of time. No one is forcing you to perform these actions with your body but if someone were to, then can you still say you are continuing to have full ownership of these body parts even though you are no longer the decision maker of how and for what period of time these body parts are used and for what purpose? I would say no thus you are being forced to give up these body parts because you have no say to weather you consent to the manner they are put to use. Someone else is deciding that for you. That is the difference. Though I NEVER said that because you allow the use of your body for someone else then that body part will always belong to that other person from that point forth.
ReplyDeleteAs for being obligated to care for a born child you can actually give up that obligation at any point you wish to. You aren't forced to continue to care and provide everything for that child if you are not willing to. But as long as that child is legally recognized to be in your care then you are expected to care and provide for it UNTIL you go through the legal process of giving up your parental rights. A new born can be taken care of by ANYONE not strictly its mother anymore as he/she no longer needs to be attached to her body in order for its own body to be able to perform the necessary functions to be alive. Now the newborns own body independently is able to perform all the functions necessary in order to be compatible with life. So at that point anyone can take the newborn and nourish and care for it without dying if taken from its mothers side. But in the case of the fetus, even if it were to be removed INTACT (meaning no part of its entirety is damaged and thus still has every part of its being intact) from the mothers body it would instantly die regardless if its either cut up or not.
I would also like to point out that even if you are legally obligated to provide and care for that child you still aren't obligated to give up any part of your body to it even if the child would die without you allowing the use of a certain organ, bodily fluid, or other tissues etc. to save his/her life. I'll give an example I found very useful for understanding this point which I will quote. “ Let's say you have two teenage children. One of them is a diabetic requiring frequent injections of insulin to stay alive. The other is suffering from kidney disease and has already lost the function of one kidney, while the other one is showing signs of failure. With regards to the diabetic child, you decide, for whatever reason, that the insulin injections are hurting your child more than they are helping him and you stop the injections. Without insulin, your diabetic child slips into a coma and dies. Insulin is a life saving medical treatment. It is illegal to deliberately deny anyone access to life saving medical treatment. You are sent to prison for refusing to provide a life saving medical treatment for your child.
ReplyDeleteNow, let's consider the child with kidney disease. The one good kidney this child has is now failing. He is on dialysis, but will slowly die without a transplant. A national database is searched for a suitable donor. Only one is found and it is you. For whatever reason, you are opposed to organ donation and refuse to donate your kidney even though you know your child will die without it. Ultimately, your child does die, yet the law can't touch you. Why?
Insulin injections and kidney transplants are both life saving medical procedures. Yet, denying a patient one procedure will hardly earn you a batted eye from a legal standpoint, while denying the other will earn you a prison cell. Why? What's the difference? If the government cannot force people to donate their organs, blood, and other bodily resources against their will to save a life, how can it force women to donate their organs, blood, and other bodily resources against their will to give birth to one? If pregnant women don't have bodily autonomy, the right to make their own medical decisions without government interference, how can anyone else?”
I just typed out a longer response and then lost it. Here's a short one.
ReplyDeleteCaring for a newborn requires the use of one's body. One cannot feed, diaper, or comfort a newborn without touching him or her. Even though one can give up the task of caring for a newborn, one must wait until it is safe for the child before one stops caring for him or her. If it takes a few weeks to find a proper foster home, you can't neglect the baby until then. So there is good precedent for requiring a woman to continue her pregnancy--the only safe way to care for a young fetus--until it is safe to end the pregnancy. Furthermore, surgical abortion always involves an assault on the fetus. Assaulting one's child is never okay.
Even if a young minor child does something to a parent's body he or she does not like, the parent may not respond disproportionately. If there is a realistic chance the child may kill the parent--say, a twelve-year-old is pointing a gun at his or her parent--shooting the child would be a terrible tragedy all around, but not an illegal act. This would be the case with abortion when the mother's life is in serious, immediate danger, and the problem cannot be fixed another way. But shooting a nursling who won't release the breast would never be acceptable--even if the baby was biting and it hurt a lot. Ending a pregnancy before viability because the mother does not wish to be pregnant violates the principle that the response must be appropriate.
As for the kidney analogy--the child already is in the uterus. It's not a matter of allowing him or her access--it's denying access the child needs to live by doing violence to the child. It is not just a denial of resources but a very violent killing. It's not okay to kill a toddler or newborn, even one infringing on his or her parents' rights. Why should it be okay to kill fetuses because their mothers don't want to be pregnant?
It is also worth noting that pregnancy is not a medical procedure. It is natural, and will continue with or without the mother's consent. Taking no action causes the death of the child with the kidney problem--taking action against the child causes the death of the aborted fetus. Conception and birth happen without explicit consent. Miscarriage happens without the mother's consent. The mother does not need to make a decision to continue the pregnancy each day. To say that abortion is merely a withdrawal of consent to use the uterus ignores the fact that pregnancy is a natural state which all fetuses need for at least 6 or 7 months--thus should be considered standard care for a child of that age--and that it is not continuing pregnancy that requires action and volition, but ending it. It's not allowing the child to die, but choosing to kill him or her. It's not like making an adoption plan for a newborn, it's like throwing her in a lake. It is worse than neglect.
And of course, none of us will be making medical decisions without government interference much longer.
ReplyDeleteYCW - Blogger doesn't take extremely long posts. We discovered that with the post by GlorifyHisSon.
ReplyDeleteHachiko06 - What mother would deny her child ANY life saving treatment, whether it be insulin or giving one of her kidneys to him? There are no laws on the books forcing her to, because there has never been the need. Laws are created as they are needed, not before. In the pro-choice world, women can legally dispose of their fetuses, for any reason. Mothers are supposed to take care of their children, not dispose of them.
Nah, that wasn't the problem... and I am GlorifyHisSon.
ReplyDeleteAhhh, thought you two sounded a little alike. Thanks for putting so much time and thought into your comments. You make some excellent points!
ReplyDelete