Child Support

/347 Comments/in /by
 
When arguing about abortion, I’ve seen a lot of people claim “sex isn’t a contract.” Other variations of this idea include:

·        Consent to A doesn’t mean consent to B (that is, consent to sex doesn’t mean consent to reproduction).
·        You clearly don’t consent to reproduce if you use birth control.
·        Sex is not a crime and shouldn’t be punished / Rights cannot be restricted unless there is a crime.

The problem is, when it comes to reproduction, these arguments only apply to women. 

If a man gets a woman pregnant–be it his wife, girlfriend, affair, or one night stand–he is legally bound to provide support for that child. In other words, because the man participated in the child’s conception (because the man had sex), his rights are altered. It doesn’t matter if the man was only consenting to sex, and not to reproduction. It doesn’t matter if he used birth control. It doesn’t matter that sex isn’t a crime. He fathered the kid, so the law considers him responsible for the kid.

And the law takes a pretty hard line on the subject. Courts can require a father to pay child support based not just on what he earns, but on what courts believe he has the ability to earn. Child support obligations remain even if a father goes to prison, or declares bankruptcy. Even if he wants to terminate his parental rights (and therefore his parental responsibilities), the courts usually won’t allow it unless there is another adult prepared to adopt the child and take over that responsibility. And there are many methods for enforcing child support. A man’s tax refunds can be intercepted, his property seized, business or occupational license suspended, and in some states
his driver’s license can be revoked. If he still fails to make payment, he can be held in contempt and given jail time.

In short, if a man has sex he runs the risk of being (rather tightly) legally bound to any new life he creates. In the essay “Abortion and Fathers’ Rights“, author Stephen D. Hales summarizes the situation:

“…the father, having participated in conception, cannot escape the future duties he will have toward the child. The father can decide that he cannot afford another child, that he is not psychologically prepared to be a parent, that a child would hinder the lifestyle he wishes to pursue, and so on, to no avail.”

Sound sad? If a man is forced to pay child support, that could mean serious emotional, psychological, financial, and social repercussions for him. So why do we have child support laws? Is it because we hate sex, and want to punish people for having sex?

No, of course not. And interestingly, you rarely see anyone even suggest as much. No, it’s clear to most people that we have child support laws in order to, you know, support children. Child support laws aren’t enforced to
punish men for having sex—they’re enforced because it’s best for the child. In the same way, abortion shouldn’t be outlawed to punish women for having sex—it should be outlawed to protect fetal life. In both cases, it’s not about punishment, it’s about protection.

And that’s as it should be.

I’d love to live in a world in which there are no unplanned pregnancies and no unintentional parents. I think people should have control over whether they become parents, in the sense that people should have control over whether they get pregnant or get someone pregnant. That’s why I support comprehensive sex education: I want people to understand their own fertility and, if they do choose to have sex, I want them to understand how they can best prevent pregnancy while being sexually active.

However, once pregnancy has happened, once there’s already a new human organism in the picture, it changes everything. I think the people whose actions created that new life should be responsible for its protection. 

Of course, many people disagree. Abortion rights advocates place reproductive freedom over protecting the lives we create, at least when it comes to women and pregnancy. How would this mentality look if they also applied it to men and child support? Hales has an idea:

“A man has the moral right to decide not to become a father (in the social, nonbiological sense) during the time that the woman he has impregnated may permissibly abort. He can make a unilateral decision whether to refuse fatherhood, and is not morally obliged to consult with the mother or any other person before reaching a decision. Moreover, neither the mother nor any other person can veto or override a man’s decision about becoming a father. He has first and last say about what he does with his life in this regard.”

(And if we’re being really consistent, he doesn’t have to inform the woman he impregnated, or anyone else, about his decision to refuse fatherhood.)

It seems to me that consistency requires abortion rights advocates to argue for the man’s right to choose as well as the woman’s: the pro-choice mentality means that, as women can “walk away” from their pregnancies, men should be able to walk away from the women they have impregnated.

Not very uplifting, is it?

Or we could strive for a different kind of consistency–the kind that holds both men and women to a higher standard. This is why I’m for child support laws, and this is why I’m against abortion.

Further Reading: DNA testing means forced fatherhood as states limit abortion, Quartz, June 16, 2019

@secular_pro_life

it’s not about punishing adults. it’s about protecting children. #abortiondebate #abortion #antichoice #antiabortion #prolife #secularprolife #childsupport #sexualfreedom #PLPCtalk

♬ original sound – SPL

If you appreciate our work and would like to help, one of the most effective ways to do so is to become a monthly donor. You can also give a one time donation here or volunteer with us here.

You might also like
Gender equality and abortion
Women Veterans Bill of Rights
When did feminists abort the pro-life position?
No Abortion Clinics in Mississippi?
“Feminist” comedy video demeans mothers who choose life
You can be pro-life and pro-contraception. Most of us are!
Female Republican politicians were the most vocal about defunding Planned Parenthood
Prosecuting Women? Part 2.
347 replies
  1. frankbellamy
    frankbellamy says:

    Thank you for highlighting this inconsistency, you are absolutely right that a lot of people are inconsinstent on this point. I (being pro-choice) just don't see the problem with limiting child support laws in the way this argument implies. To be clear, this argument does not imply a total negation of child support laws. If a biological father wants to maintain any kind of custody/visitation rights whatsoever, I do think he ought to be required to pay child support. If the father begins to participate in parenting (either by being married to the mother at the time of birth or failing to disavow his social and legal fatherhood within a reasonable time of being informed of his biological fatherhood) then he ought to have all of the obligations that go along with being a parent, including child support. But if he is willing to sign away all legal rights and responsibilities associated with being a parent when he is is informed of the fetuses/child's existence, then I do think he ought to be able to do that.

  2. LevelUpPlease
    LevelUpPlease says:

    I think there is merit in allowing potential fathers a limited amount of time in which to make the decision to terminate parental rights; just as a woman has the right to legally abandon her child in many states as long as the child is a few days old and is left at a hospital, firehouse or police station.

  3. LevelUpPlease
    LevelUpPlease says:

    If there would, it would be a very small, extremist minority as most PCers agree with limitations after viability. I

    f I were to make the law concerning men being able to terminate their rights, I would make it so the man has a certain amount of time after finding out about the pregnancy, or, the birth of the child if paternity is in question.

  4. Cat
    Cat says:

    That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard as a reason to remove the choice to terminate a pregnancy. You left out the fact the most abortions it's a mutual … so when both parties want to terminate, this is your reason to not allow it and basically force both people into parenthood?

  8. argent
    argent says:

    Ugh I made a huge post but it got lost when I signed in, so here's the short version:

    Any humane society must acknowledge that children are inherently needy people with positive rights, and that obligations fall on those whose actions led to the child's existence; our society/culture fails a lot of children of *all* developmental levels in this, so it's not surprising that some pro-choicers are willing to waive the man's obligation in this as well.

    "Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy" makes no sense because the concept of consent cannot meaningfully be applied to involuntary biological processes (however it *can* be applied to abortion itself, a medical procedure performed on at least one human being who did not consent to it).

  9. Melissa McCurley
    Melissa McCurley says:

    Not all pro-choice people think men should be forced into parenthood either.

    I think as long as a woman is able to have unrestricted access to abortion, a man should be able to legally opt out of parenthood.

    For example, if a woman's right to abortion in one state ends at 20 weeks, the man must opt out before this point as well.

  10. KB
    KB says:

    Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency.

    I do think making things consistent and giving men "choice" to abdicate parenthood would make for a whole lot of social ills, many of which stand in direct opposition to the moral values PC'ers themselves.
    Without forced support from the biological father, you'd see more women fall into poverty and away from opportunity, when they did choose to not kill their own children. And we'd probably see a lot more abortions as a result, as women who know they cannot expect any help; from fathers are pushed financially into a decision they might have not chosen otherwise.

  11. Kelsey
    Kelsey says:

    I came by to make exactly this point. Thanks, KB. As a practical matter, giving men "choice" in this matter would eliminate parenting as a choice for the women involved.

  12. Nick Reynosa
    Nick Reynosa says:

    The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as follows:

    Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.

    This statement is absolutely ridiculous when one considers that Reproductive rights are not the rights of "couples". In fact the decision is left entirely up to mother, who legally does NOT have to inform the father.How can men be said to have equal reproductive rights and to "decide freely the number, spacing and timing of their children" much less the information if they don't even have a legal right to know they are an expectant father.

    Often times when faced with argument pro-choicers will make the concession that the father can sign a form and not be financially responsible for the child. This doesn't represent true equality and completely misses the point of reproductive rights, let me explain.

    When arguing for reproductive rights for women, pro-choicers offer three different scenarios and make three seperate arguments.#1 If a women is pregnant and wishes to keep her pregnancy forcing her to have an abortion would be mentally scaring and is immoral. #2 If a women a women is not mentally prepared to be a mother forcing her to give birth would affect her mental health and is immoral. #3 If a women gives birth and voluntarily gives the child up for adoption, she will have to live with the fact that she has a kid out there she does not know; this could hurt her emotionally.

    Now take those same three situations and apply them to the situations of males and their reproductive rights. #1 A man's girlfriend is pregnant and he wishes to keep the child; she forces him to have an abortion, is that mentally scaring and immoral. #2 A man's girlfriend is pregnant and he is not mentally prepared to be a father, she gives birth against his wishes; Could this not affect his emotional health and be immoral? #3 A man's girlfriend becomes pregnant and he voluntarily signs a paper not be financially responsible; he will have to live with the fact that he has a child out there, and that could hurt him emotionally.

    If pro-choicers contend that reproductive rights are constitutionally protected. And as we see the implementation of such rights are not be enforced equally abortion as a constitutional right violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, and is thus unconstitutional.

    True reproductive rights and equality can only be achieved by ensuring that both adult women and adult men have total choice over over whom and when they have consensual sex with, and what forms of birth control they use.This guarantees that they will be making a unified decision at the same time and with both equally be accepting the risk of pregnancy. Most importantly this will reaffirm the the greater rights of the the fetus, because neither the woman, man, nor both should have the right to abort said fetus. True reproductive rights should deal with our natural right to sexuality not our unjust right to commit abortion.

  13. KB
    KB says:

    You have evidence to back that up?

    Besides, it doesn't really matter if 99% of abortions are mutual decisions, and 1% are where a mother chooses and a father is helpless as his child is killed. The point is the man is deprived of choice of a woman, unless his choice happens to align with the woman's.

    That's not a choice.

  14. Jeff
    Jeff says:

    Other than consequentialist ethics (meaning the combination laws that actually prevent the most number of deaths), the only iron-clad argument against making abortion illegal is simply the requirement for personal bodily autonomy. Her right to decide what happens to her body.

    Personally, I'm very anti-abortion. I'm very pro-life. And yet I am convinced that the right for the individual woman to choose what is best for her and her body is at the heart of any effective laws to reduce the number of abortions in this country. Second only to education.

    Bodily autonomy is at the heart of many of our laws. You can't force a man to give a kidney to another person, it breaks his bodily autonomy. You can't hit a man without his consent. You can't operate on him. You can't end his life. You can't remove an arm. You can't restrict his free movement. You can't use his body to keep another person alive… He has bodily autonomy.

    Limiting abortions are a limit to a woman's bodily autonomy. Every woman has a right to decide what happens to her body. She needs no other reason than "I don't want to be pregnant" to end a pregnancy, even if ending that pregnancy results in the loss of life of the fetus.

    Say a 2 year old child needed a kidney transplant. The father is a fantastic match. Other than human decency, should the government require him to give up his kidney? Absolutely not. He has his right to say no. Even if the reason the child needs a kidney is the fault of the father who knowingly damaged it. You simply can't use the law to violate his bodily autonomy. That's not to say he's wrong for denying it – but this topic has never been as much about what is right vs wrong as it is what should be legal vs illegal.

    So why are we trying to grant special rights to a fetus that we don't grant to a 2 year old child?

    ———–

    That said, the point of the picture above, when taken with the previous statement in mind, is ludicrous. A man doesn't have an invasion of his bodily autonomy by the fetus, so he has no say. It seems unfair, but such is life.

    When a woman says she doesn't want to be a mother, she's say two things. That she doesn't want to give up her bodily autonomy to a fetus, AND that she doesn't want to be financially and physically responsible for another person.

    When a man says he doesn't want to be a father, he's speaking only to the second point.

    That said, it does seem strange that once the child is born, the mother gets to decide if she gives it up for adoption or not. The father has no say. I agree with the men's rights people on that point – if the mother doesn't want the child, she should lose her rights to the child and he or she would be offered to the father to raise.

    If he says yes, then the mother should be obligated to pay a portion of child support, just as the father does now. If he says no, then the child would go up for adoption and both parents would be obligated to offer child support until such time as the child is adopted. If some adoption organization or foster family wants to waive that child support requirement, then that's their prerogative.

    But once the child is adopted, child support would end since you'd assume the adopted parents would be well aware of the financial responsibility they were taking on.

    But hey, that's just me.

  15. Jeff
    Jeff says:

    The woman has to accept a violation of her bodily autonomy for 9 months while pregnant. The man has no such demand.

    This is why the right to terminate a pregnancy is the right of the mother, not the father. Once the child is born, then I completely agree that the preference for the mother's wishes over the fathers should be eliminated.

    But until that time, the choice is the mother's and the mother's alone – she is the only one of the two who has a pregnancy to terminate or not. The father has rights to give input about the offspring itself, but as long as the fetus is tied to the mother his input can not be taken as anything but suggestion.

  16. Jeff
    Jeff says:

    The father's wishes on an abortion make no matter. He doesn't have a pregnancy limiting his bodily autonomy, she does.

    The father's rights to the child kick in the moment the child is no longer dependent on the mother for survival. Until that time, the issue of more paramount importance is the right of the mother to maintain her personal bodily autonomy (she gets absolute say in what happens to her body).

  17. Jeff
    Jeff says:

    The mother is pregnant. It is her bodily autonomy she must have the choice to continue or terminate.

    The father has no limitation to his bodily autonomy, so he gets no say in the decision to terminate or not. It is her decision.

  18. Sam
    Sam says:

    Jeff, you're wrong about the current state of our laws on a few points. While there is a general right to bodily autonomy, it is not held to be absolutely sacrosanct on any issue other than that of abortion. Specifically, abortion is the only situation where deadly force is authorized for a non-deadly intrusion upon bodily autonomy. True, you can't punch me against the consent. And if you tried to punch me, I'd be allowed to fight back… using non-deadly force. But if you punched me in the arm, and I responded by shooting you in the head, I'd be arrested for murder. Even with a really good lawyer, I'd at least get convicted for voluntary manslaughter.
    Pro-choice arguments about bodily autonomy confuse the considerable legal distinction between action and inaction. If I see a starving beggar on the street, I have no legal obligation to feed him. But if I slit his throat to put him out of his misery, I become a murderer. Even if I happen to be eating a sandwich, and the beggar grabs it from my hands, I can only repel his non-deadly assault with reasonable force. I can't shoot him or stab him to stop him from eating my sandwich.
    Abortion doesn't involve a woman merely putting up a no-trespassing sign in her womb. It involves her hiring a professional killer to use deadly force to vacate her womb at all costs. That is entirely at odds with the general law of self-defense.

  20. M
    M says:

    I think there are a lot of pro-choice activists who would "bite the bullet," but I think the average pro-choicer and certainly the average American would find the idea of letting men out of child support abhorrent.

  21. Nick Reynosa
    Nick Reynosa says:

    Jeff
    You conceded that once the child is born the considerations of the father should be equally considered. However the basis of such equality stems from the father's biological paternity. A paternity that can begins at conception and can be proven through prenatal testing. A father is expecting a child just as much just as much as the mother. Any decisions against his will would have just the same emotional and life consequences.

    Furthermore if reproductive rights is really rooted in bodily autonomy and is solely the right of women why does the World Health Organization mention the rights of "couples" and totally omit "bodily autonomy" Along these same lines if these rights are exclusively those of women and they are constitutionally protected how is that compatible with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

    I think your comment about the kidney transplant was very insightful however parental responsibility does affect bodily autonomy in many other ways that are protected legally. For example, an infant is entirely helpless both financially and physically the failure of either the mother or father to properly care for the child or financially support the child (through their bodily efforts)can be seen as child abuse and be punished by the law. Abortion is just the ultimate form of child abuse.

  22. LN
    LN says:

    "That she doesn't want to give up her bodily autonomy to a fetus, AND that she doesn't want to be financially and physically responsible for another person."

    A woman can give either of those reasons or none at all to terminate. It seems to me that if women can terminate parenthood responsibilities for financial reasons, men should be able to as well.

  23. LevelUpPlease
    LevelUpPlease says:

    No, it wouldn't. Plenty of women parent their child without financial support from the father; and sometimes the man parents without financial support from the mother.

  24. M
    M says:

    Couldn't have said this any better. There is simply no consistency in this kind of pro-abortion argument: if you do advocate for the right of a woman to reject any reponsibility for the new human life she has co-created, you are morally bound as well to defend a man's right to reject any responsibility to the woman he has impregnated and the new human being that has resulted from it.

    People have all the right to recieve comprehensive sex education and take measures to prevent an unwanted pregnancy (that is, access to contraception). Accuarte sex education requires, among other things, that people understand that there are contraceptive methods to reduce the risk of an unintended pregnancy, but no method can fully eliminate that risk. As many other things, contraception may fail even if used correctly (the risk is very low, but it still may happen): if we know this and still choose to have sexual intercourse (and it is our absolutely legitimate right to do so), we must be aware of potential consequences and be ready to take responsibility for them.

    No one's guilty of something as natural as sexual intercourse, but as with many other things in life, that doesn't excuse us of being responsible for the consequences of our actions.

    If a man impregnates a woman – be it his girlfriend, his wif, his lover, a one-night-stand, or whoever she is -, he has a legal responsibility towards the new human being whether he likes it or not. It's not about punishment; it's about child protection. This is a strange culture we live in, that would condemn a man for neglecting his responsibility just because he didn't plan on impregnating a woman, and still enhances abortion as right – the right of a woman to do just about the same thing.

    I am not fond of double moral standards.

  25. Laura
    Laura says:

    Except, Sam, you miss the point that the beggar on the street is able to survive entirely on his own without dependence on you. When a fetus at all stages of conception can survive outside a woman's body, you may have a point. Until then, there is no proportional response. You grow the baby or you don't. To force a woman to carry a pregnancy is a violation of bodily autonomy.

  27. piraterothbard
    piraterothbard says:

    I agree there is a lot of inconsistency. But I just don't think
    outlawing abortion is the answer. We need a society which understands
    that some men are low income and are trying our best to pay child
    support, we are not criminals, we should not have state licenses taken
    away which make it harder to provide or garnishing to make us homeless.
    Abortion gets rid of unwanted life…I'm sorry man, that's something I
    can live with.

    I agree there is a lot of inconsistency. But I just don't think
    outlawing abortion is the answer. We need a society which understands
    that some men are low income and are trying our best to pay child
    support, we are not criminals, we should not have state licenses taken
    away which make it harder to provide or garnishing to make us homeless.
    Abortion gets rid of unwanted life…I'm sorry man, that's something I
    can live with.

    I agree there is a lot of inconsistency. But I just don't think
    outlawing abortion is the answer. We need a society which understands
    that some men are low income and are trying our best to pay child
    support, we are not criminals, we should not have state licenses taken
    away which make it harder to provide or garnishing to make us homeless.
    Abortion gets rid of unwanted life…I'm sorry man, that's something I
    can live with.

  28. piraterothbard
    piraterothbard says:

    "Without forced support from the biological father, you'd see more women fall into poverty and away from opportunity" – KB that's not necessarily true. Support could come just as easily from the government. (And I do think some support should be forced, especially for middle class/wealth men. Just pointing out that less child support does not have to mean more poverty.)

  29. Jameson Graber
    Jameson Graber says:

    You sound as if you thought my comment was a reproach. On the contrary, I think there are good reasons, as you mention, to not immediately accept the status quo on this issue. Also, I'm not sure why you took my comment personally.

    And from my perspective, if one establishes a pro-choice position based on reproductive freedom, it seems there's an obligation to extend that reproductive freedom to men within reasonable limits.

    I'm not pro-choice on the abortion issue, but that doesn't prevent me from reasoning from a different position than my own.

  30. LevelUpPlease
    LevelUpPlease says:

    This is why I took your comment as a reproach:

    "The first few comments have confirmed something I kind of suspected: a lot of pro-choicers would be happy to "bite the bullet" on this one.
    "

    "Biting the bullet" does not usually have a positive connotation. Indeed, it usually refers to compromising in one area to maintain an overall advantage; often grudgingly. But, if that was not your intention, I will take your word for it.

  31. Jameson Graber
    Jameson Graber says:

    You're right, I could have been clearer. In this case, I used the phrase in scare quotes because the author of the article implies the only options are to be inconsistent or to bite the bullet. But there are some instances in which "biting the bullet" is simply the correct response, even if it goes against common opinion.

  32. materetmagistra
    materetmagistra says:

    @Laura: "To force a woman to carry a pregnancy is a violation of bodily autonomy."

    Indeed. This is true. This is what makes RAPE so very wrong.

    However, to correct the egregious human rights violation that abortion is and make abortion illegal DOES NOT make a woman pregnant – it does not violate her bodily autonomy.

  34. James
    James says:

    As a single father of three kids I understand both sides of the laws…what ppl don't understand is even if the father wants to be part of the child/children's lives and is paying child support that's not always that black and white. I've been the child support paying parent and I'm the supporting only parent. I've never once thought that a life should have been taken cause if my actions..so I'
    m very much against aborting a child. Outside of a rape scenario. I have found this interesting tho to give a man the same rights as a woman in this decision…wish that there were more equality when it comes to a single father.

  35. materetmagistra
    materetmagistra says:

    @Jeff: "…the issue of more paramount importance is the right of the mother to maintain her personal bodily autonomy (she gets absolute say in what happens to her body)."

    Hmmm. What gives her that right?

    Do other humans have such a right?

    If so, do all other humans or only some?
    How do we determine which humans do not have this right? What criteria shall we use to make sure we do not infringe on those that definitely have such rights?

  36. materetmagistra
    materetmagistra says:

    Wow. Every response mentions "rights" the mother has and/or the father has. What about the human rights of the OTHER human being in the picture – the unborn human?!?

    Basically, to speak about any "rights" the mother and/or father have necessarily assumes that some more pressing and more basic human right (in this case, a Right to Live) DOES NOT BELONG to the other human in this case – the PRE-BORN HUMAN.

    In effect, it is nothing but needless wear on the keyboard to type responses wrangling whether the mother has more important and relevant "rights" compared to the father. What IS of prime importance is the DENIAL, the ABROGATION, of the most basic Human Right a human being has – the Right to One's own Life. Neither the father nor the mother has any authority to justly remove this most basic human right from another human being.

  37. Kyle Vitasek
    Kyle Vitasek says:

    When you say that you 'support comprehensive sex education' can you be explicit? Do you want your tax dollars going to develop curriculum, pay for hand outs of contraceptives and abortifacients, etc.?

    It sounds nice to support comprehensive sex education, yet how much of our money are we willing to put on the line to make that a reality, and how are we collectively willing to define the curricula and goals of said "sex-ed"?

  39. James
    James says:

    Problem I have with your comment is do you know how many times I've heard I cannot have kids I've been fixed then after they get pregnant you find out the truth but by then you're stuck in this society of child support for a one night stand out relationship that won't work… so basically a man that's fertile is any different than a fertile woman that's low income?

  40. piraterothbard
    piraterothbard says:

    Guess I don't understand your comment. I am actually trying to build a movement for low income fathers who owe child support. Our society already has plenty of sympathy for low income mothers. Sorry if my post was not well written and clear in its intent.

  41. KB
    KB says:

    Agree entirely. I think a holistic solution to the abortion problem has to address the womens' needs side of the equation through more support (including financial) from the community, particularly the government. However, as things are now, I think it would pressure more women to abort. GOP and some Dems are cutting support for early education and basic needs assistance, not increasing them.

  42. David P. Clifford
    David P. Clifford says:

    Although I won't comment on abortion and the right for a woman to choose I will comment on the man part of fatherhood. A newborn child needs lots of love and care for a lifetime but more so for those first 18 years because they are innocent and cannot take care of them selfs.It is as real mans responsibility to provide love and financial support for their own flesh and blood. I have a 17 year old daughter who I always have paiid. My child support to her mother except when I fell behind a few times but then caught up. Whatever I paid it was not only worth it for all the love and beautiful memories but also was never enough because I know it cost a great deal of money to raise a child. No woman or man should not be raising a child and not getting the child supporteven when not together it is hard enough with 2 people let alone by your self and the child depends on you.This I will say in closing my daughter was a unplanned pregnancy and as hard as anything may have been for me I am sure it was harder for her mom and for that I thank her and I am very proud of her for the great job she has done raising my daughter. I also will say that my daughter is the best thing that has ever happened to me in my life and for this I am so greatful and thankful and no amount of money or child support would I give back to not have my beautiful daughter

  43. RandomGuest
    RandomGuest says:

    I'm pro-choice and I think that the current child support system is wrong. So, no inconsistency for me.

    I believe that raising a child is one of (if not THE) most important service(s) to society as it produces the next generation of workers and consumers. At the same time it's taking the parents a lot of time and money to do so. In other words: parents are doing society a big favor and yet are paying for it. That's not fair. Raising kids should at least not be a financial loss, which means that society should help parents financing their children. As you can see that approach would also solve the child support question (and a lot of other problems like social inequality, too).

    Society takes the burden of childrearing for granted, until people stop doing so (like in many European countries). Interesting, how in this case, many governments are willing to spend a lot on money on supporting families…

  44. RoguePaladin
    RoguePaladin says:

    I don't mean to be insulting, but I'm also going to be blunt and not beat around the bush. I gotta say, the analogy just does not work. You're trying to connect to things that have absolutely no connection, and you literally failed to show any kind of reasonable comparison. Basically you're saying women should not be allowed abortions because men are forced to pay child support. Huh? That's a leap of logic I'm failing to see existing. That baffled me and doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Men don't have to pay child support on an unborn fetus, they pay child support on a child that they helped create, *after* the child is born.

    This would be a good argument for not allowing abortions after the fetus has developed enough to clearly be a child, and also to get the fathers to start paying child support before the kid is born instead of after. But as an argument to outlaw abortion entirely it's just simply crazy, without a shred of logic or reason, and completely ridiculous.

    I think this makes a good argument for a need to overhaul the entire child support laws, but there's no clear or even logical or sane way that has anything to do with trying to outlaw abortion. I've heard people make compelling arguments for pro-life, and in all honesty, this is far from being one of them.

  49. metazip
    metazip says:

    Pretty convoluted double speak

    There was another save mankind from damnation movement before. Prohibition. That didn’t last either. The Southern Baptists tried for many years argument will always be about an individual’s free will of choice.

    Use to be that the family unit was responsible for the moral upbringing of a child with religion reinforcing that upbringing. So where does the fault really lie? Who elects and re-elects the morons we now have as our self serving representatives who set themselves up as elitists and then play us against each other?

    If a woman chooses abortion for whatever reason, whose fault is it really? The apparent answer is the woman’s as she is making the choice, but is it really her's? What about the prime individuals responsible
    in the upbringing of that individual? They share the entire fault here for failing to instill religious morals
    in her. But what about an atheist woman, born and raised in an atheist family? What about a woman who’s religion allows abortion – if there is one?

    It comes down to free will which is granted not by man and no man shall have control over what
    one wants to freely choose…No one! While anyone can say how everyone should live and think (what religions and parents are for), no one can force their beliefs onto others. We do not live in a democracy, or a righteous republic. We live in a republic that
    happened to be founded as a Christian nation by Christian men and still is for the moment.

    A woman is the sole judge whether or not to have an abortion. That is her God given right to freely choose, right or wrong as she will ultimately have to answer for her choice, not you, not me, just her. Who among us is so pure as to take away her
    free will to choose? We are not gods. The real problem as I see it is we have responsible people who have failed at influencing pro-life women and now persecute them for who they are while at
    the same time are against persecution for who they themselves are. Again, we are not a righteous republic.

    As the saying goes, “…Let he without sin cast the first stone…”

  50. M
    M says:

    Jeff –

    Very thoughtful post, thanks for contributing!

    I don't come to exactly the same conclusions as you, but I can relate. I am pro-life and anti-abortion, but I also think bodily autonomy is very important, and I'm aware that fighting abortion has serious consequences for women's bodily autonomy.

    Quite awhile back I wrote this blog post while trying to think it through, I'd be curious to see what you think: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/03/bodily-integrity.html

  51. LN
    LN says:

    Lol 95% of your post was, "this is ridiculous". You could have shortened it to about 2 meaty sentences. ANYWAY.

    Women can opt out of parenthood during the unborn phase — for any reason — but men cannot. The law tells men that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy and thus to parenthood, with all the future financial obligations. Basically the law doesn't allow for men's choice to be parents, only women's. That's inconsistent.

  52. LN
    LN says:

    I can't speak for M but why would "I support comprehensive sex ed" mean she supports taxpayer money funding BC? Those aren't…the same at all. Sex ed is just that — education. It's not free goods. I mean she might support that, but that's not what she said at all.

  53. ignorance_is_curable
    ignorance_is_curable says:

    I had posted a long comment to this page, which appears to have become one of the "invisibles". But here is something different –related-to but not exactly what this blog post was about (prepend only the http):
    abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/judge-rules-kan-sperm-donor-owes-child-support-21629154

    We might expect this to lead to lots more dissapointments for ordinary infertile couples….

  54. kiawah312
    kiawah312 says:

    All of your arguments are great arguments for being against abortion. I agree and am against abortion. Some of your arguments are good arguments when it comes to other issues. None of your arguments, however, respond to the constitutional issue in Roe v Wade, which I support. "It seems to me" is fine until you start withdrawing rights from others. The Roe v Wade argument is about "constitutional" right to life, liberty and pursuit… not whether the baby is going to be a life or is a life. Under the constitution, the mother has full rights as a full person "under the law" meaning a living, breathing human being completely independent biologically from another. So when does the baby have full constitutional rights? When the baby is fully biologically independent (even if on life support), which is why the cut off period is when it is. There are in fact things in the world that are not black or white but in between. Pour all of your energy and money into making abortion safe and rare and encourage people to adopt, IMO.

  55. no
    no says:

    That picture is the exact opposite of what is acceptable in society though. People can go ahead and label the guy as a dead beat dad but don't blink an eye when he gets a woman pregnant then leaves. It's the woman that has to birth the child and raise it. If the man gets a choice then the woman should too.

  56. Rhonda Lowenstein
    Rhonda Lowenstein says:

    SO, what these people are REALLY saying is that they support dead beat dads, despite the fact that the women they are abandoning WANTED the child? So abandoning a child is ok, but aborting one is NOT? How is THAT an acceptable argument? Failing to support your child HURTS your CHILD. That's ok, as LONG as life is given to the child, huh? This is more of an argument FOR abortion than against abortion. Many women abort because they can't financially afford to take care of the child and this support of dead beat dads isn't making the argument against abortion. Men ARE needed to get women pregnant and men can take precautions just as women can. But the difference is, when women don't take precautions, they are chastised; when men don't……. crickets chirping…………..

  57. Rhonda Lowenstein
    Rhonda Lowenstein says:

    SO, what these people are REALLY saying is that they support dead beat dads, despite the fact that the women they are abandoning WANTED the child? So abandoning a child is ok, but aborting one is NOT? How is THAT an acceptable argument? Failing to support your child HURTS your CHILD. That's ok, as LONG as life is given to the child, huh? This is more of an argument FOR abortion than against abortion. Many women abort because they can't financially afford to take care of the child and this support of dead beat dads isn't making the argument against abortion. Men ARE needed to get women pregnant and men can take precautions just as women can. But the difference is, when women don't take precautions, they are chastised; when men don't……. crickets chirping…………..

  59. wat
    wat says:

    From the article: "Or we could strive for a different kind of consistency–the kind that holds both men and women to a higher standard. This is why I’m for child support laws, and this is why I’m against abortion."

    The author doesn't support dead beat dads. The article specifically says men should have to pay child support. Don't know how you read otherwise…

  60. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    You're talking about fetal rights, not human rights. And when you talk about fetal rights then you're separating the pregnant woman from her fetus and impinge on women's rights. The fetus is human, but it is not a person.

  61. LN
    LN says:

    What "wat" said. The point of the article is that if pro-choicers were *consistent*, they'd have to support dead-beat dads too. You can't pick and choose (that is, you can't say, "moms go ahead and opt out" and at the same time "dads — you have no choice") otherwise you're inconsistent.

    Pro-lifers expect BOTH parents to take care of the child they create.

  62. LN
    LN says:

    "People can go ahead and label the guy as a dead beat dad but don't blink an eye when he gets a woman pregnant then leaves."

    …Aren't those the same thing? A dead-beat dad is one who attempts to escape his parental duties.

  63. ParsonBoots
    ParsonBoots says:

    There you have it folks. People like Rando get to decide which humans are people and which ones aren't. If you are not deemed a person, you can be legally killed. This should send a chill up every spine.
    Just wondering: How long after being born does it take for this human to become a person?

  67. Bess
    Bess says:

    You seem to be arguing not for abortion, but instead for anarchy. You say "no man shall have control over what one wants to freely choose," but that isn't true. There are several things I can't freely choose to do because there are laws prohibiting it. I cannot freely choose to run through every stop light without being stopped by the cops. I cannot freely choose to rob someone because I will go to jail. If I were to apply your logic to either of these situations, it would sound like "Running through red lights without impediment is her God given right to freely choose, right or wrong as she will ultimately have to answer for her choice, not you, not me, just her. Who among us is so pure as to take away her free will to choose to rob another person. We are not gods." Using your logic, we should have no laws at all.

  68. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    The fetus is not a fully formed human even in the minimal biological sense. How can a clump of cells inside a womb be a person? Even etymologically it doesn't make much sense, "persona" is mask – and presumes that one has a face. There are also cultural variations for when a human being becomes a person. In the US before WWII only grown-ups were considered persons. In Russia before the Revolution whole families and their servants were considered a singular person. The modern definition goes something like "a human being regarded as an individual". Is the growing fetus inside the womb an individual? Does it have personality and personhood? Does it have agency and volition, a social standing and personal interests? Or is it merely a lump of cells inside someone's body that you're trying to label as a person to support your crusade to impose your will upon others?

  69. Kyle Vitasek
    Kyle Vitasek says:

    Bess, I love your reply. I did a master's level paper on contraception, and I too appreciate the beauty and wholeness of natural family planning.

    In addition to the benefits you mention I also think it would (being un-married and not yet a practitioner) benefit the connection between the man and the woman as not only would the woman get better at understanding her body, but also the man would learn to respect and honor her body more.

    At the end of the day, unfortunately I think we let the schools do too much of the educating on this with our kids, and we let the culture do too much of the educating. The warped lessons they get on sexual behavior and birth control from the pop culture and the 'phys ed' once-over they get leave much to be desired.

    It would be a huge culture shift to have the type of sex ed you suggest taking place in the majority of our schools with our youth actually making more informed decisions about how sex plays into their romantic relationships and how to plan for the possibility of children.

  70. Fairisfair
    Fairisfair says:

    Men have the ability to walk away by signing away their rights. No child support, no future decisions. That is their choice. I understand the point being made but men do have a similar choice. While not the same as they have to live knowing that their child is walking around the world without any of their interaction. But there is still a choice

  71. ParsonBoots
    ParsonBoots says:

    Merely a lump of cells? Have you ever even looked at an ultrasound of a womb? 70% of the ladies who have an ultrasound chose not to abort. They know that what they are looking at is absolutely not a lump of cells, but a person who would feel the pain of having his or her limbs ripped off by an abortion doctor. I've watched the unborn try to avoid the abortion doctor's needle, so I would say there is some personal interest and agency in play. You are the one crusading to impose your will upon others, only you want to impose it on the most defenseless people in our society.

  72. metazip
    metazip says:

    You are free to read into my comments anyway you care to, just be careful what you post, or say as the NSA is listening to your every word. We are a Republic, not a righteous republic. As a society we give up part of our freedoms, but reading your comment we should be "Controlled" by someone else who knows better than us. That's the nanny state we are currently headed to directed by progressives in both major parties.

    According to you, I shouldn't be able to buy that 32 oz soda, own any gun, or determine what doctor or hospital I wish to go to. I should just sit here quietly as a male and lose my current health policy because it doesn't provide for pregnancy, mammograms, or a pap smear test which I never needed or ever will and then cost me 4 to 8 times more and sent to a hospital and doctors I wouldn't send my dog to.

    I shouldn't complain when the media reports roads to major bridges are shut down causing traffic jams for 2 days while they are paid to remain silent or parrot the administration agenda when 4 American Patriots are murdered, or how the president did a lot more than Christie during the sequester with no congressional hearings.

    Yes, I should remain silent as people like you spout like the democrats of old that they know what is good for me. Yes, I should just quietly remain silent while another of our freedoms are stripped away. Yes, I should remain silent when we finally dump the progressives and then literally go from the frying pan to the religious right of the republicans fire.

    I think not! If you or anyone of your ilk feel so strongly against abortion, why is it I have never seen any of you take 50% of your take home paycheck and give it to these women to live on and support the children until they are 21? Pigs will fly first! I say stay out of my wallet, stay out of our lives, and worry about yourselves.

  73. Defamate
    Defamate says:

    70% of the ladies who have an ultrasound chose not to abort.

    Got a citation for that?

    This study would appear to disagree with you:

    http://www.medicaldaily.com/ultrasounds-fail-change-womens-minds-about-abortion-how-abortion-rights-are-mostly-same-41-years

    ""Published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, the study
    found that more than 90 percent of women seeking abortions were
    confident that they wanted to follow through with it, even after getting
    an ultrasound.""

    Perhaps it's just pro-abort propaganda?

  74. ParsonBoots
    ParsonBoots says:

    Yes, of those who already have their mind made up, the numbers go way down. The 70% is among those who are undecided before seeing the ultrasound. So I didn't type what I was thinking.

    http://www.optionsprc.org/services/project-ultrasound

    But I could introduce you to several of those who have changed their minds. You could also find any number of testimonies of those who worked at Planned Parenthood who said they knew seeing an ultrasound would affect the decision and would purposely avoid doing one if possible. I guess the main point of this is that anyone who looks at a baby sucking its thumb in the womb has a tendency to see more than a clump of cells.

  75. Defamate
    Defamate says:

    ""The numbers barely changed after the women received the ultrasound, and
    even after they saw the images. Only 42.5 percent chose to view their
    ultrasound images. Of these women, 98.4 percent still went on to get an
    abortion.""

    So a little over 2%, who were unsure, chose not to have the abortion.

    So what you said earlier ""70% of the ladies who have an ultrasound chose not to abort."" is not in fact correct.

    Thanks for clarifying, however.

    Cheers!

  76. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    Have you even seen a picture of first trimester fetus that isn't a miniature model of a newborn baby? That almost-mammalian-looking thing barely has limbs to speak of.

    Fetuses are by no means "people in our society" and what I meant by crusade was the limiting of freedom for women – who are actually "people in our society" – to control their own bodies. Your fallacy is viewing a part of a woman (the growing fetus) as a separate entity. Most likely you do this because of implicit metaphysical assumptions about "soul" or something like that.

    Also, I regret even budding in to this discussion. I live in Estonia where abortion is legal and not even a subject of debate for anyone but a small minority of Catholics.

  77. notolaf
    notolaf says:

    I have long believed that if a woman is allowed to abort her child for reasons of convenience, that right should be made retroactive. After all, children are, as a rule, a lot more convenient outside the womb than inside!

  79. Anonymous
    Anonymous says:

    When two people have sex there is a chance of female becoming pregnant, and that's something that those two people were willing to gamble with. If a woman isn't prepared to be a parent she could give the baby up for an adoption or put it into foster care. It's selfish to want to rip away the life of a little baby, and maybe rob a family (if the baby is given to be adopted) the joy of that child.

  81. anonymous
    anonymous says:

    When a woman has unprotected sex or doesn't use birth control than she knows she can risk getting pregnant. My biological mother could have aborted me. She was unmarried, alone, and physically incapable of taking care of me but she decided to do the right thing and give me the gift of life even if that meant she would have to carry me around for 9 months. If she had aborted me I wouldn't exist. I wouldn't be an artist, I wouldn't have friends and family. It isn't about whether the fetus isn't technically a real person yet, but what it could be. The life it could have. A woman could easily give her child up for adoption if she isn't prepaired to be a parent and logically there is no reason why she should be able to take away the right of that child to live.

  82. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    What country are you talking about? USA? Because when the Americans entered the WWII and set station in Europe they were pretty annoyed that Afro-Americans were just as successful with European women as white Americans. The French and English didn't discriminate blacks as the Americans did. That's just one example I'm aware of. I don't think the groups you mentioned were universally discriminated against.

  83. playingwithplato
    playingwithplato says:

    Nor should they be; remember 'person hood' (whatever this bizarre term means) is defined by those that have person hood, or the power equivocated, and weaker parties that infringe on rights can have their personhood stricken, or never awarded at all! The truth is, even 50 years from now, when fetal viability will be possible completely outside a woman's body, developing lives will be destroyed for precisely the same reasons: infringement on the desires, freedom, of the Self. That science has uncovered new data, observable claims, regarding fetal pain and cognitive development is completely beside the point. Aspects of consciousness never were criteria in the formula, the right of choice.

  84. playingwithplato
    playingwithplato says:

    Only since given a legal choice, has the 'right' to control one's body been given life, or definition itself. Prior to RoevWade, abortion rates, though harder to gather when illegal, were estimated from many angles to be much lower. Analyzed in many different cohorts. Real numbers of abortions were also much lower. With legal permission comes the right to, and instances of, exercise that right. This is true for all vice.

  85. M
    M says:

    This isn't meant to be a comprehensive argument against abortion. It's only meant to show that the arguments listed at the beginning of the post ("sex isn't a contract", etc) aren't compelling, because our society doesn't apply those arguments consistently.

  86. wat
    wat says:

    Not quite true. As the post says "Even if he wants to terminate his parental rights (and therefore his parental responsibilities), the courts usually won’t allow it unless there is another adult prepared to adopt the child and take over that responsibility."

  88. LN
    LN says:

    "Your fallacy is viewing a part of a woman (the growing fetus) as a separate entity. Most likely you do this because of implicit metaphysical assumptions about "soul" or something like that."

    Er, no, it has more to do with the fact that it has completely different DNA from the mother. Do you know what genetic constancy is? Every single cell in your body has your DNA. Other organisms have their own unique DNA. Basic bio my friend…

  90. metazip
    metazip says:

    You are free to read into my comments anyway you care to,
    just be careful what you post, or say as the NSA is listening to your every word. We are a Republic, not a righteous republic. As a society we give up part of our freedoms, but reading your comment we should be "Controlled" by someone else who knows better than us. That's the nanny state we are currently headed to directed by progressives in both major parties.

    According to you, I shouldn't be able to buy that 32 oz soda, own any gun, or determine what doctor or hospital I wish to go to. I
    should just sit here quietly as a male and lose my current health policy because it doesn't provide for pregnancy, mammograms, or a pap smear test which I never needed or ever will and then cost me 4 to 8 times more and sent to a
    hospital and doctors I wouldn't send my dog to.

    I shouldn't complain when the media reports roads to major bridges are shut down causing traffic jams for 2 days while they are paid to remain silent or parrot the administration agenda when 4 American Patriots are murdered, or how the president did a lot more than Christie during the
    sequester with no congressional hearings.

    Yes, I should remain silent as people like you spout like the democrats of old that they know what is good for me. Yes, I should just quietly remain silent while another of our freedoms are stripped away. Yes, I should remain silent when we finally dump the progressives and then literally go from the frying pan to the religious right of the republican’s fire.

    I think not! If you or anyone of your ilk feel so strongly against abortion, why is it I have never seen any of you take 50% of
    your take home paycheck and give it to these women to live on and support the children until they are 21? Pigs will fly first! I say stay out of my wallet, stay out of our lives, and worry about yourselves.

  91. Bess
    Bess says:

    I'm not really sure where in my comment you were able to conclude that I think we should be "'controlled' by someone else. All I was trying to say was that laws are a necessary part of society. The laws that I pointed out were laws against robbing people and laws regulating traffic lights. These are all laws that I think most sane people would agree are necessary.
    Your original comment repeatedly said that people should be able to choose to do whatever they want, and to an extent that is true, but it is not a universal claim. There are things that people are not able to choose to do without legal percussions. Things like rob people or run red lights.
    You may be ok with me reading into your comment however I like, but I am not ok with you projecting onto my comments. I never claimed that I know what is good for you. I just said that it is not unheard of to have laws that limit what people can do.
    And to your final point, assuming that I never do anything to support struggling mothers, this is completely false. I regularly donate to a local organization that supports low income mothers and women who are escaping abusive situations. I also helped to start a scholarship at my university that would benefit single mothers who are trying to get their college degree. I don't see any pigs flying.

  92. Chuck
    Chuck says:

    If that is the case, then you are only looking to appease one side. If a man decides not to support, the woman must either give up/abort the child or live in poverty to support the child; if the woman decides to give up/abort, then the man must either live in poverty or give up the child. One side alone can be chosen.

    If "social ills" are an issue then perhaps the only solution is to terminate all pregnancies unless both man and woman are fully on board. Then everyone would have opportunity and everyone could have kids if they want them. If one person alone wants a child, they must find another partner.

  93. Gregg Braddoch
    Gregg Braddoch says:

    ^ Actually, it has nothing to do with the metaphysical assumptions about "souls" – If we can declare that "underdeveloped" specimens of our own species do not have rights, then legislators, etc. can at any time define "underdeveloped" to target any group of people they so choose:

    Are you 20-30 years old and still living at home? Oh well, you're underdeveloped, and we're going to send a SWAT abortion team to clean you up, fetus.

    Do you not have a college degree? Ah well, we will send the SWAT abortion team

    Are you elderly with a degenerative brain disease? Oh well, we've taken a look at your brain, and it's "underdeveloped" so the nice lady is going to give you some medicine to make you sleep…..forever.

    Once the government establishes a precedent of determining who is, and who is not eligible for rights, be it by biological development or otherwise, we are admitting that human beings do not have natural rights, and that they are granted by government – therefore they can take them away.

    Many of my examples above may seem very extreme, as they are extreme, however the principle is the same:

    Let the government decide who gets rights, and then ultimately nobody has rights – we've seen this previously in history a couple of times: Certain races, genders, or classes of people who were not considered to have rights, even though they were fully "developed" human beings.

  94. Gregg Braddoch
    Gregg Braddoch says:

    ^ Exactly – The government isn't allowed (and nobody else for that matter) to decide which people get rights and which people don't – the worst abuses of humanity in history were all caused by this. NATURAL RIGHTS are rights that arise from being HUMAN, not from government permission!

  95. metazip
    metazip says:

    Pigs will fly first before anyone sees your kind freely give 50% of your take home pay to a single parent on a paycheck basis is still standing. Donating a mere pittance of your time or what you make to another group is not what I call personal support, but your kind would have no problem reaching into my wallet to grab my money to pay for these single parents in the form of welfare and then preaching at every street corner what a great job you did stealing my hard earned money.
    I didn't choose to become a single parent, nor did I choose for them to become one. That is what free choice is all about. Time you grew up and as an old expression says "…You made your bed, now lie in it…"

  96. KB
    KB says:

    I think you are missing the point of the argument. You can make it fair to men by giving men the same choice as women (i.e. forced abortions in the even that the man doesn't want to be a father), or you can make it fair to men by giving women as much choice as men currently have (which is, once you create it, you can't kill it off).

    One of those choices involves forced death of an innocent bystander. The other doesn't.

  97. Joel
    Joel says:

    The problem is your claim, "a crusade to impose your will upon others." Bad line. Even you could be construed as crusading for your pro-choice will.

    Examining the historical definitions of a "person" doesn't help either. Historically, societies with-held the definition of "person" from whole people groups which resulted in enslavement, torture, and genocide. Pro-choice could be cast in the same light in the future.

    If there is anything we should learn from history it is that our definition of a person must not hinge upon convenience, political or economic interests, social status, or even the ability to take care of oneself. Personage should be defined by life-time potential. Is the core DNA of the being Human.

    If not, than we are not reproducing when we have sex, merely creating an animal that is only human at birth. This idea is illogical and above all, inhuman.

    -Joel.

  98. charmcoach
    charmcoach says:

    Since you bring in choice: Is it a man's choice to be born a man and a woman's to be born a woman? Are we not ignoring the science and anatomy here, which negates the ability to choose?

  99. bboypepperz
    bboypepperz says:

    If you believe that the developing child inside of a mother is considered to be a full human being, and should be treated as such… wouldn't that make abortion a murder? which would result in criminal charges on the mother?
    If that is what you do believe..then a miscarriage should be considered involuntary manslaughter. Even if the mother had absolutely no hand in it externally. That every woman that has to suffer from the accidental loss should be thrown in prison.

    This is why anti-abortion cannot happen. It's not that we believe that the child inside of the mother is not human. It is that we cannot classify it as human because It could easily never reach earths surface. and filling our prisons with innocent mothers seems highly irrational. People go too deep in to science on this matter..when in reality.. The reasoning behind pro-choice has nothing to do with science at all.

  100. Bess
    Bess says:

    Yeah, this is going to be my last response to you. I choose not to communicate with people who use terms like "your kind" or who project onto others things they didn't say or even hint at believing. You know absolutely nothing about me. I have no idea where you got from my comments that I want your money or that I think the government should be taking your money to pay for single mothers. I am actually a very staunch fiscal conservative and think the welfare system is beyond broken. That is why I choose to donate to charities that I know are doing a better job of helping single mothers than the government.

    How you jumped to your conclusions about me shows that you either don't know how to read, or you think everyone is your enemy. I'm not your enemy. I'd appreciate if you would stop making assumptions about me or anyone else. Or you can just keep sippin' that haterade if that's how you get your kicks.

  101. Just another clump of cells
    Just another clump of cells says:

    Yet if you killed anyone back in those times there would still be serious retaliation. If you really want to get technical; take a strand of DNA from one of my cells and compare it to a strand of DNA from that "clump of cells." Tell me which one is human DNA and which one is not.

  104. Bryan Beus
    Bryan Beus says:

    So, if you don't draw the line at conception, then the line can be drawn anywhere depending on the (temporary and ever changing) values of society.

    You are risking the terrible situation of putting this vulnerable human's life in the hands of a person who may place their own selfish interests over the life of the child.

    You mentioned the times before WWII. Are you okay with going back to those standards?

    Whether or not you are, all of a sudden it's YOUR LOGIC that the HELPLESS LIFE OF A CHILD depends on.

    There's no way I would want to put my life in the hands of someone who says something so wholly irrational as "a human being is not a person."

    ?!?

    That's like saying a chimpanzee is not an animal.

    These children are helpless. By deciding for them "when they are a person," rather than assuming that fact that since their life is in motion they have a right to live it, you run the risk of turning (or keeping) our society into a nightmare.

    Just look at the Greeks.

    They took their newborn babies and left them in the woods to be eaten by wild animals. That was their way of handling an abortion, because children "weren't people."

    Is that worse than what we do today? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how you want to look at it.

    We burn babies with acid and then saw their limbs into pieces.

    Just let the kids live, or be strong enough to not have sex.

  105. Bryan Beus
    Bryan Beus says:

    No, she was correct in her revision.

    From your own article:

    "The 7.4 percent who felt unsure about following through were also the ones who looked at their images, and decided not to have the procedure."

    There you have it.

  107. Wilber
    Wilber says:

    Let's play your game. How would a miscarriage be involuntary manslaughter? Manslaughter is an unlawful killing. I don't see how a natural death constitutes unlawful killing. Miscarriage is an unfortunate (natural) result of some pregnancies, so unless the woman did something to intentionally end the pregnancy, it would not be a crime in any way.

    So, if that is the only argument you have (since you stated "This is why anti-abortion cannot happen") it looks like you should be willing to jump on board the band wagon.

    As to your sentiment that people try to be too scientific about it, I think it is because if you begin your argument "in science", you quickly see that a fetus is actually a human being (the only question is when, at conception or sometime during development in the womb)

    If you do not root your decision in science, you root it in religion or emotion. Both of those are inconsistent from person to person, so science is probably the best decision. So, question to the scientific community, when does a fetus become a person (conception, first trimester, etc)?

  108. gondolin25
    gondolin25 says:

    Still waiting for you to admit you are wrong about a fetus being a part of a woman's body. You need to address that if you expect to keep commenting here. Your lazy arguments have been decimated.

  109. cblawyer
    cblawyer says:

    In point of fact, at least in some states, you can rescind your rights to the child BUT still have your responsibilities. In Arizona, for instance, you can give up all of your rights as a parent but still have the legal obligation to pay child support if and until someone else adopts the child.

  110. cblawyer
    cblawyer says:

    You are mixing up the freedom to choose our acts with the freedom to choose the consequences of our acts. You can choose to have sex for example, but whether you use birth control or not you can't choose the consequence of getting pregnant. Our laws used to give a consequence for choosing sex outside of marriage – you could be prosecuted. Then they gave a consequence for getting an abortion – you could choose to get one, but you would be prosecuted. To legalize abortion was to say "we will relieve you of the consequences of your choice" – not "we respect your right to choose." Whether an act is legal or not, you always have the choice. Otherwise, what would the point of law be? Regardless of the law, there ARE negative consequences to all of these things, but to legalize them makes people think that those things won't be harmful to them – not just to unborn children, but harm to the women too.

    To say that we are "not a righteous republic" makes no sense because by definition a republic reflects the values of the people IN the republic. "Righteous" or "wicked" or "in between" – the laws are determined by the cultural majority. Even the Constitution can be amended if we as a society decided to place greater value on unborn children. My own values are reflected in my word choice – to say child rather than fetus, which dehumanizes the subject matter.

    Perhaps you don't know that in the scripture you quote, Christ tells the woman to "go and sin no more," NOT "you can keep living your life in this way because it's your choice."

  112. Defamate
    Defamate says:

    If you know that sex can lead to rape, and you invite the penis or strap-on in, you cannot revoke consent, because you have invited said objects inside your body.

    Makes sense.

  113. Defamate
    Defamate says:

    They took their newborn babies and left them in the woods to be eaten by wild animals.

    Yeah, because they lacked contraception and abortion. Without abortion, people turn to infanticide.

    Just let the kids live, or be strong enough to not have sex.

    Yeah, that's *always* worked. It's worked so well for celibate RCC priests, didn't it?

  114. T.K.
    T.K. says:

    And what do you do with people like the girls I was in foster care with? One was raped by her father repeatedly and got pregnant at 13, another was coerced into sex with a man in his 30's and got pregnant. One had a miscarriage the other was forced to give birth to her father's child. Over the pregnancy she tried to kill herself several times.

  115. metazip
    metazip says:

    More convoluted double speak…We are a Republic, where the rights of the individual prevails over mobocracy or a righteous republic where the state religion rules all…

  116. Daniel Grande
    Daniel Grande says:

    there are a few reasons where abortion is acceptable…rape, incest, and when the child presents a clear and present danger to the mothers health. to simply kill a life because you don't want to have a child is wrong, and is murder.
    if someone forces a woman to abort against her will it's called murder, but when a woman decides to abort it's considered a medical procedure.

  118. Bryan Beus
    Bryan Beus says:

    "Yeah, because they lacked contraception and abortion. Without abortion, people turn to infanticide."

    So, what you're saying is that unless we burn babies with acid from the inside out and then saw their heads off…then people will take their children out to the woods to be eaten by wild animals?

    I fail to see the logic in either of these scenarios.

    "Yeah, that's *always* worked. It's worked so well for celibate RCC priests, didn't it?"

    At least it gives the kids a sporting chance. Or, in the very least, at least you were the one fighting *for* them to have the right to live, even if the others around you failed.

  119. Defamate
    Defamate says:

    Once in common practice, abortion by intrauterine instillation has fallen out of favor, due to its association with serious adverse effects and its replacement by procedures which require less time and cause less physical discomfort

    As for heads being sawn off, if you are talking about partial birth abortion, that is now illegal:P

    91% of abortions are before 13 weeks
    61% before 9 weeks

    .then people will take their children out to the woods to be eaten by wild animals?

    No. But they will likely beat them to death, amongst other things. Rates of infanticide have always gone up in the absence of abortion.

    But I guess beating a child to death isn't as bad Ru-486 is it?

  120. Bryan Beus
    Bryan Beus says:

    You're still not getting it.

    When you practice abortion, *YOU* are the one *KILLING* a Human Life!

    Nothing that anyone else says or does will ever, ever justify that. Ever.

    Not your neighbor who beats their child.

    Not a priest who abuses an orphan.

    Not a parent who leaves their newborn infant in the wood.

    YOU are an INDIVIDUAL person, with free will, the ability to support and stand for something, or to use someone else's bad behavior as an excuse for killing children.

    But instead of doing your own individual part to support life wherever you find it, no matter how difficult that may seem, you are instead KILLING THAT LIFE because it's more convenient (either for yourself, or someone else).

    To paraphrase an influential political leader of the 20th century,

    'Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.'

    There are ways for making up for someone else's bad behavior, such as donating to welfare, getting involved with charities, spending time reading to children, visiting hospitals, and many, many more.

    KILLING a child is NOT one of those ways.

    Once their life is set in motion, they have a right to live it—same as you and me.

  124. Bryan Beus
    Bryan Beus says:

    I've elaborated enough.

    Here's a repetition of what I've said before.

    'Once a human life is set in motion, s/he has a right to live it—same as you and me.'

    Think about it.

  126. Keith Jenkins Jr.
    Keith Jenkins Jr. says:

    Rando, If a "clump of cells is what a fetus is, let me get a "clump of cells" off my arm and put it into a uterus and watch a baby grow…oh its not the same thing?…weird I guess that particular "clump of cells" is something more than just cells and is in fact a living organism…=>human

  128. Meik Einsam
    Meik Einsam says:

    The most aggravating aspect of this argument is that it's so obviously just jumping through a false loophole to be absolved of responsibility. It is blatant denial. A fetus is obviously a future person. What, in all likelihood, does a fetus become? A person. What does a grasshopper pupa become? A grasshopper. Is it not a grasshopper merely because it hasn't reached that stage in its growth yet? Is anyone really going to deny the grasshopperhood of a pupa conceived by grasshoppers? Then how are we sanctioned to deny the humanity of a fetus birthed by people? You're only trying to let yourself off the hook on a technicality. Well, I'm sorry, but you're not going anywhere, buddy. You created a potential person. You know full well what it is, what it will in all probability eventually become. Killing it just in the nick of time absolves you of nothing. Now, you're just implicated in another crime: obfuscating the truth.
    Why is it so hard to just take responsibility, instead of thinking up elaborate pseudo-scientific excuses to behave like a callow teenager?

  129. Meik Einsam
    Meik Einsam says:

    This too: the ol' "Have you seen a fetus?? It doesn't even look like a human! Therefore, it must not be!". Huh… Which logical fallacy would that sort of thinking fall under? Soooo, if it doesn't appear to be human, it must not be. Homo sapiens with extreme deformities must not be people either, let's get rid of them.
    Don't even get me started on "the freedom for women to control their own bodies". Their bodies make other bodies. How 'bout they exercise some control over their own bodies by not getting preggo in the first place, if they don't intend on raising the child? How 'bout exercising some discretion? I am not counting cases of rape. That's a different matter, so don't even try to refute me on that point. I am talking point blank mutual consent.
    And I'm not picking on you personally, just any illogical, hypocritical pro-lifers. But man. When you start to condescend, implying only lunatic Catholics would dare ever challenge something so patently apparent… You just sound like another type of fundamentalist bigot altogether.

  130. Meik Einsam
    Meik Einsam says:

    Exactly!!! What incenses me so much about "pro-choice" is that, if you pay attention to its ducks & weaves in reasoning, you can trace it's logical conclusion to euthanasia. Population control. No, the vast majority of pro-lifers will never bother to trudge that far towards that end. But it's really the same principle.

  132. Donald Dodson III
    Donald Dodson III says:

    Rape is sex without consent, there for no consent was ever given. Sex is a part of reproduction, so consent to sex is consent to reproduction. Since Rape is done without consent, because it is not rape with consent, your comment has no point.

  133. The Denver Diamond
    The Denver Diamond says:

    I have always thought that men have the same right to chose to not be fathers as the women do. However once the man HAS consented to being a father and the child has been born and has lived in the fathers care that the father will have to pay child support. You cant just wait until the kid is 2 years old and then go "F this i dont want to be a father, i changed my mind." and then walk away with out paying child support. Same goes for women.

    Women cant force father hood on the man any more than men can force mother hood on the woman.

  134. The Denver Diamond
    The Denver Diamond says:

    Some one invades my body with out my consent i will use lethal force. I consider it self defense not murder. No one, not a child, not an adult, ESPECIALLY not something incapable of cognitive thought has more right to use my body than i do. It is MY body only i decide by who and how and when that body will be used for anything.

    Women are people not incubators, unless they chose to be incubators.

  136. The Denver Diamond
    The Denver Diamond says:

    That is because Arizona is screwed up that way. My dad still had to pay child support to my mother for me even though i was living with him. Arizona (i dont know about now but back then) favors women even if they are highly abusive drug addict strippers living with a felon.

  138. Recondaddy
    Recondaddy says:

    Insanely ridiculous argument. First of all, to compare your child to an "invader" who is there to willfully do you harm is so absurd that it barely deserves rebuttal. The selfishness and mental gymnastics required to hold such a view is beyond comprehension.

    The growing child is not an invader that infiltrated your body from the outside. It is a human being, sharing your DNA, that is growing from within your body. In that sense, it can neither be compared to a parasite, as your ilk frequently attempts to do.

    Secondly, you are ignoring your responsibility in placing the so-called invader, there. To make your invader analogy more accurate, even if you could compare the growing child to an outside entity, you would have to have some responsibility in placing this entity in your personal space, and when you grow tired of her company, decide to kill her.

    Imagine you find a homeless person on the street, knock her unconscious, and drag her into your house, far out into the country. When she awakes, she finds herself in your warm house with lots of good food and fresh running water.

    Suddenly, you regret the actions you took to place her in your house, and you demand that she leave. Knowing that leaving your house in the dead of winter, miles from the nearest house would mean certain death, she refuses to leave.

    Since your actions placed her in your house, you have no moral justification for killing her and kicking her body out into the snow.

    Even still, this analogy falls short, since the homeless person's natural environment is not your home — it's not where they are SUPPOSED to be. As for the child you're intent on killing, there's no other place that she's naturally supposed to be. Your actions placed her there, exactly where she's supposed to be, and you have no moral right to kill her in order to get her out of "your house."

  139. Recondaddy
    Recondaddy says:

    Then why not kill the ones who are already living in such circumstances? After all, if death is preferable to a challenging childhood, why force these children to continue living?

  140. Defamate
    Defamate says:

    That is what happens, in the developing world. Children of people living in extreme poverty are either killed, sold into prostitution, or put out on the streets to fend for themselves.

  141. Recondaddy
    Recondaddy says:

    You keep using that word (doublespeak). I don't think it means what you think it means.

    The problem with your argument is that it ignores the right of the unborn child.

    Sure, I have individual rights, but my individual rights stop at the violation of another individual's rights. My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.

    You said: "A woman is the sole judge whether or not to have an abortion. That is her God given right to freely choose, right or wrong as she will ultimately have to answer for her choice, not you, not me, just her. Who among us is so pure as to take away her free will to choose?"

    So, by that jacked up logic, if a woman wishes to regularly extinguish lit cigarettes on her toddler's forehead, that's her choice and should be between her and God?

  142. Recondaddy
    Recondaddy says:

    Do you have some statistics on this rampant killing of children in extreme poverty, or are you simply being hyperbolic in order to elicit an emotional response?

    Even if it were true that a statistically significant number of impoverished children are being killed in the United States, please explain how the occurrence of one moral evil justifies another.

    Are you seriously suggesting having them killed, now, in order to prevent the mere possibility of them being killed, later?

  143. Defamate
    Defamate says:

    Infanticide and child abandonment have always been methods of population and birth control. Throughout most of human history in fact.

    In the Muslim world, and many parts of Africa, children, predominantly young girls, are sold into marriage or sexual slavery because families can't support 12 kids on less than 1$ a day.

    Even in Europe, in van Gogh's time, women often sold their daughters into prostitution if they could not afford to feed them. With the rise of the welfare state, this way of dealing with excess/unwanted children is no long necessary, but in the developing world, where there is no back up plan, people do what they gotta do to deal with mouths that they cannot feed.

    http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm

    http://www.unicef.org/emerg/files/women_insecure_world.pdf

    http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/12/world/cambodia-child-sex-trade/

    http://www.childrenofbahia.com/childpoverty.htm

    ———–

    I have profiled mainly girls, but, boys are also sold into slavery. Mostly though, it's girls, because girls are considered worthless because they get pregnant and cost a family more money. Boys can at least provide. This is why female infanticide is also very common.

    Bunch of articles here, on the relationship between poverty and infanticide:

    https://www.google.ca/search?q=infanticide+and+povery&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=X7_mUoSzG9LyoASP8IEY#q=infanticide+and+poverty&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&safe=off&spell=1

  146. Banana
    Banana says:

    The problem with that argument is merely the type of cells in question, as well as the hormonal and chemical reactions that prompt their growth. The cells on and in your arm, for the most part, are dedicated 'arm' cells, and moreover are dedicated to a certain job on or in your arm. In the womb, the cells are, for the most part, not yet dedicated, have no will or desire, and are, for all intents and purposes, "A clump of cells." Even if you took those Stem cells and put them in a container of liquid, even with all the required nutrients, they would not grow to become a child. It requires the mother's hormones and various chemical reactions to grow, and while this can be simulated, it is difficult.

    The point I am trying to make is that the difference you're trying to show isn't the difference between a living, growing thing and your arm cells, the difference you're showing is a very basic difference between types of cells.

    Now, since I just can't resist stirring up trouble, my opinion. I agree with Rando, to a point, that the cells in the mother's body are not yet a human during early development. However, when the nervous system begins to form, I believe that they become human, however much or little they may look human at the time. From the moment the brain is functional, it stops being a clump of cells and becomes a living thing with potential.

  147. Defamate
    Defamate says:

    I was simply answering your original question:

    ""Then why not kill the ones who are already living in such circumstances?""

    By explaining that what you describe happens *in the real world*.

  148. Keith Jenkins Jr.
    Keith Jenkins Jr. says:

    I am a biomedical engineering student and have had to take many courses in science relating to cells, stem cells etc. I do understand the difference in cells. I am using it metaphorically not realistically. We both know a fetus needs the mother to grow. What I am trying to point out is, "are the cells alive?"…"yes"…"do the cells each have their own unique DNA?"…"Yes"…"Are the cells Human cells?"…"Yes"…ok then If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck…its a duck.

  150. RandomGuest
    RandomGuest says:

    Concerning child support, it will always be women having the upper hand. If she wants to parent the child, but he doesn't, – he still has to pay. If he wants to parent but she doesn't, she can move away, claim she doesn't know who the father is and give the child up for adoption. From what I have read, states like Utah don't ask too many questions regarding paternity and the time frame to revoke an adoption is very small. Remember, adoption is great!

    Another inconsistency (which shows just how stupid the whole system is): if one partner doesn't want to parent but the other does, – bad luck, no. 1, have fun paying for your unwanted child for the next two decades. If, on the other hand, your significant other agrees that parenting is not what he/she wants (that was close!), the baby is given up for adoption and both of you are free from any obligation concerning the child.

    Because of these inconsistencies, child support should be paid for by society and not by an unwilling parent as I have explained in an earlier post (http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/01/child-support.html#comment-1212946976)

  152. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    Great…then I guess you support the Texas law and others that prohibit abortion after 20 weeks when the latest science shows that the unborn child can actually experience pain….and if your stats are correct, it wouldn't be a huge imposition on abortions. Good to see you are willing to compromise….

  153. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    Of course, the problem is that the cost to the REST of society goes up. Child support enforcement was increased because our society has devalued marriage to the point that many men were fathering children left and right with no intention of every providing for them. Aggressive child support laws prevent this type of behavior from becoming one more unlimited burden on the rest of the taxpayers. So…the real question is why a woman is not responsible for her "choice" to have sex and fulfill the responsibility she has to the unique human being that she helped create.

  155. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    Let's change it to a newborn….the newborn can't survive on its own…Also, the harm to the mother in carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption is a much lower level of harm than being killed is for the unborn child – which, of course, goes back to the argument or proportionality in deciding who deserves the greater protection from the state….

  156. frankbellamy
    frankbellamy says:

    Ret35sgm, do you view the property taxes that adults who are not parents pay, which are used to support public schools, as representing some kind of failure on the part of parents to provide for the education of their children? Or do you recognize that one of the obligations of all citizens of a society, whether they be parents or not, is to provide the material resources necessary for the upbringing of children?

  158. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    True…and the woman has the right to use some form or birth control or refuse sex if he doesn't use a condom…once again, both roles in the sex are equivalent…

  159. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    Once the child is born….unless the laws change dramatically, the father has financial obligation for at least 18 years and in some cases another 4 if the child goes to college. Now, I have no problem with that – but I was point out that those are consequences that can be just as great….and he has no say (as this article points out) under most current laws….

  160. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    There is no cut off period in federal law. While the partial birth abortion METHOD of abortion was outlawed, federal law merely PERMITS restrictions in the third trimester at the state level. Some states still allow abortions up to the moment before natural delivery. A woman could technically have an abortion while in natural labor…..Here's a thought, how about when modern scientific and medical research shows that the unborn child is able to feel pain and has brain function well enough developed to comprehend pain? While it is not yet completely conclusive, there is some good evidence this might be at 20 weeks which is why many states are picking that point to regulate. And since it is not 100%, I would mention that it might be good to err on the side of the being that would be feeling the pain. The funny thing is that we have more protection in place for doing something that causes pain to your pet than that unborn child.

  161. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    Exactly…and when they choose to have sex without using effective birth control, they are choosing to become potential incubators….just as men who have similar sex are choosing to become potential financial support for 18+ years.

  162. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    I'm sure you are right…just as any mysterious death of a newborn is looked at. But police would need evidence for probable cause before they could pursue it…just like any other potential crime.

  163. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    The example he cited of running red lights is because your "right" to drive through those lights infringes on the right to "life" of others who are endangered by your flagrant disregard of safety laws. That is where this really intersects with the abortion debate…With abortion, the child should (morally) have rights as well despite our current situation where there are no legal rights. Now, we need to balance the rights. A woman (in a normal pregnancy) would be forced to endure some body changes which generally can be overcome within a few months after the birth (and she doesn't have to keep the child, she can put it up for adoption) whereas the child would suffer the loss of an entire life….So which rights are violated to a greater degree? When abortion is allowed or when it is prohibited?

  166. Richard G
    Richard G says:

    Its true. Then I show them this: http://iwastesomuchtime.com/on/?i=85865 because as we can see, there is still a lot of room for us on this good earth, and God, or the progress of mankind if you prefer, is giving us new technology to give more food and water to more people than ever before in the history of the world. We're fine. There is no need to use population control, human kind adapts and thrives when we work together instead of killing of tens of millions of our own children.

  167. metazip
    metazip says:

    And just who are you to strip anyone's right to freely choose what to do with their own body? Are you the Flying Pig I so fondly speak of? Think not! Stay out of people's personal lives and their personal choices. None of your concern.

  168. Recondaddy
    Recondaddy says:

    It's becoming really tiresome having to make offer such an elementary counterpoint to such a juvenile argument, but for some reason, the simple logic escapes your side.

    No pro-lifer is telling any woman what she can or can't do with HER OWN BODY. For all I care, a woman can tattoo it, pierce it, fill it full of drugs, or offer it to strange men at truck stops. However, when what she does with her body violates the rights of another human being, that's where her rights end.

    I notice that you completely dodged my response to you, in favor of this ridiculously tired argument.

    As for staying out of other people's business, I'll quit telling women to stop murdering their unborn children if you'll stop telling knuckle-draggers to quit beating their wives. How about that, chief?

  170. TregLoyden
    TregLoyden says:

    I would like to add something to this line of argument of being for "taking responsibility for your actions" principle and "to protect human individual rights to Life/liberty/property" principle. Both these principles and one more, the Non-aggression/Self Defense principles are all very libertarian. Libertarians apply those principles everywhere they look and to any ethical/political question. Yet as a group, they are split on this issue, with Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano being Pro-life and the LP/Reason Mag/Cato being Pro-Choice. I think we should point these 3 principles to them, and ask them humbly, "is not Pro-Life position consistent with your principles?" At the very least, we should be able to move the Pro-Choice libertarians over by asking them how is Pro-Life not consistent with libertarian principles. Perhaps they will find that in cases of rape and incest, they find for abortion, but that is a lot better than being 100% pro-choice.

  172. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    What I wrote was: "The fetus is not a fully formed human…" and thus not a person. I came here to make a point that fetuses aren't included under human rights. That's it. I can't handle all the comments I've received. Sorry.

  173. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    I have not created a potential person, yet. But if I ever do impregnate my girlfriend we're sure to abort it, because for us it doesn't have any rights or privileges (and our local legislation is firm on that). At the end of the day we have to choose whether to have a child or not. And since we're not ready to become parents, that's that. You may now potentially cringe over how I just potentially killed a potential person.

  174. alli3
    alli3 says:

    I understand the logic, but one must also remember that women don't always make the abortion decision alone. In fact they are often times encouraged by their partner to get an abortion. Therefor abortion isn't only pro-choice for women's rights but also for men's. Men and women alike want to keep abortion legal for their own reasons whether right or wrong. Anyhow I think we need to remember who is most likely the victim in such situations.

  176. metazip
    metazip says:

    The only rights being violated are the woman's, Period! That's the only argument here and your kind's incessant
    righteous desire to tell others what they can or cannot do based on your feeble concept that you represent God.

    Funny how even the Puritans left persecution when they came to America and then turned around and took up the
    same practice themselves. You call yourself a Libertarian, but a bible thumping nanny would be a better description. Try a Progressive like Obama, Hillary, Bloomberg, Christie and others. Your kind’s “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude is very old and constantly rejected.

  178. Ann
    Ann says:

    I'm sorry you can't handle the valid arguments against your loathesome way of thinking. You probably shouldn't even be having sex if you can't handle an opposing argument. That sounds like a child's mentality.

  179. Recondaddy
    Recondaddy says:

    Hey brainchild. Once again, you dodge the arguments and go on another irrelevant tirade.

    There is actually a creature known as a pro-life atheist, so I hate to shock you in the comfort of your little fiction, but pigeon-holing pro-lifers as a bunch of religious fanatics who are trying to shove God down everybody's throats won't get you off the hook for defending your weak-ass position.

    I've given you several opportunities to actually say something intelligent (or even answer my arguments). Instead, you've stamped your feet and thrown a tantrum.

    You bore me. Go be stupid somewhere else.

  181. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    Yes, I'll inform my girlfriend that I can't have sex with her because I got tired of arguing against a barrage of ideologically mismatched comments about something I'm utterly disinterested in. Sure thing.

  183. Recondaddy
    Recondaddy says:

    Yep, and when you grow up you'll stop advocating for ripping unborn children from their mother's wombs, limb-from-limb, just to appease your own selfishness.

    I won't hold my breath.

  184. Meghan
    Meghan says:

    The simplest way to deal with this, since there is never going to be a unanimous vote, would be to leave it legal. That way this who are against abortion don't have to have one and those who aren't against aborting can if they so choose to do so. This would be the same logic I use towards gay marriage in the USA, if you are against gay marriage don't marry anyone of the same sex! If you are against abortion then don't have one! Thank you.

  185. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    I agree with a social compact that involves all of us supporting…but I don't believe that means that society should have to supplement even further (food stamps, welfare) by allowing the parent to abandon their own responsibilities. There is a difference.

  186. frankbellamy
    frankbellamy says:

    Lets not get into welfare, cause that's a whole nother debate. But you do see the problem in your argument now, right? You are assuming that a person who has sex (whatever their sex) takes on the obligations of being a parent, and that if they don't fulfill those obligations then they are imposing a burden on the rest of society, and you are angry about that burden. But to use that anger as a basis for the premise that a person who has sex takes on the obligations of being a parent is circular. Your anger is dependent on the very conclusion you are trying to argue to. I don't grant the premise to begin with, I don't think that a person takes on the obligations of parenthood by having sex, so I don't see anything unfair about society having material burdens associated with raising kids who don't have real parents.

    The point of this post was to point out the inconsistency in inegalitarianism of pro-choicers who see a man as taking on the responsibilities of parenthood by having sex but not a woman. We have both avoided that flaw, you by seeing both as taking on such responsibilities, me by seeing neither as. We have both taken internally consistent positions, even if our positions are in direct conflict.

  187. Meik Einsam
    Meik Einsam says:

    Now you're just being purposely antagonistic. Like, "I can kill babies, nyah nyah nyah nyah poo pooooo!". How did your heart get so HARRRD, man? Reminds me of the attitude people had over the Roman coliseum games; death as an inconsequential sport, for entertainment.
    What's really sad to me is, I could ask to you, "But what if your parents had copped the same cavalier attitude about your life?", and I bet you would even flinch. You'd just respond, "So? I wouldn't exist to know what I was being denied.". As though you really don't value the anomaly of your existence at all. That's DEPRESSING.

  188. Rhonda Lowenstein
    Rhonda Lowenstein says:

    And yet that isn't how you portray it unless that hypocrisy is "brought to your attention" so to speak. If pro lifers were consistent, they would advocate for children outside the womb also, but that isn't done. There is plenty of inconsistency to go around.

  189. Rhonda Lowenstein
    Rhonda Lowenstein says:

    Men have the option of giving up their parental rights just like women do. The problem is that men can walk away before the child is born also. If the anti choice crowd had their way, women would be forced to give birth and wouldn't be able to walk away from anything. I fail to see how defending dead beat dads makes your case. Pro lifers defend dead beat dads the same way they defend rapists. You people can't have it both ways. When women are slut shamed and harassed by the anti choice moment and rapists and dead beats are coddled, you pretty much get what you get.

  190. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    Nope, I just differentiate between babies and fetuses in their early development. I also don't think that human life is something overly precious and good for its own sake as if it would be superb if we would populate the planet until it's unsustainable. I believe in making making living good for those who live, instead of going forth and multiplying ceaselessly and without a second thought to whether it's feasible or beneficial for the people doing the multiplying. I'd say I'm pro-life more generally than just pro-human-life in particular and more inclined towards quality instead of quantity. I agree with my girlfriend in that it's kind of banal to concern so much about hindering abortion when even those humans already living aren't all happy, secure and cared for, not to mention the multitude of animals we "farm" and make life a torture for.

  192. Bryan Beus
    Bryan Beus says:

    "No good" whatsoever?

    Surely there are a few good things you can think of that might come out of it.

    I challenge you to think up some (and you can challenge me about something else in return, if you like).

  193. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    I never said your position wasn't consistent….I was merely answering your question regarding my thoughts on paying taxes for schools and explaining how I see a legitimate difference between aiding parents (in an effort which also creates educated workers who will eventually be paying taxes when I am drawing Social Security since all the money I put in is already paying benefits for those retired now). In a sense, it is an investment. I agree your position vis-à-vis this article is the mirror image of mine and therefore consistent. I would note that your position does impose the noted burden on the rest of society…that's all.

  195. Burt
    Burt says:

    Abortion makes me mad. I have to remember to love all people even if they do things that hurt others. We all hurt and we all have been hurt. Dead beat dads and mothers who don't want their children. We need forgiveness. Thankfully, God is willing. Jesus forgives but many are not willing to accept his forgiveness because they cannot recognize what they do is wrong. If you think about, it forgiveness makes no sense if God were to not exist because there would be no such thing as right and wrong. Since God does exist the only hope anyone has is through His forgiveness. A message of love and forgiveness. Let us stop hurting each other.

  196. dwmitch
    dwmitch says:

    You're thinking zygote, maybe embryo at the latest. Once it reaches the fetal stage everything is in place.

    A being has to be fully formed in order to be considered human? Where does that leave those born with a missing limb? Or infants? You didn't come out of the womb with a fully formed skull so were you not a person?

    The human brain isn't considered fully developed until around the age of 25. Does that mean we can perform a retroactive abortion on a 24 year old?

    And what do past stances have to do with now? In the US before the civil war it was legal to own black people as property. In Russia during the Soviet Union era you could be imprisoned just for being critical of the government. The meso-Americans conducted human sacrifices. Should those things be considered right this year because they were considered right in their respective eras?

  197. watM
    watM says:

    I still don't get how you think the article is defending dead beat dads. The article says more than once that child support laws are good and should be enforced. How is that defending dead beat dads?

  199. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    In regards to the taxpayer argument, this argument doesn't really work to justify forcing males to pay child support while abortion remains legal. Why? Because a similar rationale can be used to justify things such as forced abortions, forced sterilizations, infanticide, Chinese-style one-child/two-child policies, et cetera.

  200. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    I want to point out that your position on the abortion issue is a pro-choice position which I strongly respect. In addition, I want to thank you for your civility here.

  201. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    In regards to your last paragraph, what if the woman doesn't tell the man about the pregnancy until after 20 weeks gestation?

    This is why while abortion is legal, I support giving males a child support opt-out via legal contract before they have sex with females. At least that way the male's interests in regards to this will be protected regardless of whether or not the female notifies the male about her pregnancy (if she actually gets pregnant) later on. I can elaborate on this later if necessary.

  202. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Yes, giving males an opt-out from child support could cause more females to abort. However, that is simply the results/consequences of pro-choice arguments being extended to their logical conclusions.

  203. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "who's going to get riled up to defend a man's right to choose (to renounce fatherhood)?"

    I will while abortion remains legal (though I support a more limited child support opt-out for males while abortion remains legal using a different rationale/argument for my position).

  204. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "but I think the average pro-choicer and certainly the average American would find the idea of letting men out of child support abhorrent."

    Maybe right now, but not necessarily after they have solidly examined all of the arguments in this debate.

  205. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "just as a woman has the right to legally abandon her child in many states as long as the child is a few days old and is left at a hospital, firehouse or police station."

    Yep, while abortion is legal, females even have the option (or luxury, if you will) of giving birth and then completely leaving the burden of raising these children on the taxpayers. Honestly, in regards to safe-haven laws, I am tempted to say that all of these children should have a DNA registry for them so that their fathers can pick them up if necessary–otherwise, in practice, a female can simply give up her child without the consent and/or knowledge of the father of this child (without this father being able to get this child back–after all, without a DNA registry, how exactly is he going to find his child even if he knows that the woman anonymously gave this child up using save-haven laws?

    I agree with your point in regards to giving males some sort of a child support opt-out.

  207. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    "Men have the option of giving up their parental rights just like women do."

    Even if they do this, I don't think that they can give up all of their parental responsibilities without the consent of the women.

    "The problem is that men can walk away before the child is born also."

    Right now? If a man tries to do this, can't the woman simply currently track him down and force him to pay child support?

  208. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Well, technically speaking, a woman can get raped and get pregnant as a result without being able to sufficiently prove this rape afterwards. Of course, I suppose that the same can also be true for males (when males are the ones who are victims of rape).

  210. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Condoms aren't 100% effective/efficient, and a female can force a male to wear a condom and/or refuse to have sex with this male if this male doesn't wear a condom.

    Please don't try completely blaming this on the male when the female is equally responsible for the resulting pregnancy and when the female is completely responsible for the decision whether or not to give birth afterwards.

  212. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    By that logic, how about we give a full/complete child support opt-out to males who want one? Males who want to pay child support would still be able to do so.

    Likewise, how about we legalize elective late-term abortions and/or infanticide for people who want one? Don't like elective late-term abortions and/or infanticide? Then don't get one/don't do it.

  215. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    In regards to your point here, we don't choose the gender/sex of our birth. However, we can get a sex change later on, and hopefully future technology in regards to this will be (much) better than current technology.

  217. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    In regards to this, I think that this is a great post/article. Amazing job! That said, *if* I was politically pro-choice, then I would certainly not use the "consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy argument" to justify legal abortion. Rather, I might very well try arguing that abortion is morally justifiable because prenatal human beings are not/shouldn't be considered to be persons/worthy of having (any legal) rights. Of course, this position here would still justify giving males a full/complete child support opt-out in at least some cases of legally consensual sex, but not in all such cases. I can elaborate on this later if necessary.

    Also, I want to point out that I don't think that this post mentions the fact that in practice, females can probably unilaterally give their children away via safe-haven laws and make the taxpayers pay all of the costs for/of these children. Even if the fathers of these children want to raise these children themselves, they might not even know about the existence/birth of these children (or about the previous pregnancies). Also, even if they know that these children exist, I don't see how they would be able to get these children back considering that the safe-haven process is anonymous and considering that, AFAIK, there might be hundreds or thousands of children just in the safe-haven locations nearby.

  218. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    Wow. You are just a master of logical fallacies. Abortion laws are usually discussed in terms of trimesters. It seems common sense that one cannot abort a 24-year old. I pointed out past stances exactly because the category of person has such a variety of interpretations. My aim was to demonstrate what jurisprudence already knows – a human being (in the fetal stage) is not the same thing as a human person. The fetus does not have its own independent (social) life because it is not separable from the mother's womb (it is not already by its mere existence a part of our society and an unprotected member of it, as one reply claimed). Then a bunch of replies argued that since the fetus has a different DNA, it's "scientifically" separate. By the same token we could claim rights for tumors, can't we? The crux of the matter is that the fetus can't have rights because it's not in any sense equal to it's parents, for example. You can't force the woman to have birth only because the fetus' has unique human DNA. I really wish I hadn't even made my first comment. Now I'm in the uncomfortable position of arguing for pro-choice on the other side of the globe. My country in OK with abortion and I think it may have a little something to do with the fact that Estonia is one of the most transparent and atheist countries in the world.

  219. Ludo
    Ludo says:

    I'd like to ask a question, particularly to the author of this article: If, in a given situation, it was clear beyond any doubt that a woman carrying a pregnancy to full term would result in terrible suffering for both mother and baby, whereas early termination of the pregnancy, would cause only minor suffering, would you still maintain that abortion was not acceptable in this case?

  221. LevelUpPlease
    LevelUpPlease says:

    >>I am tempted to say that all of these children should have a DNA registry for them so that their fathers can pick them up if necessary–otherwise, in practice, a female can simply give up her child without the consent and/or knowledge of the father of this child (without this father being able to get this child back–after all, without a DNA registry, how exactly is he going to find his child even if he knows that the woman anonymously gave this child up using save-haven laws?<<<

    Totally agree. I was torn about safe haven laws when they came out for this very reason.

  222. guest
    guest says:

    The responsibilities of the father are based entirely on the rights of the child. Those begin at birth.However,
    prior to birth, the rights of a mother and child can be in conflict. A
    mother has a right to her body, as she always does. A fetal right to
    life does not override her right to her body, just as someone's right to
    life would not allow them to take another person's kidneys without that
    person's permission. One person's right to life never infringes upon
    another person's right to their body. However, it can infringe upon
    another person's right to their money. This is perfectly consistent with U.S. law and applies regardless of if you consider a pregnancy a child or a fetus.

  224. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    I will grant you that happens on occasion…but do you really believe that the number of abortions in this country each year are all explained by the small number of women who either can't use birth control or whose birth control fails? I don't think the failure rate is that high. The truth is that many women are using abortion as a primary means of birth control.

  225. The Denver Diamond
    The Denver Diamond says:

    Stupidest analogy of all time. No it is more like if that homeless person decides to nap in your truck and you go home and find them in your garage. I do not give the mans sperm right to fertilize my eggs and if they do they will be removed promptly.

  226. The Denver Diamond
    The Denver Diamond says:

    Does it have to be explained that way? Any how I would say that it is non of my business if they are using birthcontrol or what not. I am not their doctor.

  229. Recondaddy
    Recondaddy says:

    "Stupidest analogy of all time…"

    No. I think comparing your unborn child to an external invader wins that race, by a mile. Though, your "correction" to my analogy was pretty dumb, as well. If a homeless person breaks into your garage and falls asleep in your truck, it is most likely that you had ZERO part in their being there. Not so with an unborn child. Your decision to have sex with a fertile man is your implicit consent.

    "I do not give the man's sperm right to fertilize my eggs and if they do they will be removed promptly."

    Almost too stupid to be addressed. You might as well say, "I don't give chocolate the right to make me fat."

    You're no better than the insane mother who kills her children because she "does not give them the right to rake on her nerves, and if they do, she will promptly drown them in the bathtub."

    Or, how about the one who says, "I do not give my children to right to interfere in my love life, and if they do, I will strap them into their car seats and drive them into a lake"?

    You're no different than they are. We call them psychotic, but you get the kinder moniker of pro-choice.

    Lucky you.

  232. Beth
    Beth says:

    I got pregnant when I was 18. I was terrified. I had just moved across the country with my boyfriend who was addicted to meth and an alcoholic. He was in no way ready to be a father and I was even less ready to be a mom. I sat in my room for hours crying after I took the pregnancy test. I didn't know what I was going to do. I always considered myself pro – life but my beliefs had never been put to the test until I saw that little + sign. I contemplated all my options for hours and hours. Should I keep this baby? Do I give it up? Why did this happen to me? How could I have been so stupid? I cried into my pillow for hours wishing it all to be a bad dream. I wanted it to all go away. I didn't want a baby. I didn't want to go through nine awful months of pregnancy and I sure as hell didn't want to go through labor. Just one week after I found out about my unwanted pregnancy, I started bleeding. When I saw the blood, I panicked. What was happening? Was I losing my little baby? I went to the emergency room right away and of course waited for hours to hear any results. They took me back to get my first ultrasound. I was only six weeks along so I didn't expect to see much and to be honest, I didn't. It was this tiny ball that really didn't have a shape to it. But then the technician pointed out my little baby's heartbeat. It was just a tiny flicker but it was fast and when I saw it, I burst into tears. It wasn't just a ball of cells that the pro – choice people make you think. It was a tiny person. A real little life growing inside me. From that point on, I never thought about getting rid of the pregnancy again. I gave birth to my beautiful son on October 7th and he has been the biggest gift I've ever received. I couldn't imagine not having him in my life. I hope this changes even 1 person's mind about abortion because it is murder. I was only 6 weeks along when I saw my son's heartbeat and most women don't even know they're pregnant at that point. That's all I've got 🙂

  233. LevelUpPlease
    LevelUpPlease says:

    An extreme or extremist view one that is far outside the normal limits. For the PL side, an extremist view would be disagreeing with abortion in *all* cases. For the PC side, an extremist view would be wanting NO regulations on elective abortion. Most people, PL and PC, fall somewhere in the middle of those two outer limits.

  234. ret35sgm
    ret35sgm says:

    I would hope you are right about people not taking it lightly. However, it still isn't taken seriously enough. Again, when we start using terms like parasite and body invader to describe an unborn child, we are clearly ignoring the other individual in this equation (other than the mother and father). I know all the concerns you mentioned are important, too. You are right about the emotional trauma and expense…I would add that due to light regulation because of the political nature, it is also riskier than other medical procedures – only after Gosnell are states beginning to take a close look at standards. I agree all that should factor but I am appalled that we are using language to denigrate the value of the unborn child to ensure states can't use a state interest in protecting the child's interest to at least put reasonable limits on the procedure.

  235. Defamate
    Defamate says:

    Cardiac cells can beat in a petri dish.

    Abortion is murder eh? If you *had* made the decision to abort, do you think that you should have been charged with 1st degree murder, had abortion been illegal?

    Just curious.

    And grats on your lovely son!!!

  236. mamaofdaba
    mamaofdaba says:

    …another reason to love God…He simply loves us…clumps of cells…beautiful 20 yr olds…old feeble weak 90 yr olds…. funny thing about some of these comments…they are only on here because someone cared enough to save their sweet little clumps of cells when first conceived…. Peace be with you…. May all our babies be conceived in love… may all those who do not PLAN their babies be struck with hearts filled with love when they meet their little unplanned darlings….God Bless this sweet little world He Created!!! 🙂

  237. Beth
    Beth says:

    Absolutely. The heartbeat was present in my ultrasound so therefore, life was present. Taking someone's life is murder and so killing my son should be considered illegal.

  239. h4x354x0r
    h4x354x0r says:

    What laws dictate that the man is held to *any* responsibility, whatsoever, *before* the baby is actually born?

    No, the baby has to be born first, before the father is held liable for anything. What were you saying about fairness and equivalence again?

    The line of viability is very real, and nobody (but the parents) can claim any practical interest in non-viable babies, whatsoever. Human conceptions have about a 70% natural failure rate. It's just plain stupid to put that on any kind of pedestal.

  240. The Denver Diamond
    The Denver Diamond says:

    I did not read this whole comment because my skin shuddered with revulsion at the idea of it being my unborn child I would rather hang my pregnant self killing me and that invader rather than carry to term. I would rather fall down a flight of stares, permanently disfigure myself with a knife than carry an unwanted child.

  244. Coyote
    Coyote says:

    Fair enough. Your definition of "extreme" here is valid.

    My main concern here was the perceived negative connotation of the word "extreme"–many people assume that something "extreme" is always bad, wrong, and/or atrocious, which would not necessarily be the case based upon your definition of the word "extreme".

  245. Beth
    Beth says:

    Should my life be more important than my child's? And at what point does my son become a person in your opinion? Is it when he was conceived? Was it at the point he could survive outside the womb? Was it at my due date? Or after I gave birth to him? Or could you go as far as saying that it isn't until he is able to express his opinions? When does life begin to someone who is pro – choice? Aren't we crossing a really dangerous line when we as humans try to decide when a life is important enough to save?

  248. Defamate
    Defamate says:

    Life in prison or the death penalty for killing a mindless body that may or may not have ever become a baby. I really wonder if you would change your mind about that if faced with a noose.

  249. Beth
    Beth says:

    May or may not have become a baby? What are you smoking? When a woman conceived, the product is a living, breathing baby in just 9 sorry months. You don't see them as human because people like you insist on killing them before they even have a chance to live. A life for a life. If our society lived that way maybe there wouldn't be so much hurt in this world.

  254. Gary Harper
    Gary Harper says:

    I am neither pro life nor pro choice. I am pro responsibility. Do not try to con me that no one on this planet does not know that sex leads to pregnancy. That is such crap, even those saying it know that they are lying.
    The problem is that people do not take responsibility for their own actions. They go and abort so that they can shirk this responsibility,
    and then can go out and have a little bit of fun again. Any person who will kill their own flesh and blood simply is not to be trusted. They will fuck anyone.
    I am talking about both men and women. The men need to step up to the plate and be a dad. Anyone can father a child. Sperm donors do it all the time. And it does not make you a man. Being a dad is makes you a man. The sperm donor is simply forgotten, as he should be. And good riddance. Nothing there that causes any forward movement in the lot of men. If you are not a dad, then you are not a father. You are dead to your child, your society, and to your God. You are a nothing in the eyes of all. So, how does that make you a man?
    If I was an employer, and I found out that I had a deadbeat dad or a girl who had an abortion without any regrets afterwards working for me, I would find a way to get rid of them, just to protect my bottom line. They simply cannot be trusted. They kill their own family. I would not want them around, and it should be easy enough to find a reason to fire them, as their selfishness will manifest in other ways, such as screwing off, and being disruptive on the job.
    The core of the abortion debate is myopic selfishness to the exclusion of the rights and needs of all others. These people will probably never grow into being productive citizens with an all-encompassing outlook. They are selfish, spoiled, greedy, narcissistic brats. That is the crux of the matter.
    Selfishness begets an unjustified self-worth, which begets exclusion of others, which begets wrong action, which begets error, which eventually begets murder, even that of your own flesh and blood. I still believe that those who deny a future to their own flesh and blood have no real future here on earth. And certainly not anywhere else.

  255. Gary Harper
    Gary Harper says:

    Personhood is a legal concept. The Romans accepted citizens as persons, and the slaves as humans. Your argument is flawed, because it assumes that there is a difference between a fetus and a person. You buy into the master / slave and baron / serf conceptualization that has made a tenuous defense of the legality of abortion possible. This conceptualization was based upon keeping what I as the ruler have, and legalizing taking it from those I rule.
    The law has nothing to do with morality and a right heart. It has everything to do with maintaining the status quo. Rulers do not care who they kill, as long as they stay in power. And this is the basis of the western legal ideas on personhood. It has to do with inheritance, succession, and preservation of blue-blood lines. Thank you for falling into the legal trap of the ruling classes.
    So you think it is right to kill your descendants for purely personal, selfish reasons? It does not say much for you as a person. I simply could not trust you with anything, sorry. Neither as a borrower, or to watch my house when I was away, or to do an errand you promised to do. And that is the core of the debate. You are simply selfish and irresponsible, and unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions. Like a land-hungry baron, or a profligate king.

  256. Gary Harper
    Gary Harper says:

    Planned Parenthood here was started by a Nazi insider. Who hated blacks especially. And their statistics still back that agenda up. Abortion is not a subject for debate in countries that are weakening. Liberal countries are always weaker, and those who guarantee the rights of all citizens, including the future generations, are always stronger. That is why we in America are still too strong to ever conquer — we still believe in a society fashioned for the future, not for the comforts and expediencies of the present. At least some of us do. The responsibility vs. selfishness that is the core of the abortion debate is still discussed here. Europe has chosen the myopic selfishness of the individual over the moral, societal responsibility of the individual as law. Too bad for you all.

  258. Gary Harper
    Gary Harper says:

    A perfect solution, for the self-centered individual who is irresponsible. So when you get old, we should put you out on the street, as you once could take care of yourself? Another perfect solution in a self-centered society.
    You are mistaking personhood for self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency is important to kings and barons, who do not want some unborn bastard of theirs to have claims to the throne, or to have a war between the supporters of the one year old heir and the coming fetus in their castle. Thank you for siding with the oppressive master mentality types against the slave mentality types you hope someday to rule over.

  261. Gary Harper
    Gary Harper says:

    In most countries, you are legally correct. Until a law is changed; then you will not be correct. But, the rank and file have a different opinion of what a person or a human is than do the nannies in any capitol, who know so much better than you do what is good for you…

  262. Gary Harper
    Gary Harper says:

    Where do you draw the line? At conception insures that there will be no future infringements on it. And saying all are persons and humans avoids the Nazi ideological trap.

  263. Ty
    Ty says:

    You almost convinced me until you started saying men can leave without telling the women to make things completely fair. First off, this situation will NEVER be completely fair! The man does not have any duties for a child before birth. The woman, however, has to carry this child for 9 months (along with any other consequences that may come with it: being sick/swollen, having to make time out of her day to go to the doctor frequently and paying for that). Along with this, she has to experience anxiety over whether she will be able to keep her job after maternity leave. She knows that she is already being paid less than her male coworkers simply because something like this can happen to HER. Now, depending on her age and position she could be suffering socially from being pregnant at an early age or before marriage. So far, how has the man suffered? Maybe emotionally and psychologically because he is going to raise a child. How has the woman suffered? Psychologically, economically, socially and emotionally and she hasn't even given birth yet. Then, she has to give birth to a human being, which most people agree is the most painful thing any human can experience. And now, after these long 9 months she realizes that she needs to raise this kid (possibly on her own) while trying to either find another job or just keep up the work on her already lower-paying one. She's still not done here. How is she going to afford child care? It is so expensive and she needs it because otherwise she is going to lose her job. What happens to the child? We don't know, the woman may get lucky and find someone to help, but she also may get so frustrated and stressed that she abuses or kills the child, so much for right to life. Now this child is psychologically, emotionally and socially scarred. The women has to experience all this before the child turns one, whereas if the man was in the picture she would feel much less pressure because she will have his better paying job to support their child (I repeat THEIR). Whether the man likes it or not, he has to be more careful when having sex because he needs to be there for any women he impregnates. If he knows he can't or doesn't want to be a father, he needs to know that he needs to use birth control (preferably something that does not force the woman to throw hormones into her body, but that is another argument). Women know this too, that is why so many are fighting for birth control to be offered without age restrictions or questions asked. Women know they can have that extra option of an abortion, so they want to keep that option in case, you know, they get impregnanted by rape in which case the "father" will not help or be there (not considering the fact of how traumatizing the women would be to have her rapist help in raising the child). Finally, you seem to think that all fathers stay in unplanned pregnancies, but that is SO far from the truth. Fathers leave all the time, without a trace, and women are forced to go through what I just described all alone. That's just my humble opinion.

  264. Gary Harper
    Gary Harper says:

    Discussing infanticide is symptomatic, not problematic. So you kill all the children, because some children may be killed later? By that logic, all soldiers should be blown up before going to battle, because some of them may get blown up on the battlefield. Or all drivers should be crushed in auto compacters, because some of them will be crushed in an accident. The crux of it is to teach your children not to be self-centered, self-serving, and selfish to the exclusion of the needs and feelings of others. For abortion is a selfish act; and parentage is more of a selfless act. A society that kills its own children is weak, because it is selfish;, and its members will not stand together for the common good. Such a society is destined to be crushed and burned by the stronger society. And deservedly so; for it is composed of weak, whiney, and selfish individuals who care for nothing outside of themselves.

  265. Gary Harper
    Gary Harper says:

    Non-specific neuronal bursts are not defined as pain. But it does not mean that the fetus does not perceive them as pain. Just pain of a different order. the cells work, they transmit information. That is what neural pathways do. So you need to ask a fetus what they are feeling. There are arguments that fish do not experience pain. They are just running from the tug of the line. Go ask a fish for me if the bleeding hole "hurts".

  267. Ludo
    Ludo says:

    Gradually. I don't think that's so very hard to understand.

    But the emotions of maternal concern can kick in very suddenly, as they apparently did in your case, Beth. There's nothing wrong with this, but emotions are all they were.

    Emotions aren't a great guide to moral behaviour. Your willingness to dispense the death penalty to a frightened single mother-to-be, for making a decision you very nearly made yourself, suggests a certain blindness to the consequences of your opinions. It seems hypocrisy and a lack of compassion for your fellow adult human beings are the fruits of your own strongly-held convictions about this issue.

    Now your son is a fully developed child, those emotions of care and protection will be even stronger. Direct them toward your son, but please don't use them to justify rash opinions that can cause very real suffering to your fellow humans.

    Apologies for butting in on your argument.

  268. materetmagistra
    materetmagistra says:

    Fetal rights? What might those be? Can you name one?

    But, that aside, I AM most definitely talking about HUMAN Rights. That "fetus" you mention happens to be a human being. I am talking about the Rights that every fetal human has by virtue of being a specific thing – a human.

    Look at your own admission – "The fetus is human, but it is not a person."
    I need to ask, are you now telling me that "Person Rights" exist? What might those be – and how might they be different than Human Rights?

  269. materetmagistra
    materetmagistra says:

    @Rando Oomsus: "The fetus is not a fully formed human even in the minimal biological sense."

    Huh? We can most definitely claim that at conception a fully human organism is present. That's all that matters – because inalienable Human Rights are ours at all moments we are human beings – no matter if we are 1-day-old OR 100 years old.

    @Rando Oomsus: "In the US before WWII only grown-ups were considered persons."

    Wasn't it wrong to murder 5-year-olds back then? If so, this declaration of "personhood" means nothing, because obviously there was some other means to determine that killing a 5-year-old was wrong. I'm guessing that would be the determination that although a 5-year-old wasn't a "person", the 5-year-old was a "human being" and therefore had the right to not be murdered.

    @Rando: "The modern definition goes something like "a human being regarded as an individual". Is the growing fetus inside the womb an individual?"

    Actually, yes. Biologically, at fertilization, a new organism is formed – an individual of the species Homo sapiens.

    @Rando: "Does it have personality and personhood?"

    Ah – now we have "Personality Rights." And, again, you try to separate "personhood" from "human being." Human beings are persons, are they not? Are there any human beings that are NOT persons?

    @Rando: "Does it have agency and volition, a social standing and personal interests?"

    Actually, for its age it is doing exactly what we would expect it to be doing. Only time is needed before these other abilities are attained. [As such, I think you are discriminating based only on age…..]

    @Rando: "Or is it merely a lump of cells inside someone's body that you're trying to label as a person to support your crusade to impose your will upon others?"
    That particular "lump of cells" is not just your average lump – it is a particular type of lump – an individual human being. There is no other kind of "lump" that in six years will be attending kindergarten, or in seventeen years will be driving an automobile, or in thirty-six years might run for President.

  270. materetmagistra
    materetmagistra says:

    @Rando Ooosmus: "Your fallacy is viewing a part of a woman (the growing fetus) as a separate entity."

    What kind of scientific ignorance is that? The human fetus is a "whole, separate, unique living human being."
    Why do you ignore this basic science? Might it be because the ideology you hold (and want to push on everyone) won't allow you to acknowledge the humanity of the pre-born human being?

  271. materetmagistra
    materetmagistra says:

    Richard G, besides Disqus, check out your local newspaper(s) and be a presence on it (on-line discussions) or in it (by writing letters to the editor.) In my little corner of the world, I try to make sure the truth is spoken. But always remember to speak out in love, with the goal to change hearts about these matters.

  272. materetmagistra
    materetmagistra says:

    W-a-y up above I asked this: "What about the human rights of the OTHER human being in the picture – the unborn human?!?"

    To which HKE answers: "That isn't mentioned because this is a strictly "secular" article, as stated by the title."
    Huh? Human Rights is a secular topic. One does not need to defer to any religious doctrine in order to discuss Human Rights.

  273. materetmagistra
    materetmagistra says:

    @Rando Oomsus: "I came here to make a point that fetuses aren't included under human rights. "

    Really? Are "human rights" things that can be "assigned," or are they more akin to things that cannot be separated from the human condition?
    At every moment you are this thing called 'human being' you have these things called "human rights." As such, these rights are inalienable to the human condition. A government can choose to recognize and secure OR ignore and/or violate – but, the rights are always still there.
    Do tell, why is it that a human being fetus wouldn't have HUMAN RIGHTS?

  275. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    Yes, exactly! Thank you. Finally someone gets it that my free discussion was to be taken as a set of strictures. That is exactly what I wanted to say by going into the etymology of the word "person". Also, actors on the stage or in front of a camera "putting on a person" can and should be killed on the spot because they aren't identical to themselves anymore.

  278. KB
    KB says:

    M might have other ideas, but mine are that there is no such thing as a soul, so far as we know, and that milestones in human development as use for determining human beings are subjective and arbitrary at best, scientifically inaccurate at worst. Having my first period didn't turn me into a human being. Growing my first tooth didn't turn me into a human being. Going through cervical walls didn't turn me into a human being. There was one event where prior, there was no living human being, and post, there was – with its unique, human DNA, innate characteristics (the nature side of the human personality and anatomy equation), as well as a foundation to develop more characteristics as time goes on (the nurture side of the human personality and anatomy equation). There is one point in the spectrum of my development where previously, there was no code to allow me to develop whereby this existence at this very moment of writing is possible, and after, there was such a code. That point, of course, is conception.

    I don't see a scientifically compelling argument to place my existence at any other place besides conception, because I do not believe there is such a thing as a soul.

  281. The Mouse
    The Mouse says:

    The best vengeance in life is to see what happens to these lefty pro-choicers when they age and become possibly infirm. I want to be able to be "pro-choice" about my tax dollars helping them. I want to be "pro-choice" too about not supporting kids that I don't want, if the mother decides to take the child to term. Why the double standards? Liberals shock me with their inconsistencies. Even Camille Paglia, a known feminist (well, she irks feminists actually) admits abortion is killing but a necessary evil. She even criticizes the Left for rejecting its personhood and denying the violence of abortion (clump of cells rhetoric). Even if she is pro-abortion, I admire at least her honesty and not beating around the bush, like most "pro-choicers".

  282. Childsupportpayee for 21 years
    Childsupportpayee for 21 years says:

    I'm not for them atall that childsupport system is all about the welfare making money for them selves it's NOT FOR THE children is a tool used for disgruntled women to destroy men

  283. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    "You're talking about fetal rights, not human rights"

    A fetus is a human. Humans produce other humans.

    "The fetus is human, but it is not a person."

    Incorrect by dictionary definitions. But you claim to be talking about HUMAN rights in the first place, which do apply to humans then. Which we have already established that fetuses are. The term 'fetus' merely refers to a developmental stage, and I would theorize that the term was coined for medical purposes, so everyone knows exactly what is being discussed, like how all your muscles have specific names. The term is NOT giving or revoking a fetus's human rights or personhood the fetus is not of the human species. The courts are doing that.

    Sources:

    Definition of 'fetus"
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fetus
    Note in this one the term "unborn offspring" . If you know any basic biology you know that when 2 species mate and conception occurs, that 'offspring' can only be of the same species as it's parents.

    Defintions of "Person"
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/person

    note the first defintion "living human" which fetuses certainly are, considering a single cell displays all the properties of life (therby both embroys and fetuses as well as all human beings are 'living'. Though I must admit I do not know why they say "living" human. Regardless, assuming a healthy pregnancy the fetus is certainly living and a human being/person. Many courts for some reason just refuse to aknowledge this.

    So…what exactly are you arguing ?

  284. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    Why isn't it enough to you that a human simply be a human to have rights? Should someone who becomes comatose or brain dead, thus losing their personality be allowed to be cut up and discarded as medical waste then?

    Our 'will' as you say is to just see that everyone innocent human being is treated as such, to the best extent we are able. This means an innocent human being should not be killed because it is the selfish will of another to do so. So how about you and others stop imposing YOUR will on innocent human beings.

    Either it's wrong (and a crime) for one to kill another whom was merely minding their own business or it isn't. It's absurd to kill a creature that wasn't attacking you, that you are not using for food or clothing, or that you fully brought into existence yourself. And I don't mean 'creature' as a derogatory term guys, we are all creatures.

    For the love of whatever you believe in or simply Nature, STOP creating children you do not intend to take responsibility for.

    *sigh* obviously rape victims are exempt from the responsibly factor though there are other reasons why it's wrong to abort in that situation.

  285. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    *facepalm* the fetus is a unique individual created at conception. The egg and sperm cease to exist as separate cells and combine to form a new human being. 2 entities cannot occupy the same space, therefor all human beings as well as everything that has matter is a separate entity.

    Women can do whatever they want with THEIR body. What is wrong is to harm ANOTHER"S body and end another's life when that PERSON is innocent.

    It should be our job as a society to protect our people, our citizens, the human beings who live , exist in our society. We have to do this to the best of our ability.

    From current laws we see that society generally values life, the importance of 'innocent till proven guilty' and that you can't/should not kill someone without just cause. These causes do not include feeling inconvenienced by the person you kill or killing someone because of what a member of their family did. You can still get jail time for self defense if it was ruled you used excessive force.

    Based on these current laws and society views (which fyi when making new laws or arguing cases often previous laws cases and their rulings are brought up; ) it is not unreasonable to want to stop the discrimination of preborn humans in the fetal stage of development and extend human rights to rightly include them.

    Just because the pro choice view happens to fit with some religous practices does not mean it doesn't have other merit that anyone can get behind. It's about fairness, making every human being as equal as possible and not discriminating or dehumanizing anyone. Race, gender, mental ability, sexual orientation (in my opinion anyway), nor stage of development or age should prevent someone from having basic human rights and to be treated with respect and dignity.

  286. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    To clarify, I'm in America so I am referring to laws here. You say abortion is rarely debated in Estonia, maybe it should be. It is a society issue, as it affects the lives of a place's citizens and future citizens that have not been conceived yet.Anything affecting lives and under what circumstances lives can be taken away is everyone's business , and should be an important topic in all countries.

  287. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    Yes! If no rights are sacred and natural where does the government control end? if abortion is seen as commonplace and completely ethical what's to say people's views won't esceclade further and in 20 years or so it'll be perfectly legal to kill your kid any day of the week because they were annoying you?

    Sure NOW most pro choicers I believe would say that a woman (and man) are obligated to care for their child once they choose to bear them and the abortion window has closed, but WHY? WHY should they not be allowed to withdraw consent at any time like when they are pregnant?

    Apparently 'personhood' comes into play …NOW but who's to say the next generations won't decide born children or at least infants no longer qualify as deserving of personhood?

    The term "pregnant' has changed meaning. If you Google it you'll find it used to mean conception. So abortion would include the ending of life before implantation.

    Words change, meanings change because people's views change. And it's very scary when those views include killing of innocents. If you can be innocent and still be legally killed, what's to become of any one of us some day? Or our future generations?

  288. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    I had a friend admit he's for murder as population control. Not just abortion,I guess he's into the whole one child policy thing too. At least he wasn't being hypocritical in that regard. Other things he said were blatantly incorrect, like how pregnancy is a health problem and that a fetus was a parasite.

    I gave him scientific documentation of the difference between a fetus and a parasite and he didn't respond, he started backing out of the conversation after that, and I gently reminded him he hadn't answered one of my questions but he still didn't answer it.

    It's so frutrating when one cannot debate properly. I'm not the best, I make mistakes. But I do answer questions and don't ask a question but refuse to answer any or shoot another question without answering one asked of me.

    I just hate when pro choicers 'weave' in reasoning as you say , take back things but refuse to admit they made a mistake, and refuse to answer questions or refuse to respond to new information. You ask me something, I answer you , take the TIME to answer you and provide you resources on the subject..then don't even bother to consider my answer or the resources, don't even bother to knowledge you read what I wrote, understand it and agree or disagree? Why are you here then, claiming to want to learn more or discuss this?

    Oh and I'm done teaching basic biology now. I'll go over it ONCE with someone but that's it. It's really alarming how many people don't know things like same species beget save species, the difference between gametes and an embryo…basic fetal development, or the fact that it is the natural order for organisms to reproduce. That baby is SUPPOSED to be in your womb, nature says so. They are not a parasite.

    I'm not saying everyone has to conceive, but don't freak out once you do. Intercourse is how babies are made, everyone needs to understand that.

  289. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    I think pro choicers keep 'forgetting' or refuse to aknowledge that life at concepion has all it's programing to direct it's development from conception to death. That life is a human being with traits, those traits just are not outwardly expressed yet. It is NATURAL for a human being to start out as a single cell and with TIME form all their parts. These parts are already programmed for physical creations through cell splitting and stem cells froming into diferent types of cells. It seems to outlandish for someone to say these human beings have a right to be killed soly because they are doing what nature intended, which takes time. So because they need time to grow their parts people want to deem them not persons/people and kill them.

    This, and claiming a fetus is a parasite, and that pregnancy is a medical disease or conditions…where did this trend of claiming natural things aren't natural come from?

    Thanks for sharing your anon and pointing out that personhood shouldn't even be in the debate…that being human should be enough to deserve to experince life on this earth outside the womb.

    I always appreciate when people involved in adoption or a rape situation come forward and share their stories and views. It just reaffirms that elective abortion is NOT mandatory in these cases and all children deserve a chance at life no mater the circumstances of their conception.

  290. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    There is a difference between being a unique individual and having the capabiltiy to live outside the womb. Even infants and small children are not self sufficient though. You would agree they should be killed then yes? For any reason and anytime?

    Stage of development nor self sufficiency have anything to do with a human being being a human being. And 'person' is defined as human being. please check for yourself as I am tired of posting links.

    I assume you are being sarcastic, but to clarify: the whole point of the pro life stance is to PROTECT the lives of the preborn, so it would be against that goal to remove an embryo from it's mother's womb unless there was a way safely incubate them somewhere else.

  291. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    I agree one shouldn't have to support a child they don't want then (if a woman can freely escape supporting the child)..however I would say the law should be that the topic of possible conception has to be discussed and a paper signed proving both parties understand this. Since abortion is currently legal I this should be included as well (whether or not the woman intends to abort). So, both parties should make clear their intentions on what they intend to do in case of unintended conception/pregnancy in writing and not copulate until an agreement on this is reached. This way, if it's already been established one of them would walk away that party cannot be sued for child support.

    The thing is though, IDK how to punish the woman who aborts behind their partner's back since abortion is not illegal. It should absolutely be a crime to take someone's child away from them.

    I know the paper signing will probably break the mood but if people are going to insist on being reckless and not wanting to take responsibility for their actions something has to be done.

  292. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    This could actually help with facilitating the discussion regarding unplanned pregnancy as well. How many of us have discussed this with partners? I'll admit I haven't in the past but becoming more involved in the pro life movement has made me feel it IS my responsibility to do so. It's only fair to any partners I have as well as fair to me in knowing if I would have moral and financial support in I were to become pregnant. Then I can decide if I am still comfortable being intimate with that person or not and vice versa.

  293. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    I get frustrated to Meik. Had to take a break from the discussions for a while >_< So many people with the same illogical views. Answering the same questions and challenges over and over. Wondering if any pro choicers get that 'aha! moment where it all comes together and they truly realize what the pro life movement is all about.

    .Condoms are great at helping to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies you have but people need to get it in there heads that pregnancy can still occur and you are still risking conception (which sex is FOR) by engaging in it recreational.

    Sex can be a great thing, a great bonding experience and by all means engage if you 100% accept the risk you are taking. If you cannot accept the risk of conception do not do it! Do not engage in something you clearly know the risks of and then whine about it when that risk happens to you. When you could have 100% gotten rid of that risk by simply not consenting to something you weren't completely comfortable with.

    Someone tried to say you risk getting into a car accident every time you get into a car too. There is an important difference. You are not the only car on the road.Other people's recklessness can cause you harm.

    In consensual sex, you and your partner are the only ones involved. 2 people driving one car on an empty road so to speak. If you get into an accident it would be on or both of your faults. So the only way the car analogy works is if you and/or your partner are responsible for your accident.

    So, take responsibility for your actions and DON"T put someone else in your body if you don't' want them there. It is NOT risk you HAVE to take.

  294. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    Also, everyone should KNOW you are talking about consensual sex and NOT rape based on what you are actually saying. Who in their right mind would scold someone for being raped? Pro Choicers know damn well when we're talking only about consensual sex, I mean if someone just says 'people who abort are evil' or something I can almost see the confusion but still, most people are NOT going to be harsh to a rape victem. Pro Choicers just like to troll in that respect and try and deflect from the actual discussion.

  295. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    Your right about the embryo using hormones to communicate with the mother's body (such as telling the uterine lining to 'get ready") but you are incorrect in saying that the human being conceived is not a human being. BECAUSE a new human being is formed from the merging of 2 individual human's sex cells , the only possible outcome is to conceive a new human being. It will not be a bear, or a chicken, or algae. The offspring of 2 humans will be human as well. That embryo is NOT of another species nor will it ever be.

    You are confusing being of the human/homo sapien species and being made up of human DNA with the pro choice view of 'personhood' I believe.
    FYI: A single cell displays all the properties of life. A single body cell, plant cell, sex cell, and yes a single celled embryo as well- are all living organisms by biology standards.

    An embryo is a living human being. And we are all 'clumps of cells'.

  296. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    You're point was incorrect as you must have seen now. Maybe you're just a kid, I obviously don't know, but what I DO know is you are proving things I said earlier about how pro choicers like to come in, say their piece and not even respond to questions or continue debate when presented with new information and ideas and logical challenged to their statements

    I sincelry am sorry if you felt threatened or that people were being 'mean'. I try and present myself in a civil but firm fashion as I believe that's debate is supposed to be handled..

    However, even with being civil, tough questions will be asked, uncomfortable questions may be asked and while you certainly have the right not to respond to anyone you don't want to, if you choose to engage in discussion you need to try and be prepared for such debate.

    I can respect you saying you can't handle this, and you did so in a polite fashion. I thank you for that. I get overwhelmed too at times. If debate is something you stay interested in though you will get better with time. I feel like I did.

    I do hope you take away new information to consider regarding abortion and person hood and humanity and human rights from all this. Feel free to come back and debate though or ask questions in the future. I admit it can get heated at times but that's usually when basic concepts are questioned or people act like they don't exist or are untrue. If you are going to debate, you at least MUST understand basic biology and the definitions of terms such as 'human being' 'fetus' and 'person'. These are fact and you can't build arguments without having a factual base first.

    Good luck in learning more about abortion and the pro life movement and truly understanding all the concepts (if you choose do further your understanding that is). If you learn the basics, you may find yourself questioning your beliefs, which is what should be done when presented with new information. Good luck coming to terms with your beliefs if you do start to question them and like I said feel free to return and/or please check out other "Secular Pro Life Perspective' articles to better understand the Pro Life movement.

  297. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    Right on! Let's go the dictionary route. The full definition you referred to (in Merriam-Webster) goes: "a human being or animal in the later stages of development before it is born". My emphasis is on "later stages". Even Wikipedia supports the notion that the it becomes a fetus after the embryonic stage. The prenatal development stage begins from the 11th week. Coincidentally, up to that point it's legal to abort. Moreover, "A fetus is also characterized by the presence of all the major body
    organs, though they will not yet be fully developed and functional, and
    may not all be situated in their final anatomical location." That is, abortion is typically performed before the embryo becomes a "fetus" by definition.

  298. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    The woman and abortion provider are infringing on a human being's rights (in every sense of the concept even if they are not recognize under society's laws yet) when they kill that human against their will. Ripping apart one's body without their consent is clearly a vilation of that human's bodily autonomy.

    Frankly no one should have the 'right' to kill someone they were responsible for creating.I can argue agaist killing in cases of rape too for a different reasons.

    Really, everyone needs to grow up and be responsible for their reproduction. Stop hiding behind you're 'right' to willy nilly engage in a reproductive act and then kill the child that results from it. It's not very kind to create a child you have no intention of letting live. It's downright foolish , foolish to engage in a risky act KNOWING the risks and KNOWING you are using an act for something other then it's intended purpose, (which should hold you liable for the outcome , just like you void a warranty if you use a product improperly).

    If you can handle the risk of conception sure, great, enjoy sex. It can quite a pleasurable experience, emotionally and physically. But another human being should not have to die because you took a risk you truly weren't ready to take.

  299. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    You shoudln't have sex if you and your gf refuse to accept the risk of creating a new, living human being. So that's up to you to decide. But fyi-it's more mature to admit you truly cannot handle the possibility of pregnancy and parenthood, and wait on sex then – then it is to jump into something soley because it 'feels good' and not care about or discuss your emotional and /or financial states and what to do if an unplanned pregnancy could occur.

    It might sound easy to say "I'll /she'll just get an abortion" but do you even understand what an abortion procedure is? It's barbaric and your gf could very well change her mind…

    If you truly accept the risk of sex and will take TRUE responsiblty ofr your actions and any life you create then enjoy. Otherwise , no you should not be having sex until you are in a proper emotionally and financial state to do so and support any life you might create (be it for 9 months and give up your rights or raise them yourselves.)

  300. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    And I wasn't saying you actually SAID that about getting an abortion. I know you didn't. I wasn't claiming I was quoting something you said. You're supposed to use quotes when you (the writer, me in this instance) are making a general quote..like regarding a statement that COULD be made or thinks people have said in general. I hope I'm explaining that alright.

    So just wanted to clear that up in case it confused anyone.

  301. Chaoticblu
    Chaoticblu says:

    I'm not following how pointing out when abortions typically occur (assuming the info is correct)is tied to the defintions I gave proving that a fetus is a human being and therefor a person, and the law just needs to catch up and extend human rights to cover them? I could easily point out that an embryo is also human being and is therefor a person as well. But in the meantime:

    Gotta be careful with Wikipedia as it can be written by anyone. A dictionary, is a much more valid reference tool, and Merrimen Webster is a well known name. There is no reason not to go to the 'dictionary route' as words are one way we make sense of our world. Meanings are obviously important.

    the fetal stage IS the later stage, it starts at 6 weeks lasts up until birth.During that time, yes the fetus will develop all major body organs. Parts were developed int he embryonic stag as well.

    "Abortion " as it is currently defined is the act of terminating a pregnancy. "Pregnancy' I previously read also on wikipedia in the past is most currently defined as starting at implantation. However Merrimen Webster online claims it begins at fertilization. I am trying to find more resources regarding this. See why I said watch out for Wikipedia now?
    Merrimen-Webster does give the full definition as causing the death of the fetus or embryo. So abortion CAN occur after implantation. I was just curious where the so called 'abortion pill' fit in to that. But anyway;

    Implantation occurs 10-14 days after conception. Thus you are correct a preborn human being could be aborted while they are still in the embryo stage as well as in the fetal stage. To be honest , I learned something new. I didn't know exactly when one stage ended and the other began. I believed I did but I was incorrect.

    Haven't validated your statement on when most abortions occure yet. But that was never brought up. You made the statement that another poster was confusing human rights with fetal rights, as well as stating that a fetus was human but not a person(contradicting your earlier statement which inferred they were not human), and I gave you sound references showing that a fetus in indeed a human being and by association also a person.

    Any argument you are tying to make regarding the definitions I presented is lost on me I must say. Can you point out if I'm missing something please?

    References

    Fetal development. Tells when embryonic period ends and fetal period begins)

    http://americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.htm

    Abortion Definition http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion?show=0&t=1394023507

    Wikipedia article I read in the past (may or may not be valid but posting since I referenced it)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy

  302. Mirable
    Mirable says:

    You are the one who argues that if a 9 year old victim of rape does not want to get pregnant then she should have a full hysterectomy in order to prevent that. Actually, you had a bigger problem with a girl considering hysterectomy to preemptively avoid the rape pregnancy you would force her to suffer verses that little girl choosing to give birth at the age of 9.

    Sick, as far as I am concerned.

  303. Payee
    Payee says:

    I am totally against childsupport : I was married to a girl from Mexico n her mom had already been a pro a playing the welfare system well as we al know the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree . We were married then divorced within 3 years just enough for her to have 2 kids n get an apartment in Fresno n have all the benifits in full swing , she moved out 4/24/ and the next day I got my paycheck 1/2 of it was gone , garnished by the welfare : I went to Fresno welfare office n they said I ignored all there atemps of contact I notified them the we JUST seperated yesterday n while I was working she was home : n mush have confiscated the letters from them : we'll nothing mattered to them from what I had to say n to make a long story short that was since 1995 last year at this time the welfare said I owed 34,000$ in arrears to the X , the welfare did an audit on my case n so did the attorney I hired since my check has been garnished the entire time of her welfare career: the audit showed that I should have had paid 97,000$ n them it showed amount received 214,000$ : I've been a slave every day : for all these years how could a court of law allow this: we'll we lost our court battle since my financial records were from Oklahoma n acording to the Fresno judge ( not allowed in his courtroom) we lost the case my attourney just quit n I got stuck with this life long bill that goes up every month : childsupport is a lie : those women sighn there childsupport rights over to the state n the state only gives them a small % of that money and the state gets 2$ insentive for what ever they take from my check

  304. Simon
    Simon says:

    I have not read all 323 comments, but I would like you to think about the language "if a man gets a woman pregnant" that you used and the bias it includes. I think it would be more accurate/preferable to say, "if a man and woman have sex and pregnancy results." In the vast majority of pregnancies, women are collaborators in the process of conception, not passively fertilized subjects. A woman gets pregnant as a result of a man's sexual function and her own and, with the important exception of rape, using language that implies a man has "done something to her" leads to some oppressive lines of thinking. Both parties should be taking responsibility for sex. A man "got me pregnant" is not the kind of language that promotes responsibility.

  305. IntelligentChristianFaith
    IntelligentChristianFaith says:

    What genus and species is that fetus? If it's homo sapien then it is, scientifically speaking a human being, and that is sufficient grounds to predicate "human rights." If you don't think so, then you should probably change your own terminology whenever you refer to human rights in any other context. You don't mean "human" rights but "person rights" or "rights of personhood."

  306. IntelligentChristianFaith
    IntelligentChristianFaith says:

    Rando, you are, scientifically speaking, wrong about the status of the human fetus. For one thing, its not some undifferentiated "clump of cells" but a living biological organism. Treating it like it's a tumor or something like that biologically and embryologically ridiculous. Mere "clumps of cells" do not have the differentiated organelles and fully functioning life systems that the conceptus does. For another thing, there is no such thing as a generic "Fetus" it's always a speciated fetus like a "pig" fetus or a "horse" fetus or a human fetus. By calling it simply a fetus, your avoidance of the literally correct term "human" is telling. Lastly, we've been down this constitutional road before in trying to parse out fine distinctions between which humans are persons. History does not bode well for the more recent RvW decision since previous decisions about whether slaves are persons and whether women are "persons" in the relevant sense for voting. Before America, there were debates over whether "human" entailed any innate right to life, or liberty, and yet those were thought to be rightly accessible to nobility and wealthy land owners. ONly they were "Free persons." Historically speaking, it is a discriminatory and exploitative path to press a wedge between "human beings" and "persons." That is almost always a decision rendered by the oppressors against the oppressed to sustain discriminatory standards against fellow human beings.

  307. IntelligentChristianFaith
    IntelligentChristianFaith says:

    So lack of development, small size, location constitute grounds for killing human beings? Sounds shady. I could affirm cases of self-defense or capital punishment. Those at least entail a mortal threat or criminal offense. You are talking about killing genetically distinct, legally innocent, morally neutral, living human beings here, right? I can't see how the free destruction of these tiny human beings could NOT degrade human life broadly. How we treat human beings in their most vulnerable states–elderly or young–shows what kind of people we've become.

  308. Rando Oomsus
    Rando Oomsus says:

    I wouldn't condone murdering fetuses walking on the street or making them sit at the back of the bus. But as long as that "human being" is inside another human being and hasn't developed enough to survive on its own it's up for the woman to do as she pleases with her body.

  309. TimsH1
    TimsH1 says:

    Unfortunately this argument breaks down at the start when you take the position that we can morally separate the act of sexual intercourse with the proper result of that act. (i.e. The use of contraceptives does not give weight to the notion that sex is ever free from the responsibility for children who are the product of sex.) The sexual act is the giving of oneself fully to another person. It is intended to be practiced where a commitment is in place and both parties open their sexual (i.e. reproductive) capacity to another person. The woman opening herself to the man and the man giving himself to the woman for the proper result which is the bonding of the two together with an openness to new life! That new life will rightly share an equal number of chromosomes from each parent. It will have completely unique DNA but receive attributes from each parent. There should be no denying the new life either it's uniqueness and right to life NOR should there be any denying it of it's right to BOTH parents!

    Contraception has led us to this precipice, where we turn one way and fall into abortion and the destruction of life and the tragic pain and suffering of that choice; or we turn another way and we destroy parenthood and our the dignity we have when we share ourselves fully with another human being. God's plan clearly seen in nature is ALWAYS the best way! When we try to get our way by circumventing His will, we choose what is harmful to ourselves.

  310. Colin Gormley
    Colin Gormley says:

    In fairness to the nuts who protested the law, there were quite a few who had no idea what was actually in the bill. Some protested it because they thought the law was shutting down PP "clinics." They didn't know it was PP that would shut them down because they refused to conform to outpatient regs.

  311. IntelligentChristianFaith
    IntelligentChristianFaith says:

    Rando, what kind of fetus are we talking about? Remember, there is no abstracted "fetus" there are only speciated fetuses, such as a "pig fetus," a "chicken fetus," or a "human fetus." By calling it a fetus you are not referring to the entity but to the level of development. I might as well ignore your humanity, or your name, and call you "adult." That's a pretty awkward way to refer to things just to avoid having to say "human" and avoid having to clarify that you are condoning the willful destruction of human beings.

    The "her body" argument falls apart when it is taken into account that another human body is now involved. Do I have a right to swing and flail my arms on a crowded city side-walk? After all, it is my body? Well no, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. And for the pregnant mother she has a general right of autonomy over her body but that is a bounded right that does not normally entail harming other human beings. Moreover, if the preborn were "her body" it would have to be the same gender, same blood type, same genetics, etc. and it is not. Even if the preborn is female it's a different female than the mother. There two females there. In fact, from the moment the child-in-utero implants in the uterine wall, the mother's body recognizes it as a foreign entity and the immune system tries to attack and destroy it. Her own body knows that child is not her body.

  312. Derp...
    Derp... says:

    The other "human being" in this picture is called a "fetus." It called a "Fetus" because science can meaningfully distinguish different kinds of human beings. A person is a sentient human being with rights. A fetus is a dividing cellular mass which (in terms of legal abortion) central nervous system and sentient capacity equal to those of a deep sea brine shrimp.

    And there is yet another kind of human being. It's called a tumor. It's a dividing cellular mass with pretty much no sentient thought, but no one seems to care about it. Poor tumors…

    Hint: There isn't a conflict between abortion and child support unless you can't tell the difference between cellular mass and a living, breathing child.

  313. Sophia Wright
    Sophia Wright says:

    It's a sad comment on how selfish and introspective the western world is today. I'm going to abort [kill] this unborn baby because to have a child would be an inconvenience to me. How did this ever become a normal and acceptable point of view?! If you can't afford a child you can claim child support allowance (http://www.customerserviceguru.co.uk/csa-contact-number/) and if you just genuinely cannot look after it, put the child up for adoption. Life is not something which we as humans have the right to decide to take away.

  315. Annoymous
    Annoymous says:

    yes but it relies entirely on the woman to exist so without her it is nothing and if she does not want to sustain another life form she should not have to

  316. Annoymous
    Annoymous says:

    Yeah because of racism. They actually had lives, personalities, friends and families. They were more than just technically human they were individuals. Thats the difference.

  317. Annoymous
    Annoymous says:

    It cannot think or move. It cannot exist beyond the body of the woman it is inside. How is that a human? Beyond it having the correct number of chromosomes? And what is so great about being human what puts human life above the lives of animals if it is not our ability to think and interact with each other to feel and love, a cluster of cells cannot do that. In the early stages of pregnancy that is all the fetus is.

  320. Baby got Bumped
    Baby got Bumped says:

    If someone doesn't want to be pregnant then they shouldn't have to be. The organism inside of them is draining them of oxygen and nutrients and water to sustain itself and it cannot live outside of it's host. It disables it's host body and causes months of discomfort and vomiting, and finally resulting in a life long responsibility. But because this organism happens to have 46 chromosomes its not a parasitic organism?

  321. Im a coat hanger
    Im a coat hanger says:

    No you should not because your toddler is a person on their own. Who has a personality, thoughts and feelings however rudimentary. He can survive outside of someone elses body which is the point you are missing. He is fully his own person not just a part of someone elses. And who are you to tell people they cannot remove a part of their body that will cause discomfort and possible danger for them.

  322. Virginia
    Virginia says:

    Actually no it was not. You can revoke consent in the middle of sex. Do you want to know why? Because it's her body. She has the right to say what goes into her body. She did not say yes to having a baby inside her.
    If you pretend to have a condom on while having sex with a woman it is a kind of rape and can be prosecuted, even though the penis was allowed in it had to follow the rules. My vagina my rules.

  323. Use a Rubber
    Use a Rubber says:

    I agreed with everything until you said consenting to pregnancy. If you have sex using multiple forms of contraception you are clearly saying no to pregnancy.

    We all want the number of abortions to go down. Our side would preach contraception instead of abstinence because no matter what people will have sex. You can't stop it.

    Just because people have sex it doesn't mean they want a child. Why don't we work on stopping more conceptions as an option?

  324. Sorry Bro
    Sorry Bro says:

    Yes the mans rights are often brushed over. The only decision he gets to make is to have sex with a woman. What happens from then on he has no say in unless the woman lets him. As it should be because it is her body. He does not have to carry the baby to term if he wants her to keep it she does and then another person exists, who she will inevitably love but will not want. It does suck for the man but its necessary.

  325. Sorry Mate
    Sorry Mate says:

    It is unfortunate for the father. Some men want the pregnancy to continue and it is terminated. Some wish it hadn't and then have to step up and be fathers or back away and be dead-beat dads. But it is not his body. He does not have a parasitic organism living inside of him that he will have to painfully push out of a very sensitive area. After that baby is born he should get to see this little person that he helped create. If he is expected to pay the woman child support he should get a say in how that child is raised.

  326. Get your head out of your arse
    Get your head out of your arse says:

    Would you not agree that abortion is a consequence? Why do you want unwanted children brought into the world? Do you even care about their feelings? The pain they would feel knowing that if their mother could have gotten rid of them they would have? Or adopted children? No matter how much they love the parents that raised them they will always know that there was a woman out there that after growing them for 9 months just walked away. Pro-Life does not automatically support children. You don't care what happens to them after they get out of the womb just as long as they do.

  328. Its not a baby its a goat
    Its not a baby its a goat says:

    When it can live outside of another person. When it can be a person on its own, a little person. Who can have conscious thoughts, breath, love, feel, want things. A newborn can do all those things.

    I think late term abortions are mostly wrong because that fetus could have been survived, with help as a newborn outside of the womb but early on its just a zygote.

  329. J. Christ
    J. Christ says:

    Leave religion out of it not everyone shares your religion. Its your religion and therefore you have to follow it no one else.
    I think we should focus on the children we already have. They need your help more than the unborn. Instead you'd rather there were more children in need of loving homes and force women who find themselves pregnant to keep incubating a clump of cells until it becomes a person.
    Why don't we help the poor become less poor instead of increasing their numbers. Because lets face it most women who are not in the right place in their life to have a child are poor.

  332. Recondaddy
    Recondaddy says:

    Where did I mention my religion? I believe that the post to which you responded was founded upon the common morality of human rights that even atheists affirm. Try again.

    You said:
    "I think we should focus on the children we already have. They need your help more than the unborn."

    False dichotomy. That's like saying, "I think I should focus on my three-year old and kill my 21-month old, because my 3-year old is a special needs child who needs more help than his brother." Responsible people care for ALL their children — even the unborn ones. It's called being a grown up.

    You said:
    "Instead you'd rather there were more children in need of loving homes…"

    So, what you're saying is that a violent death is preferable to the POSSIBILITY of being born into a less-than-loving home. If that's the case, then why not dismember and crush the skulls of born children who are ALREADY living in such conditions?

    "…and force women who find themselves pregnant to keep incubating a clump of cells until it becomes a person."

    Newsflash: YOU'RE a clump of cells, as well. The only difference between adult-you and unborn-you is the stage of development. And, by the way, it's a person as soon as it's a distinct human being. Have you ever met a human being who wasn't a person?

    You asked:
    "Why don't we help the poor become less poor instead of increasing their numbers."

    Agreed, but instead of focusing our cannons on the unborn, why not start with the really old? After all, they're just as useless (in your world that ranks human beings according to function) as the unborn. Why not brutally murder the really old poor people, first?

    You said:
    "Because lets face it most women who are not in the right place in their life to have a child are poor."

    Trust me, I know. My mother was the 16-year old daughter of a pig farmer when I was conceived. I never had two pennies to rub together, until I was 32 years old.

    However, you continue to assert your belief that death is preferable to poverty. As such, until you are ready to justify killing BORN children who are living in impoverished conditions, your "final solution" is nothing but a smokescreen — a pitifully crafted excuse to justify abortion-on-demand.

  334. Donald Dodson III
    Donald Dodson III says:

    I am not saying that we shouldn't work at stopping conceptions, My point is that there is no 100% effective form of contraceptive, except the A word, and so you have sex know their is a risk of pregnancy, no matter how small.

    You may not want a child, but you still took the chance, again no matter how small, to create one.

    If you have a contraceptive that is 100%, then by all means use that, and there would be no pregnancy for us to worry about.

    We may not want the consequences of our actions, but we still have to be responsible for them.

  336. No no.
    No no. says:

    If pro-lifers were consistent then they would not be killing people at abortion clinics.
    The movements are never going to have everyone agreeing with everything because people are different. You talk as if we should blindly agree with people we share a label with.

  337. The Denver Diamond
    The Denver Diamond says:

    Agreed. If a man states he has no interest in being a father dont force it on him. He has the right to say no. However if he says yes he must stick with it. You cant just be like "I didn't realize having a baby would be so hard. I change my mind"

  338. materetmagistra
    materetmagistra says:

    @"How is that a human?"

    Huh?

    Have you forgotten basic Biology?

    If an organism has a human genome, it is a human being.

    @"…a cluster of cells cannot do that. In the early stages of pregnancy that is all the fetus is…."

    Again, science verifies that what is living and growing is NOT simply a "cluster of cells" but a complete, functioning ORGANISM. In truth – the ONLY organism that will mature into a "thinking, feeling, interacting" human being IS an immature HUMAN BEING.

    At fertilization, a complete human organism has beginning. As human beings, we understand through our reason that HUMAN BEINGS hold fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS simply by virtue of their humanity. Note: Human Rights are not reserved for MATURE human beings – they are held by ALL human beings regardless of age or level of maturity. Hope that helps.

  345. Charles
    Charles says:

    I've Seen a ultrasound and when they are pretty much a fully formed baby is totally different from a fetus that's 2wks old so there is a big difference and to be honest it is a lump of cells in the beginning the thing is people make a emotional decision about that lump of cells instead of a rational one

  346. Charles
    Charles says:

    Dude your preaching the truth these people are overly emotional and religious and don't understand basic science a fetus is not technically a human being yet hell the fetus of a cat and human look the same in the beginning it's just the basic makeup of mammals

  347. secularprolife.org
    secularprolife.org says:

    babies aren't even a human life in my eyes untill their mature enough to be able to consciously remember why their here and what their name is abortion should be allowed and fathers should have the right to walk away? the female had just as much to do with it just as much as the father did

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

It’s crucial that we demonstrate that anyone can–and everyone should–oppose abortion. Thanks to you, we are working to change minds, transform our culture, and protect our prenatal children. Every donation supports our ability to provide nonsectarian, nonpartisan arguments against abortion. Read more details here. Please donate today.

DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
© Copyright [y] Secular Pro-Life. All rights reserved. Website Design by TandarichGroup

A letter from our president A Response to the Spectrum Argument