The feminist movement cannot afford to ignore pro-life concerns
|Emma Watson at the United Nations, via CBS News|
[Today’s guest post by Victoria Godwin is part of our paid blogging program.]
Emma Watson. Who doesn’t love her? Emma Watson seems to be strong lady who has carried herself with poise and grace even whilst being in the spotlight. I love her acting, applaud her drive to get her university degree, and truly respect her quest to make a difference in this world by serving as the U.N. Women Goodwill Ambassador. Needless to say, she has certainly always been at the top of my “celebrity girl crush” list! So when I started listening to her HeForShe speech at the U.N. headquarters, I was very excited and was nodding enthusiastically (watch/read the transcript here). But when she said the line, “…I should be able to make decisions about my own body,” my heart and excitement plummeted.
Now, in theory, that line could have many innocuous meanings. Decisions about one’s body might include, for instance, the decision to abstain from sex until you feel you are ready—a serious international concern, given the startling number of child marriages. It might also refer to decisions about contraception, confidential mental health treatment, and even what clothing to wear. But in practice, “decisions about my body” is coded language for the dismemberment of unborn children.
Assuming she is referring to the legal right to abortion, I’m going to also assume that she does not realize that over 200 million girls are missing in the world due to legal abortion and infanticide, a phenomenon explored in depth in Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn’s Half the Sky. I’m not here to lecture you all on how I feel about the legality of abortion, but I firmly believe that gender equality can only be reached if we address what is occurring worldwide: prenatal sex-selection and female infanticide. Gender equality begins at conception, but on this, Ms. Watson not only has missed the mark, but has ignored what the anti-abortion feminists have been fighting for for years.
As Emma points out later in her speech, “…not all women have received the same rights that I have. In fact, statistically, very few have been.” However, this statement doesn’t necessarily only cover inequalities in wages, education, and general respect for women. This especially rings true in countries such as China and India, whose regional birth sex ratios can reach discrepancies of ~120+ male births for every 100 female births. This skewed ratio of male to female births is not just seen in countries such as India and China where in some parts cultural traditions have made it preferable to have male children; it is seen in the US and the UK as well. Sex-selective abortion is currently illegal in the United Kingdom, where Emma calls home. Despite its illegality, studies have discovered a skewed birth sex ratio among the second children of some immigrant families in the UK. It is currently estimated that between 1,400 and 4,700 girls are missing from the UK.
On the other end, sex-selective abortion is legal in the majority of the states in the US, where a woman can get an abortion on-demand and for any reason. Unfortunately, prenatal gender discrimination is evident in the US. Forms of gender preference were shown in a 2011 Gallup poll where 40% of Americans reported that they would prefer a boy if only allowed one child, in contrast to the 28% who would prefer a girl, statistics that are shockingly similar to those found in 1941. This opens the door wide to sex-selective abortions that are still legal in 42 states. Also in the US, parents are allowed to choose embryos by sex through in vitro fertilization, an option that 40% of Americans believe is appropriate. This suggests once again that gender preference is a serious issue that ought to be addressed as IVF technology advances and abortion remains on-demand.
Now that being said, do I think that making sex-selective abortion and IVF sex selection illegal is (by itself) going to fix this issue? No, it’s much more complex than that, as shown by attempts to restrict sex-selective abortions in India. But after listening to Emma’s speech, I was left wondering why the “hard questions” like sex-selective abortion and female infanticide are frequently left out of feminist discussions. While her efforts are indeed commendable, discussions on the gender wage gap and gender stereotypes tend to be much more palatable than discussing why being a girl can mean a death sentence. Most of all, I want to see more “nontraditional” feminists—namely men and pro-lifers—step up, get involved, and talk about these uncomfortable issues and to push the boundaries of what it means to be a feminist. Using Emma’s words, “If not me, who? If not now, when?”
At the end of the speech, Emma invites men to participate in the fight for female equality. But in her comment alluding to abortion rights, she has perhaps inadvertently excluded anti-abortion feminists from this “HeForShe” discussion for gender equality, exactly the opposite of what she claims her goal is: a united front. My fellow anti-abortion feminists and I desire the same things that Emma Watson states in her address. We fight for maternity leave, we fight to close the wage gap, we volunteer our time at domestic abuse shelters and pregnancy centers, and we spread awareness about gender discrimination across the world and close to home. We want females to have the same rights as males; but first, we have to let them be born.
Your last sentence says it all.
So you want to give all the rights to the unborn ZEFs that would be born female but take away all the rights from the actual living woman… Makes no sense.
I think I agree with Emma more- I should be able to make whatever choices I want about my body.
Sex selective abortion exists because of institutionalized misogyny. And that misogyny exists because for thousands of years women have been treated like livestock – baby makers and home makers.
I agree completely. That's why we need to include pro-life feminists in the discussion…to draw attention to the reasons why sex-selective abortion exists. Pro-choice feminists have tended to stray from the topic as they are afraid it goes too far into the realm of pro-lifers…we need to change that.
Relegating women to second class status by forcing them to remain pregnant against their will will only turn back the clock on women's rights.
Turning back the clock on women's rights… as opposed to stripping the right to life of some women because they aren't old enough?
Women are born.
When a woman says "I should be able to make decisions about her body", and a prolifer screeches "SHE WANTS TO DISMEMBER UNBORN CHILDREN!" I'm minded to point out that straw men make for poor arguments.
The idea the prolife movement tries to promote, that sex-selective abortion, killing girl-babies and girl-children, and murdering young women, is somehow all going to be prevented by forced pregnancy, is so absurd and so disgusting that it is really not worth disputing.
It does indeed: a perfect summary of the prolife notion that it really doesn't matter if girls are killed once they're born – it only matters that the law of the land can force girls and young women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will. Dead babies, dead girls, dead women – none of these matter to the prolife movement, only forced pregnancy.
"Turning back the clock on women's rights… as opposed to stripping the right to life of some females because they aren't old enough?"
"it really doesn't matter if girls are killed once they're born" –
Can you please quote the portion of the post where the author makes that assertion? I can't seem to find it.
There are no prolife feminists.
If you're in favour of forcing girls and women to give birth against their will, and think that this will somehow ensure sex-selective killing of babies won't happen, then you are neither a feminist ….nor a clear thinker.
As opposed to someone who is in favor of killing unborn females simply because they are female? Why do you support that?
Oh, I'm sorry: was the writer of the article in favour of saving the lives of girls once they are born? I thought the writer was only asserting support for forced pregnancy & denial of safe legal abortion, and of course ignoring that sex-selective abortion is a relatively minor aspect of the selective killing of girls and young women.
A part of which, of course, is the denial of contraception and safe legal abortions to girls too young to give birth safely; but prolifers are never concerned about allowing those girls the basic human right of abortion.
Why do you support killing girls once they're born?
Did you even read the article? She addressed your point.
I don't. I think everyone has an equal right to life.
Hm, is there a reason why you're ignoring my very clear question? Here it is again: "Can you please quote the portion of the post where the author makes that assertion? I can't seem to find it."
If you still won't answer it, it must be because you're lying. I wonder why you have to lie to defend your position?
Pointing out someone's coded language =/= straw man.
Biologically speaking (and ignoring the more complex issue of gender identity), you're a woman or man the moment you're conceived. The cervix isn't a magic wand. The nature of a person one day before birth is essentially the same as one day after. To believe that birth bestows the property of womanhood would be to think otherwise. I suppose you *could* think otherwise, but there would be no scientific basis for that assessment (and every reason to disagree).
No mind = no personhood.
Unborn humans are only potential people. And even if they were women from conception, that would not give them the right to lay claim to the bodies of other women in the name of women's rights.
You oppose all abortion, and even some forms of contraception, so why does it matter?
Women will always die from pregnancy. Even life of mother exceptions won't prevent this. By banning abortion you effectively deny women the right to life.
Oh good, I'm glad, JoAnna: so you support safe legal access to abortion for every girl and women who needs it, since we all have an equal right to life.
Oh, you wanted an answer? I thought it was a rhetorical question intended to smear me, not a serious invitation to debate.
Is there a reason you're trying to pretend there's a section of the post where the author says she's interested in saving girl babies, girl children, and young woman? I can't seem to find it.
If you won't cite that section, but your only weapon is to accuse me of lying because I note that girls and young women deserve to live, I wonder why you can't defend your position except by rhetorical attacks on my ethics?
Did you even read the article? Evidently not. She nowhere addressed this point. Are you getting paid to defend it, by the same generous donor who paid her to write it?
Claiming that a woman's right to make decisions about her own body means she's really talking about dismembering babies is a straw man, dear.
Whatever your thoughts about the status of the pre-born, it's abundantly
clear that they are alive (or else they wouldn't be growing), they have
a gender (as determined by their chromosomes) and that they are actual
(as in they exist, or else you wouldn't need the abortion in the first
I am all that, that doesn't mean that I have a right to other women's bodies in the name of feminism.
If you think that ALL of a woman's rights are the ability to procure an
abortion then I think you need to expand your concept of human rights.
Forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will can:
violates her bodily rights
can cost her her job, money (hospital bills that I don't see pro-lifers offering to pay for)
her right to self-determination (forced pregnancy chooses reproduction for women)
her right to privacy
So yeah, you deny women just about every right if you force them to remain pregnant against their will. And lets not kid yourself, a large contingent of pro-life supports forced pregnancy in the case of rape, which is essentially gestational slavery. And if the woman dies from the pregnancy, you have condemned her to death for the crime of being born with a uterus.
Forced birth is NOT supportive of women's rights, not by a long shot.
But in practice, "decisions about my body" is coded language for the dismemberment of unborn children.
Yeah, strawman and appeal to emotion fallacy. Women procure abortions not because they are malicious socipaths who want to 'dismember' innocent unborn babies, they procure abortions because they do not want to be pregnant.
I'd rather kill myself than be forced to give birth. I couldn't handle a violation of my bodily autonomy. But hey, if it makes you feel better to imagine that I just want to dismember unborn children, go ahead, knock yourself out.
Women should not be forced to give birth for any reason. Taking away a woman's autonomy with regard to sex selection will ensure that forced birth will continue. The way to stop forced abortion is to make laws that enforce autonomy.
It has been established that you are in favor of killing born girls to save fetuses. so your point is invalid.
Do you understand that if you save a female fetus just to let her die later, you have accomplished nothing.
A few thoughts…
1) The no-mind = no person hood argument has always fascinated me. The concept of personhood is subjective and not objective; philosophical and not scientific. In other words, its personal, and I'm not entirely sure why one should be able to impose that vision of personhood on other people, especially when the lack of personhood can have such drastic consequences for the nonperson.
2) Every time someone has tried to deny personhood based on some arbitrary characteristic (race, sex, religion, etc.) they have ended up on the wrong side of history. I'm not entirely sure why personhood based on age will be any different.
3) If cognitive function is the measure of personhood, does that make born children less of a person than an adult? Are the mentally challenged less of a person then everyone else? Cognitive function exists on a continuum, not as binary function. Perhaps you might argue for a threshold model, whereby those individuals who exist above a certain threshold of cognitive function achieve personhood. Who gets to set the threshold? Why? How could that be determined?
4) If was sent into a deep, dreamless sleep where I demonstrated minimal cognitive function would I cease to be a person? Scary thought.
5) If I were to concede this point, you would be correct in saying that personhood does not begin at conception but you wouldn't be able to beg personhood. Appreciable mental functions begin well before that.
The cognitively disabled still have a mind.
And if your "dreamless sleep" = absence of the brainwaves associated with sentience, then you are for all intents and purposes brain dead.
There are so many scientific errors in your post that it is not worth a reply.
Whenever someone says that something is so (insert your adjective: obvious, disgusting, absurd, etc) that it is really not worth disputing, I know that person hasn't thought through that idea and is therefore unable to dispute it.
As for your second objection (that they don't have a right to lay claim to the bodies of other women), I'm not sold on your argument. We readily accept the fact that an born child can lay claim to the body of its mother. Consider: a mother and her child get stranded on an island. The mother is well fed, but there is nothing for her child to eat. The only source of nutrients is mother's breast milk. Would it be moral for that mother to withhold breast milk from the starving child when the mother can readily provide it? Most of would say no; human beings have an obligation towards helping one another.
A born child can't force its mother to breathe, eat or process wastes for it.
Are you suggesting that she's actually talking about child marriage or one of the other alternatives mentioned in the article?
It's not a question of your motivation. Abortion involves dismemberment whether you want it to or not. Facts are facts.
"My fellow anti-abortion feminists and I desire the same things that Emma
Watson states in her address. We fight for maternity leave, we fight
to close the wage gap, we volunteer our time at domestic abuse shelters
and pregnancy centers, and we spread awareness about gender
discrimination across the world and close to home."
Except you did not word it that way. You specifically said that it is used as a code word to dismember fetuses, as if THAT was the goal.
And in many first trimester abortions, it is evicted whole.
"Women abort because they want to kill" was your implied meaning. Dismemberment just adds more flavour to it.
Well that's disappointing Russell, considering I make exactly three scientific statements.
I claim that cognition exists on a continuum, which is readily attest-able. The way your brain works isn't the same as the way a child's brain works.
I claim that appreciable mental function begins before birth. Again, readily attest-able. Common sense should dictate that exiting the mother isn't a switch that turns on the mother's brain.
I made a comparison between sleep and a lack of cognitive function. OK… you've got me. Bad example. Reduced function isn't the same as no function. Although based on the level of cognition you require for personhood that may still apply.
Prior to 25 weeks, the fetus is utterly incapable of sentience.
Just for the sake of clarity, are you suggesting that no person has a mind before they are born, or that at some point in development, cognitive function develops to the point where one obtains a mind? Unrelated to your post, I'm just trying to make sure I properly understand your argument.
Consciousness arises from the thalamus and the cortex. Neither are properly functional prior to 25 weeks. The capacity for consciousness does not exist.
Now, fetuses are never awake whilst in utero. They are sedated and anaesthetized. They don't wake up until they breathe in air. But if development is normal, they will attain the capacity for sentience at 25-30 weeks.
The odds of dying from pregnancy is less then 1% in USA. You are more likely to die from a plane accident. It isn't killing women to give birth. Also many pro-lifers have their 'exception for life threatening situations and rape/incest' So will you argue reasonable with someone who has those exceptions or are you just going to pretend you have a case that we wish to kill born females.
Why does it matter that unborn females are being killed simply due to their sex? Wow, what a prime example of misogyny.
Women die from abortion too (but I suppose you think those are acceptable losses, given that those of your ilk oppose safety standards for abortion facilities), and abortion is almost always 100% fatal to the child involved.
I don't support abortion, because it robs innocent human beings of their right to life. It's an honest question seeking an honest answer. Given that you are unable to provide one, that tells me all I need to know about your viewpoints.
The inalienable right to life is not based on percentages. Its based on damage done.
Sure I can. It's her last paragraph: "My fellow anti-abortion feminists and I desire the same things that Emma Watson states in her address. We fight for maternity leave, we fight to close the wage gap, we volunteer our time at domestic abuse shelters and pregnancy centers, and we spread awareness about gender discrimination across the world and close to home. We want females to have the same rights as males; but first, we have to let them be born."
Forced birth robs women of their lives, health, and bodily autonomy.
However, you probably don't think that women are innocent, even rape victims dont deserve the right to their lives or bodies.
Whenever a prolifer claims that human rights activist just haven't thought through our opposition to forced pregnancy and therefore aren't able to dispute your grosser ideas, I know that the prolifer has no idea how to defend those ideas themselves…
I wish I was getting paid to defend the unborn! Sadly, at this point, it's just a cause to which I volunteer my time. But it's quite obvious you did not read her article. Why don't you do so, and then you can respond to her actual points instead of offering incoherent, nonsensical ramblings?
No, I think she's talking about a girl or a woman's right to decide for herself when and if to get pregnant and have a baby.
It's prolifer strawmanning to equate a woman's basic human right to choose with "dismembering babies".
So in your view, once a girl is old enough to be made pregnant, she is no longer "innocent".
I take it you support child marriage, too.
"I wish I was getting paid to defend the unborn!"
I wish you were too! Instead, you're just attacking girls and women, which obviously does nothing to defend the unborn or anyone else either…
PC does not believe in forcing women to endanger their lives. You, however, do.
I'm asking you that, actually.
The sex selective abortion ban is simply used as a tactic to ban all abortion. And it is deeply racist against Asian women.
If that is the case, then should we stop all people from driving cars because someone may die to that, which is much more likely then dying from pregnancy?
Also you ignored part of statement there are prolifers who are for the abortions in case of life threatening reasons, rape, and/or incest. which makes your argument not apply to them since it wouldn't kill women because if it would they could have their abortion.
1) not every death from pregnancy can be accurately predicted or prevented. An abortion will not help a woman who dies after birth from blood loss.
2) we don't force people to put life and limb on the line to preserve the lives of others
It would be if the law applied only to Asian people, but it applies to all people. While it's common for Asian people to prefer boys, it is also common for Caucasians to prefer "having one of each." Speaking from personal experience, it gets rather annoying to have people ask if I was disappointed about having a second boy or ask if I'm going to try to have a girl. Sex selection and gender preference is not something that only Asian people do.
"Well that's disappointing Russell, considering I make exactly three scientific statements."
Well your statements can't be supported. They are really just opinions. The nature of the fetus is different from the nature of a fetus 10 seconds after birth. The fetus is structurally different from the baby that it becomes.
"I claim that cognition exists on a continuum, which is readily attest-able. The way your brain works isn't the same as the way a child's brain works."
The cognition that exists in the fetus is different from the cognition of the baby after birth. The brain of the fetus must have expressed the capability of transformation to a human brain. Those changes would include cognitive changes that control the breathing, eyesight, heart, digestive system and all other functions that change at birth.
"I claim that appreciable mental function begins before birth."
The metal functions before birth are fetal functions, those after birth are human functions.
"Again, readily attest-able. Common sense should dictate that exiting the mother isn't a switch that turns on the mother's brain."
The exiting of the fetus from the mother involves changes in the fetal heart, respiratory system, digestive system and brain from fetal systems too human systems.
"I made a comparison between sleep and a lack of cognitive function. OK… you've got me. Bad example. Reduced function isn't the same as no function. Although based on the level of cognition you require for personhood that may still apply."
There is no comparison between human sleep and the sleep of a fetus. Unless you can place a human in a womb, a comparison is not even possible.
Your whole post is false and filled with opinion, not scientific fact.
I wish I had more time to deal with this thread, but I don't. I have seen a ton of scientific errors similar to yours.
You have a choice as a pro lifer to save babies or fetuses. Your choice is to let babies die.
Excellent post! Keep up the good work SPL!
I see I pretty much stole your comment. Well, great minds think alike, I suppose.
Your choice is to murder innocent born life instead. You have a choice, you can save innocent born babies or you can make the intentional choice to let them die and save a fetus instead. Your choice is to let babies die.
The hell? I don't think anyone should be unjustly killed, regardless of age or stage of development.
No human fetus has a human baby mind until it is born. It is impossible to tell if the mind of a human fetus will be the same as the mind of a baby until it is born. For example the mind must adapt to a different environment.
How am I attacking girls and women, exactly? I'm not the one saying that girls deserved to be killed just because they happen to be the "wrong" gender. That's your view, not mine.
Forced pregnancy = unjust killing, of random women, the ones unlucky enough to die from pregnancy.
You are saying that their lives should be put on the line just because they happen to have been born with a uterus, or raped while in possession of that uterus. And if they die, you will have condemned them to death for being born female.
You think it is perfectly moral and acceptable to murder someone because they happen to be the "wrong" gender? Why? I think it's wrong to kill an innocent human being regardless of the reason or motive.
You think that pregnancy causes death 100% of the time? ooooookaaaayyyyyy…. I must be some medical miracle, then, because I've been pregnant 7 times and have lived to tell the tale.
No, I am saying that if you really truly cared about female life, you woudln't play russian roulette with women's lives.
And you're saying that women who engage in consensual sex should be able to kill human beings in order to avoid the foreseeable (if not intended) consequences of their actions, and that children who are conceived via rape deserve to be executed for the crime of their biological father.
The author would deny that assertion, but it is none the less true.
It doesn't matter if it causes death 100pct of the time. You want to play Russian Roulette with women's lives, and too bad so sad if some women die, they asked for it by being born with a uterus.
And if you really cared about all females, born or unborn, you wouldn't insist that they can be killed if their parents wanted a boy instead.
So, you do believe that pregnancy causes death 100% of the time? How is it possible that I'm alive?
Clearly, you want to hold women strictly liable for having sex, or for simply being raped, where the most benign punishment = a violation of bodily autonomy, the middle = torture and disability, and the worst = death.
Do women deserve capital punishment for having sex? For being raped?
I don't believe in forcing women to endanger their lives. I believe that it's wrong to kill innocent human beings (unlike you, sadly). There is never a medical reason to kill an unborn child, especially after viability. (before you bring up ectopic pregnancies, please google "principle of double effect." And before you bring up Dr. Savita Halappanavar, read savitatruth.com.)
I am not 'insisting'. It is tacky to argue by misquotation. You want to end sex selective abortion, there are better ways than banning it. Such as, when it comes to bride prices in places like India, a financial incentive from the government will work to prevent such abortions.
Also, if people really don't want a girl, they will simply kill the infant once born. Abortion is preferable to female infanticide, dont you agree?
Re-read what I wrote, you are making yourself look stupid.
Forcing women to remain pregnant against their will forces them to endanger their lives. Simple logic.
Not banning sex-selective abortion sends a message that it's not a serious problem. It also leads to situations like this: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/doctor-risks-his-career-after-refusing-abortion-referral/story-fni0ffsx-1226733458187
Funny how you won't answer the question.
Yeah, a lawyer demolished that, if you care to read the comments. It does in fact hold women strictly liable for having sex, and put their lives and health at risk, not to mention their overall wellbeing, property, and is a violation of their right to privacy. All for the crime of having sex or getting raped.
You do know what Russian Roulette is, don't you?
Kelsey you blog appears to be suffering from a troll infestation.
No, it's simple stupidity, because pregnancy is not an inherently fatal condition. By your logic, we should ban women from driving too, because they could die in car accidents. Do you think women should be banned from driving.
Plus, if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she can abstain from participating in the act that causes pregnancy.
Actually, I didn't find those arguments in the comments convincing in the least.
Still won't answer the question, eh?
Let me explain for you. Slowly.
If someone hands you a gun with a million chambers, and one chamber has a bullet, you *cannot* be forced to put that gun to your head and pull the trigger even *if* lives will be saved, because if you are unlucky and the chamber with the bullet has your number on it, you will be killed. And we do not force people to roll the dice with their lives on behalf of another. Period.
Did you even read them?
It doesn't matter if pregnancy is always fatal or not. Skydiving isn't always fatal – someone can't throw you out of a plane and say 'oh well' if you happen to be unlucky and die.
And your driving example is a false one, because we do not FORCE women to drive. It would be wrong to FORCE women to drive.
Plus, if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she can abstain from participating in the act that causes pregnancy.
You don't support abortion in the case of rape, my dear. So, what you really mean is 'she can abstain from being born with a uterus'
It would seem to me that the Russian Roulette occurs when the woman engages in sex, because no contraceptive method is 100% effective. And given that pregnancy is not 100% fatal (contrary to what you seem to believe), there's no reason to assume that pregnancy = death.
Did you even read the post I linked?
That skydiving analogy is so poor it's laughable.
And actually, your objection to the driving analogy would only be remotely plausible if and only if 100% of pregnancies were the result of women around being FORCED to have sex, but rape is only responsible for pregnancy less than 1% of the time (and in that case, abortion is wrong because it is inherently unjust to execute an unborn child for the crime of his/her biological father).
Um, no, that has not been established, actually
That skydiving analogy is so poor it's laughable.
Many activities are safer than pregnancy, in fact. You have a lower chance of getting bit by a shark than you do of dying from pregnancy. That doesn't give anyone the right to throw you in the ocean and tell you 'good luck' even if it is to preserve a life.
And actually, your objection to the driving analogy would only be
remotely plausible if and only if 100% of pregnancies were the result of
women around being FORCED to have sex
And you can't force someone to remain in a car, or remain in the ocean, either.
You appear to be making two arguments. That because the chance of dying from pregnancy is low, the lives of the women who do die don't actually count…for anything.
And that the women, if she does die, esesntially 'asked' for the death penalty because she
1) consented to sex
2) was raped
Don't you think the death penalty is a bit harsh for having sex while female or being born with a uterus?
You are arguing by misquotation and I would kindly ask that you knock it off. Pregnancy is NOT 100pct fatal but that is NOT the point. The point is, we do not force people to take a nonzero risk to preserve life.
I am all that, that doesn't mean that I have a right to other women's bodies in the name of feminism.
I agree that no person has the "right to other women's bodies" in the sense that no person has the right to cause another woman harm. I assume you would even agree that a mother would not have the right to her born daughter's body (in the sense that the mother has no right to physically abuse or kill her born daughter because her born daughter was costing her an immense amount of stress, money, space in her home, etc.) I think the main prolife feminist question is, "What makes a born living human woman different from an unborn living human woman? And if both born and unborn women are the same, then why shouldn't we promote equality for both?"
Forced birth is NOT supportive of women's rights, not by a long shot.
I don't think any prolife feminist would disagree with the fact that women should never be forced to carry a child. I certainly don't! However, it seems that statistically, most women who have abortions are not being forced to be pregnant. I would invite you to consider a little thought experiment: Imagine a person had the choice to push a button on a machine that would give them an immense feeling of pleasure, but the machine had a very small chance of popping out a baby. Would you think it should be legal to murder that child once it was popped out? Obviously, this thought experiment couldn't work in the case of rape. However, if we are asking the question of whether or not feminists can be prolife, I would argue yes! Especially if the unborn women can be considered as valuable as born women.
Seriously. Their arguments are beyond pathetic and idiotic.
However, it seems that statistically, most women who have abortions are not being forced to be pregnant.
If you force a woman to remain pregnant against her will you are effectively forcing her to be pregnant.
You are forcing her to live with an outcome that has the potential to maim, kill her, and destroy her life in many ways. All for having sex? Since when is having non-procreative sex while female a criminal act that should be punished with a violation of bodily autonomy, and in the worst cases, the death penalty?
You must be new around here.
In China and India, there are several charities (and other government incentives) who provide financial incentives in conjunction with the ban of sex-selective abortion. It's still not preventing the number of sex selective abortions or infanticide. In China, for example, there is a huge preference for boys because in their culture boys take care of their aging parents. There is also restrictions on birth. Those who violate those restrictions are forceably aborted or forced to pay a fine, which many can't afford. These restrictions include not being able to marry until the age of 27. Only being able to obtain a birth permit if married. Only able to obtain a birth permit for one child unless a) you have a daughter and live in rural China or b) you are an only child. This means that if you have siblings and you live in the city, you only have one chance. One chance to have a boy to take care of you in your old age. And two chances at maximum. So is it really a free choice? Is it really just simply giving people free money? I think the government policy is the limiting factor. It isn't a choice if your government is the one who decides how many children you can have. India has similar problems because it also contends with Western policies on population growth, but China is the extreme example. Banning sex-selective abortions and incentives really won't root out the problem in those countries. It's changing the law that limits births. Although banning sex-selective abortions in the West, helps combat the hyper-focus on gender that is seeping over due to immigration (and to a lesser extent already exists in the West with it's "one of each" mentality.)
A father with 10 kids ages 3-5, with 4 women and he’s 21. Guess who supports those kids? Guess what chance those kids have in "life", or should I ask what "life".
Will you take those 10 kids in and feed, cloth, and educate them. It doesn't take a village, it takes responsibility for ones own actions and there are PEOPLE who could care less. Take the rose covered glasses off and look at children born in war
torn countries and doomed to starve to death or worse…….So yes, in our western society, women do have the right to choose, and it is a personal right that they exercise and not one I or you should force on them.
Sorry, but it is true. Pro lifers have a choice, they can save innocent born babies or they can choose to let them die and save a fetus instead. As an admitted pro lifer, she is killing born females to save fetuses.
If you force a woman to gestate against her will you are taking away all her rights. She can't do what she wants with her life and her body anymore. Her life is no longer her own. All she is is basically a breeding cow.
An abortion has to do with MY body because the ZEF is attached to it. I can remove it if I want.
Yes, I agree. Take responsibility. Clearly he did not take responsibility before the children were conceived or after. The women also need to take responsibility.
There will always be people who care less. It's human nature. It would be lovely if people strove to take responsibility. That doesn't mean you molly coddle either.
Just because a person fails to be a responsible driver, doesn't mean that you let them keep their license. They have to accept the consequences of their actions.
Except in the case of abortion, there is no accepting the consequences of one's actions. It's punishing an innocent third party by depriving them of life. If you are truly concerned about the man not take responsibility, then fine him, jail him, and so forth for his actions. Killing someone else for someelse's inaction is not justice.
And if you force the woman to gestate, and she dies, you have sentenced her to death for having sex.
You're operating under a false assumption, that pregnancy = death. Your entire argument falls apart because your basic premise (pregnancy = death) is untrue. I'm living proof that it's untrue.
Where is the force? I really don't understand this. There is a responsibility and a consequence to every decision in life. Having sex is a decision the consequence of which could be everything from having a fun time to an STD like AIDS to making a baby. I don't see pro-abortionists getting up in arms about people contracting AIDS. What would that be called "forced" STDs? Is AIDS a punishment for having sex? Unless someone is deliberately trying to give you AIDS, then it's not forced. It's also not a punishment for having sex either. It's a consequence that can occur. You take the risk in consensual sex. If the risk of getting pregnant or contracting AIDS from sex is to high, then dont have sex. Nobody is forcing you to.
I said that it *can* equal death. The potential is always there.
Stop arguing by misquotation, it is very very tacky, and dishonest.
I'm not misquoting you. Your entire premise hinges on the false assumption that pregnancy = death.
You don't know what the words 'can' and 'potential' mean, do you?
You could die in the next few seconds of a heart attack, or a blood clot, or nuclear attack. The potential is always there!
I risk death every day by driving to and from work. And actually, my risk of dying in a car accident his higher than my risk of dying due to pregnancy-related causes. Darn my employers for forcing me to risk my life! How cruel of them.
Better than you do, apparently.
Forcing someone to live with AIDS or with STDs because they had sex would be forcing them to 'take responsibility' for their actions. Denying them treatment for a medical condition that can kill them = punishment.
And no, abstinence is not an option, not for people in the real world. People have sex for purposes of social bonding, and it is entirely ok to do so without having a child. You can't expect a couple to stay together for 30+ years of marriage and refrain from sex that entire time should they choose to remain childless.
Now you're just trolling. I expected better of you, Joanna.
Yes, the potential for death and bodily harm is always there, except we do not *force* people to engage in activities that could end in a heart attack or a blood clot. We don't even force them into cars, and once in a car, we cannot by law force them to stay in the car.
What you are doing is forcing women to risk their life and health based on YOUR assessment of the risk.
I think that swimming with sharks is totes safe and that your risks of getting bitten are really low. Do I have the right, then, to throw you in the water because *I* happen to think that the risk is reasonable? Or if you are already in the water, do I have the right to force you to remain there because I happen to think the risk is reasonable?
Oh, and BTW, strawman fallacy. You lie about what I am saying 'that pregnancy ALWAYS results in death' and then you knock it down by saying that you are living proof that pregnancy doesn't kill.
You are embarrassing yourself, and the PL movement, please stop.
I'M trolling? Oh, that's rich.
And in 99% of cases, a woman is not FORCED into sex. She chooses to engage in sex of her own free will. If I CHOOSE to drive to work, and I get into a car accident, I cannot sue my employer for forcing me to endure the consequences of my choice to drive to work.
Yes, dear. Continually erecting strawman fallacies after having things explained to you is in fact trolling. You are not arguing in good faith.
I'm not the one insisting that pregnancy = death, when what you really mean is "there's a tiny chance that a woman could die from pregnancy complications." The risk of a child dying due to abortion, however, is nearly 100%. Why aren't you opposed to banning abortion, given that it is almost always fatal for one of the human beings involved?
But see the thing is nobody is forcing someone to live with AIDS. Currently, there are no universal treatments that eradicate AIDS. There are, however, universal treatments that eradicate the ability to have children. I don't personally recommend them, but they exist and nobody is preventing anyone from seeking those types of treatment. Not to mention that a woman's fertility window is not forever. In other words, you can expect people to engage in sex and remain childless. But creating a child is one of the consequences of having sex and it's completely juvenile to ignore the fact. Just like it's juvenile to have multiple sex partners and not ever expect to end up with an STD. It's a risk and a consequence of life. It would be nice if we could just switch off risks and eliminate consequences we don't like, but we can't. The best we can do is decide just how much risk we are willing to take. And so for some that may mean abstinence, which is not a dirty word, you know.
A. Not sure who you accuse prolifers of killing, but in response specifically to such an accusation, choosing to "let them die" is quite different than actively killing. Hopefully you can recognize my indirect point.
B. What makes you assume that prolifers are not actively involved in other causes? This is a discussion about abortion, not homelessness or girls' education in Pakistan or child soldiers, and therefore issues of abortion ate discussed here. Ty to stay on point.
If you choose to drive to work, and you get into an accident, no one can deny you medical treatment because you made a bad choice. This is what you want to do to women – deny them medical treatment for a condition that can seriously harm them, all because they had the wrong kind of sex (or were raped).
If someone illustrates the holes in your logic, that is not "erecting a straw man."
You haven't poked any holes in my logic, because you are pretending that I said something that I didn't say.
Show me, explicitly, where I said 'pregnancy always 100pct ends in death for the woman'
No one is advocating denying women treatment when they experience pregnancy complications, either. What we are denying is that a woman has the alleged right to kill an innocent human being who is not posing an actual threat to her life.
There is nothing juvenile about taking responsibility for one's actions and choosing abortion. You just don't like that method of taking responsibility.
I'm not the one insisting that pregnancy = death, when what you really
mean is "there's a tiny chance that a woman could die from pregnancy
Why do you think I used the words
Roll of the dice
Yes, the RISK of death and significant injury remains, and we cannot accurately predict which women will die from pregnancy. So, in effect, by forcing women to remain pregnant against their will, you are denying women, as a group, the inalienable right to life.
You said it here: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/09/the-feminist-movement-cannot-afford-to.html#comment-1610852324
Pregnancy is in itself a medical condition. A woman is healthier if she is not pregnant.
And 'life of the mother' exceptions can't save the woman if she bleeds out during or after birth, can it?
Actually, in this comment you did not use any of those words: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/09/the-feminist-movement-cannot-afford-to.html#comment-1610852324
"Women will always die from pregnancy. Even life of mother exceptions won't prevent this. By banning abortion you effectively deny women the right to life."
Yes, learn to comprehend.
I did not say 'all women will always die from pregnancy'
I said that there are women who will die from pregnancy, because pregnancy will NEVER be 100pct safe, and we cannot predict WHICH women will die from pregnancy.
So in other words, pregnancy is a medical condition that will always kill women. We don't know which women, or how many women, but it will always kill women.
Just like the flu will always kill people. It doesn't kill everyone, but it will always kill some people.
Common sense would dictate that I was not saying that all women always die from pregnancy 100pct of the time.
Don't be purposely obtuse.
It's not taking responsibility. Let me give a crude analogy. If you leave your house unlocked and come home one day to find an unarmed burglar robbing you who immediately attempts to flee and drops your stuff, do you think blasting them with a shot gun is a reasonable response? When it comes to culpability, you are taking a risk for not locking your door. The burglar is also at fault for taking a risk of entering your house. So to up the anti, you shoot him? Of course not. Most people will try to chase the person down, contact the police, take a photo. Very few people will kill the person. In the case of pregnancy, you run the risk when you have sex or take no measures to prevent pregnancy. Abortion is the most violent and least responsible manner in which to deal with pregnancy. I like the slogan for suicide prevention "It's a long term solution to a short term problem (if you want to call it a problem, which I don't think it is)." The other options are adoption or simply keeping the child. But the fact remains that you become responsible for the consequences of sex at the beginning of sex, not when a little blue line appears. Just like you are responsible for the consequences of driving when you get into a car not just when you have an accident.
Actually, I've always been healthier while pregnant, so you can't make a blanket statement like that.
Do you know the statistics of what you're speaking of? "Severe PPH occurs in approximately 11% of live births (WHO, 2005). The incidence is thought to be much higher in developing countries where many women do not have access to a skilled attendant at delivery and where active management of the third stage of labor may not be routine. Of the women who suffer severe blood loss postpartum, approximately 1% of these die as a result (Fawcus, 2007)." Source: http://www.pphprevention.org/pph.php
So your logic is: since 1% of 11% of women who experience PPH die (and that number is probably even lower in the U.S., since the stat above includes third-world countries with substandard maternity care), we should have abortion on demand without apology, and let an innocent child die.
Yeah… logic fail.
By the way, I've experienced PPH with four of my five births, and it was easily managed with an intramuscular shot of pitocin. With my fifth pregnancy, I was advised to try taking alfalfa supplements in the third trimester to help reduce PPH. I tried it, and it worked! For the first time, I did not need a shot of pitocin after childbirth and my bleeding was much more manageable. So, FYI if you have any friends who are pregnant and worried about PPH.
And that, boys and girls, is what we call "irony."
Yes, yes it is.
Actually, in the "abortion is taking responsibility" argument, the problem is still the refusal to believe in equal rights for all humans. If a person chose to have a child but then felt it was infringing too much on their time, shooting the child is not considered taking responsibility; the argument only works if the child is not considered equal. As the unborn are not considered equal. That's why the "abortion is taking responsibility" argument does not actually address the first issue.
Russell spams this nonsense in every single post. I advise not engaging. I've tried, and it's fruitless. He insists that unless you are actively working 24/7 to eradicate poverty (I guess by spamming pro-life blogs?) you are therefore intentionally killing born children. It's nonsensical and incoherent.
Not at all. The only person in this conversation arguing that girls deserve to die is you: you are arguing that once pregnant, a girl no longer deserves to live if her life can be saved by abortion.
Pregnancy is the leading cause of death for teenage girls. Why do you think teenage girls deserve to die rather than have their lives saved by abortion?
Having an abortion if one doesn't want to be pregnant is being responsible and it is a moral choice.
Sure. And that leads to another common argument that unless one is pro-life will lead to 1) denying that biologically a fetus is a human being or 2) assigning "personhood" to some sort of arbitrary thing like the ability to feel pain. This aim at denying dignity to the unborn ends up hitting a lot of people who are already born like the disabled, infants, Jews, blacks, women, and so forth. Since it's the same sort of arguments used to deny personhood to them. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
Annnnd we have it: the prolifer comes out and admits what she's REALLY against is girls/women having sex for fun, not to get pregnant.
How so? Where do you derive your morality from?
Why do you think it's acceptable to kill unborn children simply because they're female? I don't think anyone should be unjustly killed, born or unborn.
"The five leading causes of death among teenagers are Accidents (unintentional injuries), homicide, suicide, cancer, and heart disease. Accidents account for nearly one-half of all teenage deaths."
Funny, I don't see pregnancy on your list. Where are you getting your assertion that pregnancy routinely kills teenage girls? Wouldn't it be better to push for better maternity care for teenagers, if they are indeed dropping like flies due to pregnancy?
Strawman. See here: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/04/no-i-am-not-interested-in-punishing.html
"Where is the force? I really don't understand this. "
I take it, then, you live in a prochoice country where a woman will not have her vagina investigated as a crime scene when she has a miscarriage, where she will not be prosecuted and jailed for years or decades if the courts decide the miscarriage was abortion.
If you lived in a prolife country, where women are forced through pregnancy and childbirth (to the death, sometimes) you'd know what forced pregnancy meant.
But like all prolifers, I perceive from the rest of your comment, you are basically against girls/women having sex, and perceive unwanted pregnancy/the threat of having to have an unwanted baby as a suitable punishment.
Every child should be a wanted child.
Why do you think it's acceptable to routinely kill teenage girls?
You've got an American list. In the US, teenage girls have access to safe legal abortion. Therefore, pregnancy isn't a leading cause of death for teenage girls. Isn't abortion great? Saves so many girls' lives right there in the US. Aren't you happy now that abortion is legal in the US?
Or are you still unhappy, because you want American teenage girls to die?
Worldwide, including prolife countries where abortion is deliberately made inaccessible:
"Complications during pregnancy and childbirth are the second cause of death for 15-19 year-old girls globally."
And: "Babies born to adolescent mothers face a substantially higher risk of dying than those born to women aged 20 to 24."
But, what do you care if babies die, so long as their adolescent mothers can be forced to give birth at whatever risk to their own lives?
Oh, come off it. You just came right out and said you think that pregnancy should be regarded as the natural "consequence" of sex, and girls should avoid sex (if they can, of course – rape, child marriage, etc) not get to use contraception or abortion.
You're against sex.
The prolife movement in the US does not campaign for maternity leave. Prolifers routinely argue that employers should be allowed to fire women who got pregnant and didn't have an abortion.
The prolife movement in the US does not campaign to close the wage gap.
The prolife movement in the US is indifferent or eagerly cooperative in domestic abuse, campaigning against a woman's right to abort a pregnancy conceived via abuse and her right to sunder herself completely from her abuser.
The prolife movement in the US is explicitly complicit in gender discrimination and abuse, globally and in America.
As for volunteering at "pregnancy centers", yes, I daresay: those lying, deceitful organisations, many of which are directly linked to the adoption industry.
Shame prolifers have to call their challengers "trolls"….
"A. Not sure who you accuse prolifers of killing,"
I have been very clear on my site "Scientific Abortion Law" and through out my postings that all people are dying and therefore all can be saved. Some that are in dire need can be seen at poverty.com, but there are plenty of others in your own neighborhood that need help.
"but in response specifically to such an accusation, choosing to "let them die" is quite different than actively killing."
You are unaware of the legal concept of "murder by omission." If a person has a duty to save another person, and they intentionally let that person die, they have committed murder by omission. You might want to look that up. Pro lifers have a duty to "save babies" because that is what they claim to do. Of course they make the intentional choice to let "babies" die and choose instead to attempt to save potential life. If pro lifers were claiming to "save fetuses and let babies die" then there would be no cause of action possible. I suggest that pro lifers be truthful and admit they are not saving babies.
"Hopefully you can recognize my indirect point."
Well, you didn't research before commenting and it turns out you have no point.
"B. What makes you assume that prolifers are not actively involved in other causes?"
I know for a fact they are involved in other causes. But that does not make it moral for them to kill innocent babies. And that is what they do, they murder babies in an attempt to force the birth of fetuses.
"This is a discussion about abortion, not homelessness or girls' education in Pakistan or child soldiers, and therefore issues of abortion ate discussed here. Ty to stay on point"
As you can see, your comment above is based upon your failure to understand the problem.
Holy snot bubbles what? Where in the blazes does Ireland do forced vaginal exams? Where does Ireland force a woman to remain pregnant until death?
Okay where do you think that I'm anti-sex? And why is it just girls and women? Men have sex too. That's how women get pregnant. And where did I say it's a punishment? I have emphatically said pregnancy and children are in fact NOT punishments whether they are wanted or not. I said that pregnancy is a consequence of sex. It is a natural consequence and has no assigned morality. You used the term punishment, not I.
And every child is a wanted child. There are lists of people wanting to adopt.
Really I think you're just trying to be inflammatory and delight in attacking people instead of actually dialoguing with them. If you want to make an actual argument, please substantiate it with facts. Otherwise I will not waste my time.
Read the article I linked, as it demonstrates why that argument is a straw man.
Yep, that sentence stuck out as a huge strawman argument. Great post!
Oh, you live in Ireland, right. Where the healthcare system outsources almost all safe legal abortions to other country's healthcare systems, at the patient's risk and expense. You're quite right: in Ireland force is applied to the medical staff, who know they risk two years in jail if they help a woman who needs an abortion, not – usually – directly to the girls and women who can – usually – leave the country.
Of course Ireland is also the country which forced a suicidal asylum seeker/rape victim to undergo forced surgery at 24 weeks pregnancy after she'd been begging for an abortion for months. But, you say, you "don't understand" force. The woman who was forced through pregnancy and surgery against her will by Irish doctors and the Irish legal system certainly does – but you don't care about her, do you?
"Where does Ireland force a woman to remain pregnant until death?"
At University Hospital Galway, where a miscarrying woman was denied the abortion that would have saved her life.
At Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda, County Louth, where a woman suffering from cancer was denied an abortion and denied chemotherapy, until she died.
Didn't you know? Didn't you care?
"And every child is a wanted child. There are lists of people wanting to adopt."
And before Irish women could just go to the UK to have safe legal abortions, there were lists of children neglected to death in orphanages because no one wanted them.
The problem of teen pregnancy is not the lack of availability of safe abortions but the lack of healthy teaching about sex and contraception, including teaching both young men andyounf women the meaning of the word no. We tell kids it's totally OK to play with a loaded gun (sex) rather than developing a healthy respect for it. Poverty and boredom are also huge problems. I have friends who lead youth choirs and sports teams in townships in south Africa for the express purpose of giving young men and women alternatives to violence and sex, and have seen drops in teen pregnancy (and other unwanted activities and consequences). If, rather than throwing safe abortions at these countries to bandage the real problems, we put in the time and effort to address those real issues, we might see a drop in teen pregnancy.
I am pro life. I also feel heartbroken over the causes and realities of unwanted pregnancies. When I am able to again, I will continue putting in efforts to assuage root problems. In the meantime, once again, throwing abortion about to support ongoing unhealthy behavoiurs is still no solution.
Trolls are people who refuse to argue in good faith. I don't see any of the pro-choicers here trolling just to upset people. Trolls don't offer vaild arguments – they post to annoy.
Equal rights = there is no right to occupy/use the body of another without explicit/ongoing consent, even if one's life depends upon it.
A toddler can't force, by law, it's parents to breathe, eat, or process wastes for it. Why should a prenate have a right that a toddler does not have?
Uh, no. If you said "People will always die from car accidents" I would assume that you meant what you said, and I would respond by saying, "That's actually not accurate, as not all car accidents are fatal."
Women still die from car accidents, and it doesn't matter how rare or how common certain accidents are. It is a FACT that not every accident can be predicted, prevented or cured. Women will die. Period. We can't predict which women will die, or how many. But some will die. By forcing women to be employed and commute to their workplaces you are effectively denying women the inalienable right to life. You are rolling the dice with women's lives.
Also, your strawman of my beliefs would only make sense if I was also opposed to women receiving the very best medical care while pregnant, in order to mitigate pregnancy complications. However, I'm not.
We don't force women to be employed. We don't force them, by law, to drive, or to remain in a car, without consent.
By law, a parent is obligated to provide air, food, water, and the ability to use the toilet (as well as other hygienic things). Otherwise a parent can be prosecuted for abandonment or neglect. A parent is not by law obligated to provide such things to fully functioning adult. Why does a toddler have such rights, but not an adult?
The meaning is clear to anyone with even the smallest amount of common sense
And you would only have a case if I had said ALL women will always die etc
Very best medical care can't prevent every death.
Free access to safe and effective contraception, and strong societal encouragement and education to use contraception unless you are trying to start a family, has been proven – over and over and over again – to be the only effective method of reducing teenage pregnancy and therefore reducing teenage abortion.
But prolifers continue to be unwilling to tackle the root problem – ignorance and lack of availability/access to contraception – and prefer instead to support such unhealthy attitudes as "sex is a loaded gun".
If a girl is pregnant and is too young to have a baby, she should be able to have an abortion, freely, legally, safely. Your objections to this demonstrate your lack of concern for girls' welfare.
And amazingly enough, in less than 1% of cases women aren't forced to engage in the act that causes conception, too. Funny how that works.
"if I was also opposed to women receiving the very best medical care while pregnant"
As you have repeatedly made clear, you are opposed to girls & women receiving the very best medical care when pregnant, as the very best medical care includes free access to safe legal abortion on demand.
But it's nice to meet an American who thinks the US should improve its healthcare system to the Canadian or French standard.
Oh, you prolifers. All so anti-sex.
Actually, no, the meaning is not clear. Perhaps you should be more conscientious when wording your statements.
Look worldwide beyond the U.S. From Advocates for Youth – Maternal mortality statistics underscore how societies have failed women, especially young women in developing countries. As many as 529,000 women die each year from complications of pregnancy and childbirth.1 Pregnancy is the leading cause of death for young women ages 15 through 19.2 The reproductive health of adolescent women depends on biological, social, cultural, and economic factors. Programs must provide education, family planning services, and pre- and postnatal care to reduce morbidity and mortality among young women.
World Bank. Maternal Mortality [Public Health at a Glance] 2006; http://www.worldbank.org; accessed 4/5/2007.
UNFPA (2004). State of World Population, 2004; http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2004/english/ch9/page5.htm; accessed 3/21/2007.
No, it can't. But on the flip side, a woman who is not pregnant could get breast cancer or blood clots from her birth control pills, but I don't see you advocating for them to be banned. Why do you want women to die?
Abortion is not medical care. Medical care is meant to heal, not murder.
We don't force women to take BCP.
You mean concise. And it is clear to anyone who is not trolling.
Oh, you pro-aborts. All so anti-life.
(By the way, my husband would vehemently dispute your assertion that I am anti-sex.) 😉
So its punishment then?
I meant literally. Your toddler can't use your kidneys for dialysis, for example.
I absolutely agree that we should work harder to improve maternal health and maternal outcomes worldwide, just as Victoria states in her article: "We fight for maternity leave, we fight to close the wage gap, we volunteer our time at domestic abuse shelters and pregnancy centers, and we spread awareness about gender discrimination across the world and close to home."
I'm a citizen of the world and have a global view of rights for women.
The Canadian system? Oh, surely not. I can tell you that living in Canada there is a 2-4 hour wait time at the only prenatal clinic here in town. And that's to simply pee on a stick. And we're not talking some small town either. In Canada the wait times are enormous and the bed-side manner is atrocious at times. Ask any Canadian waiting to have knee replacement surgery or cataract surgery what the wait time is? It took me a month to finally get a family doctor. A month. No if the US wants to improve healthcare, they don't want to follow the Canadian model.
Well, we can agree on that!
I don't live in Ireland. I live in Canada where people go to jail for Euthanasia. That's the way laws work. If the people vote to decide against something, than the people who violate such laws are prosecuted.
The woman in question had mental illness. Severe mental illness. Do we allow people who want to commit suicide do so because they suffer from mental illness? Do we allow them to amputate limbs because they have mental illness? Point is you uphold the woman's dignity and the child's dignity in light of mental illness. It isn't an excuse to allow someone to harm someone else or themselves.
In the Galway case, the woman was dying from antibiotic resistance E. coli. People die from that regardless of pregnancy. It was not the pregnancy that killed her.
I'm not familiar with the cancer case, but I assure you a number of cancers are treatable with chemotherapy even during pregnancy.
It is unfortunate that a number of children died in orphanages and in mother/child homes in Ireland. It is my understanding that this was due to diseases that are now treatable and not due to neglect. This of course does not negate the fact that currently there are lists of people wanting to adopt children.
As I said, the analogy is crude. The point is that we don't use extreme measures especially when we ourselves are negligent.
Having non procreative sex isn't a criminally negligent act.
By law, a parent is to provide normal basic necessities. For an unborn child, the normal basic necessity is to gestate. For a newborn, this means breastmilk or formula. For a toddler, it is having food provided to them. And the necessary caloric intake increases as the child ages, thus the amount of food a parent requires to provide increases until such time as the child can provide food for themselves. A parent could attempt to provide the same calorie intake of a one year old to a nine year old, but that would be a form of starvation. The child would die. The parent would be prosecuted. In the case of the unborn, removing the child from gestation is equally a death sentence. In some instances this is unavoidable, as in the case of removing the fallopian tube. The unborn can't sustain itself in the tube; it would die. The mother wouldn't be able to keep the fallopian tube and so it is removed with unfortunately the child.
In the case of abortion, it is simply removing the child from gestation with the intent to kill. This is unlike removing a diseased fallopian tube or a c-section, which doesn't involve killing the child. In the case of abortion, the child is forceably removed through chemicals or surgery. There's no intent to keep the child alive even after the child is removed. If it were simply a matter of removing the child and ending the pregnancy, why not provide outside life-saving measures to the child? You can give a toddler an extraordinary amount of nutrition that's not necessary for survival. Likewise some unborn simply need extraordinary amount of help outside the womb in order to live.
But of course you know this isn't about providing basic care to a child regardless of the stage of development. You view it as extraordinary care inside the womb and outside of it no care whatsoever. Unless I'm much mistake and you believe that all abortions should be treated like c-sections.
Pregnancy is a supererogatory burden. Whether or not it's natural is irrelevant. And, that is a fallacy.
The point of abortion is not to kill. It is to end the pregnancy. The prenate dies because it is not viable ex utero. If it was viable, as in a post viability pregnancy termination, all attempts will be made to deliver it alive.
I never said it was criminal. If you read the thread the point of the analogy was about responsibility. The analogy was to illustrate that if you leave your door unlocked it is likely someone will enter your home. If you choose to have sex and take no measures to prevent pregnancy then why the surprise of pregnancy? And if you do take such measures, why the surprise when they fail because all contraception excluding abstinence have a failure rate? If they do fail, why the need for shot gun tactics? You took the risk. Why does it suddenly become a surprise that sex produces babies? Is that not the natural process by which babies come to being? I doesn't surprise me that if I fail to lock the door someone may come it. It should shock someone that if they engage in sex you may wind up pregnant.
We deprive people of their bodily autonomy if they have committed a crime. You stated that non procreative sex was a negligent act. To deprive a woman of her bodily autonomy for having sex, and to subject her to great pain, and potential disability and death is to punish her as you would a criminal.
Maternal death rates for teenagers in the U.S. are probably lower because they have access to abortion and sent forced to gestate like in many other parts of the world. Hmmm. I suggest looking at teen maternal death rates in countries where abortion is illegal. It's higher.
Oh, my! I guess you don't know what abortion is. Have you heard of partial birth abortion? It's where they dilate the cervix, essentially causing the woman to go into labor, pull the baby partially out of the birth canal and then stab it in the back of the head to suck out it's brains. There's no attempt to simply end the pregnancy.
In surgical abortions, they dilate the cervix than put in instruments to pull the baby apart while removing them. Some of these babies are viable. In some cases the baby is already dead because the doctor was kind enough to inject it's heart with something to stop it from beating.
No this simply isn't a matter of having a c-section to end the pregnancy and remove the baby. In all cases of abortion, it's about killing the baby. In the US, there are laws which protect children who survive the abortion process. In Canada there are none. Those babies lives are literally in the hands of the abortionist who can either leave them die or send them to the nicu.
And all forms of abortion are currently legally available in Canada and in some parts of the US.
I advocate for full reproductive health care for women all over the world. Including abortion.
Sex isn't negligent. There are natural consequences to doing everything in life. You can smoke if you like, but you can also wind up with cancer. You may equally not wind up with cancer. It's a numbers game. There are statistically risks. I'd be happy to give you the statistically risks of becoming pregnant if you engage in sex. I'd also be happy to give you the statistical risk of getting into a car accident if you drive. Yet no one gets up in arms if an accident occurs because people know the risks. They prepare for them by buying insurance. They also may elect not to drive but walk or use public transportation as those have lower risks. It's completely surprising to me that nobody acknowledges that one of the consequences of sex is pregnancy and that people should be informed of that risk before they engage in sex.
Partial birth abortion = illegal. Now doctors have to do a more dangerous procedure and remove it in pieces. This is when there is no other option due to medical emergency or severe fetal deformity. This kind of post viability abortion is done on wanted babies in pregnancy gone wrong. Induction of labour is the safest if possible.
Viability is between 24 and 28 weeks. Most states don't permit abortion past 20 weeks.
Yes, a non viable prenate dies because it is separated from the uterus. The method of removal is irrelevant since an 8 week embryo is incapable of survival outside the uterus. Removal by c section would only harm the woman and I bet that you would still oppose abortion in that case.
Negligent = your words.
And we don't force people to live with lung cancer, even if they made a poor decision and spent their lives smoking.
Abortion is not euthanasia. Most women who live in Ireland leave the country to get an abortion. Even though abortion is illegal in Ireland it hasn't stopped abortion but only made it more difficult for women to get.
Great list of examples. I remember the case of the suicidal woman, horrible.
Why does that matter?
Partial birth abortion is legal in Canada. Didn't you read that? There are no laws preventing any type of abortions in Canada. None. It's entirely up the hospital and the doctor's discretion to refuse them.
A c-section is not the same as an abortion. A c-section is removing the child with the intent to save the mother and the child's life.
An abortion is the deliberate removal of a child with the intent to kill it. Chemicals and surgery is meant to maime and kill the child. It is not meant to remove the child and transplant it somewhere where it can survive. If that were the case it would be called a c-section.
In cases where a c-section is necessary to remove a fallopian tube or a diseased uterus, I have already stated (and I apologize if this was a bit unclear) that this is not abortion. Therefore I have no problem with such. I do however have a problem when the intent is to kill the child, which in every case of abortion, that is what happens.
You said "Having an abortion..is a moral choice." I'm trying to figure out where you derive your ethics from. One can't debate with you if they have no idea where you get your "morality" from. Obviously you have some sort of ethics or you wouldn't have stated such.
Yes. This x 1000.
*sigh* pregnancy is temporary. Lung cancer can be temporary. It can also be permanent. I've never heard of anyone being permanently pregnant. It's not a matter of forcing someone to live with lung cancer. It's simply a consequence of an action. Likewise pregnancy, while temporary is a consequence of an action. Nobody forces you to be pregnant. Eventually the pregnancy ends. Likewise you either die from lung cancer or you don't.
Just because that's your experience doesn't mean it's the same for all woman.
Would you oppose abortion if every abortion was a c section? Yes or no?
And in Canada, abortion is not possible until after 24 weeks (canada lacks the facilities)and also doctors will not perform an abortion past 24 weeks. Even though there is no abortion law in canada, you are being dishonest by implying that women have partial birth abortions as a routine measure.
If a woman requires a post viability abortion she will have to travel to the USA.
So you do see pregnancy as punishment for having sex.
But it's against the law in Ireland. Just like euthanasia is against the law in Canada. One could travel to Oregon too. Just because it's currently illegal to euthanize in Canada it hasn't stopped people from trying. It's just made it more difficult.
I'm not sure what your trying to get at. Are you arguing that euthanasia and abortion should be readily available everywhere despite the majority of voters disagreeing with you? Are you against government?
9 months in jail is also temporary.
Making you live with your lung cancer for 9 months before providing treatment is also temporary.
If the woman is permanently injured, disabled, or dies from the pregnancy, the effect is permanent.
You sound like injury, disability, and death are commonly what occurs during pregnancy. Do you have any statistics to back that up? Because what I see, is that in the US women die from cancer and heart disease long before pregnancy. And in other countries, the high maternity death rate is due to poor prenatal care. But you are promoting abortion over cancer screenings and better prenatal care? You think the deliberate killing of unborn is somehow better?
The right to not have harm, death, or disability imposed upon you exists regardless of the level of risk.
Shark diving is safer than pregnancy. That doesn't mean that you can be forced into the water without your explicit and ongoing consent.
Yes very racist.
BTW you are on a roll today of some very excellent posts. A fine job!
You are equating abortion, which is the deliberate ending of an unborn baby's life with a c-section which is removing a live baby and giving it care in order for it to survive. Abortions involve the dilation of the cervix. C-sections are an incision into the uterus. They are completely different. So I can't with certainty answer your question since I don't know what you are asking.
I never said they had partial birth abortions as a routine measure. I said they could. In fact what I said exactly was it was legal. Anyone could set up the facilities if they wished to and perform such abortions and nobody can say "boo" about it. The fact that no such laws exist or that the abortionist is not required to care for a child who is "born alive" is disturbing. I also said that all of this is up to the discretion of the hospital and the doctor. Many hospitals and doctors elect not to perform abortions at all. Of course this doesn't go over so well.
The point of abortion is to end the pregnancy unless of course you think that women are sociopaths who abort because they get off on killing?
Wrong, abortion is medical care.
And yet, for the most part, most pregnancies result in consensual sex. Also the vast majority of abortions are because of consensual sex. But if one goes shark diving they take a risk. Likewise sense most people aren't forced into sex, they also take a risk. There is no imposition. Nobody is maiming you or killing you. Pregnancy is the natural result of sex.
Foreseeable if unintended consequence =/= punishment
see here: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/04/no-i-am-not-interested-in-punishing.html
Medical care is intended to restore a human being to health. Killing a human being via direct abortion accomplishes the exact opposite. Ergo, direct abortion is not medical care.
That's not the point of abortion. You can end a pregnancy through c-section. You can end a pregnancy through induction and labor. I've done so myself. It did not result in a dead child, thankfully.
Abortion's goal is to terminate a pregnancy and kill the child in the process. There are no life saving measures given to the child unless the child is born in the US. A child past viability is injected with chemicals to stop the heart beat. Then the child is removed. A child born through induction does not have large syringe shoved into their heart before being removed. A child born by c-section does not have the uterus flushed with chemicals that burn the child before delivery. The point of abortion is not simply to remove the child. It's to kill it. Women aren't sociopaths. They simply are lied to or don't know or don't care. And in some cases do care and live to regret that decision every.single.day. but felt they had no support but rather pressured into it.
Please educate yourself on what exactly happens during various abortion procedures. They are not the same as delivery procedures because as I said, in abortion, the child is killed first, then removed.
Can't save a 6 week embryo no matter how hard you try. They cannot survive outside the uterus.
If all 6 week embryos were removed intact, through c section, would you still oppose abortion? The 6 week embryo will die exactly like the ectopic pregnancy – disconnection from the woman's body.
If you are forced to remain in shark infested water, the people who forced you to remain in the water are responsible for any harm that comes to you. And even though shark diving is risky, if you get bit, we do not deny you medical care because you were stupid and took a risk.
STDs are a natural result of sex. Should people be denied antibiotics because they had unprotected sex? You know. .punishment for negligent behavior.
Abortion is not the same as euthanasia. The topic of this thread is abortion. Outlawing abortion in Ireland is not stopping Irish citizens from traveling to the UK to have an abortion.
If antibiotics do nothing such as in the case of herpes, then yes deny away. But that would be because, it's pointless there is no cure for herpes.
And herpes isn't a punishment. I'm not sure why you keep assigning morality to such things. This is a secular blog. Unless you're using the term as social science, but then you are using it incorrectly. A punishment in social science is the removal of something.
Herpes is a consequence. A natural consequence of having unprotected sex (which is the negligent behavior because you are neglecting to take care of yourself and uping the risk). You run the risk of contracting herpes yourself.
Likewise pregnancy, however long, is the natural consequence of sex. There are ways to prevent pregnancy, abstinence being one among many as I've stated.
Medical care for pregnancy is different than abortion. Because as I've stated elsewhere abortion is the ending of a pregnancy by deliberately killing the unborn child. Pregnancies can be terminated in other ways, none of which involve the deliberate ending of a child's life.
Antibiotics can cure many STDs. Should people be denied antibiotics to treat STDS, which are a natural consequence of sex?
Unprotected sex = negligent behavior.
Women have an absolute right to decide when and if to reproduce. Abortion has existed for thousands of years. Abortion is as old as pregnancy. Women have and do have the right to decide their fertility. Anything less is misogyny.
A more apt comparison would be that you went shark diving (had sex), got bit by a shark (pregnancy) got out of the water (ended the aexual encounter). Medical treatment is necessary…the beat medical treatment, of course (prenatal care). Obviously the difference between a shark bite and a pregnancy is that the shark bite involves only your body and the pregnancy involves the body of another. No comparison or analogy is ever really accurate because pregnancy is a unique state of being. It cannot be compared to an injury or illness because the end of pregnancy is not physical death. Suffice it to say that while I try to clarify your analogy, no analogy is great.
So I think you are a humanist? For most humans, anyway.
Genocide has existed for thousands of years. Patriarchy has existed for thousands of years. That isn't an argument for the good of their existence.
The point is, we don't force people to risk life and limb against their will. Even if it would preserve a life.
I am Canadian, and our healthcare system is just fine. Northern tea partiers like delta here want to replace it with a US style system. Our conservative govt is trying to dismantle it by strangling it for funds.
The majority of people are against murder and genocide. This is not the same for abortion. Many if not a large majority of people will let women decide what is best for them, including having an abortion. I know people who wouldn't consider having an abortion but will not dictate what all women should do based on their personal choice. This is being pro-choice.
Birth control. If one had sex and doesn't want to be pregnant then abortion is an option. Sometimes the best option. It's not up to you or anyone else what is best for her. I fully support the personal decisions a woman makes because it is her decision not mine.
Yes, deliberately terminating a pregnancy is sometimes better. Every pregnancy is different as are all women different. This is why abortion is a personal medical decision.
So anyone with type 2 diabetes shouldn't be allowed treatment because it's their fault?
According to Guttmacher, 1% of abortions are due to pregnancy resulting from rape. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
It's estimated that about 5% of women who are raped will become pregnant as a result of the rape: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-claim-that-the-incidence-of-rape-resulting-in-pregnancy-is-very-low/2013/06/12/936bc45e-d3ad-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_blog.html
What doesn't make sense to me is that you are advocating for women's rights but only for women who are already born. So the question is does a women only have rights after she is born? What about the 33 million unborn baby girls who have been killed through abortion since 1973, in the US alone. They are undeniably a human and female…so why don't they have rights? I am a woman and therefore legally I have the "right" to kill my unborn female child but she has no rights because she is less developed…smaller than me? I would argue that the reason women are mistreated is because we as a society don't recognize the value of life from its beginning.
I am pro-life. And I am NOT anti-sex. But, everyone knows that anytime two people have sex the possibility of the woman becoming pregnant is there, even if she is on birth control. When someone wants to have a baby they have sex. But, people also have sex for pleasure and there is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong, is that people have sex, accidentally become pregnant and decided to kill their unborn child because they do not want it. Once a human life is created aka conception, you cannot "get rid of" or erase the act without killing an innocent life. The unborn child is already there, growing inside of their mother regardless of if the child was planned or not. To say that the child's life is less valuable then the mother's is ultimately saying that having sex is worth more than our very own children. We will never value the lives of those already born until we recognize and cherish the lives of the smallest human beings.
Born or unborn, no "woman" is entitled to the body of another.
Oh, and born women are actually capable of suffering unlike a mindless clump of tissue that may or may not ever achieve sentience.
I understand that in this post, I will not be able to change your heart on this matter. So, I do not concede to your argument but I pray that you will see the humanity in the unborn human children. Who, at only three weeks gestational age already have a beating heart. http://americanpregnancy.org/while-pregnant/first-trimester/
A beating heart doesn't mean anything if the brain is not functional.
If you stand by that logic you are saying we should be able to kill anyone if their brain isn't "functional". So, how do you define functionality? Many people can't talk or even think logically the way you and I can…do they deserve to die? are they unworthy of life?
Prenates are not sentient. No mind. Literally. Even a severely cognitively disabled person has a mind. A prenate is less sent it than a fly.
I was going to post the same comment too! Excellent article.
mine too, and I am sure many other pro-llife husbands too!
The definition of sentient is: having the power of perception by the senses. unborn babies respond to their parents voices, move around in their mother's wombs when they are uncomfortable or when they hear loud noises. (they are not brain dead or comparable to a fly) "A simple definition of consciousness is sensory awareness of the body, the self, and the world. The fetus may be aware of the body, for example by perceiving pain. It reacts to touch, smell, and sound, and shows facial expressions responding to external stimuli." -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19092726
It is not right or fair to discriminate against the unborn because they are less developed than you are.
Prior to 25 weeks fetuses have zero capacity for sentience.
Do you eat meat? If so, why do you discriminate against animals because they are not as intelligent as you?
You are comparing human unborn children to animals!!!
An unborn dog or hippo will never develop into an adult human being….so you're argument is invalid. Whatever is human is human from the beginning. It's not about intelligence it's about humanity.
So when a pregnant woman dies of eclampsia, and obviously the foetus she is carrying dies inside her, to you that's not murder – because saving her life by performing an abortion would not in your view be healthcare?
Living in the UK, I naturally think that the US should follow the NHS model, which while not perfect is clearly a vast improvement on their current model.
So you don't count women as human beings, then?
When pregnancy is damaging a woman's health or even threatening her life, abortion will restore her to health. Without access to safe legal abortion, girls and women die. But you don't want to save their lives, and so redefine all girls and women as "not human" and therefore abortion as "not healthcare".
And this is why prolifers can't be feminists.
I am pro-life. And I am NOT anti-sex.
So, you support all kids getting proper sex education with strong encouragement to use contraception, and free access to contraception?
…which is, incidentally, the only means by which the abortion rate is ever lowered?
Oh, you anti-sex types. All so ready to claim that anyone who supports a woman's right to choose is "pro-abort".
And always, always arguing that women need to be punished for having sex by pregnancy: that no woman should be allowed to choose when and how many children to have.
You just said that sentience, let alone sapience, isn't necessary to be considered a person.
So why exempt animals?
It only matters that the law of the land protect innocent human beings from being killed. In 99% of cases no one forces a woman to get pregnant and forcing her not to kill her child will not automatically kill her. Everyone on this page will advocate good health care for pregnant women and the mother's life exception. But if i as a woman create a life i cannot undo my responsibility to that life by running around screaming "I could die"
So you would permit abortion in the case of rape?
And as women are also innocent human beings, the law of the land must protect us by allowing safe legal abortion.
I would say abortion is far less violent than child birth… Also it is much safer for the woman- not that you care about her at all. You just want to make sure the little sIut is punished because she dared to have sex for a reason besides baby making.
Giving up sex for life is not a realistic option for any couple in a normal relationship.
If you don't want to have to undergo the misery of pregnancy the only option to end the pregnancy is abortion.
that is maybe the most offensive thing I have read. You are saying that sex selective abortion….abortion just because a girl is a girl is ok because it furthers the pro choice cause, and it really doesn't matter to you since it is girls from other ethnicities that are being killed. Racist!
Oh please. All that these bans do is profile Asian women, which is racist as fuck.
Sex selective abortion is just a symptom of overlying misogyny. And girls are aborted or infanticided because people like you don't want them to have any reproductive freedom once they hit puberty. Making girls subservient to their biology is what dehumanizes them, and if your culture perceives them as worthless broodmares, of course more females than males will be aborted.
And I don't believe for a second that anti choices really care about unborn female fetuses. This is just another wedge issue to ban abortion outright. It is a cynical move, an exploitative one, no less, just like PL exploits the disabled, then cuts social and medical programs once they are born.
If the eclampsia occurs post-viability, the solution is to deliver the baby and try to save both mother and child.
If it occurs pre-viability, then the principle of double effect comes into play: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ (see #3 under "Applications")
The doctrine of double-effect is a religious doctrine, which allows medical staff in Catholic hospitals to act to save women's lives, albeit by mutilating them without any medical necessity – for example, as you appear to be proposing, performing a hysterectomy on a woman who needs an abortion.
So much for this blog being for secular prolifers…
Feminists for Life would disagree with you (as would the early feminists, as they were also anti-abortion): http://www.feministsforlife.org/
I think the solution is to try and save BOTH mother and child. They are both valuable human beings.
I also dispute your assertion that "Without access to safe legal abortion, girls and women die." For example, let's look at the stats prior to Roe v Wade:
The American Medical Association reported that the actual number of abortion-related deaths in 1950 was 263 and even those figures were dropping, with 119 deaths in 1970. (Source: Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. “Induced Termination of Pregnancy Before and After Roe v. Wade: Trends in the Mortality and Morbidity or Women,” Journal of the American Medical Association,12/9/92.)
The Alan Guttmacher Institute published stats that abortion deaths fell from around 200 in 1965 to 110 in 1967. (Source: "Abortion Providers Share Inner Conflicts,” The American Medical News, 7/12/93.)
CDC records show that beginning in 1940, the death rate from illegal abortion was falling faster than the overall maternal death rate. (Source: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: CDC Surveillance Summaries, United States 1989, Issued 1992.)
Well, I support a woman's right to choose. I just dispute that anyone, man or woman, has the "right to choose" to kill another innocent human being for any reason.
Why do you take offense to the term "pro-abortion"? Based on your comments, you seem to think that abortion is a perfectly moral and acceptable, even laudable choice. I don't understand your offense to the term given how you champion abortion.
I absolutely believe that women should be allowed to choose when and how many children to have. (I take great offense to people who tell me that I have too many children, for example.) However, I don't think that any man or woman should be able to kill another innocent human being in the process of making that choice.
It's not either/or, it's both/and. I support promoting the value of girls and women as human beings worthy of respect (which the pro-life movement is 100% about, actually — unlike you pro-aborts, who support dehumanizing unborn children, whether male or female) AND support banning sex-selective abortion. Why are you presenting a false dilemma?
And no comments about the doctor who is in danger of losing his medical license because he refused to participate in a sex-selective abortion? I must assume, from your silence, that you support such an action (and thereby support sex-selective abortion in the process).
It's not a religious doctrine, it's a moral doctrine. Are you claiming that atheists can't be moral, or hold to moral doctrines? I think the good folks at Secular ProLife would vehemently dispute that assertion.
Feminists for Life would disagree with you
I know, and I'd happily argue it out with them, but they generally avoid engaging real feminists in debate about their belief that girls and women should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will. Understandable, as a belief women should be forced is incompatible with feminism.
Safe abortion (relatively safer than childbirth, as abortion statistically always is) was available in the US before Roe vs Wade. Ursula K. Le Guin, and other writers, have described how it was to obtain a safe illegal abortion in the bad old prolife days where women could be – and often were – investigated by the police for having had a miscarriage.
Access to abortion – even illegal abortion – makes
pregnancy safer for women. Safest of all is safe legal abortion that can be and will be performed in the woman's local hospital at need.
So someone can put a gun to your head and play Russian roulette, and that is OK, because you should not have a choice in how much risk you want or do not want to face.
Hm, moving the goal posts, I see. It's not "access to safe and legal" abortion that saves women, it's "access to any and all abortion, whether legal or illegal." I suppose you're a fan of Kermit Gosnell, then?
Can you explain to me how abortion, legal or illegal, is at all safe for the child who is killed? Seems to me that a procedure that is fatal nearly 100% of the time is not "safe."
As to the women of Feminists for Life, I don't doubt that they no longer choose to engage with you, given how you persist in ignoring facts and logic in favor of your own agenda of hatred and dehumanization.
It's not a religious doctrine
Says who? Thomas Aquinas "is credited with introducing the principle of double
effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the
Summa Theologica" – a theological / religious text, not a moral text.
"The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the
application of the principle of double effect"
You are arguing this as a Catholic. This is supposed to be a secular blog.
I just dispute that anyone, man or woman, has the "right to choose" to kill another innocent human being for any reason.
So, you're in favour of forced use of human bodies in order to keep "innocent human beings" alive? Forced removal of a pint of blood as required from rare blood types? Forced removal of a kidney or half a liver? People die from not having enough blood, from not having a healthy kidney, from not having a functioning liver. You believe that people who have healthy supplies of these organs and could keep them alive, are killing those innocent human beings and should be forced to use their bodies against their will to keep them alive?
Do you believe that?
If you don't, why do you make a woman's uterus – indeed, her whole body when she's pregnant – your big exception to "no forced use of someone else's body"?
How, moving the goalposts?
You point out that pre Roe vs Wade., when safe-ish illegal abortion was available to most women, most women did not die in pregnancy. True: they had access to abortion. Is that your justification for trying to make abortion illegal – that you prefer for women to have to go to clinics run by men like Kermit Gosnell?
Can you explain to me how abortion, legal or illegal, is at all safe for the child who is killed?
When a child is pregnant, surely you recognise it is far safer for the child to have an abortion than to risk the child dying in pregnancy – as is very, very likely when a child is trying to endure pregnancy?
Or were you hatefully, dehumanisingly, trying to equate a fertilised egg or a foetus to a child, and horrifying, dehumanisingly, trying to claim that a woman who has an abortion is "killing a child"?
You're engaging in the genetic fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
The moral principle of double effect is derived from the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, but it is a moral doctrine of philosophy. Religious belief is not necessary in order for the moral principle to hold true, nor is religious belief necessary to practice the doctrine. If you read the entire page (from the Stanford University Department of Philosophy — hardly a religious institution), you'll see that the Supreme Court has invoked the principle of double effect in some of its rulings. Do you think that the U.S. Supreme Court is a religious body?
I'm curious, do you also refuse to believe in the Big Bang, since the theory was proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaitre? Do you refuse to believe in genetics due to the work of Fr. Gregor Mendel? Are atheists disallowed from studying those topics since their originators were Catholic priests?
There can be no respect when you argue that a woman should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.
Doing so invariably requires dehumanising girls and woman to the level of breeding machines.
You're moving goalposts, and dodging the question. I never said the doctrine of double effect didn't exist – obviously it does., Catholic hospitals make use of it on a regular basis as a religious justification for providing an inadequate healthcare service to their patients. I pointed out that the doctrine of double effect is explicitly a religious doctrine, especially with regard to abortion. Your use of it demonstrates that you may be a regular commenter on what's called a "secular" prolife blog, but you cannot stay away from religion when arguing for forced use of women and girls.
And you have not answered the question – perhaps I phrased it unclearly?
Why should a woman who needs an abortion because her pregnancy will kill her, be permanently mutilated with a hysterectomy, just because of the religious scruples of the hospital she is unfortunate enough to be a patient in?
That question has been covered before on this blog, multiple times. See here: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/08/bodily-autonomy-vs-womens-reality.html and here: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/02/bodily-rights-arguments-revisited.html
oh sorry, racist AND sexist
Thanks. So, like most prolifers, you think that once a girl or a woman has had sex – voluntarily or not – it's OK to force the use of her body through pregnancy and childbirth against her will, regardless of what harm this does to her.
Like all prolifers, when it comes down to it: you're anti-sex.
I prefer that women not seek abortion at all. If they do seek abortion, and it is unfortunately legal, then I think that the facilities should be held to the same safety standards as other medical facilities. Quite often, they are not (see Gosnell).
A child is killed in abortion. That's evident. Even pro-choice people acknowledge that: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/so_what_if_abortion_ends_life/ If a very young teen is pregnant, that is a tragedy, and there are two victims in that situation. However, the solution is not to kill one to save the other if it can be helped. The solution is to try to save them BOTH.
The fact that you have to resort to hypothetical, rare, hard cases to justify abortion is very telling. I'm curious, would you support a ban on abortion that had exceptions for rape/incest and life of the mother?
In summary – thanks for the links – you stand by the usual prolife belief that once a girl or a woman has had sex, she is no longer "innocent human life" and it's OK to force the use of her body through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.
I don't argue that a woman should be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will. That is a strawman.
I'm curious. If you think that women needing abortion should get to have abortions in clinics held to proper medical standards (as the prolife authorties in Philadelphia failed to do with Kermit Gosnell) how can you possibly think it's "unfortunate" that abortion is legal? If abortion is illegal, then all women who need abortions will end up having to use clinics run by doctors like Gosnell.
Why is that what you want?
Or do you not know how in patriarchal cultures, such as Pakistan and parts of India, women have only three uses:
1) baby maker (the man needs an heir)
2) home maker (slave labour)
3) sex toy
Give girls an education, and give them control over their reproductive lives.
Explain how that is racist and sexist. Demonstrate it, with logic.
I never said that you said it doesn't exist. Are you even reading my responses? I'm saying that it is a moral principle that can be practiced without religious belief, as is evident by the Supreme Court invoking it in their decisions. Again, do you refuse to study or consider the Big Bang theory, or genetics, since both were originated by Catholic priests?
Your question demonstrates that you don't understand the principle of double effect. A hysterectomy would only be medically indicated for a condition such as a cancerous uterus. You could not morally perform on a hysterectomy on a woman who "just wanted an abortion."
Of course you do. No abortion for rape victims, remember. Illegal.
No, I'm not saying that. Read the articles.
Nowhere in any of your comments have I got any impression that what you argue for is for all girls and women to have free access to safe legal abortion on demand.
So, your claim that you don't want a woman to be forced through pregnancy and childbirth against her will fails at the first test: if you're not willing for a woman who wants an abortion to have one, safely, legally, freely, you do want her to be forced, against her will.
yes and so you say that it is ok to perpetuate this by having sex selective abortions
I think it's unfortunate that abortion is legal because abortion kills an innocent human being.
I think it is unfortunate that, if abortion were not legal, women would seek unsafe, illegal abortion. It's very unfortunate when people make bad choices, especially when those choices end in tragedy. But I don't find it logical to enable people to safely make bad choices. I'd rather provide them viable alternatives to the bad choice.
"I never said that you said it doesn't exist."
You asked me if I disbelieved in the Big Bang "since the theory was proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaitre" or in genetics, based on the work of Fr Mendel. So you were trying to argue I claimed the doctrine of double effect didn't exist. It does: it's a religious doctrine, unlike physics or genetics, both of which are science.
You could not morally perform on a hysterectomy on a woman who "just wanted an abortion."
I agree. And yet, full hysterectomy instead of abortion is precisely what is proposed in #3 under "Applications" on the Stamford page you linked me to, in answer to my point that denying abortion to a woman in pre-eclampsia will kill her.
and that alternative whether you like it or not will be illegal unsafe abortion and women will be harmed and some will die not that you care
In the case of rape, I do believe it is wrong to punish one of the victims of the rape for the rape itself. An unborn child is just as much a victim as the woman who was violated. I also believe that women shouldn't be allowed to kill their rapists if not in self-defense (e.g., vigilante justice). Does that mean I support "forcing a woman to go through the pain and hardship of a criminal trial"?
So, in short, you prefer clinics run by Kermit Gosnells to safe, legal abortion performed in proper hospitals or clinics.
I don't think anyone should be allowed to kill innocent human beings, no, especially to punish them for the crime of their biological father. Again, I find it interesting that you must resort to hard cases to justify abortion.
yes it means that you believe that if someone is born with a uterus that they are then obligated to give birth no matter the circumstances of conception
Sounds like rape apology to me. You support a rapists right to impregnate women at will.
I did. That is the basis of their argument – that it's okay to force women (or, as you have just suggested, force women to use clinics run by men like Gosnell) when the woman has has sex. Apparently having sex means, in your view, that women no longer have the right or the responsibility to decide how many children to have, and when.
Needless to say, I disagree.
No, I asked if you REFUSED TO STUDY OR ACKNOWLEDGE the Big Bang.
Please actually read my comments.
Do you realize what an "example" is? #3 under "Applications" is an EXAMPLE of how the principle of double effect would be applied. It is not the ONLY application, just one of many.
Although it does explain why your reading comprehension and logical reasoning are so poor.
To profile women, mainly Asian women, is racist.
And the ONLY reason pro life opposes sex selective abortion is to ban all abortion incrementally. It is a cynical ploy, and it won't end misogyny. Denying women abortion is misogynist.
Yes, that is unfortunate that people make bad choices. I do care, and I will work hard to make sure that women know they have alternatives so they don't make bad choices. However, "women will make bad choices if they can't kill human beings" is not a justification to make killing human beings legal.
Nope, I prefer that abortion is illegal, across the board.
So, you believe that forced use of girls and women's bodies is perfectly okay, even when that means forcing rape vics through pregnancy and childbirth against their will.
Why do you think it's OK to force raped girls to have babies?
I don't have to resort to hard cases to justify abortion, Jo Anna. I think forced use of other human being's bodies is always wrong, just as slavery and rape are always wrong.
Using hard cases points up to you how inhumanly cruel your support of forced use of girls and woman is.
hm, sounds like your belief that if someone is born with a uterus they are obligated to abort the unborn child.
(I didn't realize this was "Make Up Stupid Strawman Arguments Day! What fun!)
No, it is not. You have very poor reading comprehension.
of course you do not care if women die you only care about fetuses
Why do you think it's okay to punish the secondary victims of rape for the rape itself? Do you like punishing rape victims?
I care about them both.
The example of forcing a hysterectomy on a woman who only needed an abortion is the example you pointed out, in justification of your belief that a woman dying of pre-eclampsia mustn't be allowed to have an abortion.
As a Catholic hospital found when the local bishop excommunicated a nun who approved an ethical abortion on a woman dying of pre-eclampsia, the doctrine of "double effect" is never used to save a woman's life. The hospital is no longer Catholic, and the bishop said the woman would be better dead than have her life saved by abortion.
My point is: this is a religious doctrine you're citing, on what is supposedly a secular blog.
if someone is born with a uterus they have the right not to be treated as reproductive objects by you and by rapists
So your preference is: women die of eclampsia, because abortion is illegal: women die of molar pregnancies or ectopic pregnancies, because abortion is illegal: women die of cancer, because they can't have chemotherapy, because abortion is illegal. You prefer these deaths, and you prefer that profiteering doctors running unsafe illegal practices – like Kermit Gosnell – should flourish.
Prolife=pro death. Prolife=pro Gosnell. Prolife=pro force.
I know people who would rather kill themselves then be forced to give birth, nothing you could say or do would stop them if they are denied abortion. You don't care about both because you would rather a woman commit suicide than have a safe legal abortion
Er, you're the one arguing for punishing and dehumanising rape victims by forcing them through pregnancy and childbirth against their will. I think every rape vic should get emergency contraception as soon as possible, and if that doesn't work (but hopefully it will) she gets to choose to have an abortion, if and when she wants one.
But that's because I oppose forced use of other human beings, unlike prolifers, who elevate forced use to a moral value.
I do believe it is wrong to punish one of the victims of the rape for the rape itself
How is a fetus a victim of a rape? I mean, does existence victimize it? Surely life is a gift, courtesy of the rapist making the decision to rape the woman, yes?
No, it's an example how double effect would be invoked in a situation (as an example) where a pregnant woman needs a life-saving treatment that could kill the unborn child.
Why are you committing libel against Bishop Olmsted? Can you please provide a citation to where he said that "the woman would be better off dead"? A direct quote, please.
Yes, double effect is sometimes used in Catholic hospitals. But again, just because a principle can be used by religious people does not mean that it cannot also be used by atheists (unless you are trying to claim that atheists cannot hold to moral principles).
Nope, I have excellent reading comprehension. That you're driven to that argument strongly suggests you have never thought through a morality that says it's not okay to take a pint of blood from someone against their will even to save a life, but it is okay to force a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will, on the grounds that if she isn't so forced, the fertilised egg will not be gestated into a baby.
in case you had not noticed, brace yourself for this, Pro-lifers oppose ALL abortions! Sex selective abortions are particularly hineous because they target one segment of the population merely for the fact that they are girls. When you allow this to happen you add to the discrimination validating in fact the idea that girls are not even worthy to be born, but boys are.
You opposed "the forced use of other human beings," but not the killing of innocent human beings? That strikes me as odd. Are there any other contexts in which you believe that it's acceptable to kill an innocent human being, or is pregnancy the only one?
An unborn child is not a rapist, nor is he enslaving the woman for his own gain. He's just as much a victim of the rape as the mother. Why do you believe otherwise?
Because the unborn child is not a rapist, nor is he enslaving the woman for his own gain. Pregnancy is a natural phenomenon in which an innocent bystander is invited into existence by the body’s natural functions. He is not to blame for the fact that those natural functions were not consensual.
Question for you. Let's say I donate a kidney to a friend or relative. After three months, I decide that I really want my kidney back. Am I within my rights to demand that my friend or relative have their kidney surgically removed and re-implanted in me?
Yeah, which means that you are cynically exploiting female fetuses in an attempt to incrementally ban all abortion.
Because the unborn child is not a rapist, nor is he enslaving the woman for his own gain.
Yeah, the prenate kind of is. The prenate is biologically programmed to extract as many resources from the woman's body as possible. It is exploitation, whether the prenate intends to or not. Nature is not pretty.
The woman is not to blame either, but you would punish her for being raped.
I beg the Bishop's pardon! (Well, I do if he's reading this comments-thread, which seems unlikely.) It wasn't Bishop Olmsted who argued that it wasn't worth saving a woman's life by performing an abortion.
It was Rev. John Ehrich, the medical ethics director for the Diocese of Phoenix, who argued that "the end" (saving the woman's life) did not justify "the means" (an abortion).
Ehrich said: "She consented in the murder of an unborn child. There are some situations where the mother may in fact die along with her child. But — and this is the Catholic perspective — you can't do evil to bring about good. The end does not justify the means."
You are still trying to argue that the doctrine of double-effect is not religious?
You actively endorse the killing of innocent human beings by denial of safe legal abortion. And you happily promote the forced use of innocent human beings through pregnancy and childbirth.
I'd say "that strikes me as odd", but I've argued with a lot of prolifers, and your love of force, dehumanisation of women, and callousness about the death of innocent human beings, no longer strikes me as odd: just an example of the awfulness that humans are capable of.
Your attempt to make forcing a rape victim through pregnancy and childbirth morally justifiable by claiming that the egg fertilised by the rapist is ethically entitled to forced gestation in the rape victim's body, that not to force the rape vic to gestate the egg fertlised by the rapist is somehow "punishing the unborn child", is … well, a strange, strange, inhuman and callous argument, only possible from someone who really does not see rape victims as human beings.
And so, goodbye.
Interestingly, the unborn child also gives health benefits to the mother, so your supposition is not accurate. See here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-discover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain/
Also, by your logic, every woman should have an abortion, since unborn children are "biologically programmed to extract as many resources from the woman's body as possible." Sounds like pregnancy is a pretty terrible thing, in your view. Why not kill every unborn child who is exploiting his or her mother?
The cons outweigh the pros. And the very thing that might give 'health benefits' can also kill.
So, you admit to lying earlier. Neither Bp. Olmsted nor Rev. Ehrich said that "the woman would be better off dead." In fact he did not use those words at all.
Congratulations, you've just destroyed any last shred of credibility that you may have possessed, since you've shown you're willing to lie to defend your beliefs.
And yes, it is a Catholic moral principle that we may not commit evil (killing an innocent child) so that good may result. If we did not have that principle, all manner of things could be justified (killing children living in poverty so they are no longer "suffering," for example). However, in the case you're citing, the hospital did not invoke the principle of double effect, as they could have, to save the mother. Nor did they seek a treatment that has a 100% success rate in curing PIH: http://www.wisn.com/Doctor-Gives-Hope-To-Pregnant-Women-With-Heart-Condition/8079188
Why do you think that the doctors, who are in the business of saving lives, should not have tried to save both the mother and child?
Are you still trying to argue that atheists cannot hold to moral principles, even ones that were derived from (but do not require) religious belief? I know many atheists who would object to that assertion.
I see both rape victims and children conceived in rape as human beings. Sadly, you only see the former and not the latter. Maybe you should do some research into some of the people that you wish were dead. For example: http://www.theradiancefoundation.org/ryan/
Once again… it's not either/or, but both/and.
I am simply asking your questions for clarification of your stance. I did not say that you believe all children should be aborted, I asked IF that was your belief. It's certainly logically consistent with what you've said so far.
"it is not up to you, Joanna, to decide that a rape victim should risk her life and health for the unborn human created through rape. ONLY the rape victim can decide. She lives her life, not you."
And yet you don't extend the same courtesy to the unborn child, who did not ask to be conceived in terrible circumstances. Why can you decide that he or she can be killed? Shouldn't you let him or her live his or her own life?
The risk of death to an unborn child from abortion is very nearly 100%. The risk of death to a pregnant woman is very, very small. Why does the nearly 100% risk of death for the child not outweigh the tiny risk of death for the mother?
No Joanna, it isn't logically consistent. As has been repeatedly explained to you, we don't force people to risk their life, health and overall wellbeing on behalf of another. Even if that means that a life can be preserved. You can't even be forced to give blood or bone marrow, even if that would save the life of a 5 year old dying from leukemia.
Or do you think that you should be legally obligated to donate bone marrow to save the lives of dying 5 year olds?
Are you claiming that I said the above? I did not, and I think those words used to describe women who abort are horrid and awful. I also think that it is morally and legally wrong to refuse treatment to someone in need, regardless of how they were injured.
I think it's horrible and tragic that women make bad choices that endanger their lives. But that does not mean I think those bad choices should therefore be legal, especially when it involves the death of another human being.
Also, let's look at the stats from the "good old days," shall we?
The American Medical Association reported that the actual number of abortion-related
deaths in 1950 was 263 and even those figures were dropping, with 119 deaths in 1970. (Source: Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. “Induced Termination of Pregnancy Before and After Roe v. Wade: Trends in the Mortality and Morbidity or Women,” Journal of the American Medical Association,12/9/92.)
The Alan Guttmacher Institute published stats that abortion deaths fell from around 200 in 1965 to 110 in 1967. (Source: "Abortion Providers Share Inner Conflicts,” The American Medical News, 7/12/93.)
CDC records show that beginning in 1940, the death rate from illegal abortion was falling faster than the overall maternal death rate. (Source: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: CDC Surveillance Summaries, United States 1989, Issued 1992.)
"yeah yeah, some women will die from unsafe illegal abortion, but hey, the lives of fetuses are more valuable than the life of a suicidal raped 13 year old"
Two points, then I really need to sign off for a while and get some work done.
1. There is a moral and medical distinction to be made between pregnancy *itself* and the *complications* that can arise while pregnant. No one actually "dies" from "pregnancy" (you won't see "pregnancy" by itself on a death certificate as the cause of death) but complications arising while pregnant can put women at risk of death. The medical response ought to be to do all possible to resolve the *complications*, not end the pregnancy, since there are two human beings involved, not just one.
2. Morally, your comment presupposes a potential unjust aggressor placing the woman's life at risk. Responses to unjust aggressors are supposed to be proportionate to the aggression. Abortion isn't a "proportionate" response because it's the complications–not the baby–comprising the aggression. But even if that point is conceded, one doesn't merely go around killing people who might harm them but haven't yet harmed them. You don't gun down a neighbor just because you think he/she might someday get mad enough to kill you.
Pregnancy by it's very nature is dangerous. Evolution is a tinkerer, not a designer. The dangers of pregnancy are part and parcel of the whole thing, and the risk is *always* there.
Yes, the fetus is an unjust aggressor, whether it intends to hurt the woman or not. Pregnancy, if unwanted, is an intimate bodily violation, and it just happens that the *only* way to end the pregnancy is to remove the prenate from the woman's body. If there was a way to beam it out and put it into a pro-life woman, I am sure that that would be done. But there is no other alternative. The LEAST amount of force that can be used to end the violation is to remove the prenate from the uterus – and the prenate dies because it no longer has access to the woman's body. If the prenate is viable, it can be delivered, alive.
Hey Victoria, it's Chip! Hope you're doing well. I just wanted to say that this is an AWESOME piece. I agree with just about every word. You seem to be getting tons of comments, so I don't know if you'll even see mine, but oh well! Anyway…
I'm all for gender equality. Really I am. But my main (well, only) problem with the feminist movement is its attitude toward abortion. And it's not JUST that I disagree with abortion (I do, wholeheartedly). It's also what you said: it seems like abortion isn't even being discussed! My guess would be that pro-life feminists are a significant minority. Obviously, not all feminists are going to agree on something like abortion, but as you said, just because it's uncomfortable doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it. And again, like you said, stuff like wage gaps and stereotypes are obvious injustices and thus are easy to talk about right? Which is not to say we shouldn't talk about them, but we clearly shouldn't ignore the tougher, "cloudier" feminist issues like those you highlighted.
Anyway, that's all a fancy way of saying "I agree." Haha. But this article legitimately brightened my day, because it makes me really happy to see women, feminists, who still defend their pro-life beliefs. And I, being a male, never really feel like I have a whole lot I can say to a pro-choice woman about abortion, because who am I to disagree, right? I don't have to have the kid. So we pro-life males need strong, intelligent women like yourself to spearhead that argument for us. People like you are important, and they give me hope that maybe we can eliminate abortion someday. Thanks for the article Victoria. I'm really glad that abortion hasn't been lost on you in light of all the (admittedly still pretty awesome) Emma Watson HeForShe feminist stuff that has been in the news lately.
To those People down there: You are so focussed on women that you complete Forget about the children killed. If you think ypou know beeter than science because fetusses become alive at birth by magical goo oder some other pro-choice nonsense, go ahead, put your ignorance out for the world to see it. But you're saying it is better than millions of babies die cruelly by legal abortion (and a few women too, let's face it) than to save all this lives because some of this pregnancies might harm a woman with a chance even lower then getting eaten by a shark? Are you f**ing insane? What's wrong with you, apart from that it doesn't even make sense in itself, because pro-lifers support abortion to save the mothers live (but only then! and it happens near to never).
An archaic doctrine. And not being Catholic, it means nothing to me.
I must also assume that the Big Bang theory (the actual theory, not the show) and the study of genetics mean nothing to you, given that they were originated by Catholics as well.
Since those two things are not part of Catholic doctrine, it's not really relevant. Still going to use methotrexate instead of surgery.
You are still conflating the "dangers" of pregnancy with pregnancy itself.
You also assume that whether the physical presence of the "prenate" is an intimate violation is dependent not on any objective condition, but on a subjective "want" for the pregnancy.
You're also (incorrectly) concluding that the proximate amount of force is to kill, when this is not supported by the evidence of doctors who successfully treat complications of pregnancy without killing.
Are you saying that atheists are not allowed to adhere to moral doctrine if that moral doctrine happens to also exist within Catholic moral teaching?
There are prohibitions against theft and murder in Catholic moral teaching. Are those also not relevant to you? Are atheists disallowed (in your view) from adhering to those moral precepts since they are also found within Catholic doctrine?
Actually, the idea of having safe abortions so that women will not have illegal ones and become harmed is kind of like having safe rape houses so the abuser will not be harmed (say, by an unwanted STD). That would be more of an accurate comparison, because in both abortion and rape one human is ALWAYS harmed by someone in a position of power. A disgusting comparison, indeed, but certainly one of the reasons we believe legal abortion to save women from illegal abortion is a strawman argument.
I'm not conflating anything. Pregnancy by it's very nature is not safe.
ou also assume that whether the physical presence of the "prenate" is an
intimate violation is dependent not on any objective condition, but on a
subjective "want" for the pregnancy.
yep. Kind of like sex is rape if you don't want a penis inside of you, non?
You're also (incorrectly) concluding that the proximate amount of force
is to kill, when this is not supported by the evidence of doctors who
successfully treat complications of pregnancy without killing.
If your body is being intimately violated without your explicit and ongoing consent, and the threat of bodily harm and death is hanging over you, even torture (labour/birth) then you would be well within your rights to use whatever means possible to end the violation – even if your attacker died as a result.
What about a person who would rather kill him/herself rather than raise their already-born child, and nothing would stop them from suicide unless they could kill their child? A similar predicament. Not one that justifies killing the child.
Yes, in other words, women who choose illegal/unsafe abortion deserve what they get, even if it's death and disability, because they are acting criminally, and why should we care about any harm that comes to a criminal, right?
Nope, because your born child isn't intimately violating your body. And if you really don't want to raise your kid, you can drop it off at an EMS, a fire station, a police station, a hospital, or give it up for adoption.
We don't force people to parent.
The reason pregnant people who do not want to be pregnant will kill themselves – me included – is because people like you would force us to undergo what to us is TORTURE on behalf of another. I am sorry, but I am not a mindless incubator, and if you objectify me in service of a fetus I will put a bullet in my brain.
I never said anyone was disallowed from anything. But I don't see why I should be cut open if I have an ectopic pregnancy when a non-invasive method is available. At the very least I should be given a choice, and my conscience should take precedence over that of the doctor's. It seems pointless for a pregnancy that is doomed, and I'm not sacrificing my fallopian tube or uterus to principle.
People who were talking about the Savita situation in Ireland and saying that inducing labor would've been immoral claimed that double effect would've allowed for the removal of her uterus. In other words, they would've punished her miscarriage by making it impossible for her to have any more children.
You are still conflating the "dangers" of pregnancy with pregnancy itself.
No, your analogy fails. For sex to be rape, there has to be an aggressor who consciously and deliberately rejects your refusal. An unborn child is not an aggressor. Whether or not the sex is consensual has no bearing on if the biological process of conception occurs as a result.
You're incorrect on point three, too. Criminal law states that you can't kill someone just because you think they MIGHT kill you, or that there is some sort of risk that they may harm you in the future. For the right of self-defense in killing an aggressor, you must demonstrate *imminent threat* AND reasonable fear of harm (both, not just one). Neither of these are true in the case of a normal, uncomplicated pregnancy — neither of them are true in the case of a pregnancy with complications, either. If someone believes that pregnancy = instant death, then that's irrational tokophobia.
Thank you for acknowledging that the principle of double effect is not solely a Catholic doctrine.
Actually, prolifers value sex far more highly than pro-choicers.
Women are strong. We are strong enough to employ mind over body, a skill many people admire. We have to ability to choose with whom we have sex. We are strong enough to choose a partner who supports our selection of birth control (whether that partner is for one night or for a long term commitment). We are strong enough to have "that conversation" about birth control before we engage in sex.
Women are powerful. We have the ability to chose when we have sex. We can be aware enough and informed enough about our own bodies to know (mostly) when the highest risk exists. If we are "in the moment" and realize we do not have birth control, we are STILL strong enough to say no IN THAT MOMENT in favour of another moment when we are prepared.
Our culture has taken the power out of sex. Sex is the only entirely natural act that can actually create human life. An enormous responsibility. Sex can be beautiful, powerful, fun (and funny), and recreational. It is inherently procreational, though that is OBVIOUSLY not the only reason to engage in it. But because it is procreational, we can choose to use our strength and power to harness, to the best of our ability, that inherent quality of it.
I will teach my beautiful daughters that they are stronger than culture (and current feminists) believe. That they control when, where, how, and with whom they share their bodies. And that in those powerful choices, when ANOTHER HUMAN is created, they are now powerful enough to make choices that protect themselves AND the human they created.
Don't think I can't imagine the cost. But the cost is not the point. We women, we are far stronger than we are given credit for.
Well, we can certainly agree on one thing. Someone that is that selfish should most definitely not be a parent.
No, that's not accurate. First off, Savita died of septicaemia, an infection that developed from a miscarriage, and E. coli ESBL. Abortion is not a cure for septicaemia.
Secondly, if she was suffering from a condition that could only be resolved by ending the pregnancy, then induction of labor with the intent of removing the placenta would have been sufficient, even if the death of the baby (due to non-viability) was a tragic if foreseen consequence of that induction.
Unless it's your pregnancy, you don't get to decide what health risks someone else should be willing to assume. Only they can do that.
I have said in a previous post, there is no analogy that is exactly accurate. So not every facet of an analogy is applicable.
You are still conflating the "dangers" of pregnancy with pregnancy itself.
That is not a refutation. Read the links. You might learn something.
For sex to be rape, there has to be an aggressor who consciously and
deliberately rejects your refusal. An unborn child is not an aggressor.
Nope, culpability is irrelevant. Unless of course you think that you can't remove a parasite from your intestines, since it isn't consciously violating your body?
And by your standards, it would be acceptable for people to force you to donate bone marrow to an unconscious person, and you would not be permitted to withdraw from the donation, because the unconscious person in need of your bone marrow is not consciously using your body without your consent.
For the right of self-defense in killing an aggressor, you must demonstrate *imminent threat* AND reasonable fear of harm
If something or someone is in your body without your explicit and ongoing consent, you are within your rights to remove them, even if they will die upon being removed from your body. And even if they are not consciously trying to hurt you.
She was in active miscarriage. Nothing to do with ending the pregnancy–the ending was already inevitable. There was no reason not to complete the miscarriage. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and Jill Stanek, however, maintained that inducing labor would've amounted to an abortion. From the SPUC's website:
In contrast, an intention specifically to expel a pre-viable child, perhaps without the intention to kill the child, is impossible to justify, as witnessed by Church teaching over the past hundred years and more (carefully tracked by John Connery S.J. in his book Abortion: the Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective). Abortion is not always defined by the Church in terms of deliberate killing, but sometimes in terms of deliberate expulsion or "acceleration of birth" before viability, which has been excluded even for the good end of promoting a woman’s health. Good ends must be promoted by good means, which good doctors can and must employ.
Where the woman’s own body needs treatment of a kind which does not target the presence of her child, all would agree that such treatment ought to be provided. That could include the giving of antibiotics or blood transfusions, the clamping of the woman’s blood vessels to prevent bleeding, hysterectomies for uterine cancer and, for ectopic pregnancy, the removal of a damaged fallopian tube. Irrespective of the unborn child’s continued presence, the damaged tube or uterus would need to be removed: an operation which targets the woman's body alone, and is therefore legitimate, despite its impact on the child.
Actually, it is a refutation. Your stance is that pregnancy, by its very nature, is deadly, that it is intrinsically deadly. That is not true. Complications of pregnancy are deadly. Pregnancy itself is not. I can attest to this with personal experience.
Culpability is entirely relevant. An aggressor is someone who hears the refusal, understands the refusal, and actively and deliberately ignores the refusal. An unborn child does not do this. There has to be a conscious choice to be an aggressor, to violate the autonomy of another. What choice did the fetus have to be created? If someone is an unjust aggressor, then they are engaging in some kind of activity that they ought not be engaging in. What is the activity that the unborn is engaging in that it ought not to be? If the fetus does not belong in its mother's womb, where does the fetus belong?
A parasite is not an organism of the species homo sapiens, so it does not belong in my body. Proof: http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/
Cancer =/= pregnancy, so your bone marrow analogy fails. Plus, organ donation is an extraordinary means of keeping someone alive. Pregnancy is the ordinary means of keeping an unborn child alive. See above.
Murder of an innocent human being is never justified, and murder of a human being who is an unjust aggressor (which an unborn child is not, see above) is only justified if there is imminent danger and reasonable fear of harm.
The hospital staff could have (and should have) "completed the miscarriage," as you say, by inducing labor, and they were well within their rights to do so by all of their medical guidelines. But even that would not have cured sepsis.
I'm not sure if you realize, but "inducing labor" is not direct abortion if the intent is not to kill the child (but rather expel the placenta). It's indirect abortion, which is morally permissible under the principle of double effect. Direct abortion would be fetal dismemberment, or directly attacking the child in some other way. Inducing labor with the intent of removing the placenta and saving the child, if at all possible (however remote the possibility) is indirect abortion — which was, again, acceptable under hospital regulations. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/no-confusion-says-top-consultant-28922817.html#ixzz2Cq4XkNYo
So you don't think they deserve death or disability for engaging in the criminal act of unsafe illegal abortion?
Why are you concerned about the lives of baby killers?
1) not all doctors will perform one unless the woman already has 3 kids and is past the age of 30
2) that's not gonna help rape victims is it, unless you think that girls should get a tubal ligation and or hysterectomy prior to reaching puberty?
3) the uterus serves functions besides gestation – it holds the other organs up, and has a role in sexual pleasure
4) reproductive freedom is about having children WHEN and IF you want them. a woman might want to be pregnant some day, she may want to space her children instead of having them whenever 'nature' decides
I think that goes into the same box as your trying to pronounce judgement on my moral credibility after the horrifying things you've endorsed here today, don't you?
A very privileged, narrow-minded point of view: no concern for girls or women who are raped, no concern for girls or women who live in places where they don't have access to birth control, no concern for girls or women in abusive relationships, no concern for … well, anyone outside your narrow little circle. Very prolife.
Pregnancy by it's very nature is not a state of health. The default state of women is NOT pregnancy. And every pregnancy has the potential to maim and kill. Birth itself can be hours to days of torturous pain, and can end in death, disability or permanent injury. The fact is, you don't get to make medical decisions for people who are not you.
No, culpability is irrelevant. By that logic, a cognitively disabled person should have a right to rape you, because they do not know what they are doing, due to having the mental age of a toddler. By that logic, you can't eject a nematode worm from your body, because it isn't consciously attacking you.
If the fetus does not belong in its mother's womb, where does the fetus belong?
Naturalistic fallacy. You really need to stop with these. You are arguing that the prenate has a right to the woman's body because the woman was born with a uterus. That is pure objectification. You were born with a vagina, that doesn't give rapists a right to use your vagina without your consent, just because vaginas were made for peens.
Cancer =/= pregnancy, so your bone marrow analogy fails
We are talking about the forceable use of your body to preserve the life of another. And bone marrow is not an organ, it regenerates. The fetus takes nutrients from the woman's body – from her very bones. If the fetus is taking calcium from the woman, then why doesn't an unconscious 5 year old, once hooked up to you, have the right to take your bone marrow?
Pregnancy is the ordinary means of keeping an unborn child alive.
Murder of an innocent human being is never justified, and murder of a
human being who is an unjust aggressor (which an unborn child is not,
see above) is only justified if there is imminent danger and reasonable
fear of harm.
Right. So if that 5 year old needs your bone marrow to survive, and they are unconscious and not aggressing against you, you have no right to unhook your body from them. That would be unjust killing, by your standards.
I see that you edited your post. No, it is not selfish to deny anyone or anything the use of your body for their own benefit.
Unless you think that you should be forced to donate your bone marrow to save the life of a 5 year old dying from leukemia?
I'm sorry to hear that the idea of all human beings having inherent worth, dignity, and intrinsic value regardless of their age, sex, location, or stage of development is "horrifying" to you.
It's obvious you're refusing to even read my posts anymore (example: I refuted your claim of the naturalistic fallacy and explained in detail why it is not a naturalistic fallacy). I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.
You did not refute anything. Your argument is that pregnancy is good and healthy because it is natutal and that anything bad is unnatural, such as cancer.
A naturalistic fallacy is also created when you try to draw ethical rules from nature – such as, the uterus was made for the prenate, therefore, the prenate is entitled to the woman's body.
You should re – read the Princeton link on the naturalistic fallacy, since you clearly did not understand it.
Different. That five year old, while tragic, is not the result of your choice (I'm speaking of consensual sex, here).
And it is still selfish. As all rights, the right to bodily autonomy has a responsibility, and that responsibility starts with the life of the one conceived.
1) True. Perhaps that would be an issue for pro-choicers to take up.
2) Also true. And horribly, horribly sad and unfair. I do believe in the case of rape someone should die. It just isn't the unborn who never asked to be conceived in the first place.
3) Does it? I know several people who have had hysterectomies young – good friends, actually. All have been quite pleased with the results. None have complained about their sexual pleasure.
4) "Nature" doesn't have to decide if one uses appropriate contraception. And if such contraception fails, once again, the conceived life is still a human. Shouldn't be blamed for showing up where it belongs.
Is a 5 year old less valuable than a fetus?
Or do you just want to punish women for having non procreative sex?
Either way, special pleading for fetuses.
Oh, do you permit a rape exception?
Oh. So you don't believe in a rape exception.
Is a rape victim selfish if she would rather die than give birth?
Since the rape victim is not responsible for the prenates existence, yet you still think she owes it her body ( and her health and possibly her life), then by that logic, everyone should be legally obligated to donate bone marrow to sick kids, don't you agree?
What is genuinely horrifying to me is that you've absorbed "prolife" thinking to such an extent that you genuinely seem to think, as you've told me several times in various ways today:
– forcing a girl or a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will shows you respect the "worth, dignity, and intrinsic value" of the foetus she's carrying – and she herself doesn't matter at all
-forcing a rape victim through pregnancy and childbirth against her will shows you respect the "worth, dignity, and intrinsic value" of the egg fertilised by the rapist's sperm – and the rape victim herself doesn't matter at all
-forcing a girl or a woman whose pregnancy has gone wrong and is endangering her health or her life to continue the pregnancy, shows you respect the "worth, dignity, and intrinsic value" of the foetus, while the health and human rights of the pregnant girl or woman don't matter at all
-forcing a girl or a woman to have to use clinics run by profiteering criminals like Doctor Gosnell, because in forcing a girl or a woman who needs an abortion to have to have her abortion unsafely and dangerously, you show you respect the "worth, dignity, and intrinsic value" of the foetus – and quite evidently, don't believe that girls and women who need abortions have any worth, dignity, and intrinsic value at all.
All of these things are horrifying to me, and that you've allowed yourself to believe that in endorsing death and suffering for girls and woman you are morally superior, because … well, apparently because you think moral superiority is derived from mouthing platitudes about foetuses while endorsing suffering and death for pregnant girls and women.
Luckily, anyone who is tempted to believe your strawmen can read my actual comments, and see that you are (as you have already admitted) a liar.
Privileged, indeed. If only pro-lifers and pro-choicers could together put resources, time, and effort into getting to the guts of the problem, developing teaching of contraception, self-worth, and the strength of true bodily autonomy. Perhaps then abortions would be less necessary.
It is regrettable that you assume these views are narrow-minded and lack concern for others. It seems to me this is the agenda we should push, together – an agenda of women's solidarity and strength. It is an agenda I have taught to people outside of my "narrow little circle". It is an agenda that requires FAR more concern and effort than simply providing abortions. I would assume that you, as I, care deeply about women and our rights and needs and the suppression of our strength. I wish we could at least agree on that.
And anyone who is tempted to believe you can read your actual comments advocating what I've outlined – and also see that your only debate tactic defending these monstrous prolife policies is to accuse others of lying.
"Women will always die from pregnancy." Which does not have anything to do with abortion with all. You know, because the very low risk of pregnancy is exactly the same for planned and unplanned children either. So in fact, the only possible measure concerning abortions are life-of-mother-exemptions. Other than this, banning the infanticide of the unborn or not does exactly nothing concerning maternal deaths, but a lot concerning dead children.
Doesn't matter if its low risk. The risk is still there. And women still die from pregnancy, because it is impossible to predict and prevent all pregnancy related death and disability.
An abortion isn't going to save a woman if she bleeds to death from post partum hemorrhage is it?
Lying again, I see. Well, as you say, people can read the comment thread and decide for themselves.
Hi Chip! It's good to hear from you, I hope you're doing well! Your comment made my day 🙂 Thank you for actually understanding the whole point of this article, which I think got lost in the whole abortion rights debate below. I completely understand your point about feeling powerless in your arguments against abortion since you are male. However, if feminists such as Emma Watson are calling for men to also consider themselves feminists, then I think it's fair to say that men have a say in all issues, including abortion. Thanks again for your comment!
Not that it really matters, but I wrote the article for my own personal reasons and didn't realize I was getting paid until after it was submitted.
And actually, everyone is completely missing the point of the article, which is to call more people to talk about the uncomfortable stuff and to invite pro-life feminists to participate in the discussion as well, particularly because they don't tend to shy away from the hard questions.
did you even read my article? That wasn't the point at all. And I did in fact mention female infanticide, which indeed occurs after the baby is born and is included in the 200 million missing statistic that I included.
The point of feminism is that you care about the welfare of females, babies, girls, women. The only difference in prolife feminism is that we care about unborn girls too.
You can be pro-life and not be a feminist, but this article was directed towards those who are pro-life and feminist
you're right that some women will die from pregnancy. Actually, all women will die at some point (whaddaya know…). However, the risk of complications during birth actually increase with each abortion that you have. For an example, risk for pre-eclampsia increases, a very serious concern for pregnant women. So using your logic, by keeping abortion legal, you are denying women the right to life due to deaths by complications. You need a stronger argument that that
Abortion is merely an induced miscarriage, so no.
And the point is that, unlike you, we want to give women a choice. We are not interested in forcing women to abort, whereas you are interested in forcing birth.
Yes. I think parents need to openly speak with their children and teens about things such as STD's and unplanned pregnancy. Our youth should know that every time they have sex there is a possibility for pregnancy even while using contraceptives.
I wish that all teens and even adults would recognize that having sex is never a casual affair. There are always emotional, physical, mental and spiritual implications. This makes sex amazing in a marriage or committed relationship but also brings about complications and harm during one-night stands or casual relationships.
I think students should be taught, if you don't want to get pregnant don't have sex. Wait until you are old enough to carry the responsibility that comes with it. Since teens will still have sex regardless of this warning…they should be educated on the different types of true birth control (preventative).
The difference is it is ILLEGAL to kill an innocent human being. All human beings have the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Animals don't have those rights because they are NOT human.
The heart of the issue is that people are deciding the unborn human's rights based off of their size, development, dependency and viability. This is discrimination!
Are the unborn human? the answer is YES. They have human DNA and will continue to grow and develop through all the human stages of life. Are the unborn alive? Yes! They are growing, they have bodily needs and a heartbeat.
1) people have minds. Rights come with the possession of a mind. No mind and you are no longer a person. This is why beating heart cadavers are taken off feeding tubes and left to die. An embryo has the same brain activity as a corpse.
2) I am a human. I am alive. I am innocent. Now, does that automatically mean that I have a right to use your body without your explicit and ongoing consent, if my very life depends on it?
Honestly, I do not want to spend any more time debating the issue. You will continually misinterpret my words and hear what you want to hear. (I know, that in fairness you could argue the same about me) That is why I'm choosing to bow out gracefully. I'm not conceding or agreeing to your stance on when life begins but I realize my words fall upon deaf ears…I pray that God opens your eyes to the evils of abortion and draws your heart to Him.
I did not misinterpret anything. You have made an assertion that unborn humans are entitled to female bodies because they are alive and human.
You have failed to back up that assertion.
May God be with you.
Well played, JoAnna.
If you choose to drive to work, and someone unwittingly gets you into an accident that causes injury, that doesn't give you license to eliminate said person in order to prevent the accident.
Even sex isn't without physical risk. There is infection, for instance.
Induced abortions, surgical or medical, also pose a risk of life-threatening problems.
Funny how you can't dispute anything I've said: you can only randomly accuse me of lying for summarising your views.
So? Unless people are FORCED to take these risks, your points are worthless.
You don't owe them the use of your body.
Yet another lie on your part, I've disputed everything you've said in previous comments. Do you not realize that people can read the comment thread and see the truth?
I do! So people can see for themselves your endorsement of forcing girls and women through pregnancy against their will, and your quick resort to personal attacks – including accusations of lying – because you could not dispute the key point: Forcing the use of human beings against their will is wrong.
It's also wrong to deliberately kill innocent human beings, but that doesn't seem to bother you. Do you really think it's wrong to "force" people not to kill other people? Are you therefore opposed to all laws prohibiting murder, since they force people not to kill other people against their will?
Consensual sex is not choicing to have a baby. Some people do it just for fun. The fetus is not a part of the women's body, it's a different being/person/child/whatever you like. But the same as nobody has the right to enter my house without my permission, even if i let the door open (though I agree it's wiser to keep it closed), nobody has the right to settle in my womb without my permission. Selfish, sure, but not a crime.
The fetus, if you don't want to raise a child, will bother you for life. You didn' want to get pregnant, you terminate that state as soon as possible. The fetus will never know, by the way. This is a problem only in your mind, and you can have as many babies as you want.
This is a perfect example of an ad hominem fallacy (among others).
LOL. There is no such thing as "principle of double effect." That's a religious notion not shared by all religions and certainly isn't scientifically based. And we know the truth about Savita. Here's the truth: She was diagnosed with inevitable miscarriage. Now, the treatment goal in that diagnosis is to act quickly to evacuate the uterus, and treat prophylactically with antibiotics to prevent infection, sepsis, and death. That's the medical picture. There is no hope for the survival of a 17 week pregnancy that is miscarrying.
She *can* abstain. But that's abnormal for adults.
Where did you pull that 1% statistic from? Because wherever it was, it stinks. Pregnancy results from rape at the same rate it results from consensual sex. And abortion isn't "an execution for the crime of his/her biological father." It's the termination of a process resulting from a crime. Your reasoning needs more reasoning.
There you go again. Here's a true statistic for you. 100% of rapes are rapes. 100% of rapes are crimes. I don't owe anything to a pregnancy caused by a crime. And I certainly don't owe anything to YOU or your beliefs. Go pound sand.
A human being's worth is not and should not be dependent on if he or she is "wanted." That is very subjective.
It's wrong to deliberately kill innocent human beings, but that doesn't seem to bother you so long as they die inside the pregnant women whom you condemn to death – pregnant women who are also innocent human beings, and whose deaths you wish to enforce by law.
You openly acknowledge that you think innocent human beings should die rather than be able to freely access safe legal abortion.
But I'm interested to know that you think murdering other human beings is so tempting that the only reason most people never commit murder is that it's illegal. It goes along with your advocating the death of innocent pregnant human beings.
How so? I can prove that abortion advocates oppose safety standards for abortion facilities. See Texas. See Gosnell's clinic getting ignored for years, by the state and the NAF. Etc.
From Guttmacher. I posted the link in another post.
By the time a woman knows she is pregnant, the "process" has been completed and a new human being exists. It is wrong to kill a human being who is also a victim of the rape, or at the very least an innocent bystander. Why do you think it is just to punish the unborn child? He or she did not ask to be conceived via rape. It makes no sense to rob him or her of their right to life because of a crime committed by someone else.
I agree that rape is always terrible, and it is always criminal. I disagree that being a victim of a terrible, criminal act entitles you to take the life of an innocent human being.
I'm opposed to miscarriage of course, but I'm puzzled as to how you think I can prevent them. (Of course, a consequence of abortion is a higher miscarriage risk with subsequent pregnancies, opposing abortion is also opposing a higher risk of miscarriage.)
I find it so strange, and sad, why you can't or won't realize that pro-lifers believe in helping BOTH mother and child. For women with crisis pregnancies, we want to remove the crisis as an alternative to killing the child. We want life, not death, for everyone involved.
I find it bizarre that you, like all other prolifers, tell yourself you're "helping" girls and women – including rape victims – when you campaign for laws that are intended to force a girl or a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will, and which result in the flourishing trade of profiteering illegal abortion clinis. You think that it "helps" women to have no one to turn to but the Kermit Gosnells of the world? Apparently so.
Oh, and just to clarify: it's been shown that a woman who has an abortion does not thereby increase her chances of miscarriage next time. This lie that abortion creates a higher risk of miscarriage is just a nasty story prolifers tell to try to frighten women away from having an abortion, or make women who've had abortions feel responsible if they then have a miscarriage.
What does genuinely prevent miscarriages is oral contraception: a woman who's routinely taking oral contraception to prevent ovulation, will – fairly obviously – have far fewer miscarriages. Odd that so many prolifers are so against preventing miscarriages, isn't it?
Most prolifers I encounter online live in the US, where lack of maternal healthcare and poverty ensures the highest infant death rate in the developed world. Yet I've never met a n American prolifer who decided "Right, since I want to help BOTH mothers and babies, I'm going to campaign for paid maternity leave, free mother-and-baby healthcare, free pre-natal, post-natal, and childbirth healthcare, and a higher minimum wage."
Never. Quite literally, never. So why should I believe that any of you actually care about children, since you so evidently don't care a thing about preventing or alleviating America's high infant death rate? All you care about it forcing women.
Oh really? http://m.ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/3/449.full
Care very much about helping women and children, both born in on boring. I just disagree that promoting the death of innocent human beings is the way to achieve that goal. I also encourage you to stop your lazy slander of the pro-life cause: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/
The infant mortality rate is rising in the USA, especially among minorities.
What is the PL movement doing to save infant lives, Joanna? What are YOU doing?
But you think it is moral to indirectly condemn someone to death? What if the rape victim dies from a stroke, a blood clot, or pph? What if she develops eclampsia and is bedridden, losing her job, her house, her insurance and is stuck with a 30k hospital bill? Will you step up to pay her hospital bill? What if she dies?
You seem to find it perfectly acceptable to indirectly ruin the lives of innocent human beings.
What is ethical about that, Joanna?
I'm not killing children in a fruitless attempt to solve the problem. See here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/
Right. So you admit to what EE has been saying all along, you do want to kill women and girls.
Care very much about helping women and children, both born in on boring
Cheap to claim, but let's pretend you mean it. So, how you feel, JoAnna, knowing that for all your professed concern for helping children and their mothers, you have never convinced any prolife organisation anywhere in the US to join you in support of paid maternity leave, maternal employment rights, raising the minimum wage, free maternal healthcare? Does it make you sad and frustrated to know you're so alone in the prolife movement?
I just disagree that promoting the death of innocent human beings is the way to achieve that goal
Don't be absurd. You've repeatedly argued for promoting the death of innocent human beings: you want to make abortion illegal "across the board", thus ensuring innocent human beings will die of ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, eclampsia, etc – all of the awful deaths that innocent human beings die in countries where, as you desire, it is illegal to save an innocent human being's life by performing an abortion.
Not to mention all of the innocent human beings who, as you desire, will die in illegal abortion clinics.
I've said nothing slanderous of the pro-life cause: what makes you claim that?
PS: The 1998 study on miscarriage you've cited? Yep: that's why it's now advocated that where possible, abortion is carried out early enough that women can use medical abortion methods. So, do you support women having early access to medical abortion, or would you rather more miscarriages?
Let me ask you a similar question. Why do you think it is moral to indirectly condemn someone to death? Say, for example, Jennifer Moribelli, who died after obtaining a "safe, legal abortion"? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/21/woman-late-term-abortion-death/1935799/
How about Tonya Reeves, who died after obtaining a "safe, legal abortion"? http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/13957308-452/death-of-tonya-reaves-after-an-abortion-is-a-reminder-that-abortions-carry-risks.html
How about minors who were abused and raped, taken in to Planned Parenthood for a "safe, legal abortion," and then returned to their abusive situations (no thanks to Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that they are mandated reporters)? http://liveactionnews.org/by-donating-to-planned-parenthood-you-can-lend-a-hand-to-an-abuser/ Why do you want minors to be raped and abused?
You seem to find it perfectly acceptable to indirectly ruin the lives of innocent human beings. Why is that?
And yes, pro-life groups can and do step up to help women in situations you mention, and I donate to such groups as often as I can manage. see here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/
However, even if no pro-lifer was willing to step up and help women in crisis (which is utterly untrue), that does not mean that it's right or moral to kill innocent human beings.
I'm not the one forcing women to have abortions, or forcing them to give birth, Joanna.
You may as well claim that I am condemning people to die in car accidents because I am not advocating that cars become illegal.
No. My contention is that killing innocent children is not the solution to pregnancy complications, poverty, substandard medical care, etc. Why do you think that it is?
Because you don't actually care about the lives of innocent human beings.
You're lying again, EE, with your claim that no pro-life organization supports paid maternity leave, etc.? I know that Secular Pro-Life does, and the same with Feminists for Life. As do many others.
"thus ensuring innocent human beings will die of ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, eclampsia, etc"
Uh huh. And of course, no one has ever died from complications of abortion. I'm sure the families of Jennifer Moribelli and Tonya Reeves, among others, will be interested to know that their deaths were a work of fiction.
People die from complications of cosmetic surgery, Joanna.
Are you agitating to make cosmetic surgery illegal, just think of the lives that could be saved.
Or perhaps you think that EE should be working to ban cosmetic surgery, and if EE doesn't, you believe that EE is some sort of hypocrite, amirite?
I'm not forcing women to have abortions, and I'm not forcing them to give birth, either. I have no control over if a woman chooses to seek an abortion; all I can do is offer alternatives to help mitigate any crisis which leads her to believe abortion is a solution.
As for allegedly forcing women to give birth, you give me way too much credit. I have no control over the natural biological processes for other human beings. (Believe me, when I was pregnant with my youngest daughter, and again with my youngest son, I wished I could "force" myself to give birth!!)
Excellent example of irony.
I don't see you working on infant mortality. Don't you care?
You are working to ban abortion. Neither EE nor myself are working to force women to undergo abortions.
You offer no choice. We offer women the right to self-determination.
yet not care a whit about the women who die from "safe," legal abortions.
EE isn't forcing women to have abortions. You seek to force all women and girls to give birth should they find themselves pregnant, be it through consensual sex, rape or incest.
Then, there is the issue that while we cannot predict which women will develop complications, WE CAN TREAT ALL WHO DO.
That is a lie. It is impossible to predict, with any accuracy, which women will die from pregnancy, let alone, prevent every pregnancy death. By denying women and girls the right to abortion, you are in effect denying women, as a group, the inalienable right to life. You are gambling with women's lives.
It is also a lie because 600-800 women die per year in the USA alone from pregnancy. If it was so easy to prevent such deaths, Savita would still be alive, wouldn't she? Or let me guess, you aren't counting physician error. What if a rape victim dies from sepsis following a c-section, which she couldn't avoid, because you, and others like you, banned abortion under every circumstance?
I will point out that Joanna doesn't exactly care that 100 male babies die from circumcision and herpes every year in the USA.
She cites religious freedom –> lives of infants.
"EE isn't forcing women to have abortions."
Nor am I forcing women to get pregnant. However, once they actually ARE pregnant, then there is another human being with the right to life involved, and it's wrong to kill him/her.
"That is a lie. It is impossible to predict, with any accuracy, which women will die from pregnancy, let alone, prevent every pregnancy death. By denying women and girls the right to abortion, you are in effect denying women, as a group, the inalienable right to life. You are gambling with women's lives."
It's a lie that doctors can treat pregnancy complications? I think OB/GYNs and MFM specialists (such as perinatalogists) would be shocked to hear that. Also, let's turn your stance around:
"It is impossible to predict, with any accuracy, which women will die from abortion, let alone, prevent every abortion death. By giving women and girls the right to abortion, you are in effect denying women, as a group, the inalienable right to life. You are gambling with women's lives."
Funny how that works, huh? Especially how you don't seem to care about actually helping women access prenatal care and medical help if they are pregnant. You only care if they can get an abortion if they want one.
"It is also a lie because 600-800 women die per year in the USA alone from pregnancy."
Cite your source for that statistic, please. (And I notice you don't seem to care about the women who have died from legal abortion – in the U.S., from 1973 to 2009, that number was 411. Source: http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/)
"If it was so easy to prevent such deaths, Savita would still be alive, wouldn't she?"
Can you please cite where I said that treating pregnancy complications was "easy"?
"Or let me guess, you aren't counting physician error. What if a rape victim dies from sepsis following a c-section, which she couldn't avoid, because you, and others like you, banned abortion under every circumstance?"
What if a rape victim dies from an abortion because you, and others like you, told her that abortion was her only choice, because her unborn child was an evil product of a rapist's seed (yes, I've heard that from pro-choice people) and a malicious parasite who would leech the resources from her body before killing her outright? What then?
You are in favour of forcing women to remain pregnant, and abortion is far, far safer than pregnancy.
Oh, sure, doctors can treat pregnancy complications. However, they can't treat *every* pregnancy complication, and you know this. Women still get injured, permanently disabled, and die from pregnancy.
What if a rape victim dies from an abortion because you, and others like you, told her that abortion was her only choice
Except we don't do that. Please stop lying. If a rape victim wants to give birth, more power to her. We believe in CHOICE. Let women make their own decisions, Joanna.
And I am a socialist, I believe in single payer healthcare, and I find pro-life Americans to be particularly disgusting for their unwillingness to support medicaid for everyone. That would cause maternal and infant mortality rates to drop significantly.
Source for pregnancy related deaths, the CDC. If you notice, the rate is rising:
The researchers estimated that 18.5 mothers died for every 100,000 births in the U.S. in 2013, a total of almost 800 deaths.
I'm in favor of preventing people from killing innocent human beings, yes, and at the same time giving them all possible means of support (financial, medical, emotional) so that their ordeal is as easy as possible. It's an awful situation to be in but that still does not give anyone the right to kill an innocent human being.
"Oh, sure, doctors can treat pregnancy complications. However, they can't treat *every* pregnancy complication, and you know this. Women still get injured, permanently disabled, and die from pregnancy."
Women still get injured, disabled, and die from abortion, too (whether legal or illegal). Why don't you care about those women? What about the children who have a nearly 100% chance of dying as the result of abortion? Those deaths are at 4,000 a day in the U.S. alone. That is much higher than the death rate for women who die of pregnancy-related causes. If abortion kills 4,000+ children (and some women) PER DAY, as opposed to 800 deaths per year, wouldn't you say that the death rate for abortion is of serious concern? Granted it is a tragedy when anyone dies. But the solution is not to keep killing innocent children. The solution is to improve maternal outcomes after childbirth by providing access to the best medical
care available, and to try and save BOTH mother and child.
"Except we don't do that. Please stop lying. If a rape victim wants to give birth, more power to her. We believe in CHOICE. Let women make their own decisions, Joanna."
Uh huh. Would you like me to point you to some pro-abortion blogs where women are regularly ridiculed and shamed for not choosing abortion? One example (out of many): http://www.lifenews.com/2014/04/08/abortion-activists-call-parents-of-baby-who-lived-just-10-hours-selfish-for-not-aborting-her/
I also believe in choice. I just also believe that no one should have the "choice" to kill an innocent human being. Yes, it sucks when two human beings have conflicting rights, but the right to life should win out over the right to bodily integrity, even in the case of rape. It's a horrible situation for women who are violated via rape. But aborting an innocent child will not "un-rape" the woman, or punish her rapist. It will only perpetuate the violence.
"And I am a socialist, I believe in single payer healthcare, and I find pro-life Americans to be particularly disgusting for their unwillingness to support medicaid for everyone."
Really? Can you cite evidence for your assertion that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN who identifies as pro-life does not support Medicaid for everyone? I'm interested to see that proof.
Some pro-life Americans do support medicaid for everyone. And most pro-life Americans I know (including myself) do support medicaid for all pregnant women and children in need. The pro-lifers I know who don't support medicaid "for everyone" is not because they want people to go without medical care, but because they believe it is financially unfeasible for our current economy. Other pro-life Americans believe that private charities and other entities should be able to fund the necessary medical care.
Pro-life is overwhelmingly conservative, and it's no secret that the GOP opposes anything that will actually help people.
And again, we support choice, that's what pro-choice is all about. It is just as wrong to force a woman to abort as it is to force one to remain pregnant against her will and give birth.
And it's clear that you only value life based on percentages, which is why you are remarkably blase about the 100 baby boys who die every year from circumcision complications.
I'm interested to see you claim that "Secular Pro-life" campaigns for "paid maternity leave, maternal employment rights, raising the minimum wage, free maternal healthcare". I looked this up on their mission statement, and found they "advocate" for paid maternity leave (but not for any of the other necessary supports for pregnant women who want to have children). So then I looked up their roles for volunteers.
Predictably enough, I found that "Secular Prolife" apparently does nothing towards its "advocating" for paid maternity leave. Apparently, as with most prolifers, the claim that it supports women who want to have children is just words – no political action.
Uh huh. And of course, no one has ever died from complications of abortion.
Nice bit of avoidance there, JoAnna. More evidence that your claim to care for women and children beyond forcing girls and women through pregnancy and childbirth against their will (which is a leading cause of death for teenage girls worldwide) is – just words.
"Pro-life is overwhelmingly conservative, and it's no secret that the GOP opposes anything that will actually help people."
Pro-lifers are probably more conservative than liberal just because the Dem's eager pro-abortion stance has repelled a lot of people who might otherwise identify as Democrat.
It's not true that the GOP opposes anything that will actually help people. It's more that the Dems and the GOP can't agree on the best way to help people. It helps no one to demonize the opposition.
"And again, we support choice, that's what pro-choice is all about. It is just as wrong to force a woman to abort as it is to force one to remain pregnant against her will and give birth."
I'm glad you agree it's wrong to force women to abort, at least. I concur. Sadly, it happens far too often: http://theunchoice.org/
However, it's also wrong to kill innocent human beings, regardless of the circumstances in which they were conceived.
None of my three sons are circumcised, by the way. However, in that vein, you are remarkably blase about the number of women who die from abortion complications. I've yet to hear you express an iota of concern about them.