Dismantling the argument that pro-life laws invite forced abortions
 |
| Protestor’s sign reads “Choice is the American Way” |
Raise your hand if you’ve heard this argument in favor of Roe v. Wade:
If a government can force women to gestate, it can also force them to abort.
There’s some pathos here. It’s a nice, balanced sentence that sounds good to the ear. But strip the pathos away, and what you have is “Pro-life laws invite forced abortions.” I posit that this makes no sense at all.
I am a citizen of the United States. As a pure matter of military muscle, my government can do whatever it wants. To be clear, that’s not a good thing. In theory, the Constitution and other laws limit the government’s power. In practice, constitutional violations happen, and the primary limit on governmental power is the collective outrage of the people.
What if I told you that this collective outrage is what currently prevents my government from forcibly sterilizing people? It’s true. The Supreme Court found forced sterilization to be constitutional in Buck v. Bell. Fun fact: it then cited Buck v. Bell with approval in Roe v. Wade (see section VIII). (Sorry to spoil your innocence if you still thought Roe was all about “choice.”) Another fun fact: the Court has never formally revisited Buck v. Bell and overturned it. It’s merely considered obsolete because the public overwhelmingly disapproves of it, and therefore as a practical matter no elected officials are going to follow it.
Thankfully the United States never adopted a policy of forced abortion, even in the forced sterilization heyday. Thus, the legalization of abortion had no impact one way or the other. It did, however, have a major impact on abortions being coerced by non-government parties, i.e., the father of the unborn child.
But let’s take a look at some other nations. China is of course notorious for forcing its citizens to undergo abortions. It’s also a country where abortion is freely available on demand. What about more more moderately pro-choice nations, like the U.K.? The ugly specter of government-enforced abortion has reared its ugly head there, too.
I’m sure if a pro-life government like Ireland or Chile coerced someone to have an abortion, the media would make that a front-page story. So far, silence.
In the face of these facts, why does “If a government can force women to gestate, it can also force women to abort” gain any traction? It makes about as much sense as “If a government can force people to join labor unions, it can also force people not to join them and thereby destroy the unions” or “If the government can force you to buy health insurance, it can also force you to remain uninsured.”
The answer is that many abortion advocates distrust the pro-life movement’s motives. They’re convinced that we can’t actually be in this because we see abortion as a violation of the right to life. They’re certain that we’re just out to control women’s bodies, and if that’s the case, naturally forced abortions would be part of our misogynist scheme.
As pro-choice author William Saletan, trying to talk some sense into his colleagues, put it:
[W]hen public opinion turns toward reproductive freedom and equal rights for women but continues to oppose abortion, it punctures our dismissal of pro-life sentiment as a vestige of right-wing sexism. Spin and soundbites won’t make the evidence go away. Sooner or later, you’ll have to face it.
If you grant the government the right to force women to reproduce, then you also grant it the right to force you not to reproduce.
Government should have zero say in peoople's reproductive lives.
By the time a woman has found out she is pregnant, she has already reproduced – another human being resides in her. He or she should have his or her own right to life.
If a zygote is already a baby, then why bother with 40 weeks of gestation?
A woman has not reproduced until an actual infant is formed. Until then, it is nothing more than a potential life. A baby is not formed the minute sperm meets egg.
Then at what exact moment has she reproduced? birth?
At birth the fetus has proven to that it can survive as an independent entity.
There are plenty of pro-life atheists who do not believe that the government has the right to force someone to DO anything. Using force is never right, no matter how good you believe the outcome is (obamacare, forced unions, forcing someone to bake a cake, ect). We believe you may use 'force' to stop someone from doing something harmful to ourselves or another. Which is why abortion is wrong. It is a clear situation where one person has forced another into a situation by actively creating them, and then is attempting to physically harm them. Women have reproductive rights, the right to reproduce. What they don't have is destructive rights, the right to destroy humans which they have placed into a situation of dependence.
Can she kill the baby while the cord is still attached? Has it become human yet?
So conception = harm done, for which women must be punished, with a violation of their bodily autonomy, and potential death and disability?
It's been human all along. Don't be silly. But until it can survive independently it is not an independent, autonomous individual.
Gestation is a 40 week construction project. And at the end, you may or may not get a baby. It's a crap shoot, a roll of the dice. Women make babies with their bodies, a baby is not created when sperm meets egg.
>> The answer is that many abortion advocates distrust the pro-life movement's motives.
How can anybody trust pro-life motives when STRONGLY pro-life people include Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, National Organization of Marriage, Ted Cruz, Ken Ham etc. – right wing nuts who deny evidence-based science, equal rights for women, gays and lesbians etc, rabid hatred for atheists etc. Show me one mainstream pro-life figure who ISN'T an asshole. People who show flawed thinking in one issue tend to show flawed thinking in other issues.
In truth, the pro-choice philosophy is more likely to LESSEN abortion in the long-run, as they tend to support more progressive social agendas that address the societal reasons why women see abortions in the first place.
A woman has created a child and put it into that situation willingly. The baby is the one who has had its body placed into a situation without consent being asked. The woman is the one who has taken direct scientific action to create the baby. She has chosen the situation. The baby is the one who is in more of a threat of death (even without abortion, from miscarriages) than the woman is…the woman is not a "victim" of a pregnancy, the fetus is….the mother is the active facilitator.
How about the guy from the National Review who just said that women who abort their pregnancies should be hanged by the neck until dead?
Makes sense though, if abortion is a heinous crime where women cackle with glee as innocent unborn embryos are brutally dismembered for fun and profit. No, this is not a straw man, since pro lifers spend an inordinate amount of time talking about how choice = cruel and depraved dismemberment of unborn babies.
So then an ultrasound should be required before abortion? To make sure that the fetus has not developed into an organism which can survive outside the womb? What if it is advancing quicker than others?
That does not make any sense.
You said that any baby who can survive outside the womb is a human, thus cannot be aborted? Yes?
There is no need for abortion after birth, as birth ends the pregnancy.
The point of abortion is to end the pregnancy, period. That's what it is. A termination of pregnancy.
yes, and babies can survive outside the womb before 9 months is up. Do you believe a woman can abort all the way up to birth? The full 9 months?
When possible, a viable fetus will be delivered, alive.
You are living in a fantasy world if you are suggesting that women have frivolous abortions at 8 months and so on.
'cackle with glee' – isn't that what Emily Letts did when she filmed her abortion for 15 minutes of fame??
I am trying to determine if you believe it is right, not if it is frequently done. if it is right, then "frivolity" would not matter. If it is not an abhor able act then why would it matter if frivolously done or not? Many pro-choicers mention that late-term abortions don't happen that often. We find this confusing, as they are said to believe that abortion is okay for the full pregnancy.
Abortion is performed on non viable fetuses.
A third trimester pregnancy termination = delivery.
The pregnant woman who is NOT a mother yet has a choice if she acts as an incubator for the ZEF.
So do you support the rape exception? I mean, if your entire argument is based on pregnancy being something the pregnant person started willingly, then it collapses entirely in the case of people who did not get pregnant willingly, does it not?
These anti-choicers think all women wait until 39.5 weeks to have the abortion. They are crazy.
"Raise your hand if you've heard this argument in favor of Roe v. Wade"
Hmm, I think I've heard it maybe one time outside of here. I don't think it's all that popular an argument.
I'd actually never heard that argument before, which is good because it seems too nonsensical to ever be taken seriously. Another thing it makes about as much sense as: "If the government can force businesses to serve LGBT people, it can also force businesses to refuse service to LGBT people."
Its pretty simple actually. Do people have a right to privacy? To security of person? To self I determination? Forced pregnancy and forced abortion violate those rights. Any government that is given power over your reproductive choices can easily switch and do the opposite.
Look at history. Take the Patriot Act. It was originally intended to guard against terrorists. Now it has broadened to the point where ordinary Americans are spied on indiscriminately.
Or anti drug laws, which gave police the right to seize property involved with drug crimes. Now, police are indiscriminately seizing property from regular people, based on anything from one joint or mere suspicion.
Be careful what you wish for when you give the government too much power over your life
One thing to keep in mind is that just because we oppose abortion because we think that it's unjust (usually — there are emergencies, etc) violence against a human being, that doesn't mean everyone does.
Justice Scalia's position, for instance, is not that the fetus should be considered a person under the 14th Amendment (he doesn't agree with that), but that there is no constitutional right to privacy and the government can make laws based on "morality" even if they involve very personal areas of one's life. Well, perceptions of morality change. There are people now who think it's immoral to carry a disabled fetus to term.
So I can't say I blame people for being suspicious. We need to take back "pro-life."
Scalia believes that the USA should be run as a Christian theocracy.
What if government was not secular, and laws were based on subjective morality – punish women for not wearing burkas? In Saudi Arabia it is illegal to be a witch and you will be executed.
That's like saying, because we aren't sure the child would survive on its own, outside of its house and without being nourished by its mother, we can kill it inside the house. But once it has come outside, well then, its clearly not our right to kill it.
Nope. An unborn human is incomplete and informed. That is the difference.
An infant = a skyscraper
An unborn human = a skyscraper under construction that may never be completed or function as a skyscraper.
I guess its a heinous crime, but they won't hold women who have abortions or induce miscarriages responsible and severely punish them. Bad for PR, bad for donations.
They will, eventually. Remember, laws will be interpreted as broadly as possible by ambitious DAs:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/10/02/3575252/alabama-abortion-parental-consent/
What do you mean be informed?
A fetus is as complete in its stage as an infant is in its stage. That is to say, an infant isn't a completely formed adult but that doesn't mean it is incomplete. If by incomplete you mean not finished growing, that is a very scary thought.
Thank you for clarifying that, very interesting!
Unformed. Auto correct.
And no, that's like saying a half built skyscraper is already a complete skyscraper because it is where it is "meant to be" at this point in construction.
Its a tautological fallacy.
But if the pro-choice goal is to lessen abortions, my question is WHY? Why do pro-choice want to lessen abortions if they believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with an abortion?
Consent to sex is not now or has it ever been consent to the misery of pregnancy. Just because a woman willingly has sex does not mean she is willing to be a host to an unwanted ZEF and risk her health to carry it to term.
She has the right to decide what happens to and inside her body.
I think both sides want less abortions. The difference is the forced pregnancy side want to do it through gestational slavery and the pro-choice side want to do it with better access to birth control and better sex education for young people. Abstinence only does not work.
that doesn't answer the question though, why do pro-choicers want less abortions
you talk as though you expect a Z, E, or F to ask for permission!
I don't think many would agree that the point of abortion is just to end a pregnancy. I believe MOST (there are exceptions) women abort not because they do not want to be pregnant but because they do not want the child (they are not ready, the child has a defect, they have no resources to care for the child) that comes at the end of pregnancy. In antiquity when abortion could many times not be preformed, infanticide was more common. Like I said, there are exceptions for women who actually detest the idea of pregnancy for one reason or another (health for example), but for most, an abortion is to eliminate the problem that would cause them hardship, i.e. the child.
There is nothing inherently wrong with abortions of early fetuses. (I am against late term abortions) But considering that many women have abortions for economic reasons, or because it is too difficult to balance school, career and motherhood, suggests to me that there are many cases where the child is wanted, but societal pressures make it difficult. So to me, a society where people are paid a living wage, where women receive the same pay as men, where companies provide adequate support for mothers and families, is a good thing. In other words, a society where abortion is the best possible choice is probably a society that is not performing as well as it could.
I desire a society like this, and as a side effect, I believe a society like this will naturally have a lower abortion rate. I don't believe most of the mainstream pro-life side shares these views.
So… I'm sure you can show me all the video evidence of babies being 'put' into a woman's body. Or is what any such videos show merely sperm being put into a body, and you are redefining a zygote as a 'baby'?
Irrelevent whether it can 'ask' for permission. It has no right to occupy someone else's body without their consent, regardless of whether it can 'ask' for it or not. And the fact that it CAN'T 'ask' for it is good evidence that it's not entitled to it as some sort of 'human right', because it has no agency and no brain.
I think a woman has a right to get fake breasts. Doesn't mean I prefer women with fake boobs.
Yes, because they want to end the pregnancy before it gets to the point where it is a child. And many women don't feel comfortable giving away their child to perverts who might molest and abuse it:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/foster-parent-filmed-himself-sxually-abusing-a-6-week-old-premature-baby-fbi/
However, if there was a way to beam embryos out of women's bodies and grow them in artificial wombs, people would most likely go that route as it involves the least amount of force.
It just happens that there is no way to keep a non viable embryo alive outside the womb.
A severely autistic child cannot ask for things either, does that mean he is not "entitled" to the physical body of his parents for his needs? (for example, the parents use their body to comfort him, carry him, feed him etc)
Just to be clear, I wasn't holding Scalia up as any kind of an example of anything we should want!
I didn't think so, but I still had to point out how awful he is!
Which is irrelevant. The point is, it is infringing on your body and you have a right to remove it if you choose.
I think you misjudge pro-life movement if you say they do not want to improve the living condition of these women. Indeed the women who do choose to keep a baby and not have an abortion are helped by pro-life groups with diapers, rent, formula, cribs, etc. I don't think I have ever seen a pro-choice group help a crisis pregnancy except with abortion. Also, there are democrats who are pro-life who work for more social justice precisely for these people. The Catholic Church works tirelessly in areas of poverty in virtually every city and they are pro-life of course. You say that abortion is an indicator of socio-economic performance, and that abortion is "the best choice," but I don't believe that at all, actually I think it perpetuates their situation. We all want a society like the one you describe, but I don't believe it will happen if the voices of millions of babies are silenced.
exactly so the point is they do not want the child, not the pregnancy, and the only way to ensure the child is never born is to end the pregnancy. I was just clarifying the language since you said that the point of abortion is to end the pregnancy; well the point of abortion is to ensure a child is not born, the termination of pregnancy is just the method of achieving that result. Just clarifying.
It costs 250k to raise a child. I don't see pro-lifers mortgaging their own homes to help with that, do you?
I don't see pro-lifers offering to pay 30k-100k+ hospital bills should the woman suffer complications from the pregnancy. I don't see pro-lifers offering free services or millions in charity for disabled children.
Diapers and formula are a drop in the bucket, and when we are talking about millions of pregnancies it doesn't go far, at all.
And need I remind you, pro-life politicians, the ones with actual power to enact legislation, are all republican and they routinely cancel social services that actually help the needy.
No, i sincerely doubt they want the pregnancy either, unless you think that a majority of women just looove being pregnant and going through labour?
I think that many would take the child given the resources to raise it, however, that does not automatically mean that they enthusiastically *want* a child just because they became pregnant. If resources were the ONLY thing that stood in the way of having a baby every time you got pregnant, don't you think the rich would all have 10+ kids by now? Why aren't billionaires wives all broodmares with 10 kids?
Totally agree with you on the republican politicians, but your argument fails as far as helping because you seem to say just because you cannot help EVERY pregnancy then you shouldn't help ANY
Forcing all women to give birth and then throwing them a few diapers and formula while cancelling important social programs and leaving women with huge hospital bills isn't exactly a sound policy.
You are the one that is saying resources matter, not me. and yes in my case I loooved being pregnant. but like I said in the previous post there are women who have abortions just because they detest the idea of pregnancy for health or other reasons, but the majority detest the idea of having a child they cannot raise, or that has a defect or that they cannot afford.
you will find that organizations that help women in a crisis pregnancy have a much harder time when social programs are cancelled.
Yes, some women do not want to have a child unless they can guarantee it a good life. That is compassionate, imo.
Anyway, if it's only a matter of resources, why don't rich women have 10+ kids?
CPC's tend to drop women like hot potatoes. They also lie about contraception, and tell women that BC will cause all manner of horrible side effects.
First, I'm not saying ALL pro-lifers don't care about the bigger societal issues. I believe some pro-lifers have their heart in the right place. I'm not saying abortion is the "best solution", millions of women are. I think a society which pressures the women into thinking that this is the best solution is not a good society overall.
As for the Catholic Church, sure it does some stuff, but is also against LGBT rights and adoption, the very people who could give the unwanted babies a nice home. And worldwide is against contraception, which helps slow the spread of STDs and lowers the pregnancy rate in places where there are too many children in horrible economic situations. So overall, I think the Catholic Church does more harm than good, and leads to more abortions.
And how come so many people who deny evidence in science and social sciences OVERWHELMINGLY are pro-life? Why are the mental failures in the world so overwhelmingly pro-life? That must tell you something.
I never said it was a matter of resources, not sure why you keep asking that. I know many families who have 5 or + children and they are by no means millionaires, some children are adopted out of foster, some are biological, but they are all loved regardless of resources. I don't think only millionaires should have children because they can afford them.
You appear to be arguing that women 'choose to kill the unborn babies' because of financial concerns, and not a wish to simply not be pregnant.
Are you not trying to cast women who abort as selfish killers? But in a nice way? That is the impression I am getting. Please correct me if I am wrong, somecloud.
I just looked up a CPC and could not find anything of what you are saying. The fact the oral contraceptives cause cancer, is on the cdc website
The point is to end the pregnancy before it can become a child.
I don't really want to get into a discussion about the CC on Secular Pro-Life, but it seems to me that you get most of your information on the CC from non Catholic sources….it is as though I wanted to learn about atheism from an evangelical source. I challenge you to actually go to the source (Catholic.com has a LOT of information) to understand why the CC believes what it does…I hope you take up this challenge because why ask the questions if you are really not interested in knowing the answer fro the other side, right? Lastly science and the Catholic Church go hand in hand, there is really no divide there (again you are getting your info from second hand sources). The vatican has astronomers, and astrophysicist on staff. Pope Francis himself has a degree in Chemistry!
A ZEF can't ask for anything because it does not have any brain function to think yet and it is not aware that it is developing yet.
Because it is easier to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place by using BC than to have an abortion.
It's irrelevant whether the donor recipient "asks." In most cases. they do not. Consent is still required to use the organs of another.
An autistic child, and NO child, is entitled to the body of his parents for his physical needs. Providing care is NOT bodily use. It is a form of labor that can be provided by ANYONE.
>> but it seems to me that you get most of your information on the CC from non Catholic sources
Will you then care to tell me what I said is incorrect?
Catholic Church is against birth control. True or False.
Catholic Church is against LGBT marriage and adoption. True or False.
>> why the CC believes what it does.
Oh, OK. So its not that you're saying I am wrong on the CC's positions, its that I am right, but they have reasons for being against BC which has proven to be effective against the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies and abortions. They have reasons for being bigoted against LGBT.
The problem is, their reasons are dogma. Not social science research or epidemiology. Dogma. And that is a great path to terrible social policy.
So the Vatican has an observatory. So what? From an organization that arrested Galileo because he had evidence that the earth orbited around the sun, and this was somehow inconvenient truth for the Catholic Church? What sort of publications and findings has the Vatican Observatory made? While I have a physics PhD, I am not too aware of any real science that the Vatican is doing.
No it is not.
Because whether a woman has an abortion or not, an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy would be better prevented from happening in the first place. There is a difference in how one arrives at fewer abortions. One respects women as full human beings and the other doesn't. It should be fairly obvious. The way to decrease abortions is by eliminating unwanted pregnancy, and there was a very good piece on that in this very forum a couple months ago.
The question was answered in her post. But since you want someone to crayon you a picture, here goes: Abortion is an undesirable outcome. So is unwanted pregnancy. BOTH can be lessened without treating woman as less than full human beings with full rights. This is done with universal free access to the most effective methods of birth control.
Then you can't force women to give birth. Actually you can't force them if you're willing to pay for everything.
Go visit one. Ask them about referrals for contraception. See what happens.
Great. It can move out, get a job, maybe a cute apartment? Otherwise you are giving rights to the body of a specific person to another specific person. That's slavery.
ROFLMFAO. That doesn't happen. Gestation is universal. There aren't some pregnancies full term at 40 weeks and some full term at 30 weeks.
Oh, so she was crying about the 'difficult' and 'gut wrenching' decision she made after she investigated adoption, resources available to help her so she wouldn't have to kill, after she talked to the father and he refused to help financially, etc… is that what happened? No, she was happy, smiling, cackling, etc – waiting for her 15 minutes of fame to start.
>> Oral contraceptives cause cancer.
Uh, no it doesn't.
National Cancer Institute
breast cancer -> SLIGHT INCREASE, but back to baseline 10 years after discontinuation.
ovarian and endometrial cancer -> REDUCES RISK.
cervical cancer -> INCREASES risk, but the fact that women who take oral contraceptives tend to be more sexually active confounds the causal relationship. Difficult to say.
Abortions happen because women do not want to be pregnant. If they don't want a child, and are OK with pregnancy they just have it and sign it away. Don't even take the baby home from the hospital. Problem solved. NO.. she REALLY doesn't want to be pregnant. That was why I got my tubes tied. I wouldn't have objected to another child, provided that it grew spontaneously under a cabbage leaf, and when it was ready, I just pick it off and take it inside. But I was violently opposed to gestating again. It was disastrous for me.
No. I really REALLY didn't want to be pregnant again. EVER.
You loved being pregnant. Do not assume your experience is universal.
You're wasting your time, dealing with someone who thinks full term pregnancies vary widely.
It wouldn't be right for me. But then again, abortion for many reasons wouldn't be OK for me. But the only person I can make that decision for is myself. The law draws the line at viability, and I'm great with that.
hehe, that was pretty funny
Bodies aren't houses.
The state of the fetus is "incomplete." That doesn't entitle it to completion at the expense of a complete person.
Who says the Patriot Act was intended to fight "terrorists?"
I saw the video. No cackling. So what if she smiled? You aren't inside her head. I doubt you're even inside your own most of the time.
Well said.
Infants aren't skyscrapers.
Can't guarantee anyone a good life. Regardless of defects. Likewise defects don't guarantee a bad life. Just a side point.
that was funny!! you are actually saying that the only reason a ZEF doesn't ask for permission is because it can't! Hilarious!
I did
funny, cancer.org classifies it as group1 carcinogen
Cancer.org does indeed list it as a carcinogen, but also
says
>> Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also
convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective
effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)
funny, x-rays are also carcinogen yet they prevent lots of cancers, there is not parenthesis there, though
X-rays do not prevent cancer. They kill cancer cells as well as normal healthy tissues surrounding them.
aren't they used for preventive screenings to detect suspicious tissue before it becomes cancer?
I am not…read the previous posts
They are used for imaging putative cancerous tissue. They do not prevent cancer, it is an imaging technique, like ultrasound is an imaging technique.
ok
I thought pro-choicers always argue it is not so easy to sign away the baby and that's why abortion is preferable. Make up your mind!
Good we agree that abortion is undesirable
Pro-choicers for the most part do believe abortion is undesirable. But it is a choice.
No I am saying the ZEF has no higher thinking abilities so it should not be factored into the decision when a woman is considering abortion.
Since you start throwing accusations and insults I can tell this subject touched a nerve. Like I said, inform yourself if you want to have some credibility in your assertions, I don't want to discuss the CC on Secular Pro-Life
I believe I am just repeating the CC's positions. Why don't you tell me which one I repeated incorrectly? Are not all the accusations true? Did the Catholic Church not imprison Galileo and posthumously apologize? Where are the peer-reviewed publications from the Vatican Observatory. These are simple questions.
wow, I hope that an autistic child never crosses your path, because that would be very sad for him. He needs his parents' bodies for EVERYTHING. Providing care for a child like this require ALL of your body, and I might add all your emotions too. You are sleep deprived for years and physically beaten up. Your body definitely takes a toll from having a severely autistic child.
Listen, if you are interested in apologetics discussion I really recommend you check you catholic.com Very accurate information there as well as a radio show where they encourage people who disagree with catholic faith to call in and are treated with respect. I just don't think Secular Pro-life is the place
Appreciate the comment, discourse should always be civil!
Not too interested in apologetics, and don't think the CC is the worst organization in the world. I understand they have done good works, like inspire great centers of learning and the building of beautiful cathedrals, but I am questioning their motives when they "help the poor". To me, their policies are hit-and-miss. Some do good, but many do bad, like their stance on contraception. They sometimes do stupid things because the "why they believe the things they do" as you say, is purely dogmatic. They will not change their minds even when evidence points to some of their policies causing harm.
And this is at the heart of what I see of the mainstream pro-life movement. Dogma and religion are its biggest motivators, so they will not consider other avenues which have been proven to reduce abortion but does not bode well with their immutable church teachings.
against bc yes, but. against abortion yes, but if life of woman is in danger or she needs to undergo some treatment and in the course of saving her life, baby unintentionally dies (eg an ectopic pregnancy) then it is ok. LGBT should not marry yes (but it is not so simplistic that 's why you can go to the website I mentioned). Pope Francis is the head of the visible church on earth or as you say it he is the head of the fairy tale, and he is anti abortion, and pro traditional marriage, sorry to burst your bubble. Nothing that Pope Francis says is new, by the way. All the social teachings have always been part of the CC, as is the exhortation that LGBT should be treated with respect and compassion. If you see people insulting them, they are not following catholic teaching.
I don't really know where Pope Francis really stands in regards to social policies, but he strikes me as one who has genuine concern.
As for LGBT, all sorts of Catholic leaders have plenty of horrible things to say about them. And as an active researching computational neuroscientist, I feel I have the capacity to understand many layers of complexity. I meld elements of programming, numerical optimization, calculus, Bayesian statistics, neurophysiology and understanding of experimental techniques to analyze and construct models of observed neural activity. I have read the CCs positions on LGBT marriage and adoption. Sorry to say, I find them simplistic and dogmatic. As a father, I see a few same sex (married) couples at the playground where my kid plays. I don't see how they cannot be good parents, or why they cannot be included in to the fold of marriage as a secular institution.
first i completely understand about catholics not following the church's teachings, I mean looks at Nancy Pelosi, there's a cafeteria catholic if I ever saw one. Nobody denies that LGBT people are not good parents, but I think the church tries to see it from the child's rights because they are more vulnerable. Which family situation is better FOR A CHILD: two same sex parents or two opposite sex parents? Anyway that's isn't even the point though when it comes to same sex so called marriage. As far as this is concerned, if marriage is between anything other than an man and a woman, then why have marriage at all, think about it. There is something else that society at large tries to box these people into: Just because you have a certain attraction that does not define who you are. People have all sorts of attractions to all sorts of things, but fundamentally we are to be treated as people, not gays and heterosexuals. Anyway (sorry I am rushing out the door), in couples where there is a deep commitment and love, nobody disputes that that love is real and sincere. The CC also acknowledges this but wants to be clear that in this case, you are called to live chastely. just because you are called to a celibate life, the love you feel for the other person is not any less valid.
Please, don't be late for your appointment.
From the what I see of the children of LGBT parents at my playground, they don't seem unhappy at all. Granted, not a huge sample size, but from about 10 or so that I know, I don't see any difference.
You can spin for the CC all you like, but I just hope that religion hasn't made you lose your humanity – Matt Dillahunty. Just listen to yourself telling people who have no control over their attractions, who knew even before puberty that they would not be like Jack and Jill, that they need to suppress their love in the one and only life they have here on earth, to remain chaste and celibate. Its so easy to say when you're heterosexual and can easily go back home to a warm family and a kiss on the cheek. What you're saying is they need to go home to a dark, cold house and deprive themselves of a loving touch.
Do you think you sound like a person possessed of real human compassion?
I'm sure the CC will "evolve" on this issue, just like they did with Galileo, just like they did with Darwin.
This might be true if we were really talking about an "it". The complication arises because we are actually talking about a "he" or a "she". The gender of human beings is determined as conception. Pregnancy is not an "infringement", it is the natural result of having sex while fertile.
May or may not get a baby? Ason at get a live or dead baby? Or may get a cat or a dog? Thus argument lacks a basic understanding of biology.
Nope.
The homunculus theory of reproduction has been thoroughly dismantled.
Yeah. Not every zygote becomes an infant, you know. There's that whole gestation thing, where the genes have to be read, interpreted, and expressed, and that may not work out, which is why you get stuff like stillbirths, anencephaly, hydrocephaly, potter's syndrome, and just about every genetic defect that you can imagine.
Still irrelevant.
I'm a she, does that mean I have a right to your body without your explicit and ongoing consent? No, it doesn't. There is NO right, for people or non-people, to use the body of another without consent. Period.
Jim cavizel. A pro abortion friend said he would convert if Jim put his money where his mouth was. Jim and his wife adopted three special needs children. His friend reneged.
Really? I have never had a problem. I was 14 when I was stupid enough to believe he loved me. After I was dropped as another teen bed fodder. No pain or emotional distress there. Fortunately, I smartened up and realized I was worth waiting for. Abstinence is possible and does work. Really it is a lifestyle choice. I have quickly discovered who was interested in me as a person and who just wanted me as an end to sexual gratification.
Just because you find it difficult doesn't mean it doesn't work. Dieting and exercise are difficult for some people but nono one says they don't work.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/74/15/4078.short?rss=1
Actually, the CC does not oppose birth control. NFP can be used as a form of birth control and that's perfectly licit. It's only contraception that taught against.
Also, see here: http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0162.htm
She proved that abortion isn't the 'gut wrenching' decision and decision of last resort that pro-aborts always claim. She was happy to kill her unborn child – truly sick and selfish.
So, death is preferable to abuse? Why don't we just kill all the kids in foster care and up for adoption right now, just in case they get abused at some point down the road?
Also, what is the magical point at which a human organism becomes a "child"? Can you support this assertion with scientific evidence?
I have five kids and I'm certainly not a millionaire. 🙂 Actually, none of the families I know with 5+ kids are millionaires.
Oh NFP, that method where users somehow end up with 5+ kids, and the conclusion is that the method works because that's how many god willed me to have. Yeah god. You pointed me to that webpage a while ago, and that's what I conclude from the person writing it.
So abstinence for life works for a couple? Wow… I feel bad for your husband.
Children are a $250k investment.
When you are elderly or sick it is not your career or vacation home or car that take care of you but your children.
Is this presenting any new information I presented above? Reading the paper, it basically says there may be a slight increase in risk for high-dose estrogen types, but no risk for low-dose estrogen types. And in the end, it concludes:
Although these results suggest an increased risk of breast cancer,
–>
the many established health benefits associated with oral contraceptive use, including reproductive planning, menses regulation, decreased dysmenorrhea, and decreased risk of benign breast conditions (37, 38),
<–
must also be considered when making individual choices.
What I take away from this is that oral contraceptives are basically safe, and have many health benefits. Were you trying to show me that oral contraceptives cause cancer? If so, this paper you pasted doesn't seem to be it.
Have children to exploit them later in life?
I would say that non existence is preferable to abuse, yes.
Thanks JoAnna, when I say BC I always mean artificial birth control, but you are right a distinction needed to be made
So it's the Catholic Church's fault that about 400,000 abortions are done by women who didnt use any contraceptives in the month they became pregnant? nope.
Time to come out of the Dark Ages and into the light of modern science.
Human life begins at conception. Biologically and scientifically confirmed.
I agree with you that a single mom situation is not an ideal situation for a child either. And what are you talking about? Of course the church is against divorce, and of course there is pastoral care for that too.
Human development begins at conception. That's it. There is no deeper meaning. Zygotes are not tiny people.
Personhood is a legal concept, not a biological concept. That which is legally defined in the Federal Constitution will determine the rights ascribed to the unborn.
I think I have compassion, but if it is coming across as the opposite, I will certainly try to work on that, God knows there are a lot of things on my list of things to improve
No mind = no rights.
Discrimination against the mentally disabled. Shameful!
The mentally disabled have minds. They are not microscopic snippets of DNA.
Thank you for reaffirming the scientific facts that human life begins at conception.
Now we need to debate about the sacredness of human life at various stages of age. Discrimination based on age…called ageism.
And about the discrimination based on habitat. Within the womb or outside of the womb.
In any case, the momentum for civil rights for the unborn continues to grow.
More states considering amending the criminal code in such manner that killing a pregnant woman would result in two counts of homocide.
The legal and political trends are driving towards a progressive view of civil rights!
If my husband does not respect my fertility and cannot abstain from sex at those times then he is not worthy of me. Equally if I am to selfish to understand and communicate my fertility then I am not worthy of him
Don't be an ass
Slurpy
What do you do to help the poor? Besides saying the government should….
And about the discrimination based on habitat. Within the womb or outside of the womb.
Yeah, let's talk about that. Why aren't born children permitted to use their parent's bodies, organs etc, in order to sustain their own lives? Through force of law of course. Kid needs bone marrow, parent must donate or go to jail. That way born children will have the same rights as unborn humans.
So when you are unconscious, you have no worth.
When you suffer a stroke or get Alzheimer's Disease, losing your mind, then you have no worth.
When you have a head trauma and lose your mind, you have no worth.
When a 9 month old fetus is aborted one minute before birth, he/she has no worth.
What an immoral and unethical view of human life!
I am sorry, but that is the gist of your point. Have kids so they can look after you when you get old. It just sounds so cold, you know?
When you are unconscious, you still have a mind.
And yes, we do not treat those without minds as persons, at least, we do not keep them on life support, otherwise anencephalic babies and beating heart cadavers (no mind, but body is alive) would be kept on feeding tubes for as long as possible. They are not. We either bury them in the ground or harvest their organs.
And you should stop embarrassing yourself with 9 month fetal abortions, please. A pregnancy termination at 9 months is a birth, and barring medical emergency, will most likely be induced labour of a live baby.
Nope.. that's requiring someone to take RESPONSIBILITY for the offspring they helped create. Telling a woman she has to CARE for her newborn isn't slavery…even if she doesn't want to call CPS or drop the baby off at a fire station. She HAS TO do something she doesn't want to. That's not slavery – that's RESPONSIBILITY.
When did I ever say it was? However, the Catholic Church which does yield considerable power in poor nations, is against contraception, and tells women in those countries information that is against their own interests. Many of those people are devoutly religious as they have no education, and will believe mysticism. Is that the Catholic Church's fault? Yes.
when I was rushing out the door I mentioned children but that is not official church doctrine, I was just saying that I think the church also considers the rights of the children when catholic adoption agencies for example, want to place children in traditional marriages. Sorry the post was a little rushed before. By the way, where do you get the "vehemently" from. I mean yes they believe that homosexual behaviour is not good for people, but also many other things. I don't think they single out one "sin" over another.
I'm not particularly knowledgeable of religion, but judging from the overreaction of St. Patties Day organizers, people like Brian Brown of NOM (a Catholic) who goes out to Africa and Russia and supports death penalty for gays, The bishops Cordelione something a rather who bashes gays. They paint a picture that the Catholic Church as an organization (not necessarily everyday Catholics) actually hate LGBT.
You did say
>> Children are a $250k investment. When you are elderly or sick it is not your career or vacation home or car that take care of you but your children.
Can you blame fruit for mistaking that description with a 401k plan?
I did not hear about st. Patties day, and am not really familiar with NOM, but I can tell you that if he is advocating for death of anyone (not self defense or things like that) for hatred or spite, he is going against the teachings of the church. However it seems really narrow minded to judge a whole religion by the action of a few. There are and there have been people who have done great harm, but that does not invalidate the truths of the Catholic Church, Indeed these people are going against what the church teaches. I think you are absolutely correct that the liberal media (and also the conservative more evangelical one at times) do paint a picture that the catholic church hats LGBT. This is very convenient for the liberal agenda, I am sure you concur.
A gallup Survey showed that about 82% of Catholics in the US think Contraception is morally acceptable. So, it's likely that many Catholics use contraception. And, if a person is that devoutly religious and doesn't use contraception, odds are she won't break with the church and kill her unborn child if she got pregnant.
The Charity provided by the church saves more lives than are killed by the few that follow the churchs view on contraception but then break with the church and have an abortion.
False parallelism. An unborn baby and his/her mother are in a natural and healthy relationship of growth.
On the other hand, your example of a born child, who is sick, needs a medical intervention for an illness. There may be alternate means of possibilities.
Your analogy appears to be comparing apples with oranges.
Yes I agree, I do get a little worked up about religion. I personally find it SO distasteful to "believe" without evidence, and this colors my view too much of the religious.
I am aware that the Catholic Church, especially the Nuns are often catalysts of social change, and they are to be commended. And I sincerely believe most of the Catholics working for charities and going abroad for medical work are doing it out of goodness of their hearts and believing they are doing God's work.
However, it still stands that dogmatic worldviews can sometimes lead to terrible social policy, and the CC is guilty of supporting some policies that are proven not to work well in the real world. That is not a liberal media bias.
This originally started out with the assertion that pro-choice people don't love abortion either. Its just that the pro-choice policies tend not to be defined by dogma, but by evidence gained from epidemiological studies, social science and economic research that shows that the abortion issue is multifaceted, and is intimately related to socioeconomic well-being of its citizens. AFAIK, faith organizations do not do this kind of thing, and tend to be focused solely on abortion. They may help the poor (often with some preaching thrown in, but…) but disregard evidence that BC and abortion is effective in giving women social and economic mobility.
Agreed. US Catholics are far more liberal than its leaders. But I'm concerned about Catholics in Africa, Asia, S. America. Poorer countries with much lower literacy where the Church has much more sway over the people. What the Catholic Church says is taken with more than a grain of salt, and if the Church says contraception is not morally acceptable…
Is/ought /naturalistic fallacy
What matters is that a life could be saved. It shouldn't matter whether or not the intervention is 'natural' or unnatural, should it? The point is, if a child has a right to it's parent's body, it should not matter if the child is born, or unborn.
On the other hand, your example of a born child, who is sick, needs a
medical intervention for an illness. There may be alternate means of
possibilities
You mean selfishly taking someone else's bone marrow? Bone marrow that could go towards another sick child? Nope, sorry.
See, that's where you are wrong, myintx. Well, that and most of what you say about anything else. We don't force women to parent after birth. She doesn't even have to take "Little Peanut" home from the hospital if she doesn't want to. Problem solved. And SHE doesn't *personally* have to drop the newborn off at a hospital or fire station. She can get anyone to do it. No information is required. Not even the mother's name. They have no idea who the mother is, unless someone chooses to tell them. So take your "responsibility" screed to someone who doesn't know any better. A woman's "responsibility" to her offspring do not include bodily donation, or CONTINUOUS bodily donation.
Like I said. You aren't inside her head. And most of the time, you aren't even in your own head. You have no idea how someone else "feels." PERIOD. You have "proved" nothing.
Did they refer you for contraception?
Actually that's a more apt analogy. Infants aren't skyscrapers. But they do start out as a single cell containing information that needs to be interpreted and carried out in order to build a complete human (or not). If some of the information is missing, or not interpreted properly, the end product is defective. Sometimes fatally defective. On the other hand, your body isn't anyone's dwelling place other than yourself, and no one else can lay claim to it without specific consent.
The proper analogy is comparing the life of the baby born one minute after birth against the life of the unborn baby one minute before birth.
The fact that you would permit the abortion of an unborn baby one minute before birth is discrimination based on habitat.
That is immoral and evil.
Never heard of voluntary bone marrow donors? How unselfish!
Strawman. A massive one. God. Please do not argue dishonestly, it is bad manners.
Abortion = eviction of a non viable prenate.
Any fetus that is viable will be delivered, as in, birthed, and birth ends the pregnancy. In fact, induced labour is the safest way to end a third trimester pregnancy. Which means the fetus will come out alive, if at all possible.
So your fictional one minute before birth abortion will be a live delivery.
I am utterly appalled at your straw man. Wow. Incredible.
That bone marrow can go to another child in need. Why should a dying child be denied bone marrow because you are too selfish yo donate yours to your own kid?
She doesn't have to drop the baby off at a fire station, but what if she's late for work and there is no time to wait for CPS or a friend to pick the baby up? She is FORCED to care for her baby, until teh baby can be handed off SAFELY to someone else.Too bad. The baby has a right to life. She does have a responsibility to ensure her childs safety. That responsibility should start when her offspring is created – at fertilization.
Abortions after viability are restricted. So, if she changes her mind at 25 weeks she HAS TO stay pregnant unless she meets one of the states exceptions. It's a shame we have to have laws to encourage people to be responsible.
Oh that's so much bull. Just stop. STOP. She isn't going to work. She just gave birth. Likely in the hospital. If she gave birth alone, at home, if all else fails, she can take a taxi to the nearest hospital and drop off the newborn. I'm guessing no friend or even acquaintance would refuse to do the dropping off, or at the very least, give her a ride. Driving after just delivering isn't recommended. For that matter, she can summon an AMBULANCE and give the baby to the paramedics.
Don't know who he is, but bless his heart. He is a bigger man than I. I truthfully don't think I could deal with a special needs child who is not my own.
That being said, it appears that same-sex couples tend to be more open to "hard to place" children than heterosexual couples. And the mainstream pro-life movement doesn't support gay marriage or adoption rights, generally.
http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=2321/
Hats off to Mr. Caviezel for manning up.
Oh, the smiles were 'acting' then? She didn't tell the father. She didn't try to get help. She killed for selfish reasons, including 15 minutes of fame.
No one is stopping any from donating bone marrow, as desired.
The height of irony… To be so unselfish that one can advocate the heartless slaughter of unborn babies through late-term abortions.
Please spare us all your concern for others.
You got caught in the logical extension of your thinking.
Now you need to defend by moving the goal post further to that of "non-viability." The realization of the immorality of late-term abortions finally sunk in!
Better late than never.
If you need to label a realistic hypothetical as a fictional straw man, then it merely gives evidence of the inability to rebut with substantive reasoning.
A newborn can be up to a few weeks old..some women do go back to work within a few weeks of giving birth. The point is that a woman (or man) has to ensure their child's safety. Even if it is against their will – at least in the time it takes to hand over their child. Oh no! They may have to do something against their will… If a parent has to take the time (however much time that is) to SAFELY hand over their child, a pregnant woman should have to do the same with her unborn child. Granted, it will take longer, but she still should have to do it. Killing a child because you don't want to ensure his or her safety is wrong – before or after birth.
Again, still arguing by misquotation. I never once advocates for late term abortion, because a viable third trimester fetus will be delivered ALIVE, especially if it is right before birth.
Secondly, you have argued that women should be legally obligated to donate their bodies to embryos. So, why can't fathers be legally obligated to donate their blood, organs and tissue to their toddlers?
Uhm…abortion has ONLY ever referred to non viable embryos and fetuses.
You invented the one minute before birth abortion fantasy because you are dishonest?
Apparently, you have distorted the definition of an abortion merely to fit your neat conclusions.
Just because you define it as ending the life of a non-viable prenate does not make it medically accurate.
The fact of the matter is that abortions occur throughout all nine months of gestation.
So please let that reality sink into your mind.
So do you now find it morally acceptable for late-term abortions to occur? Or are they immoral?
And why?
He is a multi millionaire actor, star of The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibsons anti semitic movie.
It might have more meaning if the pro lifer adopted multiple disabled children while living on minimum wage, having to work three jobs, while living in a slum.
A rich actor can afford all the help he needs. It isn't a great sacrifice.
The CC is opposed to any artificial birth control including the birth control pill which is one of the most popular and effective forms of birth control.
Boy, you really need to catch up with the medical science surrounding abortions.
Please do everyone a favor and research further about the types of abortions done throughout the various gestation periods.
It is obvious now why it is so difficult to have a conversation with you. Your scientific "facts" are inaccurate often times.
Maybe then we can have a more fruitful exchange of thoughts.
Peace.
Nope. That IS how it is defined. Abortion on non viable prenates, delivery on viable. Induced labour is safest for the woman in the third trimester. The only time it is killed within her is when it is medically necessary, and that is extremely dangerous. Also, a third trimester delivery can cost from 8k to 30k based on the type of complications. It takes three days and is not done on a whim. It is done out of medical necessity.
Anyhoo, it is obvious that you invented this straw man because you cannot justify your special pleading for prenates vs born children.
Then she can have someone drop it off immediately following birth, or summon an ambulance for the newborn (which is probably smarter, considering that the newborn might need medical attention that she can't give). Your entire premise is BUNK. No she does NOT have to care for it. She can call 911 while the placenta is still attached. The paramedics come and take the newborn away, placenta and all. Or do they not have 911 and paramedics in Texas? Just wait. That will be next.
You don't know that. Plus, it's none of your fracking business.
According to the CC if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy the only "moral" solution is to remove the tube the zygote is in. They do not allow her to take an abortifact to end an ectopic pregnancy.
Third trimester termination = induced labour. Fetus delivered alive if possible = FACT. If it is already dead or dying within her due to a fatal defect, its heart will be stopped, then it will be delivered.
And Lady Black, a nurse, will back me up on this.
You are clueless. And a liar.
Well, still taking on disabled children even with help is something that should be commended.
There is no point continuing this conversation. I cannot have the assurance that our basic scientific terms of understanding are accurate during our exchange.
It is counter-productive for me to return to the need of simple definitions of scientific and legal terms, again and again.
Peace!
NFP is not BC… it is just asking to get pregnant.
This… person(?) trueDoucheview is just too annoying to be real.
Because you are ..
1) dishonest
2) invent straw men constantly
3) can't explain why you engage in special pleading for zygotes and leave toddlers to die
I agree. Its just not a major sacrifice. And lest we forget, pro lifers would force people living on skid row to raise multiple severely disabled children vs abort.
Catholic women use artificial birth control and have abortions. That's reality.
NFP is BC where the lord determines how many children is right for you, and you just suck it up and smile and thank the lord.
Anti Semitic movie? Indeed, Gibson is anti semitic but I don't remember the movie being so.
Not a major sacrifice??? Have you ever raised a disabled child? Obviously not.
Not if you have millions of dollars and can employ a full time nursing staff and afford any and all treatments.
It was all about blaming the Jews for Jesus death.
Thank you. I restrained myself.
🙂
Another side point here. Anti choices is not an accurate descriptor. People who are against abortion are in favor of all manor of choices. As are pro choices. People who are anti abortion are against one major choice. As I'm sure prochoicers are against several major choices (is rape, murder, driving drunk perhaps). So the term anti choice is a misnomer.
I may assert that your statements were inaccurate but I never claimed that you were dishonest.
That is the difference between our views.
You lied about what I said. That = dishonest, cupcake.
BPA is linked to cancer.
Let's use terms properly. Incomplete is used for non living things like buildings and puzzles. Fully grown, growing, or not fully grown is how we refer to living things.
I could have very easily interpreted your distortions about my statements as lies also.
But I have given you the benefit of the doubt, that despite the misinterpretations and distortions, you had the intention of good faith, nevertheless.
Mistaken and misinformed, but well-intentioned, cupcake.
I did not distort anything. I don't play childish games.
This x 1000.
From my vantage point, I respectfully disagree.
Prove it.
Let us just agree to disagree.
Of course you don't. Because you are dishonest and have nothing but fallacies. This last one was the tu qoque fallacy – accusing me of doing what you do.
I did not create you. You are not intrinsically and organically a part of me. You did not come into existence because of me and my choices. Therefore this argument is not relevant.
You have the right not to reproduce. Government has no say in that at all. The government should have a say in our destructive actions, however.
Can you really say that a baby is an "independent, autonomous individual" after they've been born? Someone has to take care of them, be it the parents, relatives, or someone appointed by the state. Babies aren't totally independent, so is it okay to kill them? What level of independence/autonomy does there have to be for someone to have the right not to be killed?
We don't think all women wait until 39.5 weeks, but it is illogical to dismiss questions about late-term abortion on the premise that they are "rare." The questions should still be asked, if only to work on figuring out when *exactly* the pro-abortion person thinks abortion is no longer okay and their reasons for having that position.
Refusing to talk about late-term abortion is trying to avoid tough questions that can't be easily dismissed as "choice."
A baby does not need to tap into another persons arteries and use that persons organs to sustain its own life because none of its organs are functional.
It's exploitative. I think having children to take care of me when I'm old is a horrible reason to have a child.
Reproduction is not finished when sperm meets egg. Reproduction takes 40 weeks of gestation. Zygotes are not insta-babies.
Either people have a right to use other people's bodies against their will or they do not.
I've had this discussion with a number of people before – the one about consent. Move on from it. You stand on a different premise than they do, and as ridiculous as it is, it isn't worth arguing.
What about BPA? That's been linked to cancer. BPA is found in most food grade plastics and used widely.
"Cackling with glee" projection much?
Again you are projecting things that didn't happen.
The right to one's bodily autonomy is important but not absolute. It is qualified by its impact on the bodily autonomy of another person. Pro-choicers now (for the most part) recognize fetuses as humans, but would qualify that the human has to be "complete", or "self-aware" or some other qualifier. Pro-lifers recognize that there is no qualifier (for the beginning of value/worth/rights) that is not subjective. Subjective feelings do not justify an act of violence upon another person. But prochoicers will constantly tout that the parent has no responsibility or obligation to its offspring unless that parent wants to. This defines worth by desire. An interesting – and very problematic – definition.
She has to ensure her baby's safety until he or she can be handed off – even if she doesn't want to.
Boob jobs do not involve other people. Or at least, getting a boob job does not necessitate taking the life of another person.
You don't choose to have kids to support you in old age; that's just fantastical nonsense. But in old age it is certainly nicer to have your children care for you than someone you don't know. If you are so lucky.
Was she crying with regret that this was a decision of last resort? Did she say she was turned away from adoption agencies when she tried to talk to them about putting her child up for adoption? NO. The decision to kill came easy for her. Because she didn't care about her unborn child.
Getting "help" like forcing her to gestate against her will? Women don't need the "help" meaning lies and manipulation from CPCs.
She said herself she didn't tell the father….. From Cosmo "When Emily Letts got pregnant, she knew she would get an abortion. " She didn't try to get help.
Far as I can tell, a genetic defect does not a non-baby make. A stillborn baby is still a baby. Hydrocephaly is still a baby. My daughter, with the genetic condition she has, is still a baby. How dare you.
irrelevant to the conversation.
Straw man argument, anyways, for a couple of reasons:
1. Autistic children have a functioning brain. Their inability to communicate in the usual fashion does not equate, as it does with an embryo, to not having a brain.
2. Autistic children aren't inside their parent's body.
3. The ability, or lack thereof, to 'ask' for consent to something is an entirely different subject from whether or not a person (or pretend zef person) has a right to that something. The failure to be able to ask for consent does not equate to either an automatic right or an automatic denial of consent.
** He needs his parents' bodies for EVERYTHING.**
So… your claim here is that if an autistic child is put into foster care, despite the best efforts of his foster family to care for him, he's going to die, because only his parents bodies are able to keep him alive.
God, you're dumb.
** It is qualified by its impact on the bodily autonomy of another person.**
A fake zef 'person' that is not able to exist outside another person, by that fact, does not have any bodily autonomy.
**Abstinence is possible and does work.**
So… since I survived having a pipe full of liquid ammonia blow up in my face, by your logic, I can claim that breathing poison gas is possible and does work, and require you to do so?
Sorry, no. The fact that you personally were celibate is not proof that your anti-sex agenda will work in the real world with most people.
JoAnna- still waiting for links to all these pro-choicers you tell me have claimed that the ONLY reason the embryo isn't human is because of it's looks, and nothing else.
**Because she didn't care about her unborn child.**
Sort of like you didn't care about Babydaddy, before deciding to pull your rape and extortion scheme on him? Did you ask for 'help' before you raped Babydaddy and tried to exploit him with anchorbaby? NO. The decision to rape and exploit came easy for you.
**Also, what is the magical point at which a human organism becomes a "child"?**
What's the magical point at which the previously all-sacred fetus suddenly loses all the magical rights you claim it had from the moment it was conceived, and it becomes OK for the parents to mutilate it?
You may find this illuminating. It's an interview with late-term abortionist, Susan Robinson.
http://thehairpin.com/2013/09/susan-robinson
**A fetus is as complete in its stage as an infant is in its stage. That is to say, an infant isn't a completely formed adult but that doesn't mean it is incomplete.**
If you want to play the game of pretending a fetus is the same thing as a baby, then we can prove the point by removing it intact. A baby can survive just fine that way.
**The fact that you would permit the abortion of an unborn baby one minute before birth is discrimination based on habitat.**
The fact is that religious people will permit the mutilation of male infants one minute after birth, when it was an all-sacred fetus one minute before birth. Suddenly, the mother, who had no 'right' to abort a single celled zygote when it was INSIDE her, and violating her bodily autonomy, is allowed to mutilate her fully formed newborn boy baby, when it is OUTSIDE her, and allowing it to exist unmutilated in no way violates any of her rights.
That is immoral and evil. But the only 'rights' of the 'baby' you really care about are when those 'rights' conveniently punish the mother for having sex. Once the 'rights' of the 'baby' no longer can be twisted to punish the mother, you couldn't care less about them
What irony that one would care so much about the rite of circumcision after birth and then have no concern whatsoever about the life of an unborn baby minutes, days, or weeks before birth.
Abortion is the ultimate mutilation of an unborn baby. That is cold, heartless, immoral, and evil!
From this link you can see that late-term abortion involves a foetal intracardiac injection to ensure foetal demise:
http://www.latetermabortion.net/what_to_expect.html
From this link (which I also posted earlier) you can see that late-term abortions are carried out on health foetuses:
http://thehairpin.com/2013/09/susan-robinson
1.2% of abortions occur at 21+ weeks, making up 12,720 abortions in 2011:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Data on why women get late-term abortions is scanty. The best I could find is a 1988 paper; of the 399 women having an abortion at 16+ weeks, only 2 stated that the delay was due to a foetal problem being diagnosed later in the pregnancy:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3243347
**What irony that one would care so much about the rite of circumcision after birth and then have no concern whatsoever about the life of an unborn baby minutes, days, or weeks before birth.**
Yes, it's so strange to be concerned over someone's rights being violated when that person's rights are the ONLY rights in question, and there is no actual conflict of interest or contradiction with anyone else's rights, or any way to use their rights to punish other people.
**Abortion is the ultimate mutilation of an unborn baby.**
There is no 'unborn baby' any more than there is an 'unborn senior citizen'. The 'baby' doesn't exist at that point in time, no matter how many sad feelies you might have. Grow up and develope some time binding ability.
gender does not convey rights. Otherwise fish would be considered persons.
The unborn baby does exist. Your inability to recognize it does not invalidate its reality.
Perhaps, you need to reflect on when you once in your mother's womb, to be thankful about how she loved you enough to carry you through the nine months of gestation.
A hardened heart cannot feel the unspoken cries of the unborn undergoing through the pain of abortion.
Blind eyes cannot see the sacredness of human life, the very life that we have been enabled to live, and yet seek to deny others that civil right of life.
"Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy" — this popular expression is correct, but is it relevant?
The real issue is "Is consent to an event consent to responsibility for any person who becomes dependent as a result of the event?" I think the answer is yes.
**The unborn baby does exist**
Mere 'existence' is not sufficient to grant any rights, much less special rights that no other person has. I also notice that you are handwaving away the issue that the ONLY rights in question in the case of circumcision are the rights of the baby, which are being violated. But somehow 'rights' only concern you when they can be used to punish the mother.
**Perhaps, you need to reflect on when you once in your mother's womb, to be thankful about how she loved you enough to carry you through the nine months of gestation.**
I was not only gestated, but also conceived. Does this mean I should force other women to have sex continually in order to make sure the eggs can be fertilized? Or do you only protect those 'rights' that punish women for having sex?
**A hardened heart cannot feel the unspoken cries of the unborn undergoing through the pain of abortion.**
Sorry, epic fail. I have far too much empathy for the pain of real people, who are actually able to feel real pain, to have any room left for worrying about the imaginary suffering of zefs and embryos, which, not having a functioning brain, are incapable of pain, or even awareness. Only a hardened heart would worry about the imaginary suffering of something with no brain, and place such nonsense above the real pain and suffering of real people.
**Blind eyes cannot see the sacredness of human life**
Anyone who values mere human 'life' in a technical/biological sense while repeatedly handwaving away the significance of the mind and brain is completely morally bankrupt.
**Is consent to an event consent to some degree ofresponsibility for any person who becomes dependent as a result of a possible outcome of the event?" I think the answer is yes.**
I think the answer is 'no', because an embryo is not a person.
Interesting how you classify 16 weeks as late term and then link to a liesitenews article.
Women don't frivolously choose abortions at 30 weeks. Heck, if the fetus is healthy, the doctors will refuse. Such pregnancy terminations are carried out due to medical necessity, and if the fetus is healthy, and it is possible to deliver it alive, it will be delivered alive. Women who do not want to be pregnant don't wait until "one minute before birth" to abort , which was truworldviews lie. These babies are wanted, but due to medical necessity, labour must be induced.
Now, in the other kind, you have fetuses with severe genetic defects. Yes, the heart is stopped in utero, and labour is induced, this is safer than sticking sharp instruments into the woman.
Yeah, and she won't perform a standard abortion on a healthy third trimester fetus.
So why are you not at all concerned about the public health crisis that is the billions of zygotes 80% in fact, that either fail to implant or miscarry due to genetic defects?
Uh huh. Ann sure as heck didn't give that impression.
No, the parent has absolutely no obligation to let the child occupy and use their body without consent – this goes for humans inside and outside the womb.
Can you clarify – I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Yes is it relevant that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
Consent to sex is NOT consent to allow your body to become a host to an unwanted ZEF. Forced organ donation isillegal.
Hi another
It may be difficult to figure out exactly what I was responding to, but I was responding to "why would pro-choice people want a world where abortion is rare", the implication being if we are pro-choice, we surely want more abortion.
The above post only responds to this, and shows that just because we favor choice doesn't necessarily mean we also want EVERYBODY going with that choice. Hence the boob job analogy. I can be pro-boob-job, but personally find boob-jobs unattractive. That is the pro-choice position. We are pro-abortion but do not necessarily feel we want more of it in the world. In fact the pro-choice position is we want less of it, we support other societal measures that would have the effect of making abortion a less attractive choice for women. Understood?
Late term abortions happen for the health of the woman or a fetal defect. It is sad that you want a woman to risk death for the fetus.
Defiantly not the type of BC I want to trust my health and life with.
NFP is a recognized form of birth control by the CDC. So is early withdrawal. Use those 2 forms together and the odds of getting pregnant go way down.
100 babies die from circumcision per year in the USA. I hope that you are as concerned about that loss of life as you are concerned about fetal life. Are you working to ban circumcision?
So, LIES are all you have in your arsenal to justify abortion? wow.
A woman from France requested an abortion at 30 weeks on a healthy fetus. She was denied.
So, you're admitting she didn't even want to try to save her unborn child?
Many women have abortions because they think they cannot afford the child. If they get help, perhaps they will be able to afford the child and will not have to resort to killing.
Sure, your body metrics correlate to your fertility, so keeping an eye on them should be somewhat effective, but the website states anywhere from a 1~25% failure rate. Doesn't seem too effective. And the website JoAnna shared touting NFP was made by a woman who has 5 children, and she stated that's more than she had in mind, but she felt NFP worked because that's how many kids god had planned for her. I guess its good to have a positive attitude like that. I mean, if I get an F in a class, I should think that I learned something from that experience because that's what the lord wanted right?
In another note, the CDC also warns that NFP does nothing to protect you from STDs.
I've actually made no attempt to classify late-term abortion. 16+ weeks was the designation used by the article I linked – their designation, not mine. The video is LiveAction, not LifeSiteNews. And no matter what you think of them, it's hard to refute the words of the abortionist himself. And if you'll go back to my response about Susan Robinson and various quotes that I included, you will see that she, at least, will not refuse to abort a healthy, late-term foetus (and here I'm generally designating late-term as 20+, but it seems to be a mutable term). Read those quotes, and then come back to me.
Yes, there is a 1-25% failure rate for each.. use both together and the odds go down to 1-6% or so.. much better odds.
Odds are that if a woman strictly follows the church doctrine on contraception, she isn't going to be sleeping around, so her chances of getting an STD are lower too.
Also, 82% of Catholics in the US think contraception is morally acceptable, so at least in this country many Catholics go to church while on the pill.
Not saying I agree with the Church on this issue, but it doesn't mean I think all organized religion should go away. The church helps many people.
Also this quote, from Tiller in 1995:
"We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years."
George Tiller, declaring his pro-choice credentials in a speech to the National Abortion Federation, April 2-4, 1995, New Orleans, LA.
http://quotes.yourdictionary.com/fetal
There is a very big difference between those who die naturally and those who are intentionally killed.
Very much understood. But the reason some people who are pro life have difficulty with that particular position is that another person is impacted by the choice the first person makes. It seems like the innocent bystander position…whereby you stand by and watch (perhaps with distaste) while one person, say, abuses his girlfriend in front of you. That's why your distaste for a boob job is different than your distaste for abortion.
Is that the only reason late term abortions happen? Should late term abortions only be legal for the health of the woman or fetal defect? What is defined as health?
Accusing someone who asks these questions about late-term abortion of "want[ing] a woman to risk death" is a shallow attempt to misdirect or shut down the questions.
So what about a premature infant on breathing support or someone on heart/lung bypass for surgery? It's not directly someone else's body, but someone else has to pay for it. Should parents/payees be allowed to kill the person to save money? Usually the parents/payees have used their bodies to work for that money.
It's completely relevant.
And some women don't want to be pregnant, period, full stop.
Hi aa
That analogy does not compare abortion and boob jobs, it merely says I can be pro-X,
yet still personally dislike X and wish to see a society where X is not common.
I understand your concern about abortion, that you feel a person is being harmed. I
share that feeling for late-term abortions, and am personally against them. However,
my imagination is not vivid enough, I just don't see a person in a fetus in stages
of development in which it does not have a working central nervous system and lives
in a sensory void.
What's at issue is what we define as a person. This is a societal construct. From
a biological point of view, it could even be argued that all living things are
related, and actually comprise a small piece of the one and only (big) organism on earth, the big biomass. This
definition is not too far fetched. You might object with something like "well me and Bob"
are genetically distinct. Well, if you took two somatic cells in your body, its
unlikely that EVERY SINGLE BASE PAIR in the DNA would be exactly the same between the cells. There are 3×10^9 base pairs, with error rates on the order of 10^{-8} errors per bp. Repair enzymes fix 99% of errors, giving a net error rate around 10^{-10}. So rare errors in DNA replication occur, plus outside factors like solar radiation can cause mutations to DNA in one cell, but not another. So even within one "human animal", there actually is genetic variation from cell to cell.
The above is one way in which the concept of the "individual" could be challenged. It certainly is not a question that science answers, putting the concept of "person" on highly subjective ground.
Then it is up to people and society to decide what is a "person". My criteria in the case of abortion is that it should at least have ability to process some form of sensory input, and at least demonstrated some will to live. I don't believe early fetuses have this capability. Born people in comas have at least demonstrated at some point in their lives the desire to keep on living, so this differentiates early fetuses with coma patients. If a fetus cannot feel pain or sadness of its demise, does it even make sense to say you are "harming it"? I don't think so, and think the question is moot. The only way this fetus could be harmed is by appeal to some nebulous "soul", or perhaps subscribing to the parallel universe theory, and believing that a born version of the fetus in a parallel world somehow feels harmed because one of its parallel brothers was aborted.
There could be other considerations of why we should consider a fetus a person, perhaps taking into societal impact of NOT considering an early fetus a person. Does such a view cause harm in society, perhaps devalues life? Well, since Roe v. Wade, we have a far richer arsenal of laws designed to protect life, from seat belt laws, fire codes, asbestos laws etc. So it seems like not defining a fetus as a person does not really cause society to devalue life.
So to me, I don't see any harm in aborting early fetuses. I feel I am a compassionate person who cares about the world, the environment, racial and gender equality, rights of minorities etc. I feel I care about more than myself, and could envision situations where I would willingly die for a greater common good. But I just don't see early fetuses as "people". Human, yes, people, no.
BTW, I answered you. What was the point of this question?
NO, it is NOT.
"The answer is that many abortion advocates distrust the pro-life movement's motives. They're convinced that we can't actually be in this because we see abortion as a violation of the right to life. They're certain that we're just out to control women's bodies…"
While I often disagree with the position taken by this blog, I almost always find that its positions are well thought out and avoid hyperbole as much as possible given the issue. However, I have never heard this particularly argument against the pro-life position and I would find it really difficult not to verbally abuse someone who tried to articulate it. For that reason, I think this is just a quick, rather painless death, to a rather flimsy straw man.
I think I know why, of course, but as usual unfortunately, you are avoiding the political and religious aspect of the issue. Pro-choicers like myself do generally distrust pro-lifer's intentions. Generally speaking, we do so for two sets of reasons. First, we do this because the majority of people self-labeled as pro-lifers vote for politicians that do not think that pregnant women, unborn children, or children are proper recipients of (so much) public assistance or legal protections (other than abortion prohibition or restrictions, of course). Second, we do so because the vast majority of pro-lifers (unlike many commentators on this blog) have deeply felt religious beliefs (many of which are tangential at best to the abortion debate IMO) that we view as misogynistic.
That is, when looking at the totality of the circumstances, we find the rhetoric of a significant portion of pro-lifers to be hollow given their actions and beliefs more generally. To that point, to be honest, this blog doesn't really address any of our concerns (if you care about that, at any rate). Those of us that are honest (I won't hazard a guess at how many of us that is) on the pro-choice side understand that there are good, philosophically meaningful arguments in favor of abortion restrictions (or prohibition). We generally don't think these carry the day or else we wouldn't be pro-choice. But we, or at least I, distrust many pro-lifers for reasons other than the philosophical debates that carry on here.
A premature infant on life support or someone on heart/lung bypass for surgery is not intrinsically incomplete and unformed. A pre-viability zygote/embryo/fetus is by it's very nature not whole – every organ is incomplete and non-functional in some way – if those organs were functional, they could survive outside the womb like a born child.
So if hundreds of millions of babies died from SIDS you'd just shrug your shoulders and say 'well it's natural?'
It's not the CC's fault if women do that…
I have the film "After Tiller" on my hard drive, and at 46 minutes in Dr. Robinson starts talking about the woman in France, and at 48 minutes in she simply says that she cannot do the procedure because the woman is too far along.
And the receptionist, on the phone to the French woman: "our clinic will go to 28 weeks, and strictly after that it is on individual case basis, and after that we will only see a woman if there is a very severe fetal anomaly, or perhaps looking at adoption at this point…I am very sorry and I wish you the best"
>> How can anybody trust pro-life motives when STRONGLY pro-life people include Jerry Falwell, Rush Limbaugh, National Organization of Marriage, Ted Cruz, Ken Ham, etc. – <<
How can anybody trust atheist motives when strongly atheistic people include Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Jeffrey Dahmer and Kim Jong Il? Nice job of illustrating the logical fallacy of guilt by association.
>> Show me one mainstream pro-life figure who isn't an asshole.<<
Do you consider Nobel peace laureates Mairead Maguire and Adolpho Perez Esquival to be assholes? How about Daniel Berrigan, Liz McAlister, Eileen Egan, John Dear, Jim and Nancy Forest, Sr. Helen Prejean, Jean Vanier, Jim Wallis, Christopher Hitchens and Nat Hentoff?
Women don't always get what they want (killing after viability, infanticide, etc)… They shouldn't be able to kill their unborn children simply because they don't want to be pregnant. An unborn child should have a basic right to life. I know what the law is, but the law is wrong. People who think the law is wrong can fight against it. It took about 50 years of people fighting to overturn the SC decision that said "Separate but Equal" was OK. I'm sure some racist business owners said "Separate but equal is acceptable. period, full stop".
Hi Ms. Spacecat
Your criticism is perfectly valid. I wrote in a hurry. What I wanted to capture is that the pro-life leaders I see, at least in the US, often share 1 common feature, and that is a dogmatic world view, where there are certain principles which cannot be questioned and are taken to be true without question. BTW, this doesn't just indict Christians or the religious, but also dictators like Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin etc.
My point is that I cannot trust the mainstream pro-life movement because it is overwhelmingly dogmatic, and many in it willingly ignore social science data not only pertaining to abortion, but also to things like LGBT rights.
Many in the pro-choice camp also wish for a society where abortion is rare. However, the pro-choice view is outlawing abortion is probably not going to be effective. Abortion is only 1 facet of various social problems. Socioeconomic mobility of women and minorities, availability of effective birth control and equal pay are likely factors that will contribute to rising or lowering of abortion rates. The dogmatic pro-life leaders only want to address abortion, while pro-choice tends to look at social justice as a whole, and a lowering of abortion rates is 1 of many positive outcomes of such a holistic approach.
The last bit, name me 1 non-asshole, I was mainly referring to politicians in America who are pro-life. They tend to be overwhelmingly also be pro-gun anti-gun-control, anti-immigration, anti-health-care, pro-teaching of creationism in the classroom, anti-gay and anti-women. I should've added the caveat "American politician" to my comment, but I don't doubt that there are good reasons for some people to hold pro-life views.
Yeah, many Catholics in the US have more sense than their leaders.
Sure, I guess if you follow church doctrine, your chances of getting an STD are lower as well. But odds are life will not be as fun : ) All kidding aside, certain contraceptives can lower rates of STDs and unplanned pregnancies even further than with only the 2 or 3 methods of NFP. Why not combine them all? Seems like sound policy to me.
Sure, church helps many people, especially poor, uneducated people for whom any hope, even false hope may get them through the day. Kind of like alcohol. But it can also make people hate irrationally, some churches might make people pass up on medical intervention or refuse vaccination. It can make people want to blow up buildings. Your point?
Regarding the bodily-rights argument, please see http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/dismantling-the-bodily-rights-argument-without-using-the-responsibility-argument/
Regarding personhood, please see http://www.NoTerminationWithoutRepresentation.org/personhood/
In fact, I DO have autistic children in my life and they don't require anyone's "body" for anything. They only require caregiving, which can be done by anyone. Parents don't have a monopoly on caregiving, and though it involves work, that is not bodily donation
Thank you for such a well-thought out and respectful reply. I have read a string of comments between you and another person (who is pro-life) and felt there was great respect and much thought put into both of your positions; in fact, so much so that I re-evaluated some of my ideas (which I rarely do from these comments as so many of the people on here seem selfish in the extreme and frequently use put-downs or sarcasm to get their point across – usually failing).
I agree that science cannot fundamentally answer the question of what is an individual, exactly – and that, really, both pro-choicers and pro-lifers can rely on science to bolster their positions. Hence I think philosophy is really the only field on which to discuss issues. I am no philosopher, but neither do I just follow what other people tell me; I do like to weigh and evaluate information before coming to a decision or position.
I suppose the idea that keeps me from becoming pro-choice, primarily, is that I don't see a singular point in time in which an embryo becomes a person. Viability is currently at about 24 weeks (if you have ever been in the Neonatal Intensive Care unit and seen the tinies hooked up to machines, you know they are as much babies as their full-term counterparts – just with a little help). But is a fetus as 20 weeks less a person than a fetus at 24 weeks? Will medical advancements make the age of viability even younger? (I do think that people who rely on medical intervention for their lives are persons with rights; their age does not terminate those rights).
I realize that there are far fewer abortions done in the second and third trimesters, but as far as I can see, to be pro-choice one must accept abortion as a viable option up until and perhaps including partial-birth or full-term pregnancy, however distasteful one may find it. And it is here that I stumble. To be able to decide subjectively when a person is a person seems to me unjust in the extreme. To agree that a woman can terminate a child up until and including full-term pregnancies is, to me, morally abhorrent.
So while I may wish that I could agree, for compassion's sake, with abortion as a choice in the early part of the first trimester, I cannot philosophically see past that subjectivity to believe abortion is a morally neutral decision.
On a personal note, having seen the ultrasounds of my own babies at 8 and 12 weeks, and having heard heard their heart-beats at such early stages, I cannot possibly imagine that such tiny, innocent life deserves to be smothered out.
Perhaps it is a moral intuition rather than a moral reasoning, then – but these are the prime reasons I cannot be pro-choice.
Likewise I think having an abortion so I can live my life freely is a horrible choice. If you believe a woman can have an abortion for any reason, then it is logical to assume you should believe that a woman can have a child for any reason.
I see this is "Deliberate Obtuseness Week." I myself have donor tissue inside my body. I did NOT ask the donor for the tissue. I don't even know who the donor is. But I was provided with a coded number in order to write a profound letter of gratitude to the family of the donor, without whose CONSENT, I would have been unable to have the tissue that helped to treat a medical problem I was experiencing. I have already taken care of granting permission, in advance, to donate any usable organs or tissues upon my death. Now I can say I'm paying it forward. All that being said, the use of my organs and tissues while living is by definition, a part of pregnancy. My consent is required to gestate to term, and if you're uncomfortable with that, too damn bad. You should probably NOT get pregnant. Becoming pregnant is an admission that due to circumstances beyond your control, abortion may result, even if you wanted the pregnancy.
Hi Cloud
Barring being a psychopath, I think we all have compassion. I didn't mean to say you are not compassionate, but just in regards to gay people, I just wanted to say envision yourself if you were gay, possibly bullied periodically in your life, and finally when you are an adult and otherwise contributing member of society, to be told your desires for consensual companionship, is dirty or impure, and you need to remain chaste and live a loveless existence.
Just take a look around you, and try to find gay parents. If you live anywhere near a reasonably-sized city, you are bound to find a few. Observe the family. And ask yourself, does the CC's position on gay parents really make sense?
If you're pro-life, shouldn't you support any decent, hard-working set of parents who can give an orphan parents? Pro-life doesn't just end at preventing an abortion, it should also support people who can adopt. This is my main problem with dogmatic pro-life. It doesn't seem to look at the whole picture, and that's why main-stream pro-life is more like pro-fetus. If more people could see through dogma and question why a dogmatic belief is valid, I think all sorts of social ills could be solved.
Is there some other reason?
No, gender is NOT determined at conception, and is not a binary construct. And yes, pregnancy IS an infringement, without placing value on whether the infringement is OK with the infringed.
No, it is not. Conception is not an act of harm (a tort) such as hitting someone with your car because you weren't paying attention. In tort law, the tortfeasor (civil wrongdoer) is not liable for the unjust enrichment of his victim. The short version is that even if conception were to be viewed as a tort (good luck with that), the only possible resolution is a return to the previous "unharmed" state.
Yeah, I already read that nonsense.
In fact, dictatorial governments HAVE installed extreme natalist policies with disastrous results. The most recent one was Nicolae Ceaușescu of Romania. His end wasn't a pretty one. He and his wife were machine-gunned on camera after a summary trial. If you are unaware I suggest you look into where government concern with reproduction can go and how ugly it can get. It's a hallmark of fascism. The other side of this ugly coin is extreme population control measures enforced by forced abortions, as are done in China.
No "other person" is involved in abortion. All abortion entails, is the removal of unviable tissue from the uterus of an unwilling host. It would be far better for the unviable tissue not to be there in the first place.
Being pro-choice does in NO WAY indicates that abortion is a desirable outcome. Only that it's sometimes the best option of a bunch of bad options.
I didn't get married so I could be abstinent. Whatever floats your boat. Once again, NOT YOUR DECISION TO MAKE for anyone other than *you.*
I don't have to abstain, and I don't appreciate being told I'm "selfish" for choosing tubal ligation instead of "fertility awareness." My opinion is that it sounds like more "busywork" and a great big drag. If my husband and I have chosen not to have children, there is no earthly reason for us to be "aware" of my "fertility." I just had the job done. No muss, no fuss, no busywork and no bother.
Sounds too much like work.
You talk as though pregnancy is the same as organ donation which it is not. Your example does not represent pregnancy.
as I said, poor children, if you really knew what a severely autistic child is like, you would have bruises on your body, your would have also very many near emotional breakdowns. They do need all of you, which includes your body
"Odds are that if a woman strictly follows the church doctrine on contraception, she isn't going to be sleeping around, so her chances of getting an STD are lower too."
That would depend upon what hubby dearest was doing. Now wouldn't it? That reminds me of the old joke where the man asks his urologist if he guarantees that his wife won't get pregnant after he has the vasectomy. The punch line is "I'm giving YOU a vasectomy, not your whole neighborhood." STDs do not come from "women sleeping around" my dear. They come from pathogenic microbes.
no, who ever is in charge of him would have to take care of him. I fail to see your point. The parents of these children often have help. I don't see what that has to do with the parents using their bodies to help their child. Anybody who helps this child will use their body, the parents in addition to the body have a much more significant emotional toll.
It's the same as donating ALL of your organs. ALL OF THEM. For the duration of the pregnancy.
I wouldn't HAVE a child in my home who was violent toward me. My autistic niece and nephews are loving, sensitive children.
I know she said Catholic WOMEN, but Catholic men probably also use condoms too. When you say "fault", you make it sound like a crime is taking place…
I raised three children without ever giving them any part of my body to use, except during pregnancy. Once again, caregiving isn't bodily donation.
No, you are wrong. when we are fetuses we cannot ask for anything, but that is not a reason to negate what we need in our earliest stages of life.
yes
No. You are correct. The reason to "negate" the pregnancy is because you DO NOT WANT TO BE PREGNANT. That's the only reason needed.
thank you another, you are right, it is TRULY ridiculous, hence my long absurd comment!! (which they are actually taking seriously!!! yikes!)
no, I don't believe you are correct on that
From Priests for Life: http://www.priestsforlife.org/qa/question.aspx?id=308
There is more than one medical way of handling an ectopic pregnancy. The relevant moral question is whether the method or action is in fact a killing of the child. If so, that is a direct abortion, which is never permissible for any reason. "Direct means that the destruction of the child is willed as the end or the means to another end. Sometimes ectopic pregnancies are handled this way, killing the child but leaving the tube intact. Such an action is morally wrong.
However, if what is done is that the damaged portion of the tube is removed because of the threat it poses to the mother, that is not a direct abortion, even if the child dies. What is done is the same thing that would be done if the tube were damaged from some other cause. The mother is not saved by the death of the child but by the removal of the tube. Because the death of the child in this case is a side effect which is not intended, and because the saving of the mother's life is not brought about by the death of the child, such a removal of the damaged portion of the tube is morally permissible. The ethical rule that applies here is called the Principle of the Double Effect.
No, I am correct.
From Fr. Tad Pacholczyk, from http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=940
"When an ectopic pregnancy does not resolve by itself, a morally acceptable approach would involve removal of the whole section of the tube on the side of the woman’s body where the unborn child is lodged. Although this results in reduced fertility for the woman, the section of tube around the growing child has clearly become pathological, and constitutes a mounting threat with time. This threat is addressed by removal of the tube, with the secondary, and unintended, effect that the child within will then die…….
Some say that cutting out a section of the tube with a baby inside is no different than using methotrexate because, in either case, the baby ends up dying. Yet the difference in how the baby dies is, in fact, critical. There is always a difference between killing someone directly and allowing someone to die of indirect causes. We may never directly take the life of an innocent human being, though we may sometimes tolerate the indirect and unintended loss of life that comes with trying to properly address a life-threatening medical situation."
Hi aa
Thank you for the compliment! I've found certain commenters on this blog to be quite careful thinkers, and I myself have re-evaluated my position from not ever thinking about abortion, a default pro-choicer, to seeing some gradations, and deciding that I don't support late-term abortions. Where "late-term" is, I do not fully know, but probably somewhere around 20~24 weeks.
I think many pro-choicers stand about where I stand, and the position is not monolithic.
I fully understand how you feel. I am personally pro-life, meaning I cannot imagine ever suggesting to any family member to have an abortion, but would support any final decision said family member would make. (The exception being rape, if anyone in my family was raped, I would just shut my mouth either for or against). I remember seeing my son when he was a tiny spec, and can also not imagine wiping him out, but I also realize not everyone has the luxury of the situation I was in of having a job, a plan to get married, actually 2 people who wanted the child and reasonable career prospects.
In closing, I think it is important to also realize pro-life as a personal stance and outlawing abortion as a social policy. History shows women will abort if they feel they really really want to. i think keeping a safe and legal option, together with social change so that women are not put into a position of feeling they absolutely must get an abortion, is the more sensible and realistic social policy. And this is the social policy that I think pro-choice advocates.
Just stating facts:
• Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. (Guttmacher Institute)
From Beliefnet – According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which tracks reproductive health data, non-Hispanic Catholic women of childbearing age are 29% more likely than their Protestant counterparts to have abortions (full study*). The rate is even higher–33%–if Hispanics are factored in. Another way of looking at it: while Protestant women make up about 54% of the population, they account for only 37% of the abortions. Catholic women make up 31% of the population and account for 31% of the abortions.
(http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Catholic/2001/01/The-Catholic-Abortion-Paradox.aspx)
Also, the stated position of the CC that man + woman combo is somehow vital for children. There are some societies where matriarchy is the norm, and women yield more power than men (Wikipedia). There are some societies where the women perform physically dangerous labor while the men do not (Ama pearl divers in Japan). These societies show that the traditional "man" and "woman" is not necessarily set in stone, and yet these societies have been going on for a long long time. I don't think its such a stretch to say that man+man or woman+woman heading a family would necessarily damage children. I see the results every few weekends when I see a same-sex couple with children, and I don't think it warps children.
I just ask that you question the positions of your church. Some dogma might be central to being a Christian, but obviously others are not, like eating shell fish or wearing mixed fibers.
Yep in Tibet it is sometimes 1 woman 3 men and those families are often more successful than 1 woman 1 man. The family is often richer due to division of labour, and one woman means that fewer children will be born in the region, which = less of a strain on resources. This is rural Tibet where life is brutal.
Also, amongst a tribal people whose name I forget, one woman will sleep with multiple men to becombe pregnant, since they believe that it takes many sperm donors to make one baby. It works for them. Humans are very adaptable and there is no "right way" to do things. The only right way is what works for your environment.
And then you have the Had a in Africa, where women father 70% of the calories. Women are basically the bosses and they divorce and hook up with men at their discretion.
I like how they blame the woman's body for the ectopic pregnancy and not the embryo for implanting in the wrong place.
I don't vontrol other people fertility or reproduction or non-reproduction. It's a personal decision I have no part of. I do not judge the motives of others.
Yep, blame is always placed on the woman.
If what you're saying about tort law is correct, it wasn't designed, or wasn't intelligently designed, to provide justice revolving around the creation of a new and dependent person, hence would not apply in that situation.
As frustrating as I find this, I am still thinking about how to respond to this. I do not concede that abortion and early miscarriage are the same thing. That said, I still have to consider my response.
I'm not saying that tort law should apply to pregnancy. In fact, my argument is that is does NOT, and SHOULD NOT apply to pregnancy. You yourself are putting forth that theory. I disagree with you. You suppose that because the embryo was created in a dependent state, that the embryo has a right to be sustained, at someone else's bodily expense. From where does this alleged "right" arise? In other words, I am asking you for your LEGAL theory under which this is the case. I submit that you don't have one. If I "create" a neonate that lacks kidneys, I do not owe it one of mine. That would be a violation of my rights. The theory of parental responsibility doesn't really apply either. We don't force people to parent after birth, and cannot force people to parent prior to birth, either. Now if you have some novel legal argument as to how women can be forced to gestate, I'd be interested to hear it. What you are advocating is enslavement.
What lady black said. Gestation is a supererogatory burden. It is a full bodily organ donation, and it puts the woman's life and health at risk. Birth itself can be incredibly painful. We don't force parents to risk their lives and health for their born children, nor do we violate their bodily autonomy. Oh. And we don't torture them on behalf of their children.
If you force a woman to gestate you violate all if her constitutional rights. If she dies, you have sentenced her to death for having sex. None of the above fall under the header of "duty of care". Regular care does not entail a supererogatory burden. You want to make an exception for pregnancy. You can't. If you do, you give fetuses a right that born children do not have, and you discriminate against women.
Jesus wept. This woman really is beyond ignorant, isn't she?
It is a clear situation where one person has forced another into a
situation by actively creating them, and then is attempting to
physically harm them.
An embryo is not a person, and consent to sexual intercourse is NOT consent to gestate.
I don't see what that has to do with the parents using their bodies to help their child.
Are born children still attached to a parent via an umblicus, using it to obtain nutrients and get rid of bodily waste?
No?
Please learn the difference between an embryo and an actual child.
I see you've been shopping at Straw Men R Us …
You talk as though pregnancy is the same as organ donation which it is not.
You've clearly never been pregnant …
Shush. There is a feral toddler on your leg!eleventy11!
Yes I have been pregnant 5 times. Not like organ donation
No just pointing out the absurdity of having an abortion because one does not grant consent
The gender of human beings is determined as conception.
Yeah, not so much. All zygotes are female unless the female gene is suppressed much later in pregnancy by a hormone called Muellerian Inhibition Substance. You may wish to read up on this. http://www.babble.com/pregnancy/anatomy-fetus-beginning/
They both use their bodies in different ways to care for their children. The difference between an embryo and say a 2 day old baby is their age.
You are not intrinsically and organically a part of me.
Thank you for admitting that the embryo is in no way separate from the pregnant woman.
Only one person involved in a pregnancy: said pregnant woman. Unless you are she, decisions regarding said pregnancy are none of your business whatsoever.
Why do pro-choice want to lessen abortions if they believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with an abortion?
You are mis-stating the pro-choice position. We believe that we do not have the right to interfere with strangers' reproductive decisions: contraception use or non-use, gestation or termination, adoption or rearing children alone or with the partner of one's choice.
Let me put it to you this way: I think Michelle Duggar is an over-breeding loonie, but you don't see me out there trying to legislate away her right to have so many children that her uterus prolapses.
Anyone living on minimum wages, working three jobs, and living in a slum wouldn't be allowed to adopt even if they wanted to, thanks to the onerous restrictions on the foster care and adoption systems in this country.
I was nearly killed by one wanted pregnancy. That was enough for me.
I think you would be very much surprised to learn that even your theoretically "uncomplicated" pregnancies have left permanent physiological changes on your anatomy.
If you were dead, for example, a forensic anthropologist would look at your pubic symphysis and be able to tell exactly how many times you have been pregnant due to the diastasis striations.
Did you have morning sickness at all (I had hyperemesis gravidarum, which almost killed me)? That was because the developing fetus was taking nutrients away from you every step of the way. It used your blood stream for oxygenation and circulation. It used your kidneys for waste disposal. It used calcium from your bones and teeth to develop.
It used every bit of your body, whether you understand that or not.
Actually, no, it wasn't. Have you ever seen the movie?
What's your evidence that Caviezel has engaged full-time help?
I have two friends who have adopted toddlers with Down Syndrome from Ukraine and Hong Kong, respectively. Neither of them are millionaires who can afford to hire household help. Is their sacrifice sufficient in your eyes?
Yes. It was definitely antisemitic and Mel Gibson does not like the Jews.
You'd force them to birth such children though.
No, it was a straw man.
Obviously a zygote is not going to be granting consent to diddly-squat. A born, sapient, sentient woman (whom you seem awfully eager to erase from the picture in your focus on a non-viable entity smaller than a jelly bean), however, has the right to make decisions about her life and health. You do not know anyone's circumstances but your own. You cannot know how many children this woman already has, what her physical and financial health situations are, what her medical history is — NOTHING. And yet you would deny her the right to make a decision based on the full range of information that *you lack* and she possesses because your feelings are hurt about the idea of a zygote being destroyed.
Most zygotes (on the order of 75 percent) leave a woman's body through menses without ever implanting. Are you sad about that as well?
The difference between an embryo and say a 2 day old baby is their age.
Jesus wept. Were you homeschooled by imbeciles? If you really do not know the difference between an embryo and a neonate, there are things wrong with you that I cannot help.
In my garage! By a busy street!
I did question it, and because I questioned it I researched and did due diligence to find the answers to these very questions, and they have brought me back to the CC. The same sex so called marriage is a long debate, longer than we can tackle here. However I will say this, for me, this issue is not a religious one, or rather even if it can be justified religiously, it is actually all the non religious reasons that make more sense or at least speak more clearly to the lay person.
He's rich. He is not going to struggle.
Well then, I will take you at your word!
If down the line with same sex marriage and parenting now legal and mainstream in most of the USA, we find sociological data that shows children in such households turn out harmed or psychologically scarred, I may change my mind, at least on whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt. I hope you will also keep an open mind if it is found that they do just fine.
From the small sample of married same sex parents I've interacted with, I really can't imagine having to change my mind on this issue.
wow you must be really unusual to take care of your children without using your body. WHen I caress them I use my hands, when I sing to them I use my mouth, when I take them out I use my legs and arms. I use my body to care for them. they do not need to ask for my permission to use my shoulder to cry on, it is assumed they can use it because I am their mother.
so you are saying it is not organ donation since that is permanent
You are really flipping sides constantly. If abortion is undesirable, then why not try to make it as rare as possible instead of treating it as though it were a trip to the salon. Again make up your mind!
Although the pro-life movement is not all the same, the group I mostly associate with is anti-abortion, pro-adoption, anti-death penalty (the ones holding vigils), for poverty relief efforts.
'Becoming pregnant is an admission that due to circumstances beyond your control, abortion may result, even if you wanted the pregnancy." that is simply false. When you get pregnant a miscarriage is a possibility as well as still birth or other unfortunate natural causes. Abortion is not an implied result of a pregnancy. That is false and you know it.
Sure, I know there is a spectrum. I agree with the 3 issues you list here. Though I disagree with death penalty because the justice system is so fallible, and too many exonerations. If a case is really air tight, as in a spree-shooter who gets apprehended while on a rampage, caught on video etc., I would support sentencing the person to death.
Our 'fertility awareness' was a vasectomy for me and tubal ligation for my wife. No need for it to be any more complicated than that.
Exactly. Anything more complicated sounds too much like work.
Yes I will, indeed I don't think same sex so called marriage is going away, what I see going away is marriage altogether because if we eliminate the gender requirement there really will not be any need for government to record relationships between people. Of course I do believe children are silent victims because they are being treated as commodities. I don't think anybody (same sex or otherwise) is ENTITLED to children. There are things still that I question and have a hard time accepting, but definitely I will keep an open mind. Again I do not have anything against people who are attracted to the same sex, like I mentioned earlier some are my friends
you cannot help because you are mistaken. A human being like, say, yourself, was at a few days from conception, an embryo. Or are you saying that at some stage of your life you were not a human being?
And hey, if you feel like all the work is worthwhile and appropriate for your situation, that's great.
But there's this idea that if you're not practicing 'abstinence,' you must be having sex non-stop, round the clock. People who practice NFP mention 'well, we can be prepared in case one of us becomes very ill or goes out of town, etc.' You mean to tell me that other forms of birth control or contraception will force people to screw around if sex with a spouse is temporarily unavailable? No, it just means that we can have sex without concern as to what time of the month it is; and that, somehow, is referred to as 'selfishness.' Which, of course, makes no sense at all.
Apparently your knowledge and/or experience of pregnancy is extremely limited. I knew the truth of my statement by the time I was ten years old. So called "miscarriage" is a spontaneous abortion that doesn't always go as smoothly as you imply. See Savita Halappanavar. Spontaneous abortions need completion by surgical abortions on a fairly regular basis. Not to mention numerous other conditions that require abortion or pre-term delivery to safeguard the woman's health. Stillbirth is not an abortion. That's a delivery. The act of becoming pregnant absolutely means acknowledging the possibility that an abortion may be necessary. If my mom was alive, she would disabuse you of your silly notions.
You were a non viable jelly bean once. How cute
Can you show me where I said my pregnancies were uncomplicated? All I said is that pregnancy is not like organ donation
well some of your pro-choice buddies disagree. Make up your mind and then take a position
I'm saying that it IS organ donation, and the length of time doesn't matter.
You are lying and you know it. "spontaneous" abortion is not the same as the abortion you get at planned parenthood!!
When a living person donates certain tissues it's not permanent either. Blood, bone marrow and the liver will regenerate. It's not the issue of permanence. It's the issue that you aren't entitled to have my blood for any length of time without consent. That includes fetuses.
And at NO TIME was Fiona EVER entitled to the body of her mother. That was a gift.
Agree with you on the death penalty to a point. The death penalty I could only agree if it were infallible, but too many innocents have died by execution, until it is perfect I do not support it. Nowadays max security prisons can ensure a criminal does not get out. Although I do take your point about the justice system.
ok so now you are saying it is not like organ donation but it is like tissue donation. make up your mind!
so which one is it. I am sorry I cannot take you seriously anymore!
My mother had a D&C. Was that a miscarriage or an abortion? Actually it was both. Now figure that one out. The pregnancy would not pass on it's own. Surgical assistance was needed. So primarily, it was an induced abortion. There was never going to be any "baby."
Is English your first language? You read my reply and tell me "which is it?"
Once again, for the slow witted… It is ENTIRE BODY donation. Or would you prefer I state this in some OTHER language?
No, that is NOT the only difference, and you know it. I don't have to take care of a two day old child at all. And really, I don't have to take care of embryos either. THAT is the difference between an embryo and a two day old child. One is dependent upon a specific body for survival. ANYONE can care for a two day old child.
you said it was like organ donation, then said no it is not like organ donation because pregnancy is not permanent like organ donation. Then you said it was like tissue donation which is not permanent but can regenerate itself. Now it is like whole body donation, like when someone dies and you donate your body to science? I don't think my wit is in question here as much as your credibility
What she is saying is that at NO stage was she EVER entitled to her mother's body.
well if you said she had a miscarriage, then the miscarriage came first and then to resolve the expulsion the abortion came after, so no it would not be PRIMARILY an induced abortion
That isn't what I said at all. Pregnancy is ENTIRE BODY donation.
no, a paralyzed person cannot take care of a 2 day old child. Someone has to use their body to fill the child's need.
Yep, it was PRIMARILY an induced abortion. The only thing she was passing was her own blood. It's called a missed abortion. The body is attempting. unsuccessfully, to eject the pregnancy and it's not happening. All the products of conception remained inside her.
you yourself said that a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion not an induced abortion. Are you changing your mind again?
I think I must watch that movie, no matter how heartbreaking I find it.
Regardless of what the receptionist may have said, Dr Robinson's own words make it very clear that she will not refuse a woman merely because she is carrying a healthy foetus. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that in a movie intended to present late-term abortion in a sympathetic light, they would be unlikely to highlight their willingness to abort healthy 30 week old foetuses.
This is unrelated to what happens in the USA, but in 2010, a healthy 37+ foetus was aborted in Victoria, Australia, as reported in the maternal, perinatal, neonatal, child and adolescent mortality report.
What type of paralysis? Hemiplegic? Paraplegic? Cerebral palsy? Bell's palsy? I would say that many paralyzed people can care for an infant. Several years back, a woman without limbs demonstrated that she could care for her infant. So no… you don't know as much as you imagine that you do.
No. You are verhuddled.
without limbs and paralyzed? wow could you please tell me how she did it? I would really love to know (I am sincere in asking)
She used her mouth, and adaptive devices.
Let's say quadriplegia; complete paralysis from the neck down. Can they take care of a baby on their own as the baby grows?
wow imagine to do all that with no help at all!!
I cannot even take you seriously anymore, your comments are becoming pointless. Moving on
We are not entitled to use other people's bodies as life support. We are also not entitled to kill othere human beings at our discretion (or we shouldn't be). It all depends which you consider to be a greater abuse of human rights – and if you consider the unborn to be human, which is another discussion altogether.
My bodily rights come before the rights of a potential body…
I disagree with almost all your positions, but your friends are very noble. I will be honest and say I could never do that.
People make bad decisions without religion too… like environmentalists not vaccinating their children oh, and like whack jobs killing their unborn children without even trying to do the right thing.
So, kill an unborn child cause you were too lazy…. wow…
Abortion isn't a crime, but it is wrong and should be restricted. Slavery wasn't a crime at one point in our history – it still was wrong.
Of course. They want all pregnancies to end in a live birth.
It would depend on the level of care needed.
Abortions are restricted after viability, so the answers to your questions are – NO – not when it involves the killing of another human being.
Are you against Obamacare? The government has more power now than ever… is that in the name of protection?
I'm Pro choice. I belive that reproductive health care decisions are personal decisions like any other health care decision. I don't get involved in other people's personal decisions health or otherwise unless asked for my help. I trust women to make the right decision for them. I support women who want to have children and I also support a full range of reproductive health care options including abortion. Deciding when and if to have a child is a deeply personal decision. Women deserve and have the right to decide this.
A couple of months ago on this page —
http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/08/doe-takes-roe-from-bad-to-worse.html
— you wrote to me:
"The life of the pregnant woman should come first. She is the one with an actual life and she should not be forced to risk her life for the potential life."
After another exchange of posts, I replied in part:
"Anyway, now that you have clarified that the unborn is alive, it is clear that when you say, 'the potential life' of the unborn, you mean that some of the development of the unborn is still potential. This is true.
"But whatever benefits of life or health a woman will obtain from an abortion, those benefits lie at least somewhat in her future. The woman does not feel improved health while lying on the operating table, or filling out forms, or paying her money. Those things are an investment for her future, her potential. In other words, she is getting an abortion in order to realize her potential.
"So essentially you are saying:
"1. the potential of a woman should be taken into account, and therefore she has a right to kill her unborn child
"2. it's okay to kill an unborn child, because its potential should not be taken into account.
"Any reason that might be given for abortion always gives weight to the woman's future, her potential."
Are you saying that your "No, it is not" post constituted an "argument [that tort law] does NOT, and SHOULD NOT apply to pregnancy"?
If that's what that post constituted, I don't understand its relevance to anything I had said (I had certainly never mentioned tort law by name).
If all this seems worth disentangling, I would suggest that you try to state in your own words the argument of mine that you intended your "No, it is not" post to rebut, and let me see if that was really my argument. There may have been some misunderstanding.
Sure, extreme environmentalists are dogmatists and are incapable of rational thought. A certain religion also endorses slavery, states where to get your slaves, how to mark them, how much physical punishment is OK etc. Doesn't that make it seem fine and dandy with the man upstairs to own another human being? That religion also endorses genocide and suggests a fine and matrimony to the victim as acceptable punishment for rape. I don't know, a literal reading of such a holy book might put REALLY bad ideas into my head.
While I do think late term abortion is wrong, as I've written to anotheranonymous somewhere on this page, I think I have valid, justifiable reasons why I don't think aborting early fetuses is wrong. I don't view personhood as having an objective standard, and have explained my reasons for thinking so.
I understand you have a strong emotional reaction to abortion, but I'm afraid I don't share your views on it. I am personally pro-life and would never suggest anyone close to me have an abortion (unless they were raped). However, as social policy, I think outlawing abortion is the wrong way to go, and don't believe that it will make abortions go away, just drive them into an elicit, unsafe underground. I don't feel like reiterating my position, so if you feel you've found a flaw in my reasoning, my conversation with anotheranonymous and Somecloud contains the gist of what I think and why. Please feel free to point out any flaws you find in my reasoning.
50 million babies have been killed from abortion since Roe v. Wade.
Are you working to ban abortion?
I guess you don't care. Thanks for confirmation that you only care about fetal life.
Such poetic articulation wasted on an immoral and unethical world view. Upside down world indeed.
no such absolute right as you were implying in your questions…
Are we in agreement about the word "exoneration"? I thought it meant "to pardon". I am against the death penalty because too many people on death row have been exonerated due to new evidence like DNA being presented. I think this is the same position as you, maybe I wasn't too clear : )
I guess you don't care about the 50 millions of lives lost after all.
No response. No reaction. Only deflecting and excusing from the evil, cold, heartless, cruel realities of abortion-on-demand.
You didn't answer my question. Could you clarify you post?
Benefits of circumcision are said to outweigh the risks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html?_r=0
What irony that such concern for a medical decision is so great that 50 million deaths matter very little to you.
Abortion is the leading cause of death in the world, ending more lives than cardiovascular disease, cancer, AIDS, war, hunger … or any other cause.*
You were clear, I was writing in a rush. we agree
Ok, let's try again. Your theory is this: The pregnant woman has put her fetus in 'a condition of dependence' and therefore, has a responsibility to carry the pregnancy to term. I think you used words to the effect that she ought to "accept responsibility for the condition of dependence her actions have caused." If this is your theory, you are stating the theory of tort law. Tort law says that a person is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of his actions. You may not have used those exact words, but the words you did use are in line with tort law theory. As you know, when someone commits a civil wrong (for example, failing to clear snow from the sidewalk) and someone slips and is injured, the property owner is held liable for the damages to the extent of making the person "whole" again, i.e. medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering. You cannot apply these principles to sex and pregnancy. These actions lack ALL of the necessary elements of a tort type claim. There is no duty, no breach of duty, sexual congress can't be foreseen to cause harm to anyone, and there are no damages involved when conception occurs. There is no legal reasoning by which a woman can be forced to gestate based on the embryo/fetus being in a dependent state, because bodily donation is never required as compensation for any actions, including those that place another "in a dependent state."
Nahhhh. Just have a tubal ligation. No muss, no fuss, no bother. No charts. No devices. No worries. And no abortions.
Of course it's human. No woman ever had an abortion because she thought she was gestating a koala or grizzly bear. But as you state, there is no right to use another body as life-support. Therefore, there is no "human rights abuse" in removing said unwanted human. The unwanted human dies because it depends on the body of a person for life-support. There is no special pleadings for fetuses and embryos.
I distrust the anti choice forced birth cultist precisely because of the debates that take place here.
The chief arguments here are lies and shaming/blaming. Witness the thread on Silent Scream.
Who care is forced birthers are not using 'God' as your moral argument if you continue to argue for my reproductive slavery.
Silly, silly, silly. They do not have to take care of a baby on their own. Any normal person can take care of a baby, and most paralyzed people have no problem taking care of a baby, as "paralyzed" doesn't mean quadriplegic. There are varying degrees of paralysis, most of which do not disqualify a person from caring for a baby. They may have left or right sided paralysis, or paralysis from the waist down, in which case the other side, or their upper body works. If they are quadriplegic they are going to need help.
Mytinx drinks and posts IMO. Clarity is not possible.
Simply because my comments are over your head doesn't make them pointless. Just like your assertion that "a paralyzed person cannot care for an infant" is not universally true. You didn't specify the form of paralysis, and most of them can, with no difficulty.
If the government can compel birth, it also possesses the right to compel abortion. That is so obvious that I cannot imagine why anyone would dispute such. The states were carrying out eugenic sterilizations until 1956 and many states still have these eugenics laws on the books.
Roe v. Wade acknowledges a zone of reproductive privacy that neither the government or any person can enter without consent.
Roe v. Wade protects American women from being forced to abort or gestate by the government. RvW came into being because government wanted to regulate abortion as the abortion situation was completely out of control in the late 60s and 70s.
http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/2014/09/in-2014-four-decades-after-supreme.html
Well said.
It is not as though we had no in vitro proof that governments can and will intrude on the private lives of their citizens and the horrors that come from such intrusion.
Here is another in vitro example of the horrors of government/religious control of reproduction.
http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/cahirodoherty/Mass-grave-of-up-to-800-dead-babies-exposed-in-County-Galway-.html
No. You do not "use your body." When I speak of "using the body", that doesn't apply to physical labor. Physical labor doesn't put your life in danger. When you brush your teeth, you are performing a task. Nothing within the confines of your body is being used by another for their benefit. If you brush someone else's teeth, same thing. They are not using your innards. They aren't accessing your bloodstream. Bodily donation refers to the invasive.
Simple to answer. Choice.
Germaine Greer:
"Too many women are forced to abort by poverty, by their menfolk, by their parents … A choice is only possible if there are genuine alternatives."
I am a Catholic. The RC position on contraception/abortion is not pro life – it is merely pro birth.
And if RCs are advocating making abortion/contraception illegal/hard to get, then the RC is pro death.
Two events that clearly demonstrate the RCC's pro death and anti woman teaching and activity:
1. the death of Savita Halapavannar
2. the mass grave at Tuam with all the discarded dead babies in it.
The RCC taught me never to pay attention to what an entity says, pay attention to what they do. If you apply that sieve, it is an inescapable fact that the RCC despises and abuses women and their children.
The RCC is objectively disordered. Sex is to the RCC as food is to bulimics.
What family situation is better for the child? Okay. That has been resolved. The RCC and the marriage/family bigots are WRONG AGAIN.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201006/lesbians-raise-happier-kids
A recent study concluded that children raised by lesbians turned out better psychologically than children raised by a "traditionally" married couple.
The study followed children of lesbians who were born using artificial insemination over 25 years. These children, compared to children reared in "tradtional" homes, were happier, less aggressive and had less anxiety, and also scored higher on "social competence" measures.
Non-sequitur.
So 100 dead male infants per year means nothing to you.
You know, pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion. But 600-800 dead women per year doesn't matter to you either, does it?
You only care about unborn life.
You only care about unborn life. Once you're born, your life is worthless… Right?
Correct. Birth.
All children, by definition, have survived to and through birth. Words have meaning. Except of course to insane forced birth cultists.
Nope. We abandoned the homunculus theory in the Middle Ages. CATCH UP.
Nope. The ova and sperm are alive. Life is a continuum that began eons ago. Google 'mitochondrial Eve' and learn something.
No individual woman having an abortion destroys 'human life.'
I do not become two people the moment the sperm meets the ovum.
If only everyone was that responsible.. It's likely we wouldn't be on this forum debating.
That was my point… that there is no absolute right as you were implying…
There is the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life; a right that is supposed to apply to all human beings. One's rights cannot be summarily dismissed because one carries out an action that is not encompassed by an encoded right.
Of course, Buck v. Bell was cited in Roe v. Wade in support of restrictions on privacy rights – in support of the position that the right to an abortion is not unqualified. So I don't quite see what point you're trying to make by mentioning that it's quoted approvingly in Roe v. Wade.
ok changing your story again
actually (since it looks like you need to be spoon fed) the reply about the pointless comments was directed to a particular assertion of yours which was, in fact, pointless. and yes i did specify the paralysis.
you are the one who asserted that anybody can take care of a 2 day old baby. I merely proved you wrong, the fact that now you go off on a tangent about different types of paralysis is irrelevant.
No, beef-wit; I am pointing out that a non-sapient, non-sentient, non-viable embryo has a whole lot of differences from a neonate. Like you, know, actual development and such.
I am so sick and tired of anti-choicers espousing their belief that an embryo is just a little homunculus. We know better than that.
There is the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life; a right that is supposed to apply to all human beings.
No. It is a right that applies to *persons.* I know that anti-choicers like to conflate the two, but it's inaccurate. Personhood is a legal status that confers upon birth.
Looks like somecloud is pretty unfamiliar with modern-day medical technologies.
"spontaneous" abortion is not the same as the abortion you get at planned parenthood!!
You have no idea how miscarriages are dealt with, do you?
Answer: D&C. For those unaware, this is the same method used for surgical abortion.
Time to research beginnings of human life at conception and catch up.
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Human life begins at conception
https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Define 'arbitrary', please.
Is that like, arbitrarily shooting a random person as they are walking down the street? Is that why women have abortions? Just random, senseless killing?
I said *theoretically,* my dear. Do learn to read for comprehension.
I am sorry that you are so ignorant of how your own body processes work. I highly recommend picking up a good basic book like "Our Bodies, OUrselves" or using this website to gain a better understanding. http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/
You know, I remember being an anti-choice dimwit and thinking things like "You were an embryo once" constituted a profound argument.
Then I got out of high school.
You are quite clever. Clearly you have 'won' this round by quibbling over the meaning of 'anyone'.
I'll hep you out. Let's destroy Lady_black's argument. A list of all of the people who cannot look after a baby:
A corpse
A PVS patient
A coma patient
A patient suffering from severe, late term alzheimers
A patient nearly dead from Ebola
Any of hundreds of diseases or viruses or bacteria that completely incapacitate the victim
duh!
Seriously, if you have to 'win' by arguing semantics, you have already lost. The fact that you would stoop to arguing dishonestly is quite worrisome, to be honest. I expected better of you, considering how well you have got along with Purple Slurpy.
The point that LB was trying to make, is that 'anyone' of reasonable health and mind can look after a baby. As in, if you drop the baby off at a hospital, there will be someone there who can care for it. No one can care for a non-viable embryo if it is outside of the woman.Can't be done. If a woman dies in childbirth, someone can look after the baby, because it's viable. If a woman dies at 8 weeks gestation, no one can feed milk and cookies to that 8 wk embryo because it is incapable of sustaining it's own life without the woman's organs as life support.
Human development begins at conception. And your link is biased, because it is by the prolife lobby at Princeton.
All embryologists agree that human development begins at conception. In fact, some would say that it begins with a healthy egg – because if an egg is created, and it has something known as 'defective polarity', that egg, even if successfully fertilized, will NEVER result in a viable embryo. That embryo will fail to attach to the uterine wall, or miscarry at some later point.
Where there is disagreement is whether or not human DNA is a person.
No human life began eons ago. A fetus begins to develop at conception. Many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.
You are confused. You conflate 'human life' with 'a human life.' Not at all the same.
Quit responding to me with prepared cut and paste propaganda. It is fooking boring. I have seen it before. I have been conversing with forced birth cultists for a long time.
I have sex to get an orgasm. I never once in my life had sex to get pregnant.
I need no reason to end a pregnancy beyond 'I do not want to be pregnant.'
You have no standing in my sexual/family life of any kind. Sucks to be you. Kill yourself.
Not true, of course. But that would not stop your attempts to distort and misinterpret my views for your purposes.
So why the blase attitude to 100 dead baby boys per year?
I bet you'd want abortion banned if 'only' 100 fetuses died per year.
As for circumcision, the boy can decide when he is old enough to consent to the procedure. It's his life and his health on the line, after all. It is also insulting to men, this belief that they need the peens snipped because they are too incompetent to wear condoms or clean under the foreskin.
Right. Which is why you:
1) dismiss 100 dead baby boys per year
2) dismiss the death of 600-800 women per year from pregnancy
Go on and on and on about how precious mindless embryos are denied their life support systems cuz abortion
I bet you'd be complaining if abortion 'only' ended the lives of 100 mindless embryos per year. Wouldn't you?
Every death of an infant does matter..
Every death of a woman does matter.
Your logic is a bit stretching and overreaching for the desperate purposes to win an argument.
Since x number of people die from having wisdom teeth pulled, then you do not care about protesting against wisdom teeth removal.
Since Y number of people die from removal of appendixes, then you do not care about objecting to the surgeries of appendectomies.
You have to consider your response because you have never actually equated zygotes with living, breathing babies. Your problem is with sex, and punishing females for having the wrong kind of sex.
Women have a civil right to access abortion and most abortions occur in the first trimester. You seem to have an extreme focus on third trimester abortions which make up a very very small percent.
I've noticed that.
Right, which is why you are not working to also ban circumcision…which is unnecessary.
And if you truly believed that every death of a woman does matter, you wouldn't nonchalantly work to ban abortion knowing for a FACT that women will die from pregnancy. But only 800, so their lives don't count, right?
You mean this:
http://realchoices.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Vic-perinatal-2010_2011.pdf
Page 163, Table 6.21b?
It appears to be for 'psychosocial conditions'
So, do you think she was upset that she was too fat to fit into her bikini or something? Arbitrary killing, and all that?
exactly her argument was flawed to begin with, you are right, and what are you talking about winning. I just pointed out that the argument did not stand up
Her argument was not flawed. You tried to 'win' by arguing semantics. Only someone without a valid argument does so, in order to confuse the situation. Very un-sportsmanlike of you.
Yes her argument was flawed to begin with since she stated that one does not use one's body to care for a child, whereas although to a different degree and in a different way one necessarily has to use one's body. However I think this conversation has gone on long enough, and un-sportsmanlike is continuing to hammer the same nail, when it is clearly time to move on and not keep spamming this site with pointless comments.
Care giving is not an intimate bodily violation and you know it. No nurse has ever had his kidneys used by a dialysis patient to keep that patient alive.
good for you for graduating high school, but that doesn't take away the fact that you once were.
I think you should stop killing children. And stop fantasizing about it too. You skeeve me.
People used to have a right to own slaves. Just because something is legal, it doesn't make it right..
Roe V Wade was a horrible misinterpretation of the Constitution.
You want to enforce gestational slavery!
Wow! See that? It was the point, going ::whoosh:: right over your head.
Seriously, you are displaying an incredible amount of ignorance about human anatomy and development for someone who allegedly has five children. Perhaps you never studied the biology of viviparous vertebrates, but a good many people (including myself, who majored in forensic anthropology) have done exactly that.
So, you maintain that you do NOT have a right to privacy in your medical decisions? Lay those records out, Mathilde …
I think that I made the position very clear. Do you want me to draw you a fucking picture or something?
Indeed the women who do choose to keep a baby and not have an abortion
are helped by pro-life groups with diapers, rent, formula, cribs, etc
… after they listen to a bunch of religious lectures on abstinence.
FIFY.
Oh, FFS. Another one who thinks that NFP actually *works.* It has a 25 percent failure rate, madam. It's far more effective for *getting* pregnant than as contraception. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2012/1115/p924.html
If you don't want to discuss the RCC, perhaps it would be a good idea not to bring it into the discussion.
Which family situation is better FOR A CHILD: two same sex parents or two opposite sex parents?
The answer two your question, according to studies, is *two lesbians.* http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html
Glad to be able to help.
fiona was pointing out the fundamental position of pro-choice. While the fundamental position doesn't say we want fewer abortions, I was saying that given the other kinds of issues pro-choicers tend to support (access to BC, women's rights) and the rather unspoken fact that no one is going to be getting abortions for sport, it kind of goes without saying that
1) pro-choicers are not pushing anyone to get an abortion
and
2) as plumdumpling points out with a quote
Germaine Greer:
"Too many women are forced to abort by poverty, by
their menfolk, by their parents … A choice is only possible if there
are genuine alternatives."
The pro-choice position wants to empower women, and most women, given real attainable, most likely won't choose an abortion just for kicks.
indeed I had not, this issue had already been resolved. Read previous posts
I know pro choicers (most of my friends actually) who DO want fewer abortions. Then there are corporations like PP who actively promote it, and try to "normalize" it and push for 9 month abortions without apologies. I understand that the pro-choice movement is not monolithic either, I guess I usually tend to associate with pro-choicers who actually want to see abortion as unnecessary as possible, while still keeping it legal. For instance they oppose abortion after viability, and oppose abortion to be used just as birth control. They agree that it is a terrible choice to make, they agree a fetus, or embryo are human beings, but that sometimes the elimination of these human, especially if they feel no pain and do not know any better, is justifiable. I was just answering the very extremist pro-choicers on this blog, who flip flop between saying that abortion is something that no one actively wants, but then argue the exact opposite. Sorry my rushed writing sometimes gets me misunderstood, I realize I should really learn to be a little more eloquent.
Correct. Choice must include the choice to give birth.
Post viability abortions…
no such thing….
What I want is for women to stop killing their unborn children. That's worse than any 'feelings' of slavery. If a woman truly does feel enslaved, she can get counseling. But, she shouldn't be allowed to kill her unborn child.
I assume you guys are probably mostly anti-adoption and pro-choice. But, I'm just curious. How do you think adoption should be reformed for improvement?
1) Reduce $$$ to make it affordable for everyone or keep the current costs?
2) Allow birth moms to stay with their biological children for what exact number of days before they give them to adoptive families?
3) Which do you think one of two families should decide on open, close or semi close option? Birth or adoptive parents? If you pick ones, tell us why.
These questions I asked that's because I notice how often people, on outside of SPL, say adoption is broken and useless. So, I can't think of any more questions. I'm interested to see how it should be improved or something.
Hi cloud
I'm not aware that PP pushes 9 months abortions. Even if it were a for-profit corporation, which at least according to Wikipedia, it is not, such abortions are already very very rare, and that would lead me to assume it would be a bad business case to try to push for such abortions when the latent demand for these is so low. Unless these abortions can be sold at a substantial mark-up like First Class Tix on an airline, the very little new business they would get doesn't seem very worth it.
Of course, I'm no MBA so I may be completely wrong, but the business case just doesn't seem very compelling to push for 9 month abortions.
Only when I asked you. The point is that a born child does NOT need care from the parent.
You know exactly what bodily donation means. It doesn't mean "physical labor."