Watch Crescendo for free on YouTube
Crescendo is a pro-life short film that was produced a couple of years ago. I got to see it early and thought it was excellent, especially where production values are concerned. However, it was not made widely available initially, because the producers were screening it at fundraisers for pregnancy resource centers. (It reportedly raised over $5 million!)
They’ve finally made it available on YouTube. A couple of introductory notes:
- When I say “short film,” it’s very short: fifteen minutes, to be precise. So don’t expect it to answer every pro-choice objection. If you’re looking for something more in-depth, try 40. This is just a “get-people-thinking” type of film.
- Crescendo is entirely secular (hooray!) and based on a true story.
- We’ve previously criticized the pro-life argument that abortion is wrong because it takes the lives of people who would have made a great contribution to the world (a la “we’ve aborted the cure for cancer.”). But again, Crescendo is historical, and I can’t really fault them for choosing an inspirational person for its subject.
Though I have long been and remain pro-life, I would have to say that the main impact of the film on me in ideological terms was this: Watching the suffering of Ms. Beethoven during a birth which she did not want (prior to her mind beginning to change once she held the baby — and suppose it had not changed) reinforced for me the pro-choice argument that society has no right to deny women the option to escape that suffering (and risk) if they want. (This argument is an important part of the bodily-rights argument.)
As mentioned, I remain pro-life, though I think that abortion should be an option if the suffering or risk is medically predicted to be only a little more than the average in developed countries.
Another little criticism: the grim mood of Ms. Beethoven when she was about to drink the abortifacient was clear, but it wasn't clear to me whether the grim mood was due to love for her unborn baby or due to the expected unpleasantness (and risk as suggested by the herb vendor) of the abortion process. Throughout the film, as I remember it, it wasn't clear whether Ms. Beethoven was really agonizing over her decision out of love for her unborn baby, or rather agonizing for other reasons. If the directors intended to portray agonizing due to love, it didn't really come across clearly to me.
We've previously criticized
the pro-life argument that abortion is wrong because it takes the lives
of people who would have made a great contribution to the world
Yeah, and it also erases women whose lives have been ruined by forced gestation and birth.
Right, so by that logic, if a pregnancy is going bad, and the prenate is killing the woman, she should just be allowed to die without an abortion, because the prenate didn't choose to kill her? In fact, the woman is at fault for having sex in the first place, isn't she?
I appreciate your comment and it made me think.
It brings up the question of what circumstances our society will allow a person to take another person's life. What is considered a justifiable homicide?
I think most will agree that self-defense is an acceptable reason, but I don't think pain falls in the self-defense category. Otherwise people could kill each other for unintentionally inflicting physical or emotional pain on someone else. The standard should be set higher – risk of imminent death or permanent physical incapacitation (and I don't believe a normal pregnancy meets that standard.) If it isn't that high, we'll have a lot more "justifiable" homicides in our society for all the pain we cause each other.
It brings up the question of what circumstances our society will allow a person to take another person's life. What is considered a justifiable homicide?
From your own comment on this thread, Eric, you regard it as okay to take another person's life by forcing her through pregnancy and childbirth against her will.
Pregnancy is one of the leading causes of death for teenage girls worldwide (and the sixth leading cause of death for women aged 15-44 in the US). To be prolife is to regard pregnancy as a form of justified homicide: if a girl or a woman isn't capable of living through pregnancy, she should die, because it would be wrong to allow her to save her life by abortion.
Nice comment, Acyutananda. We'll bring you over to the human rights side of the fence yet.
Personally, I believe mothers (like all members of society) have the right to self-defense. If the baby would kill the mother, I believe she should have the option of an abortion. So, I think we agree on that point. (Wait… did we just agree!? 🙂 )
Unfortunately, the vast majority of abortions are not done for self-defense reasons. My point is that "ruining" is not a standard by which we should kill each other. You shouldn't be able to kill someone without judge or jury because they "ruined" your life.
I agree that mothers dying during childbirth is a tragic problem. If there is a significant claim to self-defense, I don't have a problem with abortion.
I'm in the U.S and interested in U.S. abortion policy, so I'll use some local stats:
From the CDC, about 650 women die in a pregnancy related death each year. That's compared to almost 4 million births and 1 million abortions. Hard to make a self-defense claim for a normal pregnancy in the U.S. Again – if there is an issue with the pregnancy, then I don't have a problem with self-defense. Unfortunately, the vast majority of abortions are not done for self-defense reasons.
Thanks for your reply. It made me think also.
Let me try to paraphrase your point this way: "We need to have consistent rules. So if a pregnant woman has the right to kill her innocent unborn due to pain, then anyone in pain will have the right to kill any innocent born person if thereby they can escape from the pain. In many cases, however, we would find that to be unjust."
It seems to me that every single situation (not only every type of situation, but every single situation) in life is morally unique. So if we insist on consistent legal treatment, we will at best get superfically consistent treatment that is a Procrustean bed in terms of real justice. (For example, Thief X got five years and thief Y got five years, even though Thief X was forced to steal to feed her family, whereas Thief Y wasn't.)
So why do we continue to insist on consistent legal treatment? I think it's because, even though it results in some injustice, at least it allows for the application of objective standards and criteria, rather than subjective ones. For concrete reasons or psychological reasons, people may fear injustice due to subjectivity more than the injustice of Procrustean beds. Some legal systems do consider extenuating circumstances, but I think not to the point of the deep case-by-case analysis that would be necessary for real justice.
As regards the different types of situation where abortion may be proposed, I think at least some of those situations will be unique and complex enough that it would be impossibly confusing to aim for justice by seeking complete consistency with other types of situation (types of situation other than abortion). So I think that such situations could be considered almost independently from other (non-abortion) types of situation, even if a case-by-case consideration is not possible. Moreover, I think that inescapably, for any individual situation or any type of situation (abortion or any situation in life), the only ultimately valid gauge of justice is moral intuition — specifically (since there will be various moral intuitions) the best moral intuition. I have tried to explore this difficult approach here:
By the way, saying that pregnancy is a special situation is not the same as saying that the unborn should have special rights. More on this, also, at the link.
Hard to make a self-defense claim for a normal pregnancy in the U.S.
Your reasoning is backwards, Eric.
Only 650 women die in a pregnancy-related death each year in the US, because in the US, women have access to safe legal abortion.
You want the numbers of women who die pregnant to be higher? Ban abortion. Women will die.
It's good if we share some common ground.
Are you familiar with the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It starts out:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"
Whether or not they elaborated the whole Declaration consistently with that good start, and whether or not they have always interpreted the Declaration consistently with that good start, I will always think of human rights in those original terms.
How many women died from illegal abortion in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade?
What percentage of abortions do you believe are done in self defense of the mother?
So you wouldn't kill your rapist, if that was the only way to escape, provided the rapist didn't actually threaten you with imminent death? In fact, rape can cause less damage to the female body than pregnancy and birth.
Then you can't kill your rapist or kidnapper in self defense if that is the ONLY way to escape the violation of your body.
The flip side to this film is a mother could given birth to a Hitler, Pol Pot, or Charles Manson. Are you going to say these people deserved to live too?
The tendency in prolife media to NOT discuss a birth that can bring sorrow means people are not prepared when bad news comes.
As an individual with bilateral cochlear implants who takes piano and viola lessons, I find it soooo tiresome to see inspiration porn like this film about Beethoven. It is porn because you're objectifying a deaf person.
"Crescendo" doesn't change the narrative that today, people still DON'T like discordant notes on a symphony – literally and figuratively. That I have to work twice as hard to play bowed string instruments and develop ensemble skills—something I truly love. That I still have to deal with public skepticism and personal self-doubt that I can complete the four semesters of aural skills which would be required fulfill a lifelong dream of starting and completing an undergraduate degree in music.
I'm not inspirational. I'm just following what feels natural for me to be doing. I march to a different drummer because it feels right.
(FWIW – I prefer playing Chopin's Polonaises any day over Beethoven's sonatas.)
If parents are committed to bringing a disabled child to this world, they better be prepared to teach the child how to deal effectively with attitudinal barriers. Otherwise, they are doing the child a disservice.
Yes – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is of key importance in the fight to ensure all girls and women, everywhere, have free access to abortion on demand.
To force a girl or a woman through pregnancy and childbirth against her will, regardless of the motivation in so doing, violates her basic human rights.
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
To force the use of another's body against her will, against her reason and conscience, is to violate her dignity and her rights, and is certainly not acting towards her "in a spirit of brotherhood".
You didn't answer my question, Eric. Are you happy that only 650 women die each year in the US in pregnancy/childbirth related deaths?
Would you want that number to be higher?
Illegal abortions are safer than childbirth, Acyu. Does that mean that it's OK for a woman who needs an abortion to have no choice but to resort to a criminal? Why are prolifers so keen to ensure that women have no choice but to go to the Kermit Gosnells who flourish in prolifer states?
You seem typical of prolifers who don't care when women die of having wanted children: only for forcing women.
What is your justification for forcing the use of a girl or a woman's body against her will? Under what circumstances is that ever justified? You are not allowed to take even a pint of blood without donor consent, not even to save a life: how can you justify the inconsistency of arguing it's OK to force the use of a person's body in pregnancy, if it's not OK to force the use of a person's body for any other purpose?
In the post of mine that you're replying to, I provided a link for the purpose of answering all your questions. I don't think there is any really brief answer to your questions.
KG was convicted in the death of one woman and of a few born children. (He was said to have killed hundreds of born children, but there was sufficient evidence in only a few cases.)
What pro-life law in Pennsylvania, not in effect in other states, contributed to the death of the woman?
And are you saying that infanticide, sometimes called "post-birth abortion," should be legalized in order to make abortion safer for women?
As a more general response to your point: If someone wants to unjustifiably harm an innocent person, can society be blamed if it does not make it safe and legal for them to do so?
If the answer is no, then the only question that remains is, when is it justifiable to harm an innocent person?
I have thought as best I could about that last question here:
As you're probably conscious of, you have made a good presentation of 1/2 the picture.
Einstein once said something, the popularized version of which is: "Everything should be made as simple as it is, but not simpler."
Actually, summarised, your (lengthy) answer seems to come down to: Forced use of girls / women's bodies to make babies is just fine, because I say so.
The problem is, prolifers like to pretend the girls and women they want to force through pregnancy and childbirth don't really exist – aren't human enough to matter.
The other problem is, prolifers want to ignore the human cost of denying girls and women safe legal abortion – the medical / healthcare cost of illegal abortion, the human cost of the unwanted babies born to mothers who cannot care for them.
The other other problem is, it never occurs to prolifers – not once – to trust girls and women to make the best decisions for themselves as to how many children to have, and when: that the only effective way of protecting unborn children is to ensure that all girls and women have full access to reproductive healthcare: contraception, abortion, pre-natal care, etc.
You want to believe that upholding the basic human rights of girls and women is "half the picture". But that's because to you, those girls and women aren't real human beings, who really can have healthy babies if and when they want: there's no point in forcing them against their will and conscience.
What pro-life law in Pennsylvania, not in effect in other states, contributed to the death of the woman?
Oh, it's in effect in some other states, too.
Federal medicare can't be used for abortions, because of a prolife law that says so.
That doesn't mean women on medicare don't need abortions, it just means that they can't use medicare to pay for them. To ensure that low-income women can still get safe/legal abortions from proper practitioners, many states top up federal medicare with state-level medicare. Pennsylvania, a prolife state, doesn't.
This means that women who need abortions and can't afford them have to go either to a Planned Parenthood clinic, where the non-profit will try to help them on a sliding scale of cost and will steer them to funds that help women access abortion: or to the kind of barely-legal clinic that cuts corners and doesn't ask questions, run by profiteers like Kermit Gosnell.
Prolife "sidewalk counsellors" routinely harassed patients going in to the local Planned Parenthood clinic, in their usual nasty way, but ignored the Gosnell clinic a few blocks off, and so vulnerable women scared off by the prolife mob outside PP were going to Gosnell.
If someone wants to unjustifiably harm an innocent person, can society
be blamed if it does not make it safe and legal for them to do so?
Why is it prolifers always assume that pregnant girls and women, to whom they want to do unjustifiable harm, are guilty people who it's OK to force and use against their will?
"Pennsylvania, a prolife state, doesn't."
Thanks for this information.
"This means that women who need abortions and can't afford them have to go either to a Planned Parenthood clinic, where the non-profit will try to help them on a sliding scale of cost and will steer them to funds that help women access abortion: or to the kind of barely-legal clinic that cuts corners and doesn't ask questions, run by profiteers like Kermit Gosnell.
"Prolife 'sidewalk counsellors' routinely harassed patients going in to the local Planned Parenthood clinic, in their usual nasty way, but ignored the Gosnell clinic a few blocks off, and so vulnerable women scared off by the prolife mob outside PP were going to Gosnell."
Studies in Chile, Ireland and the US have shown that (consistent with our common sense, and contrary to the pro-choice myth "Women will get abortions anyway") unborn child-protection laws do succeed in saving some children. This study —
— states specifically that "the empirical results add to the substantial body of peer-reviewed research which finds
that public funding restrictions, parental involvement laws, and properly designed informed consent laws all reduce the incidence of abortion."
So we can be sure that some of those women who did not go to PP did not go to Gosnell either, and that some babies who would have been aborted with enough funding, survived and are now among the living members of our society rather than among the dead.
You can see how the death of one woman, though I'm sure they felt the tragedy of it, would not convince PA taxpayers to fund the deaths of many unborn babies. They would know that numerous of those babies would survive if they refused to fund.
Whenever there is any unwanted pregnancy, there is not going to be a happy outcome. We have to look for the least of the evils.
ALL of them.
Well said. I live in PA. Accurate history of the Gosnell thing.
And the least of the evils is often a nice safe legal abortion.
Yes: some of the girls and women subjected to legislation intended to make safe/legal abortion difficult/expensive to access, are forced through pregnancy/childbirth against their will. Prolifes rejoice because they succeeded in forcing the use of a girl/a woman's body against her will. That will never be the "least evil" option.
Of course. Maybe we're in agreement.
But I say that we may be in agreement because you seem to suggest that sometimes also abortion is not the least of the evils. In cases where the woman is for some reason abortion-minded and yet abortion is not the least of the evils, the unborn child, who is unable to represent its own case, needs representation. A balanced decision must be rendered, backed by the force of law. Many abortions are certainly necessary, but for the sake of the most basic kind of justice, the principle must be "No termination without representation," mustn't it?
No. I need no justification for having an abortion beyond I AM and I WILL.
Hey if a 5yo is in need of your bone marrow, perhaps the child should appeal for representation in order to force you to give up your bone marrow? Heck, a government appointed lawyer for the child, and once it is decided that giving up your bone marrow is a minor inconvenience vs a child's life, the governed can tie you down and seize your bone marrow.
First let me restate one of your sentences in a more balanced and realistic way: "Prolifers rejoice because they succeeded in achieving a situation where a life was saved and where the harm done to the woman, if there was any harm at all, was less than the harm that the loss of a life would have represented."
Your next and last sentence was: "That will never be the 'least evil' option."
Let's examine that last sentence. The truth of that sentence may be obvious to your intuition, but it's not obvious to my intuition. What exactly is evil about preventing a pregnant person from killing? Does such prevention violate some code of rights as drafted by pro-choicers? Does it violate some code of rights as drafted by pro-lifers? Is there any harm in violating an abstract code of rights per se, or is it only harmful if the code of rights is designed to prevent actual harm to one of the parties in a particular situation, and if actual harm results? Is there any actual harm done to one of the parties by preventing a pregnant person from killing? If so, what is that harm, and is it short-term harm or long-term harm? Let's examine all this.
It is evil to deny women their constitutional rights and to subjugate them on behalf of another.
What in the hell is a "normal pregnancy?" If the standard is "imminent death or permanent incapacitation" you're going to have a lot of women dead and incapacitated. Furthermore, most women don't enjoy the luxury of being even temporarily incapacitated. You don't get to insist she must face death or incapacitation of any kind for your benefit.
Special pleading for pregnancy.
Because s/he is using a fallacy of special pleading, wherein pregnancy is a "special exception" even though no parent is legally bound to fork over organs or tissue for the benefit of a third party, even one's own child.
I don't know where YOU live, but around here, they don't publish causes of death unless it's a homicide, or a result of a motor vehicle accident, and even then, it's not a part of the obituary. You have to be able to put 2+2 together. An obituary is a summary of a person's life, not a focus upon their death. Around here, we simply read that someone "died, " "passed away," or "went to his heavenly home." However the family chooses to express it.
You have women in PA ordering abortion medication online. How many of them aren't stupid enough to tell a hospital what they did (as one mother who is facing 18 years in prison for ordering these drugs for her teen daughter who didn't want to be pregnant)? Out of sight, out of mind, hmmm? There isn't any way for you to know that which isn't seen. And your assertion that those who didn't go to Planned Parenthood probably didn't go to Gosnell either is simple minded. That simply means they didn't want an abortion, if they didn't go either place. I don't think forcing a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant to resort to a criminal or "self help" is EVER a lesser evil. How anyone can say that with a straight face is beyond me. The one thing true in your comment is that there isn't any happy outcome to an unwanted pregnancy. Absolutely true. All choices are bad. But we shouldn't be actively trying to make them worse than they need to be by forcing women to resort to criminals or attempt abortion on their own. You have "faith" that they won't abort because of *laws*. We have actual factual evidence that they do. Sometimes in horrifying ways, like inserting a pencil into their uterus. That's OK with you?
No, it musn't be. The embryo has no claim upon the woman's body unless she's willing to gestate. By your own figures, most women are willing to gestate. The overwhelming majority, in fact. There is no "representation" because there isn't any legal claim.
Shorter you: harm to a woman is of little consequence because the all-important fetus takes precedence.
And third trimester + labour/birth would definitely count as incapacitation and labour/birth is potentially torture.
"That simply means they didn't want an abortion, if they didn't go either place."
A few weeks ago you made the same assertion:
"Only women can 'protect the unborn.' Laws can't do that."
I replied to you:
"There are studies of Chile, Ireland and the US indicating the contrary. See the 'Turnaway Study' for example –"
I don't remember the methodologies of all the studies as regards how they tried to calculate the numbers of clandestine abortions. But I'm sure they knew as well as you do that women would not come forward and volunteer the information, and sure they had some methodology to at least try to get the information. In the case of the "Turnaway Study", the subjects of the study were by definition women who had sought abortion, but had in the end delivered their babies. I suggested that study to you because its bias was, if anything, pro-choice, and because in spite of that it made undeniably clear that the laws had succeeded in saving unborn kids.
"No, it musn't be. The embryo has no claim upon the woman's body unless she's willing to gestate. By your own figures, most women are willing to gestate. The overwhelming majority, in fact. There is no 'representation' because there isn't any legal claim."
Sorry, I couldn't follow your logic and don't remember saying what you quote me as saying. Before I try dissecting your post to point out the difficulties I find in trying to understand it, perhaps you could think about it again yourself and see if there's room for greater clarity.
Mm. Okay, let me restate your sentence in a more balanced and realistic way:
"Prolifers rejoice because they succeeded in forcing a girl or a woman to gestate a baby against her will, and they have no concern for harm done to the woman by forced pregnancy and birth because they regard forced birth as of more importance than a girl or a woman's health and wellbeing."
It's important to note that the prolifer pretence that this is about "saving a life" is false given the lack of prolifer concern about deaths in infancy or deaths as a result of pregnancy/childbirth.
That you don't comprehend that forcing the use of another human being's body against her will is always evil – that this doesn't even impinge on your "intuition": says that you are a person whom I would not trust to be alone with any vulnerable person.
I looked it over. It's pretty clear. You referenced a site called no abortion without representation. Representation assumes that some right has been violated. Abortion violates no rights. There's no "side" that argues an embryo or fetus is entitled to something my born children aren't entitled to.
Yes, he has argued, in the past, that the harm to a woman pales in comparison to the harm done to an innocent embryo, with it's entire life ahead of it
He has also stated that women are NOT in the best position to judge whether or not the pregnancy will harm them, and that a panel of doctors or something should make the decision for her
That's what happened to the suicidal girl in Ireland – I just listened to the RHRC podcast on it, and apparently they *purposely* kept delaying her case so that once she got to 25 weeks they could coerce her into a c-section.
The Turnaway Study is a sad sample of ruined lives. I don't even care to discuss that, other than as an example of how little the lives of women matter to you. Ireland exports it's abortions. Everyone knows that. And again, out of sight is out of mind to you. Chile is no country for the USA to emulate, and neither is Ireland. Clandestine abortions are so easy to do, and do safely. There's no way you will ever possibly know about them. You can try to stuff the genie back in the bottle, but that isn't going to happen. You're only kidding yourself.
Now it's becoming clear, thanks. But:
1. "By your own figures, most women are willing to gestate. The overwhelming majority, in fact."
Where did I say that?
2. "The embryo has no claim upon the woman's body unless she's willing to gestate. . . .There is no 'representation' because there isn't any legal claim."
Let's look at "unless." Since you're speaking in legal terms, do you mean that if a woman ever starts feeling willing to gestate, at that moment the embryo acquires a legal claim on her body?
1) 4 million births vs. 1 million abortions per year? You realize, your words have implications other than what exact words you say. You said it, and you don't even remember saying it? When I went to school, that meant 8 out of every 10 pregnant women decide to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth.
2) NOPE. She has to continually agree to gestate. That's like asking if you have an invited guest, do they have a right to remain there against your will, as long as they care to? The answer is no. And I offer the case of famous pro-life advocate Rick Santorum as an example. I don't know if you're aware of the story of the pregnancy they lost or not. They had an abortion scheduled for his critically ill wife. He called the abortion "a no-brainer." They claimed that Karen spontaneously ejected the 19 week fetus and it wasn't necessary, but that's hardly the point. Either way, there was no hope for fetal survival. But if her pregnancy wasn't ended, it could have killed her.
That makes me furious. Women are the ONLY ones in a position to make that decision. Which of HIS medical decisions is he offering up to a panel of strangers?
"You said it, and you don't even remember saying it?"
I agree with the second part — I don't remember saying it.
"critically ill. . . . no hope for fetal survival. But if her pregnancy wasn't ended, it could have killed her."
If that's correct, then of course abortion was a no-brainer. But what is your point? Do you mean that the existence of some cases where there is no hope for the fetus and the woman is critically ill, justify unrestricted abortion including cases where both are almost sure to live and be healthy?
It's his blog.
Abortion does plenty of damage to the body of an unborn child too. So much damage it kills them. Unless the woman's life is truly endangered from the pregnancy, BOTH her and her unborn child should have a right to life.
And denying a 5 yo your bone marrow does plenty of damage to their body too. Doesn't mean they are entitled to your bone marrow.
Not donating your bone marrow is not the same as poisoning someone or stabbing them in the neck with a medical instrument.
Disconnecting an unborn child is the same thing as unplugging life support from someone in a hospital. It is not the same as not donating bone marrow. The comparison to not donating marrow is not getting pregnant in the first place.
Pro-lifers know that the women exist and the women matter. We also know that the unborn child exists and the unborn child matters. That is why a woman facing a difficult pregnancy should GET HELP so that she AND the unborn child can both have the best possible life together for a few months so that a new human being has a chance at a full and productive life.
If women always made the right decisions, no law EVER would apply to women. Not all women make the right decisions – especially if they involve killing an unborn child.
ALL HUMAN BEINGS should have a right to life.
Nope. The end result is the same – denial of bodily organs/tissue leading to death.
Anyone who knows women exist as human beings, who believes all human beings should have a right to life, will be prochoice.
If you believe the prolife ideology, that girls and women should be legally forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will and their better judgement, plainly you neither believe women have a right to life nor do you believe in protecting unborn children.
Where prolife ideology is successfully applied, girls and women die of forced pregnancies, and unwanted babies are born who then die of neglect.
All prolifers can honestly claim to believe in is forced use of girls and women.
Nope… Someone else could donate an organ, or the patient dies… Pull the plug on a patient on life support and you are INTENTIONALLY killing him or her. Just like an abortion intentionally kills an unborn child that has done NOTHING WRONG.
If they are connected to your body, you can disconnect them in self-defense. Same with abortion. Women are not *machines*, myintx.
If a woman decides she doesn't want her newborn, she is FORCED to CARE for her child until the child can be handed off safely. BOO FREAKIN HOO if she feels FORCED to do something against her will. It is her child's LIFE at stake here. The child's life is more important than someones FEELINGS. Same with an unborn child. A woman who feels enslaved by a pregnancy can and should GET HELP to cope with those feelings. She shouldn't be able to use those feelings as an excuse to kill her unborn child.
If a woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy she should be able to have an abortion to save her life. Otherwise, the unborn child deserves a chance.
Women are not machines and unborn children aren't TRASH that can be discarded. So, what should we do? Help the woman so she can get through her pregnancy and give another human being a CHANCE at life.
I don't see "feels like a machine" on the list of reasons women use to have abortions. I see reasons like "cannot afford a child" – perhaps if the woman got HELP, she would find a way to be able to afford the child. If not, at least she would learn to understand the value of life and do like many other women have done – give their child a chance at a good life with another family.
If a woman's life is truly endangered from her pregnancy she should be able to have an abortion to save her life.
Prolifers always mumble this in an abstract way, but they never, ever mean it when it comes down to specific cases saving the lives of actual girls and women.
If a woman decides she doesn't want her newborn, she is FORCED to CARE for her child until the child can be handed off safely.
No, she isn't. If a girl or a woman gives birth to a baby she doesn't want / can't care for, perhaps because prolifers forced her through pregnancy against her will, there is no law forcing her to continue care for her newborn. Infant abandonment has a long, long history as a legal means for girls/women to deal with unwanted pregnancies where safe abortion is not available. Often the baby then dies, but prolifers never care about babies once they're born, only about forcing girls and women to gestate against their will.
Also, of course, a newborn baby is biologically extremely different from a conceptus, an embryo, or a fetus, but prolifers like to ignore the biology of human development.
You objectify women. Treat them as breeding machines.
Women are not machines and unborn children aren't TRASH that can be discarded. So, what should we do?
Provide all girls and women with access to contraception, strong encouragement to use it, and free access to safe legal abortion, of course. Minimise unwanted pregnancies and therefore minimise abortions, but don't treat women as breeding machines.
Forcing girls and women to give birth so that if the baby is healthy their baby can be handed over to a wealthier couple for them to adopt is neither a humane nor a human-rights orientated solution: it treats girls and women as machines or slaves to be used against their will.
Life support is disconnected every day. The patient dies because he/she is not capable of doing her/his own breathing.
Why should she go through pregnancy and hand the product of her labor off to strangers?
While I agree with you about the wrongness of unrestricted abortion, I have increasingly been wondering how far analogies can help us in showing that wrongness. If you would be interested in thinking about this, I've been involved in a discussion on another page starting here: http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2014/10/abortion-debated-emerald-city-with-emily-heist-moss.html#comment-1657828479
Abortion is NEVER safe for the unborn child. EVER.
Adoption isnt about aproviding a wealthy couple with a child, its about giving a new human being a chance at a full and productive life. ALL innocent human beings should have that chance. No human being should be killed because they are inconvenient or unwanted.
Nope….. You see 2 pregnant women walking down the street. One wants her child, one doesn't. Are they both breeding machines?
If a woman with a newborn feels like a 'machine' that has to take care of her child she at least has to WAIT (gasp!) to hand off her child SAFELY – boo hoo if she feels like a 'machine' while she waits. If she can wait (and you support her having to wait), she should have to if she is pregnant too.
Someone's 'feelings' should not result in the death of an innocent child – born or unborn.
If you deny her right to self determination, freedom and liberty, through forced gestation and birth, you are essentially treating her as an object – a machine.
lol It's pro-aborts who ignore the biology of human development. Calling unborn children 'clumps of cells', stating that they are not human beings, etc in a lame attempt to justify killing them
A newborn is different from an elderly person (for one, a newborns brain isnt fully developed). Doesnt mean either should be killed if they are deemed inconvenient or unwanted.
An unborn child is a human being just like a newborn. If an unborn child is killed before or after viability, it has the same result as killing a newborn – i.e a human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.
Life support is disconnected because there is ZERO chance of the human being ever being able function again. Much different than an unborn child that has a chance.
A. Because she doesn't think she can provide for the baby.
B. Because she cares enough for her son or daughter to give him or her a chance.
C. Because she is smart enough to know that every innocent human being deserves a chance at a full and productive life.
In many cases a woman can pick the adoptive family or stay in touch with the family so that they are not strangers.
There just isn't any way. Look, they don't have to keep in touch with you. Thinking she can't provide for a baby is a good reason not to have one, not to give your child to strangers.
Maybe. Maybe not. In any case, we aren't life support machines.
So, a woman should be able to use the lame 'self determination' excuse to kill her newborn? What if she doesn't want to wait for CPS to come and get her unwanted newborn? OH NO. Is she being treated as a machine because she has to WAIT for CPS to come and she is doing something against her will… TO BAD, SO SAD. She can get her act together, and figure out how to (gasp) CARE for her child until CPS comes. We don't always get to do what we want. There is this thing called RESPONSIBILITY. Parent's should have a responsibility to care for their offspring from the moment they are created (fertilization) until the moment they can be handed off SAFELY to someone else to care for, or until they are 18.
A tiny human beings LIFE (born or unborn) comes before someones 'feelings'.
Thinking she cannot provide for a baby is a great reason to GET HELP or give the baby up for adoption when he or she is born, it's a HORRIBLE reason to kill.
And an unborn child isn't trash. He or she is a human being that should have a chance. If a woman feels like a 'life support machine', she can and should get help to get over those feeling – the life of an innocent human being should come before those types of 'feelings'. What a lame excuse to kill.
So liberty and freedom are a big joke to you?
I guess you can't complain if your kidney is forcibly taken from you to save a dying 10 year old. After all, someone shouldn't have to die just because you think and feel that your right not to be forcibly enslaved and mutilated should even be a factor.
An unborn child should have the 'freedom' to LIVE.
If I had donated my kidney, I wouldn't be asking for it back and intentionally KILLING another human being. By the time a woman realizes she is pregnant, she has already donated her uterus. If she takes back her uterus she has intentionally KILLED her own unborn son or daughter – taking away her unborn son or daughters freedom to live.
No one should have the right to intentionally kill another human being that has done nothing wrong in the name of 'freedom'.
My point still stands. You wouldn't complain, right? You'd be all like "yeah, take my kidney"
No human being should be killed because they are inconvenient or unwanted.
Right. So, just because girls women whose pregnancies are a threat to their health or life are inconvenient and unwanted by the prolife movement, is no reason to let those human beings die preventable deaths for want of access to safe legal abortion.
Adoption isnt about aproviding a wealthy couple with a child, its about
giving a new human being a chance at a full and productive life.
Oh, a "new human being"? So, once a child in need of an adoptive family isn't "new" any more, in your view those children can just stay in the foster-home system, they don't need adoptive parents?
There are over a hundred thousand children in the US who need adoptive parents. But because they're not "new human beings", they're older children who have been abused and abandoned, you think they shouldn't be adopted?
Adoption should be about finding a child adoptive parents who will care for the child and make a new family.
But prolifers make adoption about forcing a girl or a woman to have a baby she knows she can't care for, then taking the forced-birth baby away from her to give the baby to a wealthier couple.
Please note I didn't say "wealthy". But clearly the couple who take the baby the poor girl was forced to produce, are wealthier than she.
Oh, it's a waste of time arguing the biological science of human development with anti-science prolifers, I do know. Prolifers fetishise their ignorance.
My science was correct. My logic was accurate. For Pro-aborts their 'feelings' and selfishness block out any science so they can justify killing.
Yes, there are children in foster care, but that does not justify a woman killing her newborn if she brings him or her home and decides she doesn't want to be a mother anymore does it?
No one is taking away a baby from a woman who wants it. All children – born and unborn – should have a right to life. And, if that means a woman who doesnt want her child (born or unborn ) needs to GET HELP to cope with her situation than so be it. Kiling should NOT be an option, unless the woman's life is truly endangered from the pregnancy – and, we all know those cases are very rare. More than likely, a woman will use the reason "cannot afford a child" or "not the right time for a child" as a reason for abortion. If the woman is encouraged to get help, maybe she would find a way to afford the child or make it be the right time for a child. Instead sometimes women fall for the pro-abort clump of cells b s and use that as an excuse not to put in the effort. THey are encouraged by people like you to think of their convenience and not put in the effort, and a human being's life is lost.
No, your point does not stand.
You are not my offspring, I did not create you. I have no responsibility to you. Me not donating a kidney to you is NOT the same as intentionally poisoning or stabbing you. NOT THE SAME.
So you want to kill random children because you are too selfish to give up a bit of your personal liberty?
I'm not killing anyone.
But about 1 million unborn children are killed every year – by the person who helped create them – the person who should be responsible for their care and upbringing.
Your liberty is more important to you than the precious lives of dying children.
Prolifers like to ignore science and medicine so that they can justify all the deaths their ideology causes.
For those of us who support human rights, of course our feelings about the girls and women forced through pregnancy and childbirth against their will matter.
I do think it's a waste of time arguing on scientific grounds with prolifers: they both don't want to know the facts, and the facts make no difference from an ethical point of view: forced use of another human being is always wrong – and monstrously wrong when done to satisfy your ideology.
Yes, there are children in foster care
Yes, over a hundred thousand children, whom prolifers pretend don't exist.
but that does not justify a woman killing her newborn if she brings him or her home and decides she doesn't want to be a mother anymore does it?
Where is anyone arguing that a woman should do that? Abortion is, fairly obviously, not "killing a newborn". Infanticide and infant abandonment are a feature of prolife cultures and forced-birth, not prochoice cultures where women can choose how many children to have and when.
No one is taking away a baby from a woman who wants it.
Actually, prolifers have frequently taken away babies from women who wanted them.
All children – born and unborn – should have a right to life.
It is not scientifically possible for every fertilised egg to have "a right to life". About half of all fertilised eggs spontaneously abort. Infant death is sky-high in the US compared to most developed countries. Prolifers never care about either of those, demonstrating yet again that it's not about "Protecting babies" but about forcing girls and women.
And, if that means a woman who doesnt want her child (born or unborn ) needs to GET HELP to cope with her situation than so be it.
Agreed! Of course, if a woman doesn't want her child, that's a different situation from a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant. In the latter case, abortion is likely the most appropriate "help". In neither case would it be "helpful" for anyone to force the use of the woman's body against her will.
Kiling should NOT be an option
Right: that's why we're prochoice for human rights and human lives. Killing infants as happens in prolife cultures, or having girls and women die preventable deaths through want of access to safe legal abortion, should NOT be an option. Yet prolifers keep advocating that.
If the woman is encouraged to get help, maybe she would find a way to afford the child or make it be the right time for a child.
I think you just have extreme contempt for women. A woman who discovers she's pregnant is the only person who can judge if she can afford in time or money to have another baby. The notion that women-hating prolifers could change her mind by "encouraging her to get help" is frankly foolish. If you wanted to help, campaigning for a wide range of welfare options from the state would be effective, but prolifers never, ever do that.
For those who are now playing Mathilde Strip BINGO, I'm afraid that this gambit on her part landed in the "remove your blouse" square for me.
Adoption should be about finding a child adoptive parents who will care for the child and make a new family.
It will help you to know that Myintx, even if she is not currently doing so, volunteered for a CPC that is the front for an adoption mill discussed in this article: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2010/07/15/wrong-door/
So liberty and freedom are a big joke to you?
Only for others. We already know that Mathilde is never to be inconvenienced.
Nobody has to wait for CPS to come and pick up an unwanted newborn. This is another one of your nonsense statements.
No she hasn't "already donated her uterus" myintx. The process isn't complete, and donating is only by consent.
she has to WAIT for CPS to come
No, she doesn't. She can dump the kid off at a fire station, police station or hospital. Hell, she can even dump it off at the library branch that I happen to use … and no one can legally ask her a thing.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Not that this has stopped you so far …
There is this thing called RESPONSIBILITY.
Yep. And you don't get to decide what that looks like for another individual, no matter how bitter you are about your own life choices.
the person who should be responsible for their care and upbringing.
Why isn't that person then responsible for a feral toddler that breaks into my garage near a busy street?
So CPS is like State Farm? "Like a good neighbor, CPS is there" and poof they're in your living room?
The only thing one has to do is call 911. They're always available. Just hand over the infant. You don't even have to give your name. Or have someone take the infant to a hospital and leave it there. No questions asked.
you left a few words out.
"I AM selfish and I WILL kill for convenience".
I was on the bone marrow registry for years and I have donated blood before
Not donating blood is in NO WAY the same thing as poisoning or dismembering a human being just because they are unwanted.
It's pro-aborts who ignore science, common sense AND human rights.
Science tells us an unborn child IS a human being. Common sense tells us that killing innocent human beings is wrong. ALL innocent human beings should have basic human rights – i.e. a right to life.
Killing a human being because they are unwanted is horribly WRONG.
What if a woman doesn't wanna call 911? Is she being 'forced' to do something against her will? AND, if she does call 911, she has to (gasp) WAIT for them to come (could take a while – that's more time she's being 'forced' to BE RESPONSIBLE!). If a woman has to ensure her child's safety after birth, she should have to ensure her unborn child's safety.
But you are in favour of mandatory blood, tissue and organ donation, yes?
I'm not in favor of intentionally killing an innocent human being just because they are inconvenient or unwanted.
So you value your liberty and freedom over saving dying 5 year olds.
Science, common sense, and humanity tell us that a girl or a woman, pregnant or not pregnant, is a human being.
Common sense and humanity – indeed, basic ethical and moral principles – tell us that forcing the use of another human being's body against her will is horribly WRONG.
Common sense and historical perspective tell us that laws endorsing the forced use of another human being's body against her will to gestate a child leads either to rising maternal death rates due to illegal abortions, or rising child mortality rates due to more and more unwanted children forced to be born. Or, of course both.
Given that forced use of another human being's body is horribly WRONG and leads to more and more deaths, it's clear that prolifers regard both the women and the children they force the women to bear as unwanted, their deaths negligible in the cause of forced gestation.
As you say, myintx, though it doesn't seem to stop you endorsing these deaths: killing human beings because they are unwanted is also wrong.
So, given the wrongness of what you endorse, the innocent human beings whose deaths you regard with indifference… your hypocrisy is evident.
Oh shut up, myintx. 911 responds very quickly to an unassisted birth. She doesn't need to do a THING, and probably shouldn't.
LOL. Good one.
Me not donating is in NO WAY the same as a women intentionally killing her own unborn son or daughter.
Never said it had to be a birth. If a woman wakes up one day and decides she'd rather go out than take care of her newborn, she cannot. She has to put in the effort to call 911 (even if it's against her will) and has to CARE for her newborn while she waits… if that newborn starts choking she has to TRY to save him or her – even if it's 'against her will'. If she has to CARE for her newborn while she waits to hand the newborn off SAFELY, she should have to wait until she can SAFELY hand off her unborn child too.
Too selfish to give up her bodily autonomy to save the life of an innocent dying 5yo.
Clearly, life is NOT precious to you.
I was on a bone marrow list for years and would have gladly donated if I was a match – but I never was.
Me not donating is in NO WAY the same as intentionally killing another human being.
Should your bone marrow donation have been mandatory?
Me not donating is in NO WAY the same as killing an unborn child.
You keep finding ways to excuse your disregard for the sanctity of life.
Yeah. Come up to me and say "I am a fetus and I am here to suck your blood." and see what happens.
What exactly do you think a newborn is? Newborn means exactly what it sounds like. If she'd rather go out, she can go dump the baby at a hospital. If she can go out to party, she can get to a hospital first. Easy-peasy. Newborns do not choke, and it's a good idea to take infant CPR, because older babies do put things into their mouth… but it certainly isn't a requirement.
She 'can', but what if she doesn't want to – the point is that if she doesn't want to go to a hospital or a fire station or call 911 she HAS TO CARE for her unwanted child until she can SAFELY hand him or her over to someone – whether she wants to or not – she HAS to do something 'against her will' – boo freakin hoo!
Nope… you keep falsely equating not donating an organ with killing a human being
I wouldn't do that… looks like you'd kill your own unborn son or daughter for doing that though.
You think a fetus can walk and speak?
::: walks slowly and quietly away from the nutball :::
You skeeve me. Have another drink.
You'd still kill… and that is SAD
Have another drink, Umbriaga.
Have another, Umbriaga.