eNews Updates
If Wishes Were Zygotes
Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check on February 27, 2008 - 9:51am
Published under: Contraception | Sexuality Education | Access to Abortion | Contraception | abortion | anti-choice activists | Sex Education | fetal rights |
 If you wanted to point to a practice that's emblematic of the anti-choice movement's complete break with reality, you could do worse than look at the practice of "spiritual adoption." I can find no better description than at the official website, which describes it as follows:
Even if we assume for a moment that it's possible that the spirit world matches you by lottery to some newly conceived embryo, this practice still doesn't pass the reality-based sniff test. After all, by about 12 weeks into the prayer ritual, your spirit-assigned embryo is either aborted already or going to be born, and doesn't need you praying to save it. The idea that women can waltz into abortion clinics the day before they give birth and get abortions on demand--or that women would if they could--is a fantasy concocted by people needing an excuse for their misogyny. But seriously, on about 15 different levels, this shows how the anti-choice movement flees any hint of reality or the real world, and always insisting that fantasy is better, no matter how treacly and distasteful the fantasy is. Instead of sitting around ineffectually praying for embryos, anti-choicers could, oh, I don't know, actually do some volunteer work to help actual people. It's like doing cartwheels to end poverty. But apparently, many would prefer to spend their time offering imaginary help to imaginary people. The allergy to reality explains a lot, actually. It explains why they're hostile to real-world attempts to reduce abortion by reducing the major cause of it, unplanned pregnancy. Instead, they hate contraception, too, with all its earthy relationship to the dreaded sex. And of course, they prefer not to dirty their beautiful minds with discussions about how a ban on abortion, much less contraception, would actually work. But let's not assume that because the appeal of "spiritual adoption" is in the fantasy of it that it has no real world value. To the leaders of the anti-choice movement, exercises like these have real value. If nothing else, praying non-stop about something functions as a cognitive exercise to train your brain to believe in it, no matter how outlandish whatever you're praying about is. You know the saying about how you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth? Well, there are three outlandish lies that you have to buy in order to become a solider for misogyny, i.e. an anti-choice nut. 1) That an embryo is a full human being, with a consciousness, a body that has some sensory engagement with the world, and a personality, preferably with an impish sense of joy. 2) That women are not full human beings, and therefore their rights, their lives, and often their entire existence can be safely ignored. 3) That abortion doctors are not medical professionals working to help people, but serial killers that have somehow been given the blessing of the federal government. The third is sadly the easiest lie to believe through repetition, because most people don't spend much time with doctors who provide abortion, and therefore don't have access to the reality (that the vast majority are hard-working professionals who do this difficult work for deeply moral reasons, often at great personal cost) contradicting the lie. Believing that there's a complete human being up in there just moments after intercourse requires more work. You have to ignore all the scientific evidence that embryos aren't just tiny babies running around and playing, and you have to ignore the millions of miscarriages a year that aren't treated like actual deaths of actual children, and you have to ignore a lot of flat bellies. But lying to yourself can be done with some effort, because after all, it's not like pregnant women have windows on them. You can imagine whatever you want is in there with enough work. But ignoring that women are full human beings, with the consciousness, bodies, and personalities--you know, the lives--that anti-choicers seem to ascribe mainly to embryos? That takes serious work. I mean, step outside and look around. There are women everywhere, doing people stuff like walking dogs, getting coffee, reading books, going to work, corralling children. They are normal human beings with real human motivations, not the subhuman monsters that are either too stupid or too malicious to avoid running around killing babies for no good reason, as they are portrayed by anti-choicers. Hell, you (assume for a moment "you" are someone committed to becoming an anti-choice nut) may be a woman yourself. Dehumanizing women to the point where you think they should be forced to give birth against their will takes some serious work, lots and lots of repeating lies to yourself. Which is what I think this spiritual adoption program is really about: getting people to repeat a prayer each day, every day that evokes a certain image of women. An image of a woman who is likely to just stroll into an abortion clinic one day and thoughtlessly get an abortion, like one might kind of thoughtlessly grab a cookie off a platter even though you're on a diet. Apparently, the bishop who thought of this figures it takes 9 months of lying to yourself daily to believe that women are, as a group, so unlike human beings that they'd behave like this. And after 9 months of work, you've dehumanized them enough to be ready to fight against their rights without a moment's worry about what you're doing.
69 comments
"The idea that women can waltz into abortion clinics the day before they give birth and get abortions on demand--or that women would if they could--is a fantasy concocted by people needing an excuse for their misogyny." I need to meet these women. Since pro-lifers can't stop imagining them, they must be real. Sick people, with sick hateful views of women. assuming "partial-birth" meant late-term abortion, do you think that there are that many women who are casually waltzing into abortion clinics to abort a nine-month fetus?
Most abortions, where abortion is allowed, will take place early. Most late-term abortion happen when something has gone seriously wrong with the pregnancy. Women do not carry happily for nine months and then abort just for the hell of it. But it seems the imaginary woman who does exists in the minds of pro-lifers. That's who their after. Real women pay for that animus. remember: "pro-lifers" are not pro-life. they are pro-birth. this used to be called pro-natalism. it's an androcentric, completely misogynistic, demand that no check whatsoever on *births* be permitted by law. what happens to mother and child after birth is irrelevant since the “laws” of nature will then cull the weak from the strong. "pro-life" is really pro-death. the western religious death impulse in full cry. its victorian pseudo-philosophical "justification" is rooted in social darwinism. however, that's merely a pseudo-intellectual glosss on western religious demands rooted ultimately in late neolithic. 6,000 years of god damned male domination when will it end? if you're a believer: xian, moslem, jew, or zoroastrian, you've got some doublethink to deal with also. bipolar2 If a woman is pregnant and denied a legal abortion, they often end up in a back alley abortion and due to death or maiming do not end up carrying subsequent wanted pregnancies to term. There are children living today because legal abortion protected their mothers in earlier pregnancies - this is not pro-death. If a fetus is given rights over my body then I will have to take the only consistent stand – give the right to my body to another born person while I am pregnant and this means affecting the fetus’ body too. That way I’m not allowed to kill an existing human being by taking actions to stop their use of my body for their right to life, simply because of the location of the resources. Also this will make sure the fetus isn’t allowed these same "pro-death" rights against a full human being simply because its body will be impacted by the exercise of the others' right to life. Better yet I’ll let the doctors open me up to get to the fetus' body and they can start directly with it. The fetus should not have a monopoly on a womans body or higher rights to its own body when other lives are likewise in need of the same protection. Think I’ll get pregnant just to do this, after all, any policy that pushes abstinence is similarly "pro-death" - but pro-lifers not only don't care about human life at this earlier stage they also try to convince others that there is something wrong with valuing it at this stage when the actual intent is to get pregnant outside of marriage. If you truly are a pro-life baby warrior then there are plenty of 'snowflake babies' waiting for you to actually act on your convictions and take your own steps to protect their right to life....instead of only standing for the so-called 'protection of life' where you can protect your own self-interests while forcing someone else to take on the actual burden. As delusional and pathetic as it is, I prefer this to things like violence and harrassment against clinic workers, actively preventing women from getting abortions, and lying. Amanda, this is weak "bloggism": Set up a loony "straw man" and then knock him down. "But even in such difficult circumstances, it is unacceptable to "solve" the problem by taking the innocent life of another human (the embryo, or - gasp - baby), no matter how small or insignificant it may seem. By making the hard but courageous choice to bring the baby to term, I think women show a great sense of humane-ness. They exemplify the greatest human quality of all - to love (the baby) even if it hurts." This is all I"m going to mess with. You said that it is unnacceptable under any circumstances (in the previous paragraph) to abort a fetus/embryo. I wonder where you stand on the times when there is direct threat to the life of the mother. This is a very real situation and is obviously 'difficult circumstances'. Is the possibility that the embryo would live, without a mother, in some cases without parents, even though the mother dies be a reason to let it live? In this circumstance would you advocate letting the mother die for an embryo which isn't actually a child yet be okay? By your own admission: "I personally believe that there are no circumstances in which we can justify taking another human life." you would. And this is a case in point of the dehuminizing of the woman in question. In your own words you have told us that the mother's life is of less value than a fetus which is not fully formed, and not aware of it's own being. By your own admission you have said that you advocate forcing a woman to continue a life-threatening pregnancy, nine months of fear and anguish for herself and her family, culminating in a painful birth and death. All of this for an embryo that also might not even survive the birth. If there is a direct threat to the life of the mother (interesting that you use the word "mother" - who is she the mother of?) then we can take measures to safeguard the mother's life as far as possible. There's quite a difference between a newborn baby and a fetus. A fetus/embryo is a collection of cells with no consciousness. A newborn baby does, albeit in it's most rudimentary stages. A fetus is completely dependent on the mother (and what else would you call this woman? The only more descriptive term would be uterus owner). A newborn baby can receive care from just about anyone. A fetus is human in genetics, but not in all the other important ways, like sentience, and feelings, and thought. Until that fetus is born it's not a baby. The counting of a person's age, meaning the length of their life as a person, begins at birth. Not at conception. If I were pregnant,then up until birth that fetus is a bundle of cells in varying stages of development, that is living in my body, completely dependant on me. It's my body, and that fetus is a part of my body. I should have the choice to do what I want with my body. I don't consider that fetus a separate human being until it's born. why? In fairness to Ms. Marcotte, I HAVE met pro-lifers who have those extreme attitudes. They are against all abortions for any reason, all birth control (except for Natural Family Planning), and all comphrehensive sex ed (except abstinence only). Tell me, is a woman expected to sacrifice her future, her health and sometimes even her life for the sake of her five-year-old daughter? Look, there ARE extreme pro-lifers with crazy beliefs and attitudes. I wish they'd pipe down, because they make it look like all pro-lifers are crazy. But when the pro-choice movement focuses on the crazies, it is simply avoiding the debate.
BIG, big difference between a fetus and and five year old. You cannot equate the two.
#It all depends on your personal viewpoint. You see it as a child, I do not.
Yes, it is belittling the mother's right if a law was passed which would force her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. She's not a baby making machine for childless couples. It is legally and logically impossible to give equal rights to non-sentient humans.
Hey, if the dad wants to step up and support the mom so she does feel secure in going to term, that is great.
It's hard to concentrate on the debate when someone is screaming "baby murderer!" in your face. And focussing on the crazies is important because sometimes they use guns or bombs to make their "point".
Yes, it's human.(Yet it's not a person under the Constitution)But so are cancer cells. Are we committing murder by using chemo and radiation? I'm sorry Ayla. I didn't realise that my sex was relevant in contributing to a rational dialogue. Are all uterus-free humans excluded from this discussion? I think you'll find that's called sexual discrimination, and it's very much frowned upon, not to mention against the law. Anya didn’t even try to exclude you from the conversation. She simply points out that the fact that you lack the organ and the containing body that you want to violate and harm for the benefit of the fetus - this doesn’t make her guilty of sexual discrimination. 1. Tim do you support anti-abortion laws, or do you just prefer pro-life messages were out there, but didn't touch the law? 2. If I stepped on a human embryo (like those discarded from a fertility clinic), would you have me arrested for murder? If not, why? According to you smashing an embryo is the same as shooting a blind guy or pulling the plug on a coma patient. You'd call the police for those examples, but why not when my sneaker is used as a murder weapon? It could be that the same sneaker also hit an ant, so the CSI team might have a hard time scraping of the guk, and analyzing which is ant mush, and wihich is embryo mush. I think CSI folks can do it, but maybe they have better things to do. But since you think I'm a murderer, shouldn't you insist they treat it as such? A funeral for my sneaker guk?
Firstly, yes I support anti-abortion laws. They protect innocent (unborn) human life. I know the embryo is human. I step on it anyway. It sounds like you want the law to lock me up. Is that true? It would be a weird murder case - the CSI team would have to micro analyze the squashed body on my sneaker. They'll surely see squashed ants there too. I wonder if any of the lab technicians will wonder why they're doing this. And if abortion is murder, then how much jail time should a woman get? Under what circumstances would you incarcerate her for murder? And would you punish her the same as any other murderer - gun shots, stabbings - or would you let her off the hook because "she didn't know what she was doing". If only gun shooters had that kind of "get out of jail free card".
You are partly correct in saying that pro-lifers do not demonize women. Many of them do, but many also do not. First, abortion is not necessarily murder. If you don't know you're killing someone, then you can't be a murderer. Most women don't consider the foetus to be a human, so they don't think that an abortion involves killing a human.
Thirdly, I'd ask you to consider the fact that both you and I were foetuses once, and the fact that we are alive today points to the fact that abortion is infinitely more deadly to foetuses than childbirth.
There appear to be a few logic errors here.
What does that mean? Is abortion one-half, one-quarter, one-eighth murder? This woman goes by the constitution, the fetus is human, but it's not a PERSON.
Now you are getting it. The fetus does not have the right to be born.
Your argument about the woman's health is irrelevent. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, no one has the right to force her to remain pregnant. To put it another way, since no none has the right to force another person to give blood for a transfusion, or a vital organ for transplant, the fetus does not have the right to force a woman to carry to term and give birth.
"Asking" is one thing, but "forcing" is another. It dehumanizes the woman to legally treat her as a broodmare. Recognizing a fetus's right to be born WILL, as a matter of course, result in dehumanizing the woman.
Quite simple. I trust each woman will make the choice which is right for her. Wether abortion, give birth and keep, or give birth and give up. I recognize every woman's situation is unique and also no one's business but her's.
What is your point?
If the woman chooses to abort the fetus, she IS showing just as much responsibility as if she'd gone to term. I am sick to death of people claiming abortion is "running away" from responsibility. That is just rhetoric and hasn't any basis in reality.
Shit, Tim. Bush isn't being held to account for his actions even now. Talk about absurd.
Wait a minute. How do laws which impinge on a woman's bodily autonomy NOT dehumanize her? The lates crop of anti abortion laws treat women like frivolous children incapable of making their own decisions. I'd call that damn dehumanizing. "First, abortion is not necessarily murder. If you don't know you're killing someone, then you can't be a murderer. Most women don't consider the foetus to be a human, so they don't think that an abortion involves killing a human." I'd like to know where you are obtaining your information; how on earth would you presume to know what "most women" consider a fetus to be? Now, women may not consider a fetus to be a child (mostly because it's not) but why do you believe that women are ignorant when it comes to human reproduction and prenatal development?. Are you actually claiming that women are not aware that if they continue a pregnancy (and provided that there were no complications and a live birth) that they would have a human baby? Why do you think these women are terminating their pregnancy if not to prevent the possible birth of a baby ? "Asking women to carry the baby to term does not dehumanise women. It simply recognises the humanity of BOTH mother AND child." I loved that you used "asking" as apposed to "forcing" women to carry their pregnancies to term although if we're being honest, "forcing" is clearly a more accurate term (if your wish is to criminalize abortion). You devalue a woman when you make the statement that her fetus should have more rights than she does. "Thirdly, I'd ask you to consider the fact that both you and I were foetuses once, and the fact that we are alive today points to the fact that abortion is infinitely more deadly to foetuses than childbirth." This is a bizarre statement, in my opinion... Every person was once a zygote/embryo/fetus; take abortion out of the equation and you're still left with the fact that not every z/e/f becomes a person (there are studies that suggest that over half of all fertilized eggs perish naturally). "And finally, regarding responsibility: It IS easier to call for responsibility when that responsibility will never fall on me. But that does not mean that my call for women to be responsible for the foetus/unborn child in their womb has no merit." I've said this before but it bears repeating... having the ability to choose for oneself between right and wrong is the definition of responsible. The woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy is being just as responsible as the woman who chooses to gestate... the fact that you agree with one and detest the other is not relevant to either choice. Disagreeing with a choice that some other person makes does not effect how responsible that choice is. Janine, get real. It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines. " Giving birth will simply involve the body performing its natural function. No violation." What if she doesn't want to be pregnant? You still demand that she be. That is violating her. I am very real. If a man was speaking up for raping women and someone pointed out he was speaking as someone who didn't have a vagina - its not sexual discrimination to say this. Also, a man that supports other violations of women on behalf of another (not a fetus) can claim to be no less/more anti-woman than you - they are just as concerned about balancing all human rights. Adding to Harry's comment, just because something is natural does not make it unharmful or not a violation. Sex is a natural use of the vagina too but can also be harmful and can be a violation, even though the vagina is performing its natural function. As to your comment on childbirth being safer, this partly relies on medical interventions - I guess you assume that the woman will be getting these medical interventions - but this is treatment she may not want and it is highly unethical to coerce someone into a medical intervention by denying them the medical care they wanted ...or leave them to die/hurt because they won't take the option they don't want. We don't extend the right to life for a newborn over its mothers body..yet if the fetus right to life extends this far then giving birth without this further life support when needed would be an act of infanticide by omission, just as much as failing to feed or shelter an infant. If we are going to protect the right to life over another's body then a full human being who needs to protection this way is case I would find more morally compelling. By the way, I believe life is continuous - so intentionally having sex prior to wedlock in the hopes of getting pregnant would be one of the highest expressions of humanity and respect for life. Yet most pro-lifers discourage this through their abstinence only fixation. No one is allowed to respect human life when pro-lifers don't approve. Technically I am also speaking as someone without a uterus, but I had one up until a few weeks ago. I agree with Sanya that there's a lot less harm in people praying over anonymous embryos than in having them harass women at abortion clinics. Surely the point of being pro-choice is to ensure that women have access to safe and legal abortion, not to demean people's prayers fer cryin' out loud. There's more of us than you think who are pro-choice as a matter of public policy but deeply anti-abortion in our personal and, yes, religious beliefs. I am disappointed by this post because I think you do better attacking genuine pseudo-religious stupidity than you do with this kind of stuff. Well, I don't think she went overboard with this article. Tim, The fact that you will never, ever be in a position to choose between your own life and/or well-being and that of your foetus does mean that your argument lacks merit. I really don't think you recognise that it is so much easier to state that women should be willing - or required - to sacrifice their bodies to their zygotes/embryos/foetuses when there is absolutely chance that you will ever, ever be in this position yourself. Most women have either been in this situation or know that we could be. This is NOT true of you. You will never have to actually put your money where your mouth is. This is why I so very much resent it when men tell women that 'most abortions aren't necessary'; 'it's the easy way out'; to 'take responsibility for your actions'; and so forth. You can argue to the ends of the earth that you would be willing to sacrifice your own body if it were possible, and you probably do believe it, but the point is that it isn't possible, and never will be - at any rate, probably not in our lifetime. This is only hypothetical, philosophical, and so on, for you. For women, it's reality, and it's a reality you will never know. You may be close to a woman living the reality but physiologically, you cannot experience pregnancy. And you are aware that when abortions are severely restricted or banned entirely, women will be driven into unsafe abortions? That you would want to see this happen does in fact illustrate to me that you don't have a high regard for women. I do agree with Tim that we can require responsibilities of others even though the responsibility will never fall on us. The President was a good example. We demand that cops, firefighters, and criminals take responsibility that we will never take ourselves. But the requirement is still right. Also, many women are pro-life, including those who have gotten pregnant themselves. However, a woman who gets pregnant is not automatically signed up for motherhood. It's not a crime to get pregnant, and being a mother "even if it hurts" is not this criminal's "rehabilitation". Both pro-life women and men don't worry about the monumental sacrifice a woman has to make to carry a pregnancy against her will, to become a mother against her will. I would argue that man that pro-life women may understand this less, because they wanted to carry their pregnancies. And even then, their decision is based on their pro-life values alone, with no concern about their economic or emotional ability to care for the child. In the pro-life view, all women are demanded to be pregnant and then mothers, regardless of their economic or emotional means. If these women wan to spend their futures this way, that is their right to choose. But they should not deny choice from those who don't want to be pregnant or mothers. Adoption is an easy answer. It doesn't erase the pregnancy, and finding an adoptive home is not easy. The thousands of kids on foster care are evidence. I do think adoption should be one of the possible options, and we should support the process, but don't pretend it erases the hardships of the pregnancy and even the motherhood, because you'll have to hold that infant for while. A pregnant woman shouldn't have to do any of this against her will. Not to save some microscobic-ball of cells in her uterus. A fertilized egg is often ejected during her normal mentrual cycle and we don't call this murder. We dont even call this a natural disater. We don't pick up the tampon and check for a fertilzed egg, and then give it a funeral. We don't give citizenship rights to organisms that smaller than the letters on this page. The microcopic size and the fact that their are in an absolutely certain citizen's body means that we can't treat them as murder victims, or even natural disaster victims - that is unless we want to police women who get pregnant. And when women are subject to anti-abortion laws, they are subject to a police for the pregnant. Women have been getting pregnant unintentionally since time forever. With birth control we've gotten better at giving women the power to prevent. But first of all, contraception access is not protected, and is even attacked by the organizations of the pro-life cause, though I hope that pro-life individuals will support contraception. I hope you are one of these individuals Tim. Second of all, nothing is perfect, even if a system of prevention out there. We can't prevent every bad thing from ever happening. Crimes happen. Relationships break up. People get locked out of their cars. These are the imperfections of life. Toss in the fact that some women can't take birth control because of health reasons. I met one woman who said her body could handle a one-time abortion rather than continuous pills. Obviously many other women can take pills safely, but we allow individuals the right to make their best health care decisions for their unique health situations. We could argue that many unintended pregnancies don't "constitute a health risk". But they do constitute a risk to a woman's human life. By life, I don't mean the rudimentary sense of simply being biologically functioning. I'm talking about the qualitative, promise of her future. A future based on all the dreams and plans she has for herself, dreams and plans that don't disappear when she gets pregnant. You can scold her for not thinking of this before hand, and perhaps she should scold herself - and perhaps the guy should scold himself. But once pregnant she needs to make decisions about how to proceed. The past can't be re-written, but the future can be written. And that decision must lie with that woman - not with anyone else. Not with other women. Not with men. Not with her parents. Not with you Tim. Not with me. This completely excludes the examples of the blind man and the comatose patient, who are both 1. outside the uterus of any other human being, and 2. far beyond being a tiny bundle of cells.
If the unintented pregnancy was the result of foolish behaviors, then abortion, freely chosen, would give her the chance to start again, and be smarter this time. After an unintended pregnancy, a woman wants a second chance, as we all want a second chance after a mistake. We all aim to move forward after our mistakes, and thus we need the freedom to decide our own fate. When your pregnant, you need this self-determination even more. We should commend ALL women who freely choose, abortion, adoption or parenting. They are making their way forward, on their own terms, and they are doing the best they can. We owe them the right to determine how they move forward. That is why forcing pregnancy through anti-abortion laws is wrong. The supporters of these laws are forcing pregnancy, and they are not absolved just by saying and thinking "even if it hurts" Thanks for your responses everyone. I seem to have stirred things up a bit, and I suppose that was my intention. 2. Obligations to others don't dehumanise.
#Personally, I go by the trimester system set up by SCOTUS in the Roe decision. The upper limit on early term abortions is 12 weeks, although most are done earlier, usually about 6 wweks. Abortions at 30 weeks (roughly 8 months) are EXTREMELY rare and they are performed only if the mother's health/life are in danger, or if an ob/gyn has determined the fetus has a defect that is "incompatible with life".
Legally, in the US, the Constitution defines "personhood". Someone who is born or naturalized has all the rights of a U.S. citizen. An unconscious,dying man is a person because he was born and at one time, sentient(ie: aware of his surroundings).
#Believe what you wish, but this belief is not U.S. law. As for when personhood begins, see above. Personhood begins at birth when the rights of citizenship are conferred by the Constitution.
#I disagree. Because comparing fetuses to your roommates is like comparing apples to ricecakes. Your roommates are persons with rights, but the fetus hasn't any right to compel the woman to go to term with it.
#Once again, I must disagree. The fetus has no right to live or to be born. Forcing the woman to respect the state's interest in the fetus is dehumanizing her. Sorry, couldn't resist. the fetus's "right to be born" would take a away a woman's right not to be an incubator for something the size of an insect. Also her right not to be a mother. The Nazis didn't have this problem, as the Jews were not in their uteruses. While descriptions of abortions can be gruesome, it's necessary to remember that doctors use the procedures they do because they are trying to protect the health of the woman. You know, the woman - that inconvenient incubator that simply won't stay still and take the forced pregnancy, "even if it hurts", right, Tim? Sometimes the fetus needs to be dismembered. Sometimes taken out as a whole. I think it is the latter procedure that was attacked by the so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban. I should also not that abortions like the above are often late-terms, and late-terms happen almost always because something has gone wrong with a pregnancy that the woman actually wanted. Most unwanted pregnancies are aborted early, unless you live where there are hostile anti-abortion laws that are based on forcing women to be pregnant, "even if it hurts". This includes other countries that have anti-abortion sentiments way more hostile than in this country. So, Tim, while you may not "hate" women, you've forced them into a corner where they have lost self-determination over their own body. Not "hate", but only for lack of conscious intention. The effects are very cruel.
despite people like Mike Huckabee et al who want to replace it with the bible.
Oh geeze loueez, another pro lifer conflating the Holocaust with abortion. This is pointless.
No body knows. Neither science, or philosophy, nor religion can answer this question. So any attempts to legislate one group's belief about the matter are utterly useless.
You just can't leave the Holocaust comparisons alone, can you?
It is not a "cop-out". To partially quote Barbara Jordan, "my faith in the Constitution is complete, it is total." There is no good constitutional, or legal reason to grant fetuses the right to birth. Conversely, you have failed to explain a good legal reason every pregnant woman must be compelled to give birth. that I think that the above point was that, in terms of morality,it isn't enough to justify something simply by saying "the law says so". In that sense the Nazi example has some relevance, because everything the Nazis did was backed up by laws, their laws. The Constitution is a law, so it has the same issue. However, we already have good basis for pro-choice moral arguments. These include the right to control one's own body, as part of individual self-determination. This is good because it excludes anyone who talks about illegal drug use. Illegal drugs are bad for your health, but abortion, properly performed in a safe and legal environment, is as safe as any medical procedure, in many cases, safer. Is it safe in every instance? No. Is any medical procedure safe in every instance. No. The doctors job is to evaluate each patient's condition and prescribe the proper procedure, or no procedure. This interaction between doctor and patient should not be hampered by a bunch of screaming nuts who think a microscopic organism inside a woman is a voting citizen. That is yet another moral arguments. Now if you want to take about legal arguments, as opposed to moral arguments, the Constitution - law of the land - becomes very relevant. So to sum up: moral arguments - the law is far less relevant legal arguments - the law, the Consitution, is VERY relevant.
undocumented immigrants are condemned because of their "illegal" status. While that is technically true, this does not address the morality of having entire classes of human beings, who are only trying to make a life, being threatened everyday with deportation and family break up. Yes, they broke the law in coming/staying here. But with moral eyes, we can see that the law is bad, or at least problematic, in the first place.
"First, abortion is not necessarily murder. If you don't know you're killing someone, then you can't be a murderer. Most women don't consider the foetus to be a human, so they don't think that an abortion involves killing a human." Huh? You've just spent most of these posts calling abortion to murder: * "I have several roommates. I have an obligation NOT to kill them. Even if I want to. Even if they make my life hell" * "
* "Because if you killed a newborn baby you'd be locked up. And the only difference between a 30 week old foetus and a 6-weeks premature baby is the location."
And a final contradiction: "And just out of interest, if you stepped on a human embryo knowing that it was human and intending to deliberately kill it anyway, then I would consider your action to be murderous. But if you didn't know or think that the embryo was human, then of course I would not consider you to be a murderer. But I would still spare a thought for the human life that was destroyed, and hope that it didn't happen again."
---
So is abortion murder or isn't it? Is it only murder if the murderer knows that the victim is human? If I don't think your roomates are human, and I shot them, am I off the hook? If not, shouln't my punishment be the same as those given to women who get abortions? Shouldn't this same punishment go to me if I stepped on an embryo. Or would you merely hope that I "didn't do it again", as you said above? Can I shoot someone and say "I'll never do it again", or will you just "hope" that I won't? --- Another thing: a comotose patient, a blind man, and any disabled human being is different than a fertilized egg. I can squash a fertilized egg with my sneaker, the same as with an insect. I can't squash a disabled guy, a blind guy, or even easily a newborn. Do you think that something smaller than an insect may be less a priority for protection, especially if it requires the government to force women to carry it? To abandon their future for it? ----- You may not "hate" women, but you've just justified forcing them to be pregnant against their will, and forcing them to be mothers against their will. And it's not because a 5-year old child, not because of a newborn, its because of something smaller than an insect, something I could crush with my sneaker. Something that is discarded from infertility clinics every day. Are you going to lock us all up? Am a I psychopath for wanting to step on an embryo? You said you would consider me murderous, but that you would "hope I wouldn't do it again". Can I get the same good faith from you, if I shot your roomates? ------ You said women regret, and are traumatized by, their abortions. Yes, and many don't: http://www.imnotsorry.net/newstories16.htm Here's a list of other things women are regretful of (and possible traumatized by: marriage, marriage to a pro-life man, motherhood, (ie not having an abortion) heterosexual relationships, Should all the above things be banned because many women live to regret them? What's unfair is that the women who regret their abortions get to speak out, but the above women don't. In fact their often pressured to answer the question "are you happy" with an "appropriate" answer. I understand that the women who have abortion might be pressured to answer "appropriately" too. But "appropriate" can be either a pro-choice or pro-life answer, depending on who's demanding the answer. ------ Do I think that the fetoes is a human or person? I can say its human because it has human DNA. But I'll still take joy in stepping on them. I'll alternate: ant, human embryo, cockraoch, human embyro, ladybug (sorry ladies), embryo. , That's a lot of guk on my sneaker. Honestly, I problably would spare the ladybugs, because many of my ladyfriends think their precious. They would encourage me the crush the embryos, because they had abortions too, and they don't regret them. Are we all getting the death penalty Tim, or just life in prison? Keep the sneaker. It's a Nike.
While they may be crowding his room, they are not crowding his internal organs. fertilized eggs frequently wash out during the menstrual cycle. If these are citizens as Time says they are, then we need check each tampon under the microscope to see if the egg is there (identify the victim's body), and then give a burial. We may need to investigate the woman for "child negligence" or something worse. After all, shouldn't she be looking after her microscopic children? Tampon funerals, yay!!!!!!!! You mean I've been flushing my babies down the toilet all this time? Yikes, I'll never know how many real babies I had - or if I was really a mom before I gave birth to my first child. Oh crap, Harry, I'm really depressed knowing that the state does not mandate tampon investigation for those poor innocents and especially if I was complicit somehow in their death! I would have named them all, held baptisms and made little caskets...or given myself up to jail in support of human rights if I ate the wrong thing resulting in murder. I can feel the symptoms coming on - depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, too much sex, too little sex - all the things wrong in my life are because of this post-tampon-flushing-stress syndrome (PTFSS) that is overcoming me now that I know the truth of what I've done....and it gets worse - next I'll get breast cancer and I'll now exactly why. My only hope and salvation is that the Supreme Court will give consideration for my amicus brief supporting women who are suffering from the states lack of protection and equal recognition for innocent life on tampons. |
1From Inside Prisons, Mothers Long for Their ChildrenBy Christy Hall on May 9, 2008 - 8:00am | 0 comments  The Politics of Motherhood, the Capacity for ChoiceBy Carolina Austria on May 9, 2008 - 8:35am | 1 comment  2New Moms in Africa Fight Postpartum DepressionBy Masimba Biriwasha on May 9, 2008 - 8:20am | 0 comments |
