RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Kansas and Brazil Punish Women for Abortion

Anu Kumar's picture

What does Kansas have in common with the southern Brazilian state of Mato Grosso de Sul? No, not samba, tropical drinks, or a tropical rain forest.

These two distant lands are united in their desire to intimidate and harass women who have had abortions.

In Mato Grosso de Sul, a police raid of a clinic suspected of providing abortions resulted in the interrogation of nearly 10,000 women, whose records were found there, on suspicion of having abortions in 1999-2001. At this time, 36 women have been prosecuted; an additional 2,215 records have yet to be fully reviewed, but it is anticipated that approximately 1,000 women will ultimately be prosecuted and convicted. The official penalty for a woman who has willingly induced an abortion in Brazil is up to one to three years in prison. But the punishment meted out to the 36 women by the judge that ordered the investigation is community service at a local orphanage - just the kind of humiliation that should serve to shame them further.

This might seem unsurprising in a country where abortion is highly restricted, but a similar case has taken place in our own country. In Kansas, Women's Health Care Services, where Dr. George Tiller is a late term abortion provider, was ordered to turn over clinic records of about 2,000 women to police to determine if an illegal abortion procedure had occurred. Despite the considerable efforts of Kansans for Life and the invoking of a 19th century law, the clinic was able to block the subpoena and the grand jury refused to indict Dr. Tiller.

There is a key difference in the two situations: In Brazil, abortion is a criminal offense and is only permitted in cases of rape or to save the life of a woman whereas in the United States abortion is legal, though states have imposed restrictions. The criminalization of this very common procedure (1.3 million abortions take place in Brazil), results in the hospitalization of 250,000 Brazilian women with complications from unsafe abortion every year. In the United States the incidence of abortion is almost the same (in 2005, there were 1.2 million abortions in the United States), but complications and hospitalizations are extremely rare, largely because abortion is legal. But if opponents of women's rights have their way, how much longer will American women stay safe?

The harassment of abortion providers and the seizure of clinic records is simply another tactic to punish women for exercising their right to choose when and whether to be pregnant. Anyone who helps them on this path will be harassed and exposed.

It's clear from both of these cases that opponents of abortion are not simply concerned with a few restrictions here and there. They want to be sure that women and doctors alike are hauled into the public square and condemned openly for ensuring that women have control over their reproductive destinies. But research in Brazil, and elsewhere, shows that legal restrictions will not keep women from ending unwanted pregnancies. They will risk their lives to do it if safe, legal, respectful, high-quality care is not available. We know this. We also know that the easiest way to prevent deaths and injuries is to ensure that this care is available.

In Brazil, Ipas has created a campaign to get Brazilians thinking about the consequences of criminalized abortion, called "Think about it" ("Vai pensando aí," in Portuguese).

Perhaps we need to start a similar campaign in the United States. After all, what would the consequences for women be if those who drove the campaign to "out" women in the courts in Kansas were successful around the country? What if women knew that their doctor might be forced to hand over their private medical records to the courts for inspection, second guessing their medical judgment? We already have a situation where an abortion procedure is the only medical procedure ever to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Are we willing to imprison women and their providers for abortion? Think about it.

Related Posts:


. . . . .
161 comments
Please login or register to post comments...

Shouldn't those who break the law be put in jail? Shouldn't the government be ensuring that our women receieve good and legal health care procedures by evaluating health records to make sure all procedures were done in accordance with restrictions and codes? The alternative is that health care providers would have the freedom to break the law...something that is dangerous to the health of American citizens in all areas of health care, not just reproductive health. I, for one, would like my doctors to be held accountable for their procedures and to be prosecuted for ANY deviance from or non-compliance with codes or restrictions. Your goal should be to change restrictions, not encourage deviance from them. Evaluating health care documents is not harrassment; it is only ensuring that we receieve legal care. Just because we do not LIKE a law does not give us the freedom to break it.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 21, 2008 - 8:24am.

"Shouldn't those who break the law be put in jail?"

I think you missed the point of the article. The people who are trying to uphold the law are being selective. They are doing it for the sole purpose of harassing abortion providers and their women clients.

Why aren't they pursuing cosmetic surgeons for legal compliance if there concern is for the law?

Submitted by ChrisN12 on July 21, 2008 - 8:47am.

I've been thinking these past couple of days, and I think that it is no longer productive for us to talk about this issue on this blog---we obviously do not agree, and I don't think either one of us is going to change our mind based on what the other one says, no matter how many times we keep repeating ourselves. I do want you to know, however, that no matter what you may think of me, I do love women and my stance on abortion is not a tactic I am using to try to supress women's rights, or anything of the sort. The only reason I feel so strongly about this issue is to save the lives of children who are being "terminated" every day in America. I encourage you to go to the link I am providing below. It is a pamphlet that methodically sets out the pro-life stance on abortion, and articulates it better than I ever could. It speaks to many of the objections you have raised to my arguments on this blog. I just ask you to please consider everything I have said, as I am considering what you have said. Sometimes hearing opposite viewpoints makes us even more sure of our position, but we also need to be open to the idea that we could be wrong. Again I will say that I am deeply saddened for what has happened to you, and as I said before, I hope whoever was responsible was held accountable to the utmost of the law. Although I don't know you personally and although we disagree, I just want you to know that I wish you the best and I hope that you have a friend, family member, or counselor that you can talk to about what has happened to you. Thank you for being so open with me about your beliefs, and please read this pamphlet. It won't take long.
http://www.ncln.ca/content/pdf/Right%20to%20Know.pdf

Submitted by KathleenPope on August 7, 2008 - 8:27am.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that I disagree with you. :-)

But well-said, anyway.

Submitted by Dr. Dredd on August 7, 2008 - 10:11am.

You're right that it isn't a surprise. I just want MellanKelly to know that I don't disrespect her as a person. Please do take the time to read that pamphlet. It is an honest accurate summation of the pro-life view. Many think that the pro-life stance is only to disregard the rights of women, but it is not at all...and this pamphlet explains a little better what the pro-life position IS about.

Submitted by KathleenPope on August 8, 2008 - 3:19pm.

Many think that the pro-life stance is only to disregard the rights of women, but it is not at all

Actually, many people simply point out the fact that the stance of those opposed to abortion due to their own personal belief systems ends up disregarding the rights of many women, regardless of whether or not this is their goal.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on August 8, 2008 - 5:13pm.

I've been thinking these past couple of days, and I think that it is no longer productive for us to talk about this issue on this blog---we obviously do not agree, and I don't think either one of us is going to change our mind based on what the other one says, no matter how many times we keep repeating ourselves

In all honesty... I wasn't attempting to change your mind about anything.  My intent was to be sure that anyone reading misinformation or getting half truths from a comment on this blog was given more complete information including a first hand account on the subject of abortion and why it must remain a safe and legal option for those facing an unwanted pregnancy. 

 I do want you to know, however, that no matter what you may think of me, I do love women and my stance on abortion is not a tactic I am using to try to supress women's rights, or anything of the sort. The only reason I feel so strongly about this issue is to save the lives of children who are being "terminated" every day in America.

I've been speaking with people about abortion and my experience with abortion for over ten years now and I've found that most people aren't sure exactly where they stand; being given the proper information and resources regarding the law and science help tremendously.  Not only that, but I've found that most people have never spoken with a woman who chose to terminate her pregnancy and they are surprised and moved when they hear an individuals story.  Most people come to realize that abortion is not a back/white subject... it is filled with every shade of grey.

I encourage you to go to the link I am providing below. It is a pamphlet that methodically sets out the pro-life stance on abortion, and articulates it better than I ever could.

In short, the comments you've made on this blog are regurgitated from that pamphlet.  Nothing in that pamphlet is compelling enough for us to criminalize abortion whereby forcing women to risk their lives and/or health.  Nothing. 

 

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on August 8, 2008 - 4:04pm.

Those practices should be regulated as well, and they are being regulated. I did a simple search on cosmetic surgery centers, and all the ones I found had a similar statement to this, stating reasons why private medical information may need to be disclosed without consent:

We may use and disclose PHI about you for health care operations to assure that you receive quality care. Example: We may use medical information to review our treatment and services and evaluate the performance of those involved with your care. We may also provide your PHI to our attorneys, accountants, and other consultants to make sure we are complying with the laws that affect us.

. As required or permitted by law, such as law enforcement officials, court officials, correctional institutions or government agencies, when required to do so by law.
. For public health activities to help prevent or control disease, injury, or disability. As required by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
. For health oversight activities we may disclose your PHI to authorities and agencies authorized by law, including audits, investigations, inspections, licensure, disciplinary actions or legal proceedings

Abortion must be treated with the same scrutiny as any other out-patient procedure. We must ensure that our women are safe, and this kind of regulation aims at that goal. I don't understand why so many who claim to be pro-choice and for women's rights would not want them to be protected as much as possible by the law. I would think the goal would be to strive to make abortion the safest medical procedure possible through restrictions and checks of medical records that are required for other procedures. Why should abortion not be held to the same standard as other outpatient surgeries?

Submitted by Anonymous on July 21, 2008 - 10:18am.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the people pursuing these issues so vigorously are not doing it from a place of respect for women's reproductive health, but as a way to stigmatize women, and the medical professionals that work with them. Phil Kline in Kansas has no interest whatsoever in making sure women have a safe environment to seek out a full range of reproductive health services. He only pursues these issues as one more way to try to prevent women from having these health care options.


Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

Submitted by Scott Swenson, RH Reality Check on July 21, 2008 - 11:26am.

Why am I not surprised? The anti-abortion lobby and its anti-choice allies in Congress have done a bang-up job of confusing and distracting Americans with their doublespeak and "redefiniation" of abortion and contraception.
If you really believe this is about "protecting" women, then you swallowed the lie hook,line and sinker. The truth behind the "truth" is the anti-abortion lobby believes women are too stupid to be trusted with a decision about an unwanted pregnancy, and not morally competant enough to make said decision.

Submitted by MargaretSangerWasFramed! on July 21, 2008 - 10:20pm.

I don't believe that this debate is actually about protecting women. I said that is what pro-choice advocates SAY the debate is about. As a woman, I understand that to have an unwanted pregnancy would be an incredibly tough situation, and that there could be seemingly insurmountable circumstances that would seem to dictate that termination of the pregnancy is the only viable option. It comes down to this question: Is it possible that there can be circumstances in a person's life that are so bad that an innocent person must die in order to take them away? Again, I understand how hard it would be to be pregnant in certain circumstances. What I don't believe is that it is my right to decide when an innocent person that was created because of my choices(except in cases of rape)can live or die. I don't want to live in a society where others can decide for me when I live or die. This does not take away the rough situation of women facing unwanted pregnancy, and I believe there should be financial and other types of assistance for these women, and that contraception (that occurs before conception) should be available to these women to stop abortion from being an issue at all. That is a goal that pro-life and pro-choice supporters can work towards together.

Submitted by Anonymous on July 22, 2008 - 8:33am.

It MOST CERTAINLY IS about protecting women. The pro-choice side just wants us ladies and our doctors to have the freedom to make ANY decision necessary to keep our lives and health intact. Nobody is "taking and innocent life" because the bundle of cells isn't a viable life form at the stage MOST women abort.

The right-wing position is adding more, unnecesary, regulation of a woman's health and wellness than it needs too. Right-wingers seem content to let corporations police themselves, and the military police itself, and the FBI and CIA police themselves, hech, even the vice president polices himself. But doctors, some of the most educated and respectable people in the country , can't? Women and doctor's can't be trusted to make good health decisions, but Guantanamo can torture, and that's okay. WTF?

Also, it's not just about unwanted pregnancy. For many women who choose to abort late-term, it's because their baby isn't going to live, and they can't handle a stillbirth. Believe me, as the miracle child (mom was 36!) after several miscarriages and stillbirths, giving birth to a dead baby takes a huge mental toll. My mother will never be the same after grieving over so many potential lives.

POTENTIAL being the key word. They weren't alive yet, just had potential to live until God or health risks mandated otherwise.

People in that situation deserve the choice of abortion over stillbirth. What about that? That is definitely about protecting women. I would love to have been able to protect my mother from all her misery. But it wasn't legal then. So even if I were there, I couldn't have helped her. Do you understand what that's like?!? What my parents went through because of over-regulation like you seem to think is okay?!?

In the end, the point is this: no other health procedure is regulated, fought about, challenged, and lied about as abortion. Abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. Why aren't we fighting about hysterectomy? Well, that just doesn't sound as good. But each hysterectomy deprives our world and our Lord of way more potential lives than each abortion. And doctors recommend that all the time, when it's not even necessary.
Also, if you don't want to look like a troll, give your name. God knows I'm not afraid too do so.

Submitted by Merry on July 23, 2008 - 4:04pm.

It comes down to this question: Is it possible that there can be circumstances in a person's life that are so bad that an innocent person must die in order to take them away?

That isn't actually the question because the only "innocent person" involved with an unwanted pregnancy is the pregnant woman... and under no circumstances could you or I determine how "bad" things are for her or what course her pregnancy should take.

Again, I understand how hard it would be to be pregnant in certain circumstances.

You couldn't possibly understand how difficult an unwanted pregnancy could be under certain circumstances unless you yourself were in that circumstance.  Having faced an unwanted pregnancy under horrific circumstances I can assure you that terminating my pregnancy was the best possible option for me and my family; and I'd do it again under those same circumstances.

What I don't believe is that it is my right to decide when an innocent person that was created because of my choices(except in cases of rape)can live or die.

Oh.  So it's not actually about the fetus ("innocent person"), it's more about the circumstances surrounding the intercourse.  Tell me, how is it that the fertilized egg that was the result of rape is different than the fertilized egg that was the result of consensual sex?  I'm just curious as to how it could be said that one is "innocent" and apparently the other is not.

I don't want to live in a society where others can decide for me when I live or die

Last I checked others cannot legally decide when you live or die (unless you are given the death penalty for a crime you've committed or if you happen to be enlisted and fighting in a war).

This does not take away the rough situation of women facing unwanted pregnancy, and I believe there should be financial and other types of assistance for these women

I agree that there should be assistance for women who need it... however, if those women still wish to terminate their pregnancies they have every right to do so and I will fight for those rights until the day that I die.  No woman should have to lose her legal rights upon becoming pregnant.

and that contraception (that occurs before conception) should be available to these women to stop abortion from being an issue at all.

Wait, at what point did you decide that you have the right to dictate which birth control methods should be available to these women?

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on July 25, 2008 - 5:07pm.

There is another innocent person involved, the unborn child.

Just because I have not been in a situation does not mean that I cannot imagine what it would be like to be in that situation. Of course it is different if you have gone through it, and I am by no means undermining how hard it must have been for you in your situation, but I standby my statement that there are no circumstances that are so bad that they warrant the death of an innocent person.

I agree with you that an embryo created because of rape or incest is just as innocent as one created by choice, and so I am against abortion in those cases as well. I put that clause in my statement because I knew the response to my comment would be that not all sex is consentual, so I wanted to address that and talk about abortions NOT due to rape or incest, because I knew that the moment I said I am against it in cases of rape as well, those 1% of cases would take over the debate, when I would rather talk about the 99% of cases that are due to a choice. Does that make sense? Sorry if that is confusing.

Others CAN decide when I live or die if I am an unborn child.

A woman only loses the right to kill another human when abortion is illegal. Last I checked, killing another human was not a "legal" right.

Submitted by KathleenPope on July 28, 2008 - 9:56am.

There is another innocent person involved, the unborn child.

No, there is not.  The only person "involved" is the pregnant woman (although I would say that her loved ones and any children she has are also "involved" considering that women do take into consideration their current family obligations when facing an unwanted pregnancy).

Just because I have not been in a situation does not mean that I cannot imagine what it would be like to be in that situation.

You're right, you can imagine what it's like... but you could never "understand how hard it could be" (your quote) if you haven't actually experienced it.  Your statement reflects how many anti-abortion women felt until they experienced an unwanted pregnancy of their own.  See The only moral abortion is my abortion.  A quick excerpt:

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)

Granted, there have only been a few studies done on the subject but if you'd care to research you will find that somewhere around 25% of all women who had abortions considered the procedure to be "morally wrong."

it is different if you have gone through it, and I am by no means undermining how hard it must have been for you in your situation, but I standby my statement that there are no circumstances that are so bad that they warrant the death of an innocent person.

And luckily, no "innocent person" was killed in my situation.  And yes, you are attempting to undermine my experience when you make the statement that you did not want to include cases of rape in this discussion.

I agree with you that an embryo created because of rape or incest is just as innocent as one created by choice, and so I am against abortion in those cases as well. I put that clause in my statement because I knew the response to my comment would be that not all sex is consentual, so I wanted to address that and talk about abortions NOT due to rape or incest, because I knew that the moment I said I am against it in cases of rape as well, those 1% of cases would take over the debate, when I would rather talk about the 99% of cases that are due to a choice. Does that make sense? Sorry if that is confusing.

You cannot separate unwanted pregnancy as a result of rape from this debate because it does happen (and more often than the 1% reported - I can personally attest to that).   According to the U.S. Department of Justice, somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes.  The sheer number of rapes that go unreported (the F.B.I estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police, the Justice Department stats are even lower with only 26% of all rapes being reported to law enforcement ) is a travesty. The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%. This information, in conjunction with estimates based on the U.S. Census, suggest that there may be 32,101 annual  rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.   Please don't make statements that imply that the number of unwanted pregnancies as a result of non-consensual sex are insignificant because  I assure they are significant to the women whose lives are affected by them.

Others CAN decide when I live or die if I am an unborn child.

Wha?  You are not an "unborn" child... please prove to me how at any one point during gestation (or conception, if that's your belief) you became the person you are now. Take away your adjectives (effectively changing the meaning of the noun) and your statement is untrue... others cannot decide whether a child lives or dies and certainly others cannot decide whether you live or die.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on July 28, 2008 - 11:15am.

So...when does a fetus become a person with rights that should be protected?

That's what this debate really boils down to.

Submitted by KathleenPope on July 28, 2008 - 12:06pm.

So...when does a fetus become a person with rights that should be protected?

Well, we know that once born in the U.S., every child is entitled to their full rights under the law.  A pregnant woman (regardless of whether or not her pregnancy is wanted) is protected by the Constitution - The constitution guarantee's us that our bodies (and our pregnancies) are a private matter that affect us alone.   It would be unconstitutional to  enact a law that would give the responsibility over our bodies to some form of government. The question of "personhood" is not one that the government could (or should) have to answer. 

That's what this debate really boils down to.

No, it's not... what this boils down to is whether or not a pregnant woman is entitled to her full legal rights.  Should a woman who becomes pregnant be forced to give up her personal liberties because you wish to impose your personal beliefs (be they religious or philosophical)?

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on July 28, 2008 - 12:26pm.

I agree that women should have their full legal rights. Killing another person is not one of those rights. That is why it boils down to the question of when a fetus becomes a person. You must agree that it is not within my right to kill my baby once it is born...what is the difference between killing it then, and killing it one moment before birth? And what is the difference between killing it one moment before birth, and 1 month before birth? 2 months? 5 months? 9 months?

if a fetus is a person, abortion is the killing of a person, and therefore is not within the legal rights of a woman to do.

Submitted by KathleenPope on July 28, 2008 - 12:52pm.

I agree that women should have their full legal rights.

I don't believe that you do... if that were the case you would not be in support of taking those rights away (from pregnant women).  Is it that you believe pregnant women should "lose" their personhood status upon becoming pregnant?  For someone who purports to be all about defending people you'll have to convince me why a pregnant person should not be worthy of your defense.

Killing another person is not one of those rights

Nobody has the right to kill another person (with the exception of the death penalty and in the instance of war). 

That is why it boils down to the question of when a fetus becomes a person

No, you want it to be about the personhood of the fetus...there is no questioning the personhood of a pregnant woman. 

You must agree that it is not within my right to kill my baby once it is born...what is the difference between killing it then, and killing it one moment before birth? And what is the difference between killing it one moment before birth, and 1 month before birth? 2 months? 5 months? 9 months?

It is really quite simple actually... Anyone born or naturalized in the US is entitled to their full rights under the law... murder is against the law.  Correct me if I'm wrong but did you not claim that abortion would only be justifiable in the case of maternal life (imminent death of the pregnant woman)?  In what other situation would there be an exception for maternal life... no woman can kill her child to save herself from natural death or natural bodily harm.  Why the distinction?  Because most people are capable of reasoning that a pregnant woman (and a her child) are more important than an embryo or a fetus.  Asking one to articulate why this is the case gets tricky... because it is a question of personhood and therefore based on ones personal belief system.  What you are asking is for all other people who do not agree with your notion of personhood to set aside their personal belief systems in order to conform to yours.  Sorry, not gonna happen.

if a fetus is a person, abortion is the killing of a person, and therefore is not within the legal rights of a woman to do.

A fetus isn't a person... a pregnant woman is.  You simply cannot deny the life of the pregnant woman; neither can you disregard the rights of the pregnant woman (which include the right to decide the course of her own pregnancy).

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on July 28, 2008 - 4:23pm.

You still did not answer the question---When does a fetus become a person? I can't answer your objections until I have that answer from you.

Submitted by KathleenPope on July 28, 2008 - 4:29pm.

You still did not answer the question---When does a fetus become a person? I can't answer your objections until I have that answer from you.

That is a cop-out and I'm pretty sure you're aware of it.  Almost every statement I've made speaks to the nature of personhood and the lack of a possible consensus on the matter.  There must be some other reason for you to be unable to answer to the points that I've made... think real hard.  Certainly being unclear where I stand on the concept of personhood would not prevent you from answering the questions and/or objections that I've asked and/or made:

  • If scientists, theologians and  philosophers alike cannot come to a consensus what makes you the authority on when one becomes a person?
  • who will be forced to put aside their personal belief systems in order to establish at which point in time a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person?  Would you be willing to?
  • I always err on the side of life... the life of the pregnant woman (there's no questioning her personhood, is there?).
  • As a country, the government must ensure the rights of it's citizens, including pregnant women regardless of whether or not their pregnancies are wanted.

  • I think you're trying to say that there needs to be a clear, well-defined point of when a fetus is a person and if so... good luck with that.  People would have to put aside their individual belief systems in order to come to a consensus on that matter... are you willing to put aside yours because I'm not.

  • For you to claim that you, personally, know not only exactly what defines personhood but at what point each of us becomes a person is ludicrous... to argue for the criminalization of abortion based on your definition of personhood is a fallacy.

  • You simply cannot deny the life of the pregnant woman; neither can you disregard the rights of the pregnant woman (which include the right to decide the course of her own pregnancy).

  • It is really quite simple actually... Anyone born or naturalized in the US is entitled to their full rights under the law

  • Correct me if I'm wrong but did you not claim that abortion would only be justifiable in the case of maternal life (imminent death of the pregnant woman)?  In what other situation would there be an exception for maternal life... no woman can kill her child to save herself from natural death or natural bodily harm.  Why the distinction? 

  • For someone who purports to be all about defending people you'll have to convince me why a pregnant person should not be worthy of your defense

  • No, you want it to be about the personhood of the fetus...there is no questioning the personhood of a pregnant woman. 

  • Should a woman who becomes pregnant be forced to give up her personal liberties because you wish to impose your personal beliefs (be they religious or philosophical) on her?

  • The constitution guarantee's us that our bodies (and our pregnancies) are a private matter that affect us alone.   It would be unconstitutional to  enact a law that would give the responsibility over our bodies to some form of government. The question of "personhood" is not one that the government could (or should) have to answer. 

  • please prove to me how at any one point during gestation (or conception, if that's your belief) you became the person you are now. Take away your adjectives (effectively changing the meaning of the noun) and your statement is untrue... others cannot decide whether a child lives or dies and certainly others cannot decide whether you live or die. 
Submitted by Mellankelly1 on July 28, 2008 - 6:14pm.

See my comment below---but I will answer your objections one by one anyway, even though the answers are irrelevant without knowing how you feel about the personhood of a fetus:

1) See comment below
2) See comment below
3) No one is advotcating that the pregnant mother should die, so we are all for the life of the mother. You ARE erring on the side of death for the unborn fetus, and you cannot deny that fact.
4) I am for pregnant women possessing all legal rights, which do NOT include the right to kill a person. So we are back to the personhood question.
5) See comment below
6) It is NOT ludicrious to define when someone becomes a person. It is necessary, and in my opinion, not even hard. All other points besides conception are arbitrary, and if you would speak to where you stood on the issue, I could explain further why I believe that, and I can, I believe, prove to you that I am right.
7) I have never denied the life of the pregnant mother. And I have never denied any of her rights, except for the right to kill another person--we get back to the personhood question yet again.
8) I agree that any US citizen is entitled to their full legal rights.
9) I don't quite understand your objection but I will try to respond to what I believe you are saying---the distinction comes because the right to life of the person inside the mother trumps the right to a certain lifestyle or choice of the mother. This is where my question of---are there circumstances so bad that an innocent person must die to take them away?---is relevant.
10) A pregnant woman is always worthy of defense, until she wants to take the life of an innocent person.
11) As I have shown over and over, the debate IS about personhood, and I have never questioned the personhood of the mother.
12) I am not "imposing my personal beliefs" on anyone. I am upholding one of the most basic and primary social laws our country is based upon---that its people deserve the right to life. It is not the personal liberty of a pregnant woman to kill another person--again back to the personhood debate.
13) That is simply not true. If our bodies are our own personal matter, why can I not sell my kidney for money? It's my tissue, right? No. There are laws against that. Also, the government does regulate pregnancies after the second trimester, so it is not a private matter, and thirdly...it does not affect you alone. It affects the person inside you. The government DOES have to answer this question because it aims to protect its PEOPLE, and how can it do that without knowing who its people are?
14) The only logical point of personhood is conception. When I know your view, I will discuss why I believe so. If the fetus is a person, than under our current system of law, women and abortion providers are murdering millions each year, so yes, they CAN decide when a person lives or dies.

Submitted by KathleenPope on July 29, 2008 - 1:22pm.

See my comment below---but I will answer your objections one by one anyway, even though the answers are irrelevant without knowing how you feel about the personhood of a fetus:

This is the second time that you've made the statement that you are unable and/or unwilling to prove that a fertilized egg is a person without knowing my personal opinion on the matter.  I have never once made the statement that you (or anyone else) should be required to adhere to my personal belief systems - I am not advocating taking rights away from pregnant women based solely on my opinion.  Besides, there are too many people with too many religious and/or philosophical opinions and/or beliefs about personhood.  I am merely stating the truth of the matter... there will never be a consensus regarding "personhood" - there is not one person who has been able to prove the point at which each of us becomes a person (and you've certainly not provided any compelling evidence that the fertilized egg is a person.) 

3) No one is advotcating that the pregnant mother should die, so we are all for the life of the mother. You ARE erring on the side of death for the unborn fetus, and you cannot deny that fact.

This is your opinion... the fact of the matter is that I always err on the side of life when I make the statement that we must ensure the rights of every person in this country - including pregnant women.  If a woman decides that it is in her best interest that her pregnancy be terminated I will always fully support that right.  Unlike some, I do not believe that some third party with no stake in the outcome should make life altering (and potentially life threatening) decisions for pregnant women.

) I am for pregnant women possessing all legal rights, which do NOT include the right to kill a person. So we are back to the personhood question.

And why is it okay for you to totally and completely disregard the pregnant person?  In what other situation is a persons bodily integrity forcibly violated for another "person"?

It is NOT ludicrious to define when someone becomes a person. It is necessary, and in my opinion, not even hard. All other points besides conception are arbitrary, and if you would speak to where you stood on the issue, I could explain further why I believe that, and I can, I believe, prove to you that I am right.

and

The only logical point of personhood is conception. When I know your view, I will discuss why I believe so. If the fetus is a person, than under our current system of law, women and abortion providers are murdering millions each year, so yes, they CAN decide when a person lives or dies.

How is conception any less arbitrary?  Are you saying that a person is nothing more than DNA?  To make that statement one would be completely discounting the things that are consider to be the very nature of personhood - things like our thoughts, our emotions, consciousness, our sense of being an individual, our ability to feel a connection to others, our personal relationships and our experiences?  Despite your delusions of grandeur, you could never, ever prove that there is a person established at conception - scholars, theologians, and scientists have been able to prove or even come to a consensus on the matter so you'd better get crackin'.  Since you will never be able to establish the personhood of the fertilized egg without using your personal opinions and belief systems, using this as an argument to criminalize abortion is a fallacy.

 8) I agree that any US citizen is entitled to their full legal rights.

No, you don't.  You wish to discriminate against pregnant women and that is unconstitutional.  You are asking that the government put the rights of a fertilized egg over those of a pregnant woman.

9) I don't quite understand your objection but I will try to respond to what I believe you are saying---the distinction comes because the right to life of the person inside the mother trumps the right to a certain lifestyle or choice of the mother. This is where my question of---are there circumstances so bad that an innocent person must die to take them away?---is relevant.

Your question is only relevant when a person actually dies... in the case of abortion a pregnancy is being terminated.  Period.  Despite your desperate attempts to prove otherwise.  What "lifestyle" are you referring to because that is a seriously generalized statement - do you know what lifestyle means or do you just prefer to throw anti-abortion buzzwords around this debate in lieu of an actual argument?

12) I am not "imposing my personal beliefs" on anyone. I am upholding one of the most basic and primary social laws our country is based upon---that its people deserve the right to life. It is not the personal liberty of a pregnant woman to kill another person--again back to the personhood debate.

 And now you've made a great argument for abortion rights considering that every person in our country (including pregnant women) has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness - unless you wish to define what each of those statements should mean for the general population.

13) That is simply not true. If our bodies are our own personal matter, why can I not sell my kidney for money? It's my tissue, right? No. There are laws against that. Also, the government does regulate pregnancies after the second trimester, so it is not a private matter, and thirdly...it does not affect you alone. It affects the person inside you. The government DOES have to answer this question because it aims to protect its PEOPLE, and how can it do that without knowing who its people are?

If it is not true that the constitution guarantee's us the right to privacy (including self sovereignty and bodily integrity) then cases like Winston v. Lee (in which the Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant's compelled surgery to remove a bullet to be used as evidence in his prosecution violated his constitutionally protected rights to bodily integrity.) would be unconstitutional.  Both common law and statutory law have long upheld the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity.  For crying out loud, a child cannot even force it's parents to undergo any form of bodily invasion (including a blood test) without their consent.  The government allows for instances post-viability where a woman can legally terminate her pregnancy for maternal life/health - apparently the government is capable of understanding that a woman's life (and the lives of her family, including any children she has) is more important than a fetus.  The government could not (under any circumstances) define personhood - the governments job is to protect it's citizens (including the pregnant ones).

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on July 29, 2008 - 5:36pm.

1) You ARE advocating that we all adhere to your personal beliefs. Your belief is that a woman should be able to choose to kill her unborn child, and you want us all to adhere to that. As I have said before, I have never said that there will be a 100% consensus on the subject. And as I have also said before, the only right I would be taking away from a pregnant woman would be the right to take the life of another human being. We all agree that a fetus is a human (because if it is not homo sapien, than what is it?)...so is it okay to take the life of a human for the comfort of another?
2) I never said I was unable to talk about personhood without your opinion, but it is pointless to. It's pointless for me to argue a point when I don't know what I am arguing against.
3) It is not simply my opinion that before an abortion a fetus is alive, and after an abortion it is dead. That is a fact, not an opinion.
4) A "third party" makes decisions all the time that alter our lives. They are protecting the rights of other people through upholding laws such as the law that murder is illegal. That might go against my "personal beliefs" but it doesn't matter. It infringes on the right of others to life, and so therefore is illegal. Abortion would just be an extension of this law to protect the rights of people.
5) As I have said multiple times, I have never supported disregarding the pregnant woman. Ever. THe only thing I have supported is to protect the life of the child. I have said I am completely supportive of giving aid to these women to assist in their pregnancy financially and through counseling support, or any other need they have, providing good adoption services to help these children find loving wonderful homes if they are "unwanted" by their parents, etc. I am not against women, I AM a woman. Obviously I want us to have rights, be respected, and have successful lives. But I also want that for the unborn women (and men) whose lives have been stolen because of abortion.
6) Answering the objection about the "arbitrary" point of conception, as I have said, requires you to provide an alternative definition of when personhood happens. If all those things you mentioned... "thoughts, our emotions, consciousness, our sense of being an individual, our ability to feel a connection to others, our personal relationships and our experiences" are required for being a person, what about adult human beings who do not have those characteristics? Can we "terminate" them too? For example, severely brain damaged individuals commonly lose the ability to feel emotion, to be conscious, to feel a connection to others, to haver personal relationships, etc. Can we terminate these individuals?
I will respond to other objections, but let's deal with these first. I am not intending to attack you personally, and I understand--through inference from comments you have said here---that you have been wronged in the worst way, and felt that an aobrtion was the best way to get out of that situation. I am so sorry for what happened to you, and I don't mean that in a fake or insincere way. I am extremely sorry for what was done to you, and I can only imagine how hurtful and horrible it must have been for you. My argument against abortion is by no means a justification in any way for what happened to you. It was horrible and wrong, and I sincerely hope that whoever hurt you has been punished to the full extent of the law. I hope that you have family and friends who show you everyday how special you are to them and how much they love you. I know it doesn't make the situation any easier, but it is important to know that you are loved and that people are outraged at what happened to you and what happens to girls like us everday in our own country. It is one of the biggest shames of our country, and we should fight with everything we can against people like the one who hurt you.

Submitted by KathleenPope on July 30, 2008 - 10:15am.

I get that it is extremely difficult (if not virtually impossible) to defend a position that wishes to give fertilized eggs more rights than pregnant women, okay?  I get that in order to dodge a direct question or provide compelling reasons for your beliefs you like to take the debate into little circles but please understand that changing the subject and/or talking around the issues does not effect the validity of the questions asked or the statements made.  Point in case: I make the following statement:

I am not advocating taking rights away from pregnant women based solely on my opinion.  Besides, there are too many people with too many religious and/or philosophical opinions and/or beliefs about personhood.  I am merely stating the truth of the matter... there will never be a consensus regarding "personhood" - there is not one person who has been able to prove the point at which each of us becomes a person (and you've certainly not provided any compelling evidence that the fertilized egg is a person.) 

And your response was:

You ARE advocating that we all adhere to your personal beliefs. Your belief is that a woman should be able to choose to kill her unborn child, and you want us all to adhere to that. As I have said before, I have never said that there will be a 100% consensus on the subject. And as I have also said before, the only right I would be taking away from a pregnant woman would be the right to take the life of another human being. We all agree that a fetus is a human (because if it is not homo sapien, than what is it?)...so is it okay to take the life of a human for the comfort of another?

First and foremost... I've never asked that you (or anyone else) believe anything about the personhood of the fetus - I find it to be an inane concept.  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, so please don't make this about me trying to force you to "adhere" (means: give support to) to my opinions.  I've consistently made the statement that there are many differing points of view regarding personhood and pregnancy (including yours) and that there is no compelling evidence to support any particular time during a pregnancy that one receives personhood... and to criminalize abortion based on one person (or one groups) personal belief system would, in fact, be erroneous.  And what the heck kind of a concept is "100% consensus"?  When I made the very factual statement that there is no consensus regarding personhood, I meant there is no general agreement (never did I even imply that there could or should be 100% agreement on the matter).  And please stop pretending that women do not take into consideration their current family obligations (including any children she may already have) and her economic situation when deciding to whether or not to continue her pregnancy.  When you make statements that women terminate their pregnancy for their "comfort" or "lifestyle" you are attempting to demonize women and paint a picture of women who terminate their pregnancies as uncaring, selfish women who become pregnant and abort on a whim; studies done have proven this anti-woman rhetoric to be untrue.

 I never said I was unable to talk about personhood without your opinion, but it is pointless to. It's pointless for me to argue a point when I don't know what I am arguing against.

I am perfectly capable of arguing the point that the central issue of the abortion debate is most certainly not the "personhood" of a fertilized egg without being aware of any particular persons personal belief system.  I know that anti-abortion advocates would love to take the focus off of women but considering that a fertilized requires the sacrifice of a woman in order to survive (which is not applicable to any other situation) this is an impossibility, to be sure.  What you are "arguing against" is any other person who does not have the same belief system as you.  I can assure you that this is not about me or you (kind of the point I've been making) - I am attempting to bring up facts and issues that are relevant to everyone.  I think you and I arguing our personal belief systems would be ineffectual... we must step back and take a look at the big picture.  Who is most qualified to make decisions regarding her pregnancy?  The pregnant woman or some third party with absolutely no stake in the outcome?  Do you seriously wish to take women out of the picture when discussing unwanted pregnancy... because, frankly, that is exactly what you do when you argue the point of view of the fertilized egg.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on July 30, 2008 - 1:31pm.

1) I am not giving a fetus more rights than a pregnant woman. I am only giving the fetus the right to life, which all humans share.
2) I am not taking the argument in "little circles". The only argument I have ever made is that the fetus is a person. That is my one point and one argument and everything I say stems from that one argument, which you have not yet refuted, but have only virtually said "We can't know that." As I have said, if we can't know if it is a person or not, we should err on the side of caution and life of the fetus, for fear that we may be wrong and we may be murdering 41 million children. Does that idea scare you at all? It scares me--what if we as a country are wrong and conception is when personhood begins. Then we have allowed 41 children to be murdered LEGALLY in our country. Until a viable alternative point for personhood to conception is suggested, that is the point at which a human is created, so that is the earliest point at which it is possible and logical that a person is created, and therefore the most logical and cautious point for personhood to begin.
3) You ARE asking me to believe something about the personhood of a fetus. If it were a person, abortion would be murder. Since you are advocating that abortion isn't murder, by default you are advocating that a fetus is NOT a person.
4) As I have said over and over, "personal belief systems" are imposed on you every single day. Using the same example as before, the belief that murder is wrong is a "personal belief system." If you cannot impose that personal belief system on me, then I should be free to murder whomever I choose, because I should be free--according to you--- from adhering to anyone else's (or any group's) personal belief system.
5) I have never said pregnant women do not take into consideration their life situations, other children, families, etc. But it doesn't matter what they take into consideration---murder is wrong. If abortion is murder, it cannot be allowed. If it is not, it is a personal choice that should be left up to the woman.
6) Pro-life supporters are not anti-woman, and are not trying to disregard or degrade pregnant women in any way. A good portion of them ARE women. They are pro-woman AND pro-child. Abortion is either murder, or it isn't. If it is, we cannot allow it. If it isn't, it is a personal choice of the mother.

Submitted by KathleenPope on July 30, 2008 - 2:17pm.

I am not giving a fetus more rights than a pregnant woman. I am only giving the fetus the right to life, which all humans share

Okay... lets walk through this... a child (or any other person) cannot force it's parents (or any other person) to undergo any form of bodily invasion (including a blood test) without that persons consent.  You wish for the fertilized egg to be able to force the woman to sustain it (even at the risk of serious bodily or psychological harm to the woman) without her consent.  Why is it okay for a fertilized egg (which, contrary to your beliefs is most certainly not "a person") to have rights which no person has?  Even if you consider a thousandth of an ounce second old fertilized egg to be a person, you would be, in essence, giving the fertilized egg "superior person" status which is unconstitutional.  You wish to deny a woman (whose rights are protected by our constitution) her right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness based on what?  Your idea's of personhood?  Sorry... there are no circumstances wherein a fertilized egg should have more (or any)rights than a pregnant woman.

The only argument I have ever made is that the fetus is a person

But it is not... unless you have some compelling reason for believing this that you have yet to share, it is merely your opinion that a fertilized egg or a fetus is a person.  Your opinion is in no way different then any other persons opinion of personhood regardless of at which point they believe "personhood" to have been established.  And when you continue to bring the discussion back to your feelings about what a "person" is without any evidence or supporting information each time a counter-argument is presented, you are, in fact, talking in circles.

That is my one point and one argument and everything I say stems from that one argument, which you have not yet refuted, but have only virtually said "We can't know that."

and

 Until a viable alternative point for personhood to conception is suggested, that is the point at which a human is created, so that is the earliest point at which it is possible and logical that a person is created, and therefore the most logical and cautious point for personhood to begin

Listen, I do not need to define personhood in order to refute your argument.  I have successfully denied the accuracy of your proclamations - it is not truthful or accurate to say that a fertilized egg is a person.  The onus is on you to prove your assertion (it's called Burden of Proof) - it is not necessary for me to prove a negative.  You are attempting to prove something which cannot be proven.  My statements that woman are U.S. citizens, and undeniably "people", and are therefor entitled to their full rights is a fact which is easily proven.  Your attempts to prove that a fertilized egg is a person merely because it has DNA is a fallacy because personhood is not and never has been defined by having DNA.

You ARE asking me to believe something about the personhood of a fetus. If it were a person, abortion would be murder. Since you are advocating that abortion isn't murder, by default you are advocating that a fetus is NOT a person.

Hey... know what?  Abortion isn't murder regardless of my opinion regarding personhood - I'm advocating for the rights of all people (including pregnant woman) as evidenced in our Constitution.  You're advocating to change the legal definition of murder, I am most certainly not.  Know what else?  A fetus is not a person.

As I have said over and over, "personal belief systems" are imposed on you every single day. Using the same example as before, the belief that murder is wrong is a "personal belief system." If you cannot impose that personal belief system on me, then I should be free to murder whomever I choose, because I should be free--according to you--- from adhering to anyone else's (or any group's) personal belief system.

Just as I suspected, you cannot give me one example of when some third party (with no stake in the outcome) is legally able to make personal medical decisions for someone else.  At least we've established that.  It is very telling that you had no retort for my original comment/question:

What are you talking about?  You are incorrect, my dear (or grossly misinformed)... when is it legal for some third party, with no stake what-so-ever in the outcome, to make medical decisions for you?  Pretending that laws which ensure our safety is the same thing as making laws that deny our personal liberties is dishonest.

I have never said pregnant women do not take into consideration their life situations, other children, families, etc.

So when you made the blanket statement that women terminate pregnancies because of their "lifestyle" or for their "comfort" you meant that these women were very thoughtful in their considerations including (but not limited to) their current family situation, the children that they have, their economic situations and the state of their health before deciding what course their pregnancies should take? 

Relevant facts in a nutshell:

  • A fetus is not a person. (DNA does not equal personhood)
  • The pregnant woman is the best person to be making decisions regarding her pregnancy (as the relationship is unitary).
  • Abortion is not murder (nor has it ever been considered murder, even when it was illegal - a zygote/embryo/fetus has never been considered a person)
  • Every person born or naturalized in the US is entitled to his or her full citizenship rights.
  • Both common law and statutory law have long upheld the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity.
  • The government (and the Courts) are capable of recognizing that a woman's life (and the lives of her family, including any children she has) is more important than a zygote/embryo/fetus - thus exceptions for maternal life/health.
  • There exists NO SITUATION where some third party (with no stake in the outcome) can make personal medical decisions for another person.

 

 

Submitted by Mellankelly01 on July 30, 2008 - 5:46pm.

Agree with Mellankelly:
-
"For our law to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change the very concept and principle upon which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual, and would impose a rule which would know no limits, and one could not imagine where the line would be drawn... For a society, which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concept of jurisprudence... Such would raise the specter of the swastika and the inquisition, reminiscent of the horrors this portends."

- McFall v. Shimp, 1978
-
This was a case of a man with leukemia who wanted to force his cousin to donate bone marrow. Basically, the court said, "Yeah, your cousin's an asshole, but we can't force him." There's no issue of personhood v. non-personhood. Basically, one individual cannot be forced to give up bodily integrity for another individual.
-
I'm aware that this puts the interests of the mother ahead of the interests of the fetus (such that they are). The bottom line is that, until we have an artificial womb, it's always going to boil down to this. Society/the government may claim an interest, but in the end the only person to decide should be the pregnant woman. After all, she's the person "with the teeth in their jugular or neck."

Submitted by Dr. Dredd on July 31, 2008 - 2:19pm.

McFall v. Shimp, 1978

I appreciate the information.  It would seem that the personhood of the fertilized egg would be a moot point if one person is not allowed to force another to give up his or her bodily integrity.   So I wonder why the big push in the anti-abortion camp? 

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on July 31, 2008 - 2:54pm.

1)The situations are not quite the same. In this case, it was a passive action (and therefore a lack of action) that allowed his cousin to die. In the case of abortion, it is an active action on the part of the mother to kill the fetus. I believe this constitutes a difference in what the outcome should be.
2) The push for the anti-abortion movement for you to recognize the fetus as a child is that even if the court did decide they could not force a woman to go through with a pregnancy (as it has currently decided), I think most women would feel differently about having an abortion knowing that they were killing a child, instead of a "bundle of cells" like the pro-choice movement wants them to believe.
3) As a side note, in the case above, you said the cousin was "an ass-hole" for not giving the bone marrow. Does that mean I can call any women who gets an abortion "an ass-hole"?

Submitted by KathleenPope on July 31, 2008 - 3:52pm.

Yes, but the bottom line is bodily integrity is sacred. It says nothing about whether the action is active or passive; just that we cannot force one person to violate bodily integrity for another.
-
As for the a-hole comment, you're entitled to call someone whatever you want. Indeed, we know people are going to have different opinions on abortion. What the court said is that, no matter what you believe personally, you can't force someone to do what they don't want to do.

Submitted by Dr. Dredd on July 31, 2008 - 4:11pm.

But you do agree with me that the cases are different? That means the court may come to a completely different conclusion given that the action is active. That means that we need to push for the recognition that the fetus is a person. You also did not respond to my second point about why it is so important to anti-abortionists that the fetus is recognized as a person.
The a-hole comment was just a commentary on the fact that we have become so politically correct about this issue---people would be up in arms if someone called a women who had gotten an abortion an a-hole, but as for this man's cousin (who according to you, is doing the same thing), it is okay. That is why I don't mind being called anti-abortion instead of pro-life. Use all the euphamisms or different words you want, it all boils down to the same thing. All of that is just an aside though, and not relevant to our debate. Just something I find amusing.

Submitted by KathleenPope on July 31, 2008 - 4:18pm.

According to medical case law, if someone is terminally ill and wants to avoid "heroic measures," stopping a therapy is legally and ethically equivalent to never starting it. As an example, it's okay to not start dialysis on someone (passive). It's also okay to stop dialysis on someone who had already started it (active). The law is that bodily integrity is a right, no matter what the situation is.

Submitted by Dr. Dredd on July 31, 2008 - 4:29pm.

That the National Right to Life Movement believes our Constitution should not cover women (specifically pregnant women) is not at all surprising.  To use their rhetoric as "proof" that a woman should not have the same rights that every other person born or naturalized in the US has is a fallacy.  They are not only biased but have been blatantly dishonest and cruel.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on July 31, 2008 - 6:41pm.

Use all the euphamisms or different words you want, it all boils down to the same thing

Yep, kind of like when one refers to a fertilized egg as an "unborn child" or a person... it's still just a fertilized egg.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on July 31, 2008 - 6:26pm.

 The situations are not quite the same. In this case, it was a passive action (and therefore a lack of action) that allowed his cousin to die. In the case of abortion, it is an active action on the part of the mother to kill the fetus. I believe this constitutes a difference in what the outcome should be.

Quite frankly, what you believe doesn't mean diddly.  I honestly do not think that you have even the slightest idea of how our legal system works.  Both common law and statutory law have long upheld the right of a person to refuse to allow others to invade his or her bodily integrity.  A few cases have been cited here but you are more than capable of researching this for yourself.  Simply because you hate abortion doesn't mean that you get to redefine our legal system (or the definitions of certain words).  You absolutely will never get around these two facts: (1)A pregnant woman (regardless of whether or not that pregnancy is wanted) is entitled to her full citizenship rights and as such (2)she has the right to refuse to allow others to invade her bodily integrity.  

 The push for the anti-abortion movement for you to recognize the fetus as a child is that even if the court did decide they could not force a woman to go through with a pregnancy (as it has currently decided), I think most women would feel differently about having an abortion knowing that they were killing a child, instead of a "bundle of cells" like the pro-choice movement wants them to believe.

Oh for crying out loud... women know full well that if they gestate a pregnancy and provided a healthy pregnancy/labor/birth process that they would have a baby.  Why else would they terminate their pregnancies?  I hate it when anti-abortion advocates perpetuate the lie that women are unaware of human reproduction.

As a side note, in the case above, you said the cousin was "an ass-hole" for not giving the bone marrow. Does that mean I can call any women who gets an abortion "an ass-hole"?

Well, if we've learned anything from your posts it is that what one chooses to call something does not alter what that thing actually is, so... have at it Oh Lover Of Women.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on July 31, 2008 - 6:22pm.

Women need to be "protected" from abortion for two reasons:
1) Women are too stupid to realize what they are doing
2) Women lack the moral competance to make such a decision for themselves.

Submitted by MargaretSangerWasFramed! on July 31, 2008 - 10:53pm.

1) I never said women are too stupid to realize anything. I just want what is a person to be labeled as such instead of being wrongly labeled as a "bundle of cells" by the pro-choice movement. If you believe women are smart enough to know that they are killing a human life, then why talk about it as if it is just a "bundle of cells"? Women deserve the truth, because they are smart, and we shouldn't insult them by giving them anything less.
2) We do not allow people in this country to make the decision whether or not to murder someone. We make that moral decision for them. Since abortion kills a human being, it is murder. Therefore we cannot allow the decision to be up to the individual---unless you want all people to have the right to choose to murder someone, whether born or unborn.

Submitted by KathleenPope on August 1, 2008 - 8:17am.

The only "person" is the abortion debate is the pregnant woman. PERIOD! The zygote/embryo/fetus is NOT A PERSON, it certainly has the potential to become a person, but until it is born, it is not a person! Forcing a pregnant woman to continue a pregnancy against her will is nothing more than slavery. PERIOD. Prehaps we should force you to donate blood every few weeks or donate bone marrow to cancer patients or be an organ donor as those events can help other people? No, we don't because to force you to do so would infringe on the rights guaranteed to you in our constitution. And any medical person will tell you that carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth has great chances of harming or killing a pregnant woman--far greater than her having an abortion. So to be pregnant puts one's life at danger-to end the pregnancy ends that danger. Every woman has the right to protect her own life.

Submitted by Anonymous on August 1, 2008 - 10:49am.

You have provided no proof that a fetus is not a person...you have just said over and over that it isn't. "Period". It is certainly a human, that we all agree on, and my stance is that every human is a person, and I have never heard a logically sound argument to the contrary. Read the rest of this discussion if you wish to read detail about that idea. Perhaps we should allow you to be killed whenever someone has a risk of injury/death because of your existance.

Submitted by KathleenPope on August 1, 2008 - 11:00am.

You have provided no proof that a fetus is not a person

Our DNA does not make us "people" (you would describe personhood as "having DNA"?).  Being described as "human" doesn't make us people (you would consider my eyelash a person?).  I don't understand why factual information is so difficult for you to understand.  We have no idea at what point "personhood" could be established and no person is going to put aside his or her personal belief system in order to come to a consensus. 

If you (or any other woman) believes that a fertilized egg is a person (or "a human") then you are perfectly free not to have an abortion - it is battschitz insane to proclaim that because you believe in eggs-as-persons, everybody else should be forced to accept your belief.  We're not children here... I would hope that we are all adults capable of coming to our own conclusions regarding personhood (even if it takes some of us longer to accept it).

It is certainly a human, that we all agree on

It would behoove you to learn the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Perhaps we should allow you to be killed whenever someone has a risk of injury/death because of your existence.

The law already does... it's called "self defense".  Honestly... pay attention.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on August 1, 2008 - 1:37pm.

And any medical person will tell you that carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth has great chances of harming or killing a pregnant woman--far greater than her having an abortion. So to be pregnant puts one's life at danger-to end the pregnancy ends that danger. Every woman has the right to protect her own life.

Bravo!  However, if you read the statements made by this particular poster you will find that the life and/or health (physical and mental) of the pregnant woman is secondary to her concern for the "unborn".  When one abhors abortion to such a degree that the rights and life of women aren't a concern - she has gone to a place where rational people simply cannot follow.  The desperate attempts to prove that her priority is with all life (pregnant woman and fertilized eggs) is easy enough to debunk by her own words - giving her "unborn" superior person status (including the right invade a persons bodily integrity and the ability to kill or cause serious harm to a person without allowing that person the right to defend herself) makes it quite clear that her main objective is to criminalize a medical procedure that she despises.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on August 1, 2008 - 11:08am.

How many times can I say that this is not my motive? The only thing I have ever stiven for is an acknowledgement of the fact that a fetus is a person. I said that we can discuss the bodily integrity issue once we all agree that the fetus is a person. I have never said that "the rights and life of a woman are not a concern," and I have never implied it. The only thing I am asking for in this debate is an answer to the question of...What is the unborn child?

Submitted by KathleenPope on August 1, 2008 - 11:14am.

...Sorry..I forgot I am not allowed to use the phrase "unborn child." Exchange that for the word fetus.

Submitted by KathleenPope on August 1, 2008 - 11:17am.

What is the unborn child?

...Sorry..I forgot I am not allowed to use the phrase "unborn child." Exchange that for the word fetus.

A fetus is a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth (note: "developing human"... not "a human").  And clearly, nobody could prohibit you from using descriptive words to describe a fertilized egg, a zygote, an embryo or a fetus - it's just always good to be honest about why you must do it.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on August 1, 2008 - 1:45pm.

How many times can I say that this is not my motive?

Saying it and meaning it are two different things.  Talk the talk, walk the walk.  Say what you mean and mean what you say.  Basically, you can say that criminalizing abortion is not your objective and that you do not wish to give fertilized eggs "superior person" status by giving them the right to invade a persons bodily integrity and the ability to kill or cause serious harm to a person without allowing that person the right to defend herself, but your insistance that the government do just that reveals the truth.  It is a blatant lie to insist that your words do not belie your willingness to dismiss the life and health of a pregnant woman (particularly considering you would force a victim of rape to risk her life and health in order to give birth to her rapists child and your lack of concern when a pregnant woman's life is in imminent danger).  It is clear enough when reading your words that your main objective is to criminalize abortion and the effects on pregnant women are a secondary concern.  I'm certainly not making this stuff up... you wrote it.

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on August 1, 2008 - 1:24pm.

For Heavens sake, you obviously wanted KathleenPope to read those insults and personal attacks: Why don't you just address it to her?

Submitted by behe on August 1, 2008 - 11:23am.

Thank you behe....it's nice to know someone else saw that.

Submitted by KathleenPope on August 1, 2008 - 11:55am.

... but KathleenPope is certainly not the first (and certainly will not be the last) person on this blog to proclaim such absurd notions... I like to include everyone willing to deny the value of a pregnant woman's life and/or health in this discussion.  Why, on earth, would this be an issue?  Why should I single out KathleenPope as the only person to hold such extremist views?  I believe that would be unfair to her... silly me, eh?

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on August 1, 2008 - 1:50pm.