The Real Rick Warren
by Amie Newman
December 17, 2008 - 6:09pm (Print)
Rick Warren understands politics.
It was announced today that Warren would be giving the invocation at President Elect Obama's inauguration. It's shocking, to say the least, but a little less surprising considering Warren's Saddleback Forum, a campaign season event in which Warren questioned Senator Obama and Senator McCain about faith and politics - two issues Warren feels very comfortable merging. The Saddleback Forum, however, was no more an opportunity to discuss faith than it was an opportunity to discuss science. It was an opportunity for Rick Warren to "catch" the candidates in what he deemed inappropriate positions.
WARREN: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let’s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?
It is beyond me how Warren feels that a perspective that so few Americans hold (reflected this election by the sound defeat of three anti-choice measures, the victory of pro-choice Democrats in Congress and, well, Obama's win), is a viable basis for a question for our presidential candidates? Luckily, Obama understands what most Americans do - it's about prevention and education, not religious extremism, and he responded:
OBAMA: But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion, because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.
Rick Warren is also the man behind these (recent) statements on abortion:
“But to me it is kind of a charade in that people say ‘We believe abortions should be safe and rare,’” he added.
“Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’” Warren said. “I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”
Now we unveil the story of a religious leader who is adamantly against prevention; in favor of reducing abortion by stripping women of their rights; a leader who compares embryos in utero and mothers who make the best, most loving choices they can when faced with an unintended pregnancy or medical condition, to a murderous movement of anti-Semites who brutally slaughtered Jewish women, men and children.
We do not have a religious leader here who agrees, in any way shape or form, with what Obama and the emerging common ground movement members believe - that to ensure women's optimal health and lives, elevate women's status in society and safeguard public health, we need to focus on comprehensive sex education and prevention measures like family planning and contraception access -- not more of the same extremist elements of the anti-choice movement.
There are so many religious and spiritual leaders who understand the above. They understand that justice in the form of equal access to health care and respect for women's health, decisions and privacy are critical components of any health measure - including one to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy and ensure women have the tools to plan for the families they want now or in the future. In The American Prospect, Sarah Posner discusses the Religious Declaration on Sexuality Morality, Justice and Healing,
...which advocates comprehensive sex education and "a faith-based commitment to sexual and reproductive rights, including access to voluntary contraception, abortion, and HIV/STD prevention and treatment." The Religious Institute on Sexuality, Justice, and Healing, which authored the declaration, has also called on Obama to adopt an approach focused on preventing unintended pregnancies.
RH Reality Check has featured the voices of Rev. Debra Haffner, Rev. Carlton Veazy and so many others who advocate for a faith-based approach to sexual and reproductive health and rights, one that aligns so well with President Elect Obama's vision.
And, yet, it's Pastor Rick Warren who will join President Elect Obama on stage when he is inaugurated. Warren who advocates strongly for the abstinence-only based ideological restrictions in our Global AIDS Plan - PEPFAR. It's Warren who has advocated to retain these restrictions which clash wholeheartedly with Obama's plan to strip them away.
Warren awarded President Bush the first ever "Medal of P.E.A.C.E." for his work on HIV/AIDS, as Lindsay Beyerstein reported for RH Reality Check. However, as Beyerstein writes,
For all the mutual good will on display, Warren's agenda may well clash with Obama's plans to reshape American AIDS policy.
It is hard to imagine Obama and Warren's agendas for any sexual or reproductive health issues aligning at this point, making it all the more puzzling why Obama chose Warren for this role. In an expose on Religion Dispatches, Tom Davis writes of Warren's die-hard positions on social issues all while taking more "moderate" stances on issues of global warming, poverty, war and AIDS (though, as I note above, supporting the imposition of religious restrictions on global AIDS policy is not moderate). Davis writes of Warren,
On the eve of the 2004 presidential election, he sent a letter to his congregation telling them that there were five non-negotiable issues that should determine their vote—abortion, stem-cell research, cloning, homosexual marriage, and euthanasia. In fact, these five issues are barely mentioned in the Bible; Jesus never spoke about them, nor did the prophets.
Curiously, however, Warren made no mention of those issus that he had claimed to care deeply about as a "new evangelical" - global warming, poverty, and war. Warren seems to have empathy for some and not for others - and this is where Davis identified Warren's weakness:
As far as empathy is concerned, there seems to be scant evidence that Rick Warren and many other evangelical writers have tried to put themselves in the woman’s position, or that they can imagine what it would be like to have to make that decision.
Rick Warren is not a man that symbolizes common ground. Warren has positioned himself as a key player in what in words has been called a new evangelism but in practice is nothing more than shining up some old shoes. As soon as the announcement was made that Warren would provide the invocation, protests sprung up on Facebook and elsewhere. We'll see if Warren really does have such a front and center role at the inauguration after all. As a religious leader, he is a brilliant politician.
I wrote both Rick Warren and Obama transition blog
As an openly gay donor to Obama campaign the news of Rick Warren giving the invocation at the inaugeral ,is election night deja vu, all over again. Gays and Lesbians were celebrationg with all the rest of America the Obama victory, then at 11pm we get a shiv shoved in our back with prop 8. Rick Warren and the LDS elders were the MAIN SUPPORTERS which attacked LGBT families in CA, making us the ONE minority not covered by the equal protection clause.
I hope EVERY queer and our friends attending the Inaugeral, TURNS THEIR BACK to Rick Warren, a salute of a single finger wouldn't hurt ...either.
I am so disappointed the president to Bring America TOGETHER, chooses to tear us apart at his FIRST oppurtunity
Ok, Rick Warren may not be the perfect example of common ground if he does indeed oppose safe sex measures in the AIDS crisis, but making abortion "safe, legal, and rare" is no common ground either, because the pro-life movement's goal is not just to stop abortion, it's to stop our society from condoning it. But what really drew my ire about this article was you claims of victory of the pro-choice movement as evidenced by various measures going down and Obama's victory. Do your research, please. First, polls repeatedly show a fairly even split on this issue among Americans, often with a slight majority coming up on the pro-life side. Obama's election had NOTHING to do with abortion. That issue came up ONE other time beyond that Saddleback Forum. People weren't thinking about it when they went to the polls--they were panicking that we were headed for another Great Depression. And another thing, those "anti-choice" measures that went down didn't go down for the reasons you think they did. Actually, I don't know what the third one was, but the first two were Colorado and South Dakota. The South Dakota one failed because its rape exception was considered too ambiguous and thought to put too high of a burden on rape victims that included DNA testing and identification of the rapist. The last time that bill came up in South Dakota, it was rejected for lack of the rape exception, and if it had included one without so much red tape for the victims, it would have passed by a 60-40 margin. And the Colorado one went down because its language allowed for the possibility of also banning birth control. So don't count your chickens here, you do NOT have a safe pro-choice majority here, and you never will, because it's the pro-lifers who are ahead of their time and eventually others will catch up. It took a while with slavery too.
You do realize that the only alternative to legal abortion is forced pregnancy and childbirth, right? It gives a whole new meaning to "forced labor". How can you not call that slavery? How dare you tell half the population that we don't own our bodies? And how dare you trivialize the suffering of millions of sentient human beings like that?
You speak of rape exceptions, and I'd be interested to hear your justification for that. How is a fetus conceived by rape any less important than one conceived by consensual sex? If you believe abortion truly is murder, how do you say that it should be allowed for rape victims? I'd like to know how much time you think awoman should spend in jail if she attempts to self-induce an abortion.
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2005/polls.asp
The majority of Americans are pro-choice. While we all wish that all pregnancies can be planned, wanted, and the joyful addition of new life, that's just not how it works. The world is not a perfect place, and most people understand that. Most people have sympathy and understanding towards women who have abortions. Most of us understand that a gift coerced is not a gift. And many of us remember that in the days when abortion was illegal it was nowhere near gone, it was just unsafe.
Quality of life counts more than quantity. It's irresponsible to bring a child into the world that you cannot care for. It's nothing short of cruelty to force a woman to have a child when she knows it's not right for her.
The pro-life position is not ahead of its time, at all. It is a blindly pursued obsession, which completely disregards the consequences of its dictates. If you force every single fertilized egg to be incubated by a female host body (because surely at this point, she's no longer a woman who has a right to make decisions about how her body is used), think about what you'll end up with. Have you even thought about that?
A) How in the world will we ever feed all these people, or ensure them adequate health care?
B) How will you ensure all these people will receive responsible parenting?
C) Since you can't ensure A or B, then you will end up with multiple generations of lost souls, degenerates, criminals, people with chronic physical and mental ailments and the total disintegration of society as we know it.
Happy now?
Thanks, Annie, for the support. I, frankly, am still speechless. There are thousands of religious leaders that could have been invited to do this; I can't decide if it's a signal to the evangelical Christian community that he is seeking to involve everyone, or a signal to the progressives that we shouldn't take anything for granted. I have just read that Rev. Joseph Lowery will do the benediction. At least, he didn't bookend with another person who opposes sexual justice issues. I blogged about this earlier as well.
Rev. Debra W. Haffner
Ok, starting from the top, no I do not realize that the only alternative to legal abortion is "forced pregnancy and childbirth." No one is "forcing" a woman to get pregnant. There are numerous way of avoiding it. Yes, abstinence is one, but so are birth control, condom use, planning of sexual encounters during times of the month when one cannot get pregnant, the list goes on and on. Pregnancies are avoidable and sex is a responsibility. If one isn't ready to accept consequences of an action, they aren't ready for the action. Period. And that goes for men AND women. I would have no problem, for example, with making a law that says when a woman gets pregnant unplanned, the man becomes responsible for all her medical expenses related to her pregnancy. But once again, nobody is "forcing" anyone to get pregnant. And the pro-life movement including myself are not telling anyone that they "don't own their bodies" we're telling them that the don't own the unique human being inside their bodies once that being is formed. I fail to see how I am trivializing anyone's suffering.
As to the rape question, I personally don't take a position on that exception, I was merely pointing out that many people who consider themselves strongly pro-life are still in favor of rape exceptions, and the reason this could be justifiable is that the arguments against abortion are based on a series of facts, not just one, and one of those facts is that pregnancy is preventable. Rape is the one case where this is not necessarily the case. As to jail time, that's not up to me, but I would say any penalty for the women seeking abortions would need to be phased in over a long period of time to allow social norms to catch up. At first it should only be doctors performing them who are prosecuted.
You can cite one poll, I'll cite another--my point was it's a pretty even split for every one you cite that says the majority are pro-choice, I'll cite one that says the majority are pro-life. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/jul/01/20030701-115636-9509r/ There are several other too, but I didn't even cite these because some of them are mentioned on sites that you could argue have biased sources. (Even though your poll has a biased source as well.)
Believing abortion should be outlawed doesn't mean we don't have any sympathy for these women. I also have sympathy for a woman who gives birth, panics, and leaves the baby in a dumpster or a mall bathroom, but that doesn't mean that what she did wasn't wrong. We're not trying to force anyone to take care of that baby, we're only trying to mandate that it be allowed to live. If its biological mother can't take care of it, there are plenty of people who can and will. That's what adoption is for. Once again, no one is forcing anyone to get pregnant, just once she is the baby has a right to its life.
Finally, before abortion was legal, yes, it still existed, but far less than it does now, and more importantly it was not sanctioned by this society. The unsafe part is not the government's problem. Name me one other area in which the government is charged with protecting people from the natural consequences of their own actions. (I'll give you a hint, there are none. If this were the government's role, cigarettes, alcohol, and junk food would not be available, and extreme sports would be outlawed.)
Alex A-L, you seem to be suggesting that forcing women with unwanted pregnancies isn't forced pregnancy and forced birth. I'm with Sayna; how dare you suggest that women who are pregnant should be forced to stay pregnant, and then try to claim that's not coercion. At least be honest; you believe that women's bodies should be the property of the state. Are you aware that women can become pregnant if they miss one contraceptive pill at the wrong time of the month? Are you seriously suggesting that missing ONE PILL is a sign that a woman is dreadfully, horribly irresponsible and should be punished? No one is so perfect that they never, ever, ever forget to take a pill once every now and then. Some of us can't use IUDs without extreme, ongoing pain. No contraceptive method is foolproof. Presumably, if a woman experiences contraceptive failure, it's her fault for being 'irresponsible'.
You're also deluding yourself if you believe that illegalising abortion prevents or even reduces abortion. There is no evidence that countries in which abortion is illegal have lower abortion rates. Do you know why the number of reported abortions were lower prior to decriminalisation? Because women knew they could be punished for having them, so they didn't report having them illegally.
The policies you're advocating won't reduce abortion; they'll just kill more women. But apparently, you consider that perfectly acceptable; it's more important to make a political point that women's lives are worth less than foetal lives. Who cares if women die, right? We're just irresponsible sl*ts who brought it on ourselves. Are you really unable to comprehend why some of us find that objectionable?
Oh, and you guys lost regarding your propositions in the recent elections. The majority of people voted against said propositions because they don't agree with them. Stop making excuses. You failed, the majority of people disagree with you, and you lost. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.
You are becoming quite tedious. No, it is not "forced pregnancy" or "forced childbirth" because IT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IN ONE OF SEVERAL WAYS, a couple of which are not fool-proof, but a couple of others of which are. THIS is where women have every choice in the world--BEFORE there is a living human being inside them. And so, yes, it's the state's job to protect that living human being. This does NOT make a woman's body "property of the state"--THIS IS NOT ABOUT JUST HER BODY, IT'S ABOUT WHAT'S INSIDE THAT BODY!
Furthermore, you will not acknowledge that there is a difference between a "punishment" and a natural biological consequence. I'm not making a value judgement on a person's level of responsibility, nor am I calling ANYONE a "slut"--I'm saying that where a human life is involved, the government is not obliged to provide a way out of a natural, biological consequence of an action over which, yes, indeed the woman DID have a choice about.
And you, ma'am are deluding YOURSELF if you claim that not ONE person who would get an abortion as long as it's legal might think twice about it if it were illegal. If it prevents ANY abortions it's worth it, more importantly, it would take the blood off this society's hands from condoning the practice. And you can't compare our abortion rates to rates in countries where it's illegal--you're comparing apples to tuna--totally different cultural environments that have much larger impacts on these rates than its legality or illegality.
Again, this is not about who's lives are worth--women's lives or fetal lives. When this situation is truly the case, it is the woman's life--I'm not opposed to abortions performed to save the life of the mother, nor are most of the pro-life movement. But in cases where a woman dies from an illegal abortion, she could have avoided this by not having the abortion. The baby killed in an abortion did not have any means of avoidance. I challenge you again to name one other situation in which it is the government's job to protect a person from the consequences of their own actions. Because this is what you claim its role is when you advocate for legal abortion out of concern for women who would die from illegal ones. By the way, you might want to look up the name Dr. Bernard Nathanson--he's the Planned Parenthood source of a lot of those stats on deaths from illegal abortions. He later admitted that those numbers were complete and utter fabrications.
Finally, I'm not making "excuses" I'm reading the poll numbers. The South Dakota ban went down because of the ambiguity of its rape exception, and the Colorado one went down because its language could easily have allowed for the banning of birth control. Even I would have voted against that one. You're the one pretending here, because for every poll you can point to showing a pro-choice majority in this country, I can point to one showing the opposite. Check the link in my above post. It's from an unbiased source, unlike the link I was refuting.
Death of a woman from pregnancy is a natural consequence of pregnancy. Women can't kill their children in order to save themselves from natural death. The woman was in the position to prevent this pregnancy according to your own arguments and therefore, any perceived need to kill an innocent baby to save herself from natural death could have been prevented entirely by her but she chose not too.
If Patient A and Patient B are both dying, we don't kill Patient A to save Patient B. Add to it that Patient A is dying to no fault of their own but Patient B could have prevented their condition.
Here I'll defend the other side though. For one thing, the argument of preventing the situation doesn't apply here, because in many cases where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother, she was not diagnosed with whatever condition is causing the situation until after she was already pregnant. Additionally, the exception for the life of the mother is justified along the lines of self-defense. If B will kill A if A does not kill B, then the killing of B is justified. This legal standard is as old as time. (As long as it's adhered to literally and the standard is strictly held to one's very bodily life being at stake--you can't say "this person is driving me crazy, so I'll kill them" or even "this person is costing me money and plans, so I'll kill them" in any other life situation, and so shouldn't anyone be allow to do this here)
Agreed that the right to self defense applies.... but to the fetus to prevent the woman from killing it. According to your own definition of force, consent and natural consequences the woman is not being forced – therefore she has no right to claim self defense against the fetus as its not forcing her to die anymore than its forcing her to a minor health consequence. No pregnancy can be accurately predicted and diagnosed for a specific woman fully at the time of conception, this is true whether the woman can die, have major health consequences or minor health consequences...and lack of absolute prediction does not automatically turn something into a positive self defense claim and you don't make exceptions for the other cases of non-predicted health issues in pregnancy that are diagnosed later. However if she attempts to kill the fetus to save herself from dying naturally then yes she is killing and the fetuses right to self defense would necessitate protecting it from being attacked.
What about a case where the woman is diagnosed with cancer during her pregnancy, and the treatment, particularly any chemotherapy, would kill the unborn child? I know someone who this was the case with his wife. She actually chose to delay her treatment until after the baby was born, and it cost her her own life. When it actually is a question of life versus life, the woman's life must take precedent. This is one case where we probably can use the consciousness argument. If one or the other will definitely die, then the one to die should be the one that isn't fully cognisant of what's happening to them.
You can’t kill an unconscious patient to save another conscious patients life. If both are going to die then its not better to kill one to save the other. A woman can not give a deadly medicine to her child without the child having the medical need for it - in the absence of medical need its called homicide – and chemotherapy in this case is an induced killer. Cancer is natural. And once again you’ve offered nothing that overturns the fetus right to self defense to prevent itself from being killed.
Except the woman's right to self defense to prevent herself from being killed. This isn't a case of both are going to die, it's a case of one or the other will die. By any legal code, a person has the right to take any action necessary to preserve their own life. Ok, so if the unborn child could physically defend itself, fine, you've got a case. It can defend itself, and so can the woman. I suppose you could say in this case the stronger one prevails, but I don't quite see the point of the natural vs. unnatural part of this debate. This is not made an issue of in courts. (I love it, I'm lighting both ends of the candle here, and at least you're making me look like the moderate I truly am on this issue--fighting people like you on one end, and radical, blind feminism (the key point here being BLIND, not feminism, for all you others on here, before you tell me I'm using the F word as a perjorative) on the other. LOL!
The woman can't kill another to save herself from natural death. I've never heard of a court giving any leniency to a conscious patient attacking an unconscious one, the latter of whom is wholly innocent and can never be said by any stretch of the imagination to have done anything to provoke the attack or have caused any sort of 'killing'. Yet the woman is simply dying a natural death. Instead as soon as the woman starts to attack or hires someone to attack she is guilty of killing.
I don't know why you fail to understand the natural bit as you brought up natural biological consequences in your own arguments...and death is no less a consequence of pregnancy as other complications.
You're not a moderate on the overall issue of abortion.
You are hardly in a position to judge the feminists on this thread as blind...at least they are consistent in applying their arguments.
If they refuse to acknowledge that what it is about for us is protecting innocent life, then yes, they are blind. Disagree with our characterization that what's inside the womb IS an innocent life, but no, they don't have any ground to stand on there, so all they can do is tell us what we're thinking and that what we "really want is to control women." They back off on that talk, an I'll stop referring to them as blind.
They don't need to back off on the talk as long as they are consistent while you are not. You don't stand for innocent human life - you've demonstrated it already.
Then as long as they continue to insist on it "really being about" anything other than protecting innocent life, at least for this particular pro-lifer, they remain extremely worthy of the label "blind."
Until you consistently stand up for innocent human life its not about innocent human life. You have contradicted so many of your own arguments.
How have I contradicted any of my own arguments? By not standing up for anyone's convenience or financial stability over someone else's life? I've already said I'm not opposed to abortion in cases where the woman's life is in danger. My not happening to believe that killing a human being is a within the realm of acceptable choice does not prevent me from consistently standing up for innocent human life, it promotes it.
You speak here of pregnancy as an inconvenience. I wonder what mothers would say to you trvializing their experience like that. Some possible "inconveniences" that pregnant women endure are:
Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:
exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
heartburn and indigestion
constipation
weight gain
dizziness and light-headedness
bloating, swelling, fluid retention
hemmorhoids
abdominal cramps
yeast infections
congested, bloody nose
acne and mild skin disorders
skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
mild to severe backache and strain
increased headaches
difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
increased urination and incontinence
bleeding gums
pica
breast pain and discharge
swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
inability to take regular medications
shortness of breath
higher blood pressure
hair loss
tendency to anemia
curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
extreme pain on delivery
hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)
Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:
stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Occasional complications and side effects:
spousal/partner abuse
hyperemesis gravidarum
temporary and permanent injury to back
severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
gestational diabetes
placenta previa
anemia (which can be life-threatening)
thrombocytopenic purpura
severe cramping
embolism (blood clots)
medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
hormonal imbalance
ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
hemorrhage and
numerous other complications of delivery
refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
severe post-partum depression and psychosis
research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease
Less common (but serious) complications:
peripartum cardiomyopathy
cardiopulmonary arrest
magnesium toxicity
severe hypoxemia/acidosis
massive embolism
increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
malignant arrhythmia
circulatory collapse
placental abruption
obstetric fistula
More permanent side effects:
future infertility
permanent disability
death.
[Source]
Keep in mind that this list includes only physical side effects. The possible emotional side effects are a different story altogether, and one could argue that they hold less weight because they're not quite tangible or observable. Granted, some of these things would just be considered inconveniences by most people. But many of them are serious, life threatening or otherwise deeply traumatic and painful.
I understand that you make some exceptions for the life and health of the woman, but what would you do in the case of a pregnancy where life was not at risk, but the woman's body would be permanently altered and disfigured? Keep in mind: You HAVE said that the only time killing is justified is when life is threatened. This doesn't include liberty, bodily integrity, health, happiness, safety or comfort.
If you absolutely refuse to allow women to terminate their pregnancies, you are forcing them to remain pregnant, and thus risk their lives, health, and well-being. I suppose this list won't change your mind, but I think that you should still be aware of what will happen if you get your way. I understand that some women are at higher risk than others and that not all women face complications, but the fact of the matter is that the risk is always there. And you advocate subjecting women to these risks against their will just because they had sex you don't approve of.
Consent to sex does not mean consent to pregnancy any more than consent to kissing means consent to sex. As I have said before (and you have neglected to respond to) pregnancy is not a voluntary action. A woman may consent knowing that she is exposing herself to the risk of pregnancy, but this is not the same as consenting to impregnation, carrying a pregnancy, or giving birth.
Guaranteed side effect of abortion on unborn child:
DEATH
Once again, life trumps all other rights. Not about whose rights are more important, about WHICH rights, yet again. Again, I do indeed make exceptions for the life threatening complications and side effects you list here, and no the legal right to self defense does not encompass any of these other areas--only the threatening of one's very life.
And the comment about "had sex you don't approve of" is ridiculous. I'm not making a value judgement about sex. I just said it comes with natural consequences that include the presence of a human life inside one's body, and we're not obliged to provide a way out of those natural consequences once the exercising of this right begins to infringe on the very right to life of another. It's not making a moral statement to say that if a person has sex, they should be prepared to accept biological consequences, it's a scientific one. And you fail to acknowledge my repeated statement that I would say these same things if men could get pregnant. I would not be asking for the right to take a human life, no matter how valid some may claim the reasons for it to be.
It's not making a moral statement to say that if a person has sex, they should be prepared to accept biological consequences, it's a scientific one.
Again, you seem to be either making intentionally dishonest statements or distorting and misrepresenting science. What makes this statement unscientific is that it is an opinion, not a fact. The word "should" automatically makes this a personal judgement, and I don't see how you can claim that it's not a moral one.
What's more, you haven't been able to justify this "should" to us. In order for a claim to be taken seriously in debate, one must back it up with empirical evidence or at least a logical argument.
You keep insisting that life trumps liberty. Tell us why you think so. One reason why I think that ending a life is justified in this case is that the fetus will not suffer, but the woman will. If the fetus dies before it develops the ability to feel pain it will go from feeling nothing to feeling nothing. If the woman is forced to sacrifice all rights to her body for the sake of this fetus, she will undeniably be forced to risk her life and health, she will be forced to endure an involuntary invasion of her body for nine months, and she will be treated like a second-class citizen.
No human being has the right to use another person's body without their consent. In any other case killing to defend one's bodily domain is considered self defense. I can kill a rapist who wants to use my body against my will for nine minutes, why not a fetus that would use my body against my will for nine months? Especially when the rapist is a sentient human being and I might have been able to stop him without lethal force? And don't forget that anything short of death is just an "inconvenience", so by your logic I can't kill him.
Before you start: Yes, a fetus does need a female to continue living and being born. But there is no legal precedence stating that someone is obligated to relinquish their liberty to save the life of another, even when that person is family and will die without my help. Citizens cannot legally be forced to donate organs (even after their death) or blood. The case of McFall vs. Shimp ruled that a man could not legally compel his cousin to give him a life-saving organ donation.
And while we're at it: What makes fetal life special and not any other life? A fetus is alive and biologically human. So is a tumor. A fetus is exactly as alive as a tree and a cow, so why aren't lumberjacks and farmers considered to be engaging in genocide? It's also "innocent" in the same way as a tree and a cow: it is incapable of conscious action. Why is it that the police and soldiers can kill and not be called murderers? Oh, and if you support rape exceptions: What makes "murder" acceptable in some cases but not others? What are the scientific differences between a fetus conceived through sex and one conceived through rape?
You dodged this one before, but I think that women deserve an answer: Exactly what should the punishment be for a woman who (a)induces an abortion herself or (b)hires a doctor or someone else to induce the abortion? It makes no sense to say that something should be illegal and yet have no definite legal consequence. It also doesn't make sense to say that something is/is as bad as murder and not give it an equally severe punishment.
Because not every judgement is a "moral" one. Morality refers to what a person should do for the sake of decency, and is often interchanged with religious values. This is a scientific judgement, and I am not making a statement that I "don't approve" of sex, just that it has physical consequences that if avoiding them involves taking a human life, we're not obliged to make it possible to avoid them. That's not saying sex is bad.
Life trumps liberty because it is the most basic right. Needs are hierarchical, and if you don't have life, you can't use any of your other rights. That's why in our declaration of independence the most basic human rights were listed in this order: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your ability to feel pain argument is another red herring. There's a disorder that prevents people from feeling pain--do we have a right to kill people who suffer from this disorder because they "won't suffer?" And how many times do I have to explain that I support abortions when necessary to save the woman's life, so no, my position would not force any woman to risk her life.
You killing the rapist analogy fails under the microscope too, because in general courts would not recognize the right to kill a rapist if he were not threatening your very life in addition. If it were a date rape case, he tries to force himself on you and you have the option of escaping from him and he were not using a weapon to prevent any other form of escape, I don't think the courts would legally recognize the right to kill. In order to prove self-defense, legally one must show that escape was not possible, and this would not have been the case if the rapist were not threatening to kill you if you did not consent.
The organ donation point doesn't work either, because in that case the person refusing to donate their organs is not doing anything active to cause the death of the other. It is a disease killing that person. But an abortion is an active action that physically ends the life of another human being.
I don't think you'll find anyone else anywhere who will classify a tumor as being human. But even beyond this, the reasons tumors are removed is that they will cause death if they are not, unlike the unborn child (and if it will due to another condition, then it is permissible to remove it.) Trees and cows are not human, the unborn child is. Police and soldiers can kill because they are trying to prevent other deaths.
There are no scientific differences between rape pregnancies and others, but what there is is the distinction that the other pregnancies were preventable, the rape ones were not.
As to the punishment, again I would advocate for it being phased in over a long period of time in order to allow society to adapt, but I'd put the punishment as being similar to that of a woman who panics when a baby is born and leaves it in a dumpster. I've heard of cases like this where the woman gets a rather light sentence because it's hard not to have some sympathy for her in this case. But sympathy does not absolve someone of responsibility, though circumstances can be considered as mitigating factors.
There are plenty of rights documents with commas separating different rights or creeds in them but that doesn't mean that a list is a hierarchy of rights or creeds.
The Declaration of Independence was written as a result of the Revolutionary War. The history of the Revolutionary war is fairly consistent in that the colonist’s liberty was at stake, not their lives. They voluntarily decided to put their lives at risk to obtain their liberty, many of them dying for it. They used such phrases as “Give me liberty or give me death” and “Live Free or Die”. They wrote the Declaration of Independence as a direct result of fighting a war which was caused by the belief that life without liberty was not worth living. I don't see how you can even extrapolate the opposite with any level of assurance.
It's a recognition that if you don't have the first, you can't have the second, and if you don't have the second, you can't have the third. Maybe their lists was not meant as a hierarchy, but the fact that you can't have liberty without life makes life the most basic of the human rights, which is why it must be put ahead of anyone else's right to anything other than their very life.
You can't reference the document as the reason behind your hierarchy as they recognized that life isn't worth it without liberty.
As far as the hierarchy, the right to life has never been held in any hierarchy to be more important than another another persons bodily domain. Its not just fetuses...all would need to be equally protected.
You do understand, do you not, that the revolutionaries did not take any other people's lives just to protect their liberty? They didn't attack the British to gain their independence. They DECLARED their independence. Remember, it was a declaration of INDEPENDENCE, not at declaration of WAR. It took on the same effect of a declaration of war only when the British responding by attacking. The British could have accepted the declaration. But only when they decided that depriving the revolutionaries of their liberties was more important than the Brits' own lives did the revolutionaries begin fighting.
You don't get that it's the reverse. A person's bodily domain does not allow them to ACTIVELY take another's life.
The call "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" is attributed to 1775, preceding The Declaration of Independence of 1776.
Please name a legal standard that says my bodily domain does not include the right to stop someone from using my body for their life. There is none.
Key point there being that the line was indeed "Give me liberty or give ME death"--not "give me liberty or give SOMEONE ELSE death." I'm all for self-determination regarding your own life, just not power over the life of another. I'm not giving you any legal standard of yours until you show me one that says anyone's right to determination of their body allows them to directly take the life of another individual.
It doesn't say "Give me of liberty, unless another persons life depends on my body, then I value life more". You're the one that made the claim there was a hierarchy here that they valued life first. They valued their liberty and considered it important enough to give up their lives for.
I need no law to specifically granting me the right to an action when the action does not deprive anyone of a legal rights or violate other laws. You have no law upholding the right to life over anothers body and you have no law stating that anyone is forbidden from stopping another from using their body to maintain their life. So yes I well within legals standards of not violating any law nor anyones rights by terminating a pregnancy.
It would have said that if the person who's life depends on your body was there because of a physical action that you CHOSE to take. And yet again, they valued their liberty enough to give up their OWN lives for it, not insist that OTHERS give up THEIR lives for it. And now I can only repeat again that you DO need this law granting you any right that infringes on another's right to life. Any time one takes another's life, they need the justification of self defense, especially since there were ways of avoiding your body being "used to maintain their life. You are violating the child's right to life by terminating a pregnancy.
There is nothing that you are saying that is salvaging your take on the hierarchy thing you brought up.
No I do not need a law to take an action that DOES NOT infringe on anothers rights. I am not violating the right to life of anyone as long as the right to life does not extend over my body. I can't possibly violate a right that doesn't exist.
You've already been told a ton on the prevention thing and your lack of knowledge even about rhythm method. I can prevent a car wreck by not driving but it doesn't change a thing.
Yes, there is--the fact without life it is impossible to exercise any other rights. Whether it's worth it or not is another matter, but you still must have your life in order to be able to reap the benefits of any other rights. The right doesn't currently exists because this society hasn't progressed to that point yet. The slave owners made that same argument--they weren't violating any rights because the slaves didn't have any rights. But eventually our society woke up, and I am confident that we will on this point too. And that car analogy is ridiculous, because it would not be permissible to take another innocent life even if it reduced or eliminated the likelihood or getting into a car wreck.
No, if I need another persons body to maintain my life and I don't get that persons body I have no life and no liberty beyond that point. I get that part but thats the way it is for all of us. The right to life doesn't overcome anothers body so that the fetus can selectively have life and liberty at the expense of another persons liberty while the womans life and liberty terminate when she needs anothers body.
If you're going to pull the slavery thing into this type of context then denying the woman the right to life over another persons body when she needs it is the same as denying a slaves rights. (Hint: When no one has the right to use another persons body to maintain their life, then its not just one segment of the population being denied its rights....the right doesn't exist AT ALL - thats my argument).
The car wreck analogy is not ridiculous - its about CONSENT . You keep claiming that consent to sex includes the consent to some of its outcomes. Consent itself doesn't go this far.
I don't understand your first statement at all. But you keep making the statement that the right to life doesn't overcome another's body, but neglect the fact that the woman doesn't lose her body when she's pregnant. The very reason one's own body is so sacred is that it is the source of their very life. But if the unborn child is not depriving her of her very life, the sacredness of her body does not extend to the point where she can ACTIVELY end another life. If it were possibly to simply remove the supply of nutrition to the unborn child, then it would die of its condition of being dependent on another's body to survive, and that might be one thing, but the act of abortion is the active taking of that life, which is what makes it unaccepable. And I didn't say consent goes as far as consenting to ALL possible outcomes, for example I certainly don't oppose condom use--or birth control for example--but I use the condom issue to illustrate for example that I don't say that having sex consents to possibly getting an STD, but the point is that in avoiding an STD, you're not taking a life. The reason consenting to sex consents to the possible creation of a human life is THIS VERY FACT that it IS a human life that's being created. So again, the car analogy does NOT work because it doesn't involve a matter of life being created, but I remind you again, for example, that the right to prevention of car accident injuries would not extend to the point of plowing over pedestrians by driving on the sidewalks instead of exposing oneself to the hazards of the road.
I understand that the woman doesn't 'loose' her body completely. No ones claimed that. Its being used for anothers benefit. Again, the right to life doesn't include the right to use anothers body. PERIOD.
By the way there are possibilities like the one you propose (removing the placenta from the maternal portion vs. fetal portion). But it doesn't make a difference that the fetus has no right to use the womans body to maintain its life so no ones depriving it of a right. PERIOD.
Yes, the car analogy does work!!!! Its about the CONSENT part. We are not held as if we CONSENTED to the outcomes so consented to injuries. You can't string non-rights together to obtain a right. As long as the right to life doesn't include the right to anothers body they woman is not violating a right by terminating her pregnancy.
But in order to enforce the right to life not including the right to another's body requires taking that life, and the right one's bodily autonomy does not include the right to delibertately end a life, so at best these are conflicting facts, and that being the case, since life is the most basic right, the one of these rights that protects life takes precedent. Otherwise you're arguing that life is not the basic right, and that's a dangerous road to go down because of other implications that has. And how many times do i have to say that it's not about the sheer concept of consent, it's WHAT that consent is for. Yet again, by driving in a car you do consent to any injury thats only available method of avoidance is the deliberate taking of another life.
As long as the right to life doesn't include the right to my body they are not conflicting. I don't need a law permitting me to take an action that does not deprive someone of their rights. You're being completely rediculous.
No matter what you want to call life ("basic right") it doesn't mean it extends over anothers body. SO ALL ARE HELD TO THE SAME.
The car analogy stands for us not being held to the outcomes of the risks we take. IT STILL STANDS.
Stop being such a misogynist in trying to deny women their equal rights.
Yes, they are conflicting, because even if it's true that the right to life doesn't include the right to another's body, the right to one's body also does not include the right to actively take another life. SO they do indeed remain conflicting, and then we are into a value judgement, but it's perfectly fair to say in the case of conflicting facts, the one that must take precedence is the one that protects the more basic right, meaning the right that without which, one cannot exercise any other right.
Keep capitalizing, fine, but that doesn't make the car analogy the equivalent because outcomes that deal with life are in a completely different category as other outcomes.
And stop making this about "misogyny" or men vs. women!! This is not about "equality." I'm not asking for men to have the right to end another human life either, nor would I be asking for it if men could get pregnant. It has nothing to do with that, it has to do with protecting life.
No, the latter (right to not be stopped from using anothers body to maintain your life) is derived from the first (right to life extends over anothers body). You need the right to life overcoming anothers body in order to protect it as such.
I only started capitalizing when you started capitalizing at me in another post on this thread.
You can't claim anything about 'if men could get pregnant' with any level of credibility.
You fail again.
One doesn't derive from the other, they're completely seperate, possibly conflicting concepts. You haven't shown that the right to bodily autonomy extends to the point of directly taking another's life, and I haven't shown that the right to life doesn't extend over another's body. They are in direct conflict. You say bodily autonomy takes precedence because, I don't know, just because it does--you say so. I say life takes precedence because without life no other right can be exercised. You can claim without bodily autonomy no other right is worth exercising, but at least it can be, unlike with life.
Yes one does derive from the other. Thats what makes it wrong to kill someone that they have the right to life. But when your rights don't extend in a certain area, you have no right to be protected in that area if they intrude on anothers rights. The person with the counter right has the right to defend their rights. Thats exactly why the right to life would need to be extended.
No I didn't just say that bodily autonomy takes precedent. Sayna gave you a case, so I have no idea why you are claiming I'm just saying it.
The right to anyones liberties cannot be exercised if they don't have the right to life. But they too are excluded from using anothers body to maintain their life. Its this way for all people. No ones right to life includes the right to anothers body, even if they need it so they can continue their life and liberties both. We've covered this part already. Its the same for all.
I can't do something with my car that deprives a bystander/pedestrian of their right to life. Its illegal for me to consent to taking away this other persons life. But when no right exists to begin with yet mine are being violated I have the right to act to protect mine.
So you are stuck having to prove that the right to live extends over anothers body in order to prove that I've done something wrong by terminating a pregnancy.
No, because you have still yet to prove that your right to your body extends to the point of taking another life. Yet again, conflicting statements even if they're both true, so again, the one protecting life takes precedent.
No I don't have to have a law state that I can take an action if that action doesn't infringe on any rights. There are lots of things I do every day that no law specifically tells me I can do.
None of which involve taking another's life.
You have to show that the right to life includes the right to to anothers body in order to show that its wrong.
As long as the right to life isn't protected over anothers body the fetus lacks the right to be protected. The right belongs to the woman to stop it.
Not if she has to actively take its life to stop it.
ANd that is the problem, that we as a society have not yet progressed to the point where we recognize the right to life that you are claiming does not exist.
I don't consent to endure the outcome of any car wreck. I can override the consequences with medical treatments.
Precisely because the method you use to override the consequences does not by its very nature take another person's life. If it did, you would indeed consent to the outcome of a car wreck.
Again you string non-legal standards together. This is analogy is about consent and rights. I do not consent to the use of my body for another, no matter what risk I take. And you haven't proven the right to life includes the right to anothers body..therefore no right taken at all.
And in the case of a car wreck, no one would be granted the use of my body anyway so there is no 'precisely' that limits me from stopping someone from using their body to maintain their life anyway.
I'm not neglecting it. The right to life is not so sacred that its protected over another persons body for anyone.
And I don't ignore that when we take a risk of a wreck such as driving a car we are not bound to endure all outcomes such as injuries when they occur ...and that yes, it really pivots on the protection of rights.
And the right to one's body is not so sacred that it allows one to actively kill another to protect it. And I'm not ignoring anything--I've said that no, you're not bound to endure ALL consequences of something, only consequences that either involve the creation of a human life, or require the taking of one to prevent.
Yes it does allow me abortion as long as the right to life does not include the right to anothers body.
You've provided no evidence and are stringing non-legal standards together. You don't have consent, you don't have outcomes, you don't have the right to life includes the right to anothers body. You fail again.
You are also stringing non-legal standard together. It doesn't allow you abortion as long as the right to your body doesn't include the right to take a life. You don't have that anywhere other than abortion currently being allowed, and again, you can't justify something by saying it's currently legal. The consent was the very fact that the action one consents to sometimes creates a human life.
No, on the contrary I'm relying on legal standards. As long as the right to life doesn't include the right to anothers body I'm fully within the law to exercise my rights to my body given there is no legal claim to the contrary.
We've already covered consent...myself, Sanyna, RealistMom etc. and you've failed to show that we're held to endure the outcomes. Until you show that the right to life overcomes anothers body you haven't built a case that we should endure this one.
The legal claim to the contrary is that you're not allowed to directly take another life unless it is in self-defense, so unless you can show another example of where it's permissible to do so to protect bodily autonomy, you, too, are stringing non-rights together.
It doesn't allow you abortion as long as the right to your body doesn't include the right to take a life.
Take a deep breath and step away from your keyboard. Abortion is "allowed"... it is "allowed" precisely because it is not taking another persons life (although, as an aside - it is perfectly legal to take another persons life in self-defense.) When you argue that it is not legal to take a "life" you must realize that any "living" thing would be included and that it is simply not true that people are not allowed to take a "life." We take "life" whenever we eat meat, for crying out loud... we take "life" whenever we create paper... we take "life" whenever we kill the yicky spiders and ants crawling around our house. Please, can you at least be honest about what you're talking about?
The consent was the very fact that the action one consents to sometimes creates a human life
It is utterly insane to make the statement that anytime a woman engages in vaginal intercourse (even while using contraception... you know, the stuff that prevents pregnancy) that she is consenting to not only pregnancy but gestation, childbirth and parenthood. Your extremists views regarding human sexuality are almost comical... they would be if you weren't being so bloody sincere. Just way YIK! Keep you ideology out of my vagina, please.
And the right to one's body is not so sacred that it allows one to actively kill another to protect it
Kill "another" what? There is no "other". A woman can terminate her pregnancy when she has decided that it is the best, most moral and responsible decision for herself and her family. Making "sacred" decisions for pregnant women is not your job... they are perfectly capable of making these "sacred" decisions for themselves
So both sides were willing to die over a disagreement over who gets the liberties at stake. It doesn’t lead to the right to life including the right to another’s body at all.
Nor does it lead to one's right to bodily autonomy including the right to end another's life. Conflicting statements, thus the one that protects life takes precedence.
Its not conflicting. Name the law that forbids me from stopping someone from using my body to maintain their life. The legal right to life does not include the right to use anothers body. Life does not take precedence over another persons body. Sayna's already given you a specific case where it was not upheld.
Name a law that allows you to stop someone from using your body (temporarily) by taking their very life actively. There are none. And not the fact that abortion is legal. We're debating whether it should be or not, so you can't use that fact that something is currently legal as the reason for it to remain so. And again, Sayna's case, that McFall vs. Shimp doesn't apply here for two reasons. First, the refusal to donate the organs was not the proximiate cause of death, whatever disease the person suffered from was. Also, I'm quite certain that if the refusing party had actually been responsible for the other's need of the organs in the first place, then I'm pretty sure the court would have required the donation.
Conflicting statements, thus the one that protects life takes precedence.
You've been making arguments like this over and over, essentially saying that quantity of life outweighs quality of life. When you make an argument in debate, it is your job to support that argument. And, more personally, when you're telling me that I should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth against my will, you have got some serious explaining to do.
Why do you say that life must be preserved at all costs? As I've said twice before, a fetus that dies goes from experiencing nothing to experiencing nothing. A woman, on the other hand, is undoubtably capable of suffering and most certainly will if she is forced to sacrifice herself to someone else's personal morality. What gives the creation of life precidence over another human being's quality of life? Why must a human being be created at the cost of another human being's freedom?
I'm not saying anything about quantity over quality, I said that one does not have the right to END another's life to preserve their own quality of life. I've explained it many times. It's because what you're carrying is a human life, which society takes an interest in protecting above all else. Yes, that can be constituted as a value, but many laws are value based. It's YOUR personal morality that makes the unborn sacrifice itself. ANd no, there's nothing that says a human being MUST be created period. It was created through a voluntary action, so that invalidates the freedom point. She has the freedom to ensure that life is never created in the first place. And yet a million more times, if you want to go down the "experiences nothing" road, you're putting several other situations into this category if you do this.
you talk about women consenting to sex which means they are consenting to the consequences up to and including std/sti and pregnancy. but i have to wonder if you understand what that word means to a woman. we are pressured, almost hourly it seems, to give our bodies to men because they ask for them. we are told we'll do it if we love you. we're told if we don't do it we won't be socially acceptable or we'll cause you pain. we're told that our only value is in our ability to be a sexual object. we're told we have to because you spent all this money on our date, so we owe you.
now add to that the fact that most women who find themselves facing the question of abortion are underprivileged women, women living with poverty, women who (thanks to abstinence only sex ed) never learned about their options when it comes to protecting themselves, and/or women who live every day with social and religious pressures to be submissive to the wants and desires of men. tell me a woman under those circumstances has the option to consent. tell me the woman faced with the option of consent or force isn't going to acquiesce. because oh, yeah... less than 4% of rapes are stranger rapes. leaving the majority to be carried out by husbands, brothers, lovers, friends, bosses, co-workers or that guy you met at the bar.
Because not every judgement is a "moral" one. Morality refers to what a person should do for the sake of decency, and is often interchanged with religious values.
While I suppose it can be argued that not every judgement is a moral one, your judgement is still just that. Science deals with empirical, observable eveidence. It deals with how things are, not how things "should" be. One can have opinions based on scientific evidence, but that doesn't make opinions scientific.
I'm curious as to how you can argue that your judgement is not a moral one. You seem to be arguing that we should not take a human life because it is wrong. "Wrong", in a context like this is essentially the same as calling something "immoral" or "indecent." Do you believe that a decent human being would have/allow abortion? If not, you believe that abortion is indecent.
If you still think your judgement is scientific and not moral or just a general opinion, please explain how.
Life trumps liberty because it is the most basic right. Needs are hierarchical, and if you don't have life, you can't use any of your other rights
How is it the most basic right? Personally, I don't think life is worth living without a certain degree of liberty. Interestingly, I have heard it argued that bodily domain is The Right Without Which No Other Right Exists :
In terms of the political theory involved, the basic question is a stark and simple one: if you cannot control your own body, what other rights can you possibly have? If your body is not yours, what does it matter if you can freely express your political and religious convictions? The principle involved is similarly simple: as long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, your right to control your own body is absolute. Period. For the reason indicated above, the fetus is not a person in the same sense the mother is: the fetus would not exist but for the woman who carries it. The woman's right to her own body must, in fact and in logic, take precedence over whatever rights you believe the fetus possesses, up to the time of birth.
[...]
As long as we have our current form of government, there is one task that must unquestionably belong to the federal government: the protection of those rights without which no other rights are possible. The most fundamental right is the right to one's own body. If you don't have that right, it is ridiculous to speak of other, derivative rights. Highway speed limits are optional; the right to your own body is not.
More eloquently":
To split yourself in two
is just the most radical thing you can do!
So girl, if that s--t ain't up to you
then you simply are not free!
Cuz from the sunlight on my hair
to which eggs I grow to term
to the expression that I wear
All I really own is me.
Addressing another statement...
Your ability to feel pain argument is another red herring. There's a disorder that prevents people from feeling pain--do we have a right to kill people who suffer from this disorder because they "won't suffer?"
The Fallacy Files describes the red herring fallacy as "one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy". Don't exactly see how my point fits that.
People with this disorder are physically incapable of feeling pain, but they are not inside another person's body without their consent. Furthermore, they are sentient and capable of feeling distress and emotional pain. It's important that you understand all aspects of my argument.
And how many times do I have to explain that I support abortions when necessary to save the woman's life, so no, my position would not force any woman to risk her life.
While some pregnancies are higher risk than others, all pregnancies carry the risk of complications that can cause death or permanent disablity. By not allowing voluntary abortion you are forcing women to endure these risks.
Trees and cows are not human, the unborn child is.
What makes human life more valuable than plant or animale life? You dodged this question again.
There are no scientific differences between rape pregnancies and others, but what there is is the distinction that the other pregnancies were preventable, the rape ones were not.
But you're still killing an innocent, helpless fetus so that a woman doesn't have to deal with the consequences and inconveniences of pregnancy. Besides, maybe there was something she could have done to prevent that rape? The woman using birth control was doing so to avoid pregnancy, what makes her will any less valid?
As to the punishment, again I would advocate for it being phased in over a long period of time in order to allow society to adapt, but I'd put the punishment as being similar to that of a woman who panics when a baby is born and leaves it in a dumpster. I've heard of cases like this where the woman gets a rather light sentence because it's hard not to have some sympathy for her in this case. But sympathy does not absolve someone of responsibility, though circumstances can be considered as mitigating factors.
I thought this was about saving lives, not just changing law and societal norms at your whim! Why should we wait? Just because a murderer doesn't consider what they did murder doesn't make them any less of a murderer. Why not punish them immediately?
Abandoning a newborn is passive killing, not active killing...
...in that case [refusal to donate an organ] the person refusing to donate their organs is not doing anything active to cause the death of the other. It is a disease killing that person. But an abortion is an active action that physically ends the life of another human being.
Didn't you just say that the two are different?
I didn't say the opinion was scientific, I said it isn't moral. It falls more into the logical category. But the argument I was talking about as not a moral one was not it being wrong to abort, yes, that's is somewhat moral (so was opposition to slavery, by the way) but I was talking about the statement that if one is responsible enough to have sex, they're responsible enough to deal with the natural physical consequences of their actions in a manner that doesn't take another life. It was in response to someone saying "just because they had sex that you don't agree with." To which I said that I'm not making a moral judgement about sex. I'm not saying premarital sex is wrong--that would be moral. I'm saying all sex comes with implicit responsibilities--that's logical, not moral.
Your "right without which no other rights exist" point goes down with the line "as long as you are not violating anyone else's rights, your right to control your own body is absolute." Thing is, with an abortion, YOU ARE violating someone else's rights, a fundamental right to life. And life remains the most fundamental right, because without your right to life, you can't exercise your right of control over your body.
Your argument about not feeling pain was a red herring in that you were not arguing for abortion rights at the time on the grounds of the child being inside the other person's body without their consent or any of these other (also red herring) arguments. You were saying it's justified to take the unborn's life because they can't feel pain. (Even though there are varying claims about at what point a developing child gains this ability, though I don't think I've ever seen the claim made that it can't until it's born.) So if you're using that as a justification, then legally we should also be permitted to kill people who have this disorder that prevents them from feeling pain. So the use if this argument does indeed distract from the main argument because it's shot down so easily. If you want to use the lack of emotional pain and sentinence argument, then you put comatose patients into the realm of people it would be permissible to kill.
As to the general risks, a good analogy here is dangerous cities. The risk of a woman with a normal pregnancy (not suffering from a condition that makes the pregnancy itself a threat to her life) suffering out of the blue life-threating complications is about the same as risk of being attacked on the streets at night of a moderately dangerous U.S. city, say, Detroit or Newark. (Maybe even less than that.) But that does not give a street walker in any of these cities the right to go up to a random person and kill them on the off chance that they might be getting ready to attack you. Same with a normal pregnancy.
As to human vs. plant or animal, this is a totally different debate, and I don't think we want to go there. The answer is years of nearly universal acceptance among humankind. If you're telling me that non-humans should have the same rights as humans, we've entered a completely different realm that has absolutely nothing to do with the abortion issue.
I'm not claiming that women could have prevented their rapes. Contrary to what you may think, just because I'm pro-life doesn't make me a chauvenist, I'm not going to give you any bullshit about the way a girl is dressed or not giving strong enough signals or any of those idiotic statements that real chauvenists make. Pregnancies that result from rape cannot be classified as preventable, thus this is the one area where the argument of the unborn being inside her body without her consent could be valid, unlike consensual sex in which a woman knows the possible risks and is making a conscious choice.
It is about saving lives, (and it's not a "whim" to protect life) but it is out of consideration for women that I am advocating this phasing in. In this case they haven't considered what they do to be murder because society has accepted it for so long, so we cut a break at first and only prosecute the doctors who perform them for a while. Plus, the saving lives portion will also come from the practical measures to reduce unplanned pregnancy that I will advocate for just as strongly as you. The legal ban would be more for the purpose of removing the blood from our hands when we tolerate this as a society.
Yes, passive and active killing are different, but frankly the reason the passive killing of a newborn by abandonment is punishable is the sheer ease of avoiding this situation by bringing that newborn to a hospital. Not the same as the passive killing of refusing to donate organs where there's not such a simple alternative.
"because without your right to life, you can't exercise your right of control over your body."
Doesn't at all grab my sympathy card....because my right to life doesn't extend over someone elses body even if I were to need it. Not even if I were a newborn that needed the exact same resources in my mothers body that were provided prior to birth. This 'right' doesn't exist.
Again, all of these arguments would be true if pregnancy were unpreventable, but it is. If a person had a way of avoiding the need of another being to temporarily get resources from its body, they are not permitted to actively end that life. And yet again, the right doesn't exist because our society has not yet recognized this universal right to life, but eventually it will.
"If a person had a way of avoiding the need of another being to temporarily get resources from its body, they are not permitted to actively end that life."
This is not a legal standard by any means. The right to life doesn't extend as far as another persons body.
Keep dreaming.
and in the case of the newborn, one possible consequence of pregnancy is that the newborn is still not viable at birth.
Nope, the right to bodily control does not extend to the point of actively ending another life. You keep citing legal standards, but yet again, the very fact that the legal code is or is not a certain way doesn't in and of itself justify that policy. YOU keep dreaming.
Yep! Instead, the right to life doesn't include the right to use my body. Its not a protectable right to use someones body to maintain their life. Yes, the legal standards do justify that policy....as long as the right to life doesn't include the right to anothers body its the same for ALL of us. No one is being deprived of their rights.
That statement may be true, but it's equally true that one's right to not have their body used doesn't extend to the point of being allowed to actively kill that person. So it's two conflicting statements at best, and in a case like this the one that takes precedent is the one that protects the more basic of the rights, which is the right to life.
Name your legal principle. On the contrary, there is no law that says I can't stop someone from violating my body to maintain their life. I don't need a law to permit me to an action that doesn't take away someones rights. And THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LIFE OVER ANOTHERS BODY. The law is clear and Sayna gave you the case.
Nor is there a law that says you can take another's life to stop them from "violating" your body. So yes, you would need to cite a law that allows this. It's the active taking of another life, which is only permissable as self-defense. Sayna's case, like I said earlier, first doesn't work because the refusal to donate wasn't the proximite cause of death--a disease was--and also person the person being asked to donate wasn't responsible for the other's need of the organ in the first place. Try again.
Why aren't pregnancies as a result of rape preventable? We all know rape exists. Women could take birth control, avoid alleys, etc. knowing that if they don't they are taking the risk that a pregnancy will occur.
I don't know of any legal standard that says a woman can kill a third party innocent person because she was raped.
Because it's about proximite causes. In the case of a rape, the woman did not choose to take the actual physical action that directly resulted in the pregnancy.
Because it's about proximite causes. In the case of a rape, the woman did not choose to take the actual physical action that directly resulted in the pregnancy.
Ohhh.... I see, so it's not about the moral or physical status of the zygote/embryo/fetus, it's about the circumstances surrounding the intercourse. Sounds like you're more into regulating womens proper behaviour, not abortion.
No, it's a combination argument. The pro-life stance hinges first on the physical status of the unborn child, but in some cases also acknowledges that it is true that this can be undermined by the fact that she may not have consented to the unborn child using her body. But since consenting to sex acknowledges that a human life could be formed from this action, this then must be looked at as consent. The one situation where this does not apply is rape cases. This is why there is a legitimate argument to be made for rape exceptions. And I still don't understand how by making a statement that acknowledges the scientific reality that human life is created through the consent to sex, I'm making a statement about a woman's "proper" behavior. I don't care who has sex, when, under what circumstances. I'm just saying that there is no obligation to provide a way out of the natural consequences of one's chosen actions IF this natural consequence involves the creation of a human life AND the way out of this natural consequences involves ending that life. It's perfectly consistent with the widely held belief that life is the most basic human right, and is to be protected above all else.
That is a combination argument....You're adding non-legal standards to try and develop a legal standard. Non-rights don't add up to a right.
ANd you're doing precisely the same thing. The taking of another's very life by an active deliberate act is not permissible even to preserve bodily control--only to save one's very life. So you're trying to add up some non-rights of your own.
I'm not doing the same thing. I've named real legal principles for you. The legal principle is that the right to life doesn't extend over another persons body. Sayna even gave you a specific case. The other legal principle is that I don't need a specific law that tells me I can take an action to preserve my own rights when no one elses rights are being taken. As long as the right to life doesn't include the right to another persons body I am using legal rights to back up my decision.
It still doesn't work until you can name a principle that allows you to actively take another life. Sayna's case I've addressed three other times, but I don't know how many different "anonymous"s I'm dealing with here, so I'll say it again. The organ donation case: the refusal to donate was not the active cause of death--a disease was. And also, the person being asked to donate did not not cause the other's need for the donation in the first place. If they had, that case might of been decided very differently.
Sayna's case is about the right to life versus the right to ones bodily autonomy. The latter won. You don't need a law that allows you to exercise your rights when no other counter rights are protectable. Either the right to life overcomes anothers body or it doesn't. Until then, you can keep trying to string other non-legal standards together but it still doesn't come up with a protectable right to life over the anothers body.
No one needs a specific law that allows them to take an action to protect their rights when there is no counter rights at stake.
It still doesn't work until you can name a principle that allows you to actively take another life
Again, you bloody fool... people take "life" when they eat meat or wear leather or kill bugs... no "principal" required.
The organ donation case: the refusal to donate was not the active cause of death--a disease was
What would that possibly have to do with abortion? There are no organs to be donated. The person most qualified to be making decisions regarding her pregnancy is the pregnant woman, just as the person most qualified to be making decisions regarding donating an organ is the organ donor. Simply because you believe that a zygote is a person is not compelling enough to deny women their citizenship rights.
"The taking of another's very life by an active deliberate act is not permissible even to preserve bodily control--only to save one's very life."
"Not permissible"? You're just making crap up.
A couple of years ago an old guy in a neighboring town came home and found a 16 year old boy in his house. The boy was there to steal the old guy's crap, the old guy got his gun and killed the kid, shot him in the back as he (the boy) was trying to escape out a window. There were no charges filed because, legally, the man had the right to defend his property.
Likewise (and in the same city) a guy had his beater extra car stolen by a 15 year old neighbor. He followed and shot and killed the kid several blocks from his house as the kid was, once again, trying to run away. The car was worth about 600 bucks. No charges were filed against the shooter here.
So, what are you going to argue, that a man has the right to kill someone trying to steal his TV but that women don't have the right to bodily sovereignty? .
Those two cases are ridiculous. So no, I am not arguing that a man has a right to kill someone trying to kill his TV (unless that person was armed, in which case they are protecting their very life) but I would assume those cases were in the South, where vigilante justice is commonly considered to be acceptable. Whoever made the decision not to file charges apparently was woefully unfamiliar with the concept of self-defense, and what conditions must be met in order to do so. I don't endorse those decisions in any way, and my guess would be that if you weren't using them to justify allowing abortion, you wouldn't either.
"Those two cases are ridiculous."
Many gun laws are ridiculous. They are, nevertheless,the law.
but I would assume those cases were in the South, where vigilante justice is commonly considered to be acceptable.
Stereotype much?
No both occurred in a mid sized city on the west coast. There was quite a bit of public uproar because these cowards shot teenage boys in the back. The men were, nevertheless, within their rights and broke no laws. I mentioned these cases in order to point out that you aren't speaking of the law as it's written when you make an ass out of yourself telling us what is and is not "permissible" and that people regularly shoot and kill intruders in their homes.
I could care less what you do and do not endorse. I do not need to "justify" abortion and I particularly do not need to justify abortion to the likes of you. Why waste time trying to reason with a teenaged boy intent on trolling? I was pointing out that your poorly made and misogynistic argument was and is inaccurate as usual no matter how often you use your caps lock key.
No, it's a combination argument. The pro-life stance hinges first on the physical status of the unborn child, but in some cases also acknowledges that it is true that this can be undermined by the fact that she may not have consented to the unborn child using her body.
That is not "pro-life", my dear... when you make the statement that it is okay to kill the "unborn child" due to the circumstances surrounding the intercourse, you are admitting that your stance is not about the moral or physical status of the zygote/embryo/fetus. This is clearly about what you deem to be the proper behaviour of women. Riddle me this... if it's okay for a woman to terminate a pregnancy (the "unborn child" as you like to phrase it) that was the result of rape, why isn't it okay for a woman to kill her child if he/she was the result of rape? Could it be that the "life" of the zygote/embryo/fetus is not on par with the life of a child, perhaps? Your posts are not "pro-life" (clearly you do not value the lives of pregnant women) but about moralizing the sexual behaviour of women. You are anti-abortion. Period.
But since consenting to sex acknowledges that a human life could be formed from this action, this then must be looked at as consent.
Do us a favor and look up the differences between a fact and an opinion. It is merely your opinion that a woman consents to pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood upon consenting to sex... there is simply no factual basis for this statement.
The one situation where this does not apply is rape cases. This is why there is a legitimate argument to be made for rape exceptions
Right, you've already established that this is not about the new life being created, but about women being made to pay for consenting to (and probably enjoying) sex without being open to the possibility of pregnancy, childbirth and/or motherhood.
And I still don't understand how by making a statement that acknowledges the scientific reality that human life is created through the consent to sex,
That is a new one... "human life" is created by "consent to sex?" Wow. Just... wow. You may want to call those in the scientific field and let them know that a zygote is not formed when a sperm fertilizes an ova, but when a woman consents to sex (I'm sure they'd be rather surprised to hear this.)
It's perfectly consistent with the widely held belief that life is the most basic human right, and is to be protected above all else.
Some would say that a persons right to bodily autonomy is not only the most basic human right, but the most important right. The American people will not stand for the government having control over the bodies of it's citizens (including the pregnant ones... even if their pregnancies are unwanted.)
One more time I am making NO statement about the proper behavior of women. I have no moral objection to sex by any consenting person at any time. Just to the denying that the creation of a human life is one possible consequence. And ok, I misspoke, human life is formed by sex, not consenting to sex, but by consenting to sex one consents the possibility of human life being formed, even if they've taken precautions to prevent this. And all of this stuff about regulation just "women's" behavior overlooks the fact that I'd say the same things if it were men who got pregnant. And I most certainly value the LIVES of pregnant women, I just don't value anything other than their LIVES at a higher level than the lives of another human being. But I have no problem being called anti-abortion, I'm proud of that label as well. Just don't break out the "anti-choice" term just because I am advocating for insisting that this choice be made at an earlier point than you would like it to have to be. And it is merely your opinion that one does not consent to all the consequences WHICH RELATE TO THE CREATION OF HUMAN LIFE, but my opinion has logical basis behind it, while yours does not.
I said it's about the new life being created, but with the caveat that this can be overridden by the concept of life not extending to the point of using another's body IF AND ONLY IF there was no consent given, which can apply only in rape cases.
And something cannot be "the most basic human right" if there's another right without which the first right cannot be used. You cannot use your right to bodily autonomy without your right to life, this is what makes life the most basic human right.
Just to the denying that the creation of a human life is one possible consequence
Not one person (including myself) has denied that pregnancy can be a possibility when one engages in vaginal intercourse. What we take issue with is your supposition that simply because the biological possibility of pregnancy exists, that one is consenting to pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood when they consent to sex... even when they use contraception. You may want to re-read the comments.
And all of this stuff about regulation just "women's" behavior overlooks the fact that I'd say the same things if it were men who got pregnant.
I disagree... men cannot get pregnant and you're not asking that men be held accountable for any harm they may cause to a zygote, embryo or fetus. As men are not the citizens that you wish to deny rights to, you will continue to be regulating only womens behavior.
And I most certainly value the LIVES of pregnant women, I just don't value anything other than their LIVES at a higher level than the lives of another human being.
Women are the only human beings who would be directly affected by the criminalization of abortion. Please do prove how you are not placing more value on the zygote, embryo or fetus when you wish to bestow rights which people do not even have and which will directly result in the diminution of womens rights... I'll be waiting.
Just don't break out the "anti-choice" term
f.y.i within the context of this debate, you are anti-choice because you are anti-abortion. You do not wish for a woman to be able to decide if/when and under what circumstances she wishes to gestate a pregnancy, give birth and parent (or voluntarily relinquish) a child. And you're certainly not pro-choice about sex since you opine that consenting to sex = pregnancy. Keep dancing, we'll just continue to call you on it... you can't run away from the words you've written.
And it is merely your opinion that one does not consent to all the consequences WHICH RELATE TO THE CREATION OF HUMAN LIFE but my opinion has logical basis behind it, while yours does not.
Oh, I must have missed the part where you cited scientific and/or legal sources for your opinions (that consenting to sex is not only consenting to pregnancy but also to gestation, childbirth and parenthood.) Perhaps you could be a dear and re-post those for me?
I said it's about the new life being created, but with the caveat that this can be overridden by the concept of life not extending to the point of using another's body IF AND ONLY IF there was no consent given, which can apply only in rape cases
And (thankfully) your personal beliefs are not only nonsensical but utterly unenforceable. Again... having a personal belief system is all well and good but is an unacceptable reason for criminalizing abortion, not to mention discounting the personal belief systems of every pregnant woman. Face it, you are just not that important.
You cannot use your right to bodily autonomy without your right to life, this is what makes life the most basic human right.
And you cannot dictate what "life" means to any other person. You do not get to decide that "life" is more important than personal liberties or happiness for any other person. I would gladly give my life in order to ensure the personal liberties of my daughters (including their right to bodily autonomy.)
And what you're not acknowledging is the pregnancy IS the creation of a human life. That's the problem here.
If you want to claim that men are not the citizens that I wish to deny rights to, the only right I am denying women to is the right to sex with no possible consequences. So the only part of "women's behavior" I am attempting to regulate is the one that ends a human life, not their sexual behavior. And men don't have that right to sex with no consequences either, not to mention the fact that if abortion were illegal and thus (certain) women more reluctant to engage in sexual encounters, men are losing some of this "pleasure" as well. I've said before that I have no problem with legally holding men 100% financially accountable for a woman's unwanted pregnancy. (And before you accuse me of this like someone else has earlier, no, I do not think men's responsibility should be limited to finances, it should include ALL areas, I'm saying that financially is the only way that can be legally regulated.) So the point being yet again that this has nothing to do with equality, and it also doesn't change the fact that if men could get pregnant, I still wouldn't be asking for the right to end a human life.
Yes, I am placing more value on the unborn child's LIFE than on the woman's right to anything OTHER THAN LIFE. But it's not a one-to-one comparison. It's not a matter of woman vs. unborn, it's a matter of right vs. right, and life is at the top of that list.
The only "choice" I am "anti" is the choice that ends another life. So fine, call me "anti-choice-of-abortion" if you wish, but my opposition to the choice of abortion no more makes me against "choice" in general than your support of abortion rights makes you against "life" in general.
The legal source is the fact that there IS NO legal standard by which one is allowed to take another's life to protect anything other than their right to their own life.
Yeah, just like a person's "personal belief system" that African-Americans were actually human beings was "no reason to ban slavery." That was pretty tough to enforce too. Read about the history post-emancipation proclamation. Plenty of slave-owners didn't free their slaves just from that.
I'm not trying to "dictate what life means to another person"--only recognizing that you most certainly DO get to decide that life overrides another person's personal liberties or happiness. You don't get to kill another person if it'll make you happy to do so. And you have every right to choose to give YOUR OWN life to ensure the personal liberties of your daughters, but you do not have the right to give SOMEONE ELSE'S life to do so.
M,
Here he goes again...same stuff all refuted.
Because I've refuted everything you've said to "refute" me.
for what standard says its illegal to stop someone from using your body to maintain their life. There isn't a law that covers this. (Pssst: Its not defined in any of our laws because the right to life doesn't overcome anothers body).
It's also not defined in any of our laws because the right to one's body does not allow them to ACTIVELY TAKE a life. The point isn't that you're stopping them, it's that you're stopping them by taking their life.
Putting the word ACTIVE in caps doesn't change the equation. I could add ACTIVE in caps or PASSIVE in caps. There is no law that makes it illegal to stop someone from using your body to maintain their life. None. There is no law that stops this, we're still waiting for you to deliver one.
But Hint - you won't find it to show it to us because the right to life doesn't include the right to anothers body. And the person who does hold the rights can defend their rights by both active and passive measures.
And until you can deliver an example onto this blog that shows that the right to life overcomes anothers body...you don't even begin have a case. You can keep spinning but you won't have made your case.
You don't begin to have a case until you can show that the right to bodily autonomy includes the right to take a life.
Not if those means involve taking another life.
"It's also not defined in any of our laws because the right to one's body does not allow them to ACTIVELY TAKE a life."
No matter how often you use your caps lock it's obvious to everyone that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
And what you're not acknowledging is the pregnancy IS the creation of a human life.
A pregnancy begins by the fertilization of an ova by the sperm... the creation of a zygote. Nobody has denied this fact.
the only right I am denying women to is the right to sex with no possible consequences
Women are able to engage in whatever sexual activity they want to engage in... the fact that you wish to regulate this activity is abhorrent. There are no circumstances in which consenting women are not able to engage in sexual activity... even though pregnancy is a biological possibility. Luckily, there are measure which can be taken to avoid pregnancy (such as contraception or not engaging in vaginal intercourse during fertile times) but these activities are up to the consenting adults involved. Under no circumstances should you or I be able to regulate if and/or when a woman can engage in these activities. You may have issues with sex in general or perhaps just vaginal intercourse wherein pregnancy is not the desired outcome... either way, your opinions about these sexual activities are irrelevant to any person other than you and your partner. Or maybe you're simply a control freak. Who knows?
So the only part of "women's behavior" I am attempting to regulate is the one that ends a human life, not their sexual behavior
Oh, I see... you're only interested in regulating women's sexual activity when pregnancy is a possibility. Okay dear... that is "sexual behaviour." Got it now?
And men don't have that right to sex with no consequences either, not to mention the fact that if abortion were illegal and thus (certain) women more reluctant to engage in sexual encounters,
Oh, please do feel free to cite your source for you assertion... otherwise this is merely your opinion... and you know how much your opinion means to me? Or any other woman? I'm betting you can guess.
I've said before that I have no problem with legally holding men 100% financially accountable for a woman's unwanted pregnancy
How very gracious of you... are you also willing to hold men accountable for the physical, psychological and spiritual consequences of pregnancy? If so... how?
Yes, I am placing more value on the unborn child's LIFE than on the woman's right to anything OTHER THAN LIFE
Not only are you placing more value on the biological life of the zygote, you are completely discounting the life (physical, mental and spiritual) and personal belief system of the pregnant woman and that of her family - and that is inexcusable. There are no circumstances in which the pregnant woman's life, personal belief system and family should be considered insignificant... ever.
your support of abortion rights makes you against "life" in general.
I am pro-women (including pregnant women... even if their pregnancy is unwanted.) You simply cannot say the same.
The legal source is the fact that there IS NO legal standard by which one is allowed to take another's life to protect anything other than their right to their own life.
Not only are people allowed to take life, one could say that people are "encouraged" to take life (particularly when dealing with food and/or insect life.) And every person (including pregnant women... even when their pregnancies are unwanted) are allowed to make the best and most moral decisions regarding their lives and the lives of their family.
Yeah, just like a person's "personal belief system" that African-Americans were actually human beings was "no reason to ban slavery."
Please do a little research... African Americans were human beings, they weren't considered "citizens." Big difference, honey. Are you actually arguing for zygotes to be considered citizens? Good luck with all that.
I'm not trying to "dictate what life means to another person"--only recognizing that you most certainly DO get to decide that life overrides another person's personal liberties or happiness
When you make the statement that biological life is more important than a persons life, you are indeed "dictat[ing] what life means to another person" You do not get to decide the value pregnant women, just as you do not get to decide the value of her pregnancy.
You don't get to kill another person if it'll make you happy to do so
Please do remind me where I've argued that I should be able to kill another person to "make [me] happy". You keep on reachin' buddy.
And you have every right to choose to give YOUR OWN life to ensure the personal liberties of your daughters, but you do not have the right to give SOMEONE ELSE'S life to do so.
Please do cite where I've stated that I have the "right to give someone else's life" to ensure my daughters personal liberties. That's what I thought.
What proximate causes allow you to kill a third party innocent person?
Life trumps liberty because it is the most basic right. Needs are hierarchical, and if you don't have life, you can't use any of your other rights.
There is no hierarchy to these rights... life is on par with liberty which is on par with the pursuit of happiness - one right doesn't suddenly trump another right because you believe it should. One could just as easily argue that without liberty and/or the ability to pursue happiness, life would not be worth living.
You killing the rapist analogy fails under the microscope too, because in general courts would not recognize the right to kill a rapist if he were not threatening your very life in addition.
You may want to do a little more research... a person need not wait for the trigger to be pulled nor the knife to enter their body in order to use lethal force. Raping a woman is threatening her very life.
I don't think you'll find anyone else anywhere who will classify a tumor as being human
If the tumor is on a persons body, you would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the medical field who would classify it as being anything other than human (do people often have canine tumors?)
Trees and cows are not human, the unborn child is
Well, that's a silly little argument. Human sperm is human. Human ova are human. Heck, my eyelash is human. Maybe you meant that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person, in which case you would merely be arguing your personal belief system.
The very definition of a hierarachy is a list of things where without the most basic ones, the ones above it are not possible. The very fact that without life no other right can be exercised makes it at the top (or bottom if you prefer) of a hierarchy. Whether life is worth living without certain other rights is another matter, but you can't even be in a position of making this determination without life itself.
No, they don't have to wait for a trigger to be pulled, or a knife to enter their body, but a gun or knife must be present. Again, I'm not looking at this from anything other than a legal perspective, and I can tell you that you'd be very hard pressed to find a court that would recognize the right to kill an attempted rapist if he were not brandishing a weapon and there appeared to be a means of escape.
It's not a human being, it's its own type of cell. Canine tumors mean the type of tumors canines get, doesn't mean they ARE canines. And that's not the point. A sperm, and ova, an eyelash, these are all human ELEMENTS necessary to make up a human being, but they are not the whole. Once it's implanted it's a whole, and the only difference between it and a just born baby is the degree of development. Not so for the individual parts. And don't go down this "your own belief system" road. All laws are according to SOMEONE's "own belief system."
The very fact that without life no other right can be exercised makes it at the top (or bottom if you prefer) of a hierarchy.
And one could argue that without liberty and the ability to pursue happiness their "life" would not be worth living. You do not get to decide what life means to others. And arguing that biological life (a living being as opposed to a non-living being) is more important than quality of life (liberty, pursuit of happiness and all that) is merely your personal opinion. You are aware that people have given their lives in order to secure liberty for others, are you not?
No, they don't have to wait for a trigger to be pulled, or a knife to enter their body, but a gun or knife must be present.
Again... that is simply not true. If I were to awake to a man attempting to rape me and I killed him I would be within my rights (weapon or no weapon.) Force likely to cause death is justified in self-defense if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. Is rape not considered "great bodily harm?" You must be missing the point... perhaps because you've never experienced rape?
A sperm, and ova, an eyelash, these are all human ELEMENTS necessary to make up a human being
No, you damned fool... they're "human." You may want to study the differences between an adjective and a noun.
Once it's implanted it's a whole
Please feel free to prove to me how as a zygote I was, in totality, the person I am now. Please prove that if I hadn't been born to John and Mary Smith I wouldn't have been born to John and Mary Jones. Simply put... there is not proof that a fertilized egg (implanted or otherwise) are people. This is your personal belief system, which is all well and good, but certainly not a reason to criminalize abortion.
And don't go down this "your own belief system" road. All laws are according to SOMEONE's "own belief system."
I could argue that all laws are based on a general consensus. There is no consensus on when a person is present... some say conception, some say implantation, some say viability, some say birth.
I'm not trying to decide what life means to others, I'm just saying no one gets to decide that someone else's life is not their right. How a person regards their own life is their own business. It is only when they begin to decide the value of someone else's life that outside forces must step in. And yes, I am aware that people have given their lives in order to secure liberty for others, but that's the key point--indeed, they have given THEIR OWN lives, but they do not have the right to force someone else to give his/her life to secure liberty for others, which is what you are asking the unborn to do here. They don't have a say in the matter.
Of course rape is great bodily harm, but that's not the only element required to prove self-defense. I have studied the legal statutes for various classes and functions I have been involved in in the past, and for a self-defense claim to be considered valid in a court of law, it also must be proven that there was (or at least appeared to be) no possibility of escape--something that a court may be hard-pressed to accept if the would-be rapist was unarmed. (Thus the element of reasonably believing the lethal force was in fact necessary to prevent such harm). Not quite sure how we got on this topic in the first place anymore, but anyway.....
Nice job breaking out the name-calling, very mature, but I'll distinguish, I was referring to the unborn child as A human, as a noun, not "human" as an adjective. And yes, that's my (and many others' "belief systems" just like the fact that African-American's humanity and status as human beings starte dout as some people's "belief systems." I will not apologize for that.
And you play the general consensus very well when it suits you, but uh oh, what if the abortion issue were put to a national ballot and the majority voted against allowing it? Something tells me you wouldn't be so gung ho about general consensus then. And the fact is there are a fair number of polls that indicate that if this were to happen, the majority would be on the pro-life side. And yes, there are also plenty that say the opposite, so we really can't know which way it would go, but from almost every set of polls I've come across, the trend is in the pro-life direction. But the point here being to find out how far your argument about consensus extends when it becomes inconvenient for your position.
I'm not trying to decide what life means to others, I'm just saying no one gets to decide that someone else's life is not their right.
Precisely... and if you actually believed this, you wouldn't be attempting to take rights away from pregnant women (particularly when their pregnancies are unwanted.)
It is only when they begin to decide the value of someone else's life that outside forces must step in.
Baloney... you wish to step in when women make private medical decisions that will not effect your life to any degree.
which is what you are asking the unborn to do here. They don't have a say in the matter.
I'm not "asking the unborn" to do anything... that would be an exercise in futility. Do you oftentimes ask things of non-sentient beings? Further, if "they don't have a say in the matter" (you know, because they have never possessed the ability to think or "say") then why do you pretend to know what "they" would say? Are you magical?
Of course rape is great bodily harm, but that's not the only element required to prove self-defense
Yes, it is. Anyone could research this stuff and find that my statements are true.
I was referring to the unborn child as A human, as a noun, not "human" as an adjective
Oh, while a zygote, embryo and/or fetus can be described as human, they are most certainly not described "A Human"... I'm surprised you would admit to making such an error.
and many others' "belief systems" just like the fact that African-American's humanity and status as human beings starte dout as some people's "belief systems"
Fabulous... and now you're comparing an African American person to a thousandth of an ounce, second old fertilized egg. Sure, lets just pretend that African American people are not fully developed, self-aware, thinking, active members of society... nicely done. I expected nothing less.
And you play the general consensus very well when it suits you, but uh oh, what if the abortion issue were put to a national ballot and the majority voted against allowing it?
Oh, it's been done sweetie... one needn't look further than South Dakota, Colorado and/or California to see what the general consensus is when it comes to denying pregnant women their full citizenship rights. Nice try, though. May want to fact-check first in the future, though.
I'm not trying to take any right away from pregnant women other than the right to end another's life. That in no way contradicts what I said about it not being anyone's right to determine the right to life of another. And stop trying to speak for me!!! This isn't about my wanting to stop "her private medical decisions" it's about wanting to stop SPECIFICALLY the ones that end another life. SO no, it doesn't directly physically affect me, but it sure as hell affects another innocent life.
Thank you Larry (or rather the female equivalent) Literal. Ok, it's what you are making a decision of which its very nature FORCES the unborn to sacrifice its rights for yours even though it CAN'T make opt otherwise. (The things you say about can't "ask" it to do anything and couldn
t "say" anything about the matter also apply to a newborn, ok? I was using these terms figuratively.
I HAVE researched the self-defense statutes and they clearly state that demonstrating no resonable possibility of escape is a required element of an affirmative defense. Can you point to me a case where a woman killed an unarmed would-be rapist and had a court accept an affirmative defense?
And of course they A human, they're human beings, not simply elements of them. The difference between them and a newborn is simply a matter of degree of development, not their very nature as it is with the individual elemets such as sperm, ova, or eyelashes.
I'm not "comparing one to the other" in abilities or ages or sizes, just in humanity status.
And nice try, but I've done more fact-checking than you have. First of all, I said NATIONAL ballots, and the polls I've cited are representative of national opinion. You cite three state ballots, each with its own unique problem with extrapolating them as representative of the "general consensus" you speak of: California I have no doubt has a pro-choice majority, it is one of the farthest left states in the U.S. But I've gone over this in other posts, but it was before you started commenting. I've examined those other two results looking at the exit polls and their languages, and the fact of the matter is the South Dakota ballot failed because its rape exception was considered too ambiguous and putting too large a burden on rape victims in obtaining this exception. Polls showed that with a simple, straight up rape exception this would have passed overwhelmingly. The Colorado one went down because its language was so broad, it could easily have allowed for the banning of birth control as well, and most people don't want to go that far. I would have voted against the Colorado initiative, despite my pro-life stance, for that reason. So your extrapolation does not work.
I'm not trying to take any right away from pregnant women other than the right to end another's life
If you advocate giving control over womens bodies to some form of government you would most certainly be taking rights away from pregnant women. Discrimination by it's very definition. No pregnant woman has the right to kill another person so I call B.S. on that comment. Simply because you believe a fertilized egg is a person does not mean that women should be denied their citizenship rights.
And stop trying to speak for me!!!
Baby, your words speak for themselves. I merely copy & paste... hate the message, not the messenger and all that.
This isn't about my wanting to stop "her private medical decisions" it's about wanting to stop SPECIFICALLY the ones that end another life
"Another life?" There is no "another life" - you want to stop SPEFICALLY women from having sex if they do not wish to gestate, give birth and parent and beyond that you want to SPECIFICALLY stop women from making the best and most moral decisions regarding their pregnancies. You can word your opinions any way you want but it comes down to controlling the personal and private medical decisions that women make.
SO no, it doesn't directly physically affect me, but it sure as hell affects another innocent life
The effect of terminating a pregnancy is that the woman is no longer pregnant. Please do share with me the "affect" that this would have on a zygote an embryo or fetus. You have no problem with how forcing pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood on a woman affects her life... there's that whole "picking and choosing" which "life" is more valuable recurring theme.
Ok, it's what you are making a decision of which its very nature FORCES the unborn to sacrifice its rights for yours even though it CAN'T make opt otherwise.
A zygote, embryo or fetus does not "sacrifice" anything as it has nothing but biological life (as opposed to death) to give up. Again, where is your outrage that women will be forced to sacrifice their mental, physical and spiritual well-being (and in some instances, their lives) if they are forced to gestate, give birth and parent (or voluntarily relinquish) a child? You are very inconsistent with your concern for "life", aren't you?
I advocate giving only enough control as is necessary to protect innocent life--something the government takes a compelling interest in, and yes, sometimes restricting other rights in order to protect the most basic right of all. No "citizen" has the right to end another life for reasons other than self-defense, and just because you "believe" what they are killing is not a person is not a reason to deny them their most basic right.
You're reading in my words what you want to read. I have no desire to control any private or medical decision other than the ones that affect more than just the woman making that decision. Not to mention that if I'm stopping "specifically" women from sex, that sex would have been with someone else, now wouldn't it? SO I'm also stopping them. So again, no equality issues here on that point.
The effect it has on the unborn is to make it DEAD!! If that were how it were affecting the woman, abortion is most certainly a right. I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this before it registers. You can disagree with me on the all you want, but I'm not making a judgement about WHOSE rights are more important, only about WHAT rights are more important. Nothing inconsistent about that. When it's woman's life vs. unborn's life, the woman takes precedent. It takes precedent in any case where it's the same rights that are in question. But when it's one's life vs. the other's anything other than life, life takes precedent. Again, you can disagree with me all you want, but there's nothing "inconsistant" about that.
Your inconsistent - self defense doesn't allow someone to kill an innocent person to save themselves from a condition they themselves could have prevented and consented to.
I advocate giving only enough control as is necessary to protect innocent life--something the government takes a compelling interest in, and yes, sometimes restricting other rights in order to protect the most basic right of all
I, for one, am extremely happy that our government takes a compelling interest in protecting our basic rights... it utterly ensures that government will never assume control over our bodies (even the pregnant ones... even when the pregnancies are unwanted.) I thank God daily that I was born into a country whereby all citizens have basic rights over their own bodies.
No "citizen" has the right to end anther life for reasons other than self-defense
Not true... citizens of the US have the right to end life (sometimes for food, sometimes for clothing, sometimes just because we don't care for spiders... and sometime even as "collateral damage" or "corporal punishment") What our citizens do not have the right to do is end anther persons life without a legal reason. Fortunately, no person is killed when a woman terminates her pregnancy (which, by the way is a perfectly legal option for a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.)
and just because you "believe" what they are killing is not a person is not a reason to deny them their most basic right.
Oh sweetie... it's not my opinion. Please do provide proof (scientific, legal or spiritually) that a zygote is a person. I'm really looking forward to you providing proof of at least something you've written.
You're reading in my words what you want to read
I am perfectly capable of comprehending what I've read... however, what I cannot do is change the meanings of the words you've chosen to use. Only you are responsible for the words you've written.
The effect it has on the unborn is to make it DEAD!!
Please explain to me what the affect of ceasing to live will have on the zygote... how, specifically, will this affect the zygotes life? Because you have no issue with the affect that pregnancy, childbirth and parenthood will have on a woman... why are you so obsessed with the the biological life of a zygote (whereby the alternative is the biological death of a zygote.) Hey... if you can refer to the zygote as the "unborn", can I refer to people as "undead"? Like, how can you charge $399 for a dental "spacer" for the "undead"? That should totally be a valid argument for not paying that bill. And also... is the unborn ever undead? That's deep.
When it's woman's life vs. unborn's life,
When it is the physical, mental and spiritual life of a pregnant woman vs. the biological life of an embryo... I'm going to have to side with the actual person (every. single. time.) Call me crazy. What we have here is a difference of opinion. You choose to value the "life" of a zygote... I happen to value the lives of pregnant women. If you refuse to recognize that you prefer the biological life of a zygote over the physical, mental and spiritual lives of pregnant women then you will continue to be inconsistent in your argument (that you are "pro-life")
Using birth control would be one step that a woman could take so that a pregnancy that results from rape would be more preventable.
"Using birth control would be one step that a woman could take so that a pregnancy that results from rape would be more preventable."
Why enable?
Using rapex and/or a gun would be more effective.
(“RapeX, is a latex sheath embedded with shafts of sharp, inward-facing barbs that would be worn by a woman in her vagina like a tampon. If an attacker were to attempt vaginal rape, their penis would enter the latex sheath and be snagged by the barbs, causing the attacker pain during withdrawal and (ideally) giving the victim time to escape. The condom would remain attached to the attacker’s body when he withdrew and could only be removed surgically, which would alert hospital staff and police. This device could assist in the identification and prosecution of rapists.")
The nice thing about the rapex is that it is also effective in preventing the transmission of STD's.
That said, in the form of Plan B should be offered to every rape victim
Ha, tell that to the other posters on this board--they would agree with you that I'm no moderate on this issue, but they'd put me on quite an opposite spectrum from you. In your hypothetical situation of courts granting leniency, they would if this attack on the unconscious patient was the only for for the attacker to avoid their own death, but the only situation where this can ever possibly be the case is here, so we have nothing else to compare it too. My point was death may be a natural consequence, but it is the one natural consequence that people are entitled to do whatever is necessary to prevent, because again, life trumps all other rights. So these kinds of abortions would be protected under the doctrine of self-defense.
Can you not read your own comments? You believe in the woman taking natural consequence...UNTIL it doesn't suit you. You believe in killing an innocent person to extend the womans life over what would be a natural death for her. You believe in innocent life and self defense...UNTIL it becomes inconvenient for you to stand up and defend the defenseless. Letting the woman die a natural death is not killing her ...it never will be. We all die natural deaths, no crime is committed and no one lost their rights. Killing the fetus is always killing and you are choosing its death. You can't kill a child to extend your life beyond your natural death...self defense doesn't include killing someone to extend your life beyond your natural death.
The courts have a duty to defend the defenseless which is the fetus. The fetus has the right to self-defense...its being killed. The woman can try to treat her condition with any means that does not kill her child. If she has cancer then she can treat cancer as her problem, if she has a different complication then she can treat that complication as her problem, but her fetus itself is not her killer so should never be the victim of her actions. The fetus and the cancer are not the same…she can do what she can to battle the cancer but not battle the fetus.
People are NOT entitled to do whatever necessary to prevent natural death - they are not entitled to kill. Stop making stuff up. And if the unconscious person is the only valid liver segment donor within a reasonable range and its an emergency requiring the liver segment now to extend life so its the only option - the conscious person still can't kill.
There is also no right to let the stronger one prevail. The right to life of the fetus includes the right not to be killed. It has the right to self defense.
I don't know how you can even guess what end of the spectrum I'd put you on.
Ok, I'm laughing very hard right now--only now did I realize that it has been you all along calling me out for my referring to certain of the feminists on this board as blind. I assumed this was one of the rabid pro-choicers (by the way, all of you take note, I will defend your rights to self-defense abortions just as fiercely as I defend the unborn's right to life if it does not threaten its mother's life.) But first, my limit for when a person should accept a "natural consequence" is not so arbitrary as "when it suits me," it's when that natural consequence is their own death. I am more than willing to say that if a person is responsible enough to have sex, they're responsible enough to deal with a nine-month inconvenience, but I'm not willing to say that if someone has sex they should be prepared to die. I think this is a pretty stark dinstinction. Also, again, courts of law do not distinguish between "natural" and "unnatural deaths." If you're going to use this argument, you're going to have cite me a case where a court has ever convicted someone for any action for which the person could conclusively prove that the only alternative to their action would have been their death, natural or otherwise. I can't think of a situation like this. In the case of the liver you refer to, the difference is that in that case the unconscious person's very presence isn't what's preventing the other from getting the treatment they need, as it is in the case of a pregnancy that threatens the woman's life.
Yes, I did set up a scenario where the only way they could preserve their life is to get that liver segment. Yes, the unconscious persons presence is what is holding up the liver segment.
People die waiting in overstaffed emergency rooms, they are not allowed to take actions like overtake the emergency room and force the doctor to give them priority care because they are going to die immediately...even if some of the other patients already admitted aren't as near death as they are and they need care now. Its sometimes their only option left (why they are in the ER) but taking a gun and forcing medical care isn't a right. I've haven't heard of someone trying to even push the law this far as to take an action that threaten others in order to extend their life...so there is no case that I can find because I can't find where someone thought their legal rights went as far as you broadly paint them in being able to do whatever they need to preserve their own life.
If we have no choice other than homicide (kill the fetus) and natural death (woman dies)...um, homicide is defined as the legal crime. You've already conceded that the fetus has a right to self defense yet you stand against the exercise of that right. Again - you say 'fetus is threatening the womans life'...now the fetus is the cancer? Which is it Alex, a separate unique innocent human being or the cancer? How quickly you dehumanize it as no longer innocent. Remember the woman had a choice Alex that you stated - to not get pregnant. You said its 100% preventable - death from pregnancy is no less a consequence of pregnancy as minor health issues. According to your own arguments the woman chose the natural biological consequences...so she is choosing to take the risk that she might die. The fetus took no such risk. The woman is responsible FOR the fetus PRESENCE in her body - she consented to it and all of the risks it entails.
By the way its a stark distinction between non-lethal but major kidney failure and the minor health issues in pregnancy but you make no health exception for abortion for these cases.
I meant "understaffed" emergency rooms.
Oh my god, anonymous, your 'if it's natural, that's the way it should be' argument is a miserable failure. I despise opinions such as yours. You are a true misogynist. Thanks for being so transparent about your utter loathing for women, though; I guess there's something to be said for honesty, especially when you make it so obvious that you believe women's lives cease to be worth anything once they're pregnant.
Do you know what's natural? Preserving one's own life. Self preservation is one of the strongest instincts that motivates us. It would actually be incredibly unnatural to willingly sacrifice one's own life for a foetus. See? I can invoke 'nature' too.
I do agree that its natural to want to preserve ones life...just as its natural to want to have sex... its just where the exercise of these rights conflict with others rights.
And you are honest too Emma...at least you are consistent in your arguments.
And once again you’ve offered nothing that overturns the fetus right to self defense to prevent itself from being killed.
Heads up.... a zygote/embryo/fetus does not have a "right" to self defense. And if it did... you still wouldn't get to decide whether it would exercise this "right" or in what manner. Simply because you believe that a zygote (embryo or fetus) is a person with full citizenship rights does not magically make it so.
Mellankelly1, you are consistent in your own arguments as you don't believe its a person.
If its not a person then correct it would not have these rights, but for those who define it as such it would have to be protected equally under the law.
And here we go again. (Emma, Megan, everyone...please forgive me.)
Anonymous, please explain how it is possible to "equally" protect the rights of the zygote, blastocyst/embryo/fetus while equally protecting the rights of women. How is it done?
Death of a woman from pregnancy is a natural consequence of pregnancy
Death from a heart attack is a natural consequence of poor eating and/or exercising habits and yet, people opt for a variety of medical procedures in order to avoid death. Women are allowed to be the decision makers regarding their health if it is threatened by a pregnancy. Many women opt to terminate the pregnancy outright or take measures to save their own lives even if it likely means the death of the embryo or fetus. The women facing these medical issues are the most qualified to be making these decisions... not some third party with absolutely no stake in the outcome.
Women can't kill their children in order to save themselves from natural death
What the heck does that have to do with anything? No person (man or woman) can kill children. Luckily, people (with the exception of anti-abortion extremists) are capable of realizing that a child is not killed when a woman opts to terminate her pregnancy... not having a child is kind of the point, eh?
If Patient A and Patient B are both dying, we don't kill Patient A to save Patient B. Add to it that Patient A is dying to no fault of their own but Patient B could have prevented their condition.
None of that nonsense is relevant when it comes to the subject of terminating ones pregnancy. There is only one "patient" and that is the pregnant woman... no person other than the pregnant woman (in consultation with her doctor) is qualified to decide which medical procedures are in her best interest.
I've seen your posts elsewhere and at least you are consistent in not believing that someone must endure natural consequences, or that a fetus right to life even overcomes another womans body. Given those standpoint yes, none of these scenarios would be relevant.
Cost and imposition are often the primary reasons one elects to have an abortion; it's unfortunate that our society places so much weight on these two variables. Not to minimize either... but when an abortion happens, a decision is made based on some analysis. If these were scales, one could say that the unfortunate person making this decision has to weigh the cost of having the baby versus the cost of not having one and I think that our society has, over time, placed a greater value on our comfort over our responsibility. It seems that our society does not value the young, or the old - and more frequently we send them both away because of cost and imposition. If we cannot change this crucial flaw in our society, then when we grow old - we too will be at the mercy of these scales.
Pregnancy is preventable?! Apparently the writer is not aware that EVERY form of birth control has a failure rate greater than 0. That's right--you can do everything possible to prevent it and still end up pregnant. And then there are the pregnancies resulting from incest--also preventable, right? but not by the "woman"--and coercion by older men and also the ones due to sheer ignorance because birth control is not taught or available in our schools. So a young woman who does not really understand how easy it is to get pregnant and who has no money to buy birth control, incest survivors, coerced children, and anyone whose birth control failed, should be "punished" by being forced to bear her unintended pregnancy to term? How is that not forced pregnancy and childbearing?
Over and over, I find that those who are "pro-life" are really unaware of, as well as unsympathetic to, the tragedy of how easy it is to get pregnant without intention.
It appears that your position is that all fetuses should be carried to term and supported once living until adulthood or else given away by the parents who begot them. Do you have any iea of the agony that birth mothers who give up babies for adoption go through? Do you not see that also as coercion?
There is coercion in every aspect of the pro-life stance.
It is about making judgments about women's lives from the outside rather than permitting women to make judgments from inside their lives and circumstances.
Judgmentalism, pure and simple. Not with my tax dollars, you don't!
Yes indeed, pregnancy IS preventable. I am aware that birth control and condom use have failure rates of greater than 0, but abstinence does not, and neither does timing sexual encounters to the times of the month where one can't get pregnant. I'll emphasize, I am NOT advocating abstinence only sex education--I have NO problem whatsoever with teaching about birth control, women should be informed about all those options (not including abortion). But when all's said and done, if a person is truly at a stage in their life where they cannot be pregnant, it is possible to avoid it. Sex is a choice and it has natural consequences, and where human life is involved, the government is under no obligation to give a way out of natural consequences of a person's chosen actions. That's not punishment.
And yes, it is my position that once what is inside there will be born alive if left alone, it has the right to live, and if a person cannot endure the agony of giving up babies for adoption, they either should keep the baby or ensure that they do not get pregnant in the first place. Nobody's rights extend to the point where the infringe on the rights of another. This is not a question of WHOSE rights are more important, it's a question of WHAT rights are more important. And life trumps all other rights. The pro-life stance (and no quotation marks necessary or acceptable, there are plenty of other names we could break out for the pro-choicers if you insist on labeling us as something other than pro-life, but I personally have enough respect not to, so I ask you to do the same) is not about making any "judgements" it is about protecting innocent life. I'll end the way you did. Taking human lives, pure and simple. Not with MY tax dollars, you don't!
In other words, if you're poor and can't afford a child, you shouldn't have sex. So, your belief is that only people with money should have sex. Poor people should be abstinent for life, yes?
And it's so much more important to 'send a message' that society won't sanction abortion than to deal with reality and, oh...dead women? Instead, society should sanction the idea that women are walking, talking incubators whose sole purpose in life is to produce children. It's worth making women property of the state in order to protect the foetuses of the world. Once criminal penalties for women who have abortions are 'phased in slowly', what would you suggest they should be? Are you ok with 40% or so of the female population being imprisoned?
Also, those who support withholding family planning funds from developing countries are cultural imperialists who haven't a clue about the lives and struggles of people living in abject poverty. To insist that abortion should be the greatest concern of people struggling every day to feed their families, dealing with HIV/AIDS epidemics, massive risk of rape (the DRC, for example) and so on is grotesquely paternalistic, imperialistic, insensitive, misogynistic and outright clueless.
No, I'm saying that if you're responsible enough to have sex, you're responsible enough to deal with its natural consequences in a manner that does not involve taking a life. If a woman can't afford a baby, that's what adoption is for, and again, if it's about the cost of a pregnancy, pass a law making the man responsible for her pregnancy-related medical costs (or even his parents if he's under 18). I have no problem with trying to distribute the responsibility as evenly as is humanly possible here (and by the way, if I were a woman, or if men could get pregnant, I would hold the same view on this issue as I do now, because this about nothing other than the scientific, biological definition of human life, and I have no more patience with the religious rhetoric used against it as I do with people like you).
Once again, this has nothing to do with making women incubators or saying anything about what their primary purpose is or is not. It's about saying they have every right to make all of these choices, but the choice regarding childbirth must be made BEFORE there is a living, breathing, unique human being growing inside of them. And I HIGHLY doubt that 40% of the female population would get abortions if it were illegal, and frankly, assuming this did happen, the justice department would get so bogged down with prosecutions that it would probably expedite the more practical measures being put in place to reduce unplanned pregnancy that your types want to suffice while our society still has the blood on its hands. Again, these practical measures absolutely should be taken alongside illegalization.
I'm fine with giving back the family planning funding to the developing nations as long as we stipulate that the money they get from us cannot be used to fund abortions. And I do agree that this shouldn't be the most important issue--I've voted for pro-choice candidates for despite my disgust with their position on that.
