RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

At Personhood Conference, Anti-Choice Movement Struggles for Direction

Kay Steiger's picture

On Friday, dozens of pro-life activists gathered at the Personhood Conference in Washington, D.C. On Thursday, the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, they had marched with the tens of thousands of anti-choice activists, but today these activists were talking about personhood, a new plan of attack for the anti-choice movement. These activists are frustrated and tired of incrementalist approaches to abortion. "It's not working," announced Shaun Kenney of the American Life League. "It's failing."

The Personhood Conference, organized by the American Life League, enlisted speakers from a variety of segments of the pro-life movement, including a rising star, Kristi Burton. Burton is a 21-year-old woman who spearheaded the campaign for a state constitutional amendment in Colorado that sought to define life as beginning at fertilization. Burton says the Colorado personhood movement projects a "positive message," unites pro-lifers, and doesn't personally attack pro-choice activists.  

Although Burton may say she leads a new way, the overall message of the conference was conflicted. She said she promotes a positive message, but two of the other speakers at the conference, Lila Rose and Alan Keyes, both presented very traditional messages from the pro-life movement. Rose, who gained fame in the movement for her "investigative" work on Planned Parenthood by posing as a 13-year-old girl, claimed to be a "new media" advocate, but Rose's first video was one that displayed cut-up fetal tissue, an age-old tactic in the anti-choice movement. The parallels she drew to the Holocaust, abuse of Native Americans, slavery, and women's suffrage movements are long-established narratives in the movement. Rose also adopted the language of painting the woman as a victim and women's "complex psychological needs."  

Former contender for the Republican presidential ticket Alan Keyes harked to an even older age of fire-and-brimstone preaching. Keyes' entire speech, which lasted 57 minutes, discussed Cain, Abel, Noah, and other biblical figures, but didn't mention the word abortion explicitly. Largely, his speech served to motivate, but lacked any real substance on the future of the anti-choice movement. He urged the audience to fight against the "army of darkness" and told the audience that "God wants us to live." Keyes' only mention of policy was to fight against the Freedom of Choice Act, legislation that hasn't even been introduced into the current congressional session. 

Burton's message was more practical. She was proud of the fact the personhood amendment was simple: "Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization." She urged the pro-life movement to begin to hire political consultants, analyze polling data, and raise more money. This, she admits, comes from her active work with the Republican Party. She noted that the personhood movement often doesn't get support from mainstream Republicans, pointing to the Republican Senate candidate in Colorado, Bob Schaffer, who came out against the personhood amendment despite identifying as pro-life. "Politicians and pro-lifers don't really get along that well," Burton said. 

Most of all, she noted, the movement needs to unify. "Do you ever see NARAL, Planned Parenthood or NOW fighting against each other? No, because they have one goal and they don't really care about anything but their goal," Burton said. 

She apparently thinks the pro-life movement should follow suit and use the personhood framework to support other amendments that aren't necessarily aimed at achieving personhood. She supports informed consent laws, like those that South Dakota recently passed, "What it did is it required doctors, before they give an abortion to a woman, to tell her, ‘If you have an abortion you'll be terminating the life of a new, unique, separate living human being,'" Burton said. "If something like that is tried could we use the personhood message to educate people while that battle's going on." 

She believes the personhood framework can be adapted to battles like abortion, stem cell research, fetal alcohol syndrome, "fetal homicide" (laws that criminalize accidental or intentional death of a fetus), and emergency contraception. But Burton seemed ill-informed about the "lies" of her opposition: "They said, ‘If the Colorado personhood amendment passes birth control will be outlawed. In vitro fertilization will be outlawed.' All these things that weren't true," she said. "The personhood amendment was a definition. What it said was that in the future, when our courts and our legislators are considering laws relating to those kind of things--I mean in Colorado there isn't even a law on birth control so how a definition can affect a law that doesn't exist, I'm not sure." 

When I asked Burton after her speech to talk in more depth about the Colorado personhood amendment, she said, "Our basic viewpoint is anything that purposely kills a human being shouldn't be allowed. However, there are plenty of forms of birth control that don't do that. For instance, I am not against all birth control. A lot of the forms of birth control are a personal choice between couples." It is interesting that she is willing to admit that couples may want to make a private decision about birth control but not about abortion. Even more interesting, she seems to accept birth control, the most common form of which is an oral contraceptive, but opposes emergency contraception, something that is essentially the same hormonal drug in two different doses. 

Burton, someone who the pro-life movement is beginning to look to in their time of frustration with incrementalism and someone who seems to offer sweeping change, strays from one of the firmest tenants of the pro-life movement--an opposition to birth control. Yet their rhetoric, in an effort to be simple, raises more questions than it answers. While the anti-choice movement might agree that life begins "at fertilization," its members seem to differ over just what that means.  Ultimately this might mean the movement is more divided than ever.


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

Thank you for your report Kay :)

 

I have to say that much as it saddens me, I have to disagree with your point in the final paragraph.  These "rising stars" of the anti choice movement know how to reach out to young people - which is what adds numbers to their cause.  For this reason, it is imperative that the prochoice movement keeps up a public education campaign. 

 

The personal is political.

Submitted by Alex_M on January 24, 2009 - 12:19am.

The future of the anti-choice movement, pushing for measures that would establish legal personhood from the moment of fertilization?

We can only hope. Because the sheer idiocy of anthropomorphizing a zygote would finally be made explicit, and everyone could laugh at these people and get on with their lives. It's like the prospect of Sarah Palin becoming the standard-bearer for the GOP... how much easier that would make our jobs!

Which is why I doubt the whole "personhood" approach is going to get much traction. It didn't fly in Colorado, I doubt it'll fly anywhere else, and I don't think the anti-choice movement will want to basically parody themselves by publicly pushing for it. (Next thing you know, they'll want to count unfertilized eggs as three-fifths of a person... :-)

Submitted by iSKUNK! on January 24, 2009 - 3:13am.

There are plenty of "choices" for birth control that prevent the fertilization of the egg and thus, the creation of life. You are very ill-informed if you believe that most pro-life people are against these forms of birth control. It is not an "anti-choice" movement at all, any more than you are "pro-choice." The choice you want to have is to refuse to take responsibility for your choices.

The pro-life movement is not divided at all over what it means that life begins at fertilization. It's pretty self-explanatory. Science tells us that a fertilized egg has unique DNA from the mother and the father - therefore it is a unique life. This life is not part of the mother (if it were it would have her DNA), so what right does she have to destroy it? It is extremely hypocritical for a pro-choice president to say his administration is going to rely on "science," when he clearly ignores the facts.

Submitted by Matt C on January 24, 2009 - 11:32am.

The choice you want to have is to refuse to take responsibility for your choices

Choosing to terminate ones pregnancy is every bit as responsible as choosing to gestate ones pregnancy.  How you feel about either choice does not alter how responsible it is.

Science tells us that a fertilized egg has unique DNA from the mother and the father

Right... and we all know that the accepted definition of personhood is "having unique DNA."  You are perfectly free to treat your zygotes as if their "lives" are on par with yours; I however, will not be doing that... and that's okay too. 

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on January 24, 2009 - 12:16pm.

Science tells us that a fertilized egg has unique DNA from the mother and the father - therefore it is a unique life. This life is not part of the mother (if it were it would have her DNA), so what right does she have to destroy it?

In the same paragraph, you say that the fertilized egg does and does not have DNA from the mother. The rest of your argument is not much more coherent than that. You claim that the President isn't relying on science, but neither are you.

Submitted by AnonyMouse on January 24, 2009 - 2:11pm.

I think she meant that the DNA of the zygote is uniquely different from that of the mother and father, being a combination of the two of them. Each person's unique identity can be read in her DNA. Even identical twins have spots of their DNA that aren't the same. But, most importantly, you can tell from the DNA if the individual is a member of the human species or not. That is the crucial point. Are all members of the human species people? Are all humans CREATED EQUAL, from the beginning? Or does their legal status depend upon what others think of them. If they are wanted, then, fetal homicide laws protect them. If not, they are blobs of tissue. Sounds like eugenics to me.

You can say that you are going to treat your zygotes as non-persons because the law allows that. However, the law is wrong. The law needs to conform to biological reality. Zygotes are individual members of the human species (and thus persons) in their earliest moments of life. Period. Choosing to treat the most defenseless among us as blobs of tissue having no civil rights has unfortunately become the dominant ideology, and it's horrific.

Submitted by Michaela Brady on January 24, 2009 - 4:38pm.

You can say that you are going to treat your zygotes as non-persons because the law allows that

Oh, if this was directed at my response, let me clarify.  I have always treated my zygotes, embryo's and/or fetus' as zygotes, embryo's and/or fetus'.  The law allows women to decide whether to continue or terminate their pregnancy; laws do not govern the personal belief systems of people.

The law needs to conform to biological reality

Laws are written in order to protect citizens.  There is nothing about Roe v. Wade which denies "biological reality."

Zygotes are individual members of the human species

The conceptus of a human male and human female could be described as nothing other than human.  The zygote, embryo and fetus is not a citizen and there is no consensus on the "personhood" of the zygote, embryo and/or fetus.  However, there is no questioning the personhood and citizenship of a woman... or a pregnant woman (even if her pregnancy is unwanted.) I find it odd that you wouldn't find it "horrific" if we were to deny women (from the moment that they become pregnant) their full citizenship rights. To each his/her own, right?

Submitted by Mellankelly1 on January 24, 2009 - 9:26pm.

"Choosing to treat the most defenseless among us as blobs of tissue having no civil rights has unfortunately become the dominant ideology, and it's horrific."

No, what horrific is that there are those who would take away the rights of a woman to control what does and does not happen within her body. We wouldn't think twice about standing up against such laws if they referred to a woman not being allowed to have her hair cut, or an even better example, particularly in the realm of abortion as a life saving procedure in some cases, if these laws referred to refusing to allow a woman with breast cancer to get a mastectomy.
A fetus is every bit as much a part of the woman who carries it as her breasts and her hair. It is attached to her body. Without her body it would cease to exist. By refusing to allow women the choice of abortion we are saying that they, as sentient beings, with their own thoughts, emotions and minds are not as important in our society as the clumps of cells that inhabit their bodies without their concent. It's sickening to think about as a woman, to be forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy. Yes, if a fetus is viable outside of the womb, then it may be considered a seperate being. But until that point, it's life is dependant on the woman who carries it, and to force a woman to carry that life which is only life while inside her body is to reduce her status from living, breathing, sentient personhood to a state of being nothing more than a walking, talking incubator. These personhood definitions do nothing to take into account the personhood of the women carrying these fertalized eggs. From the moment that egg is fertalized, she is no longer a person, but merely a vessel in which those cells reside. Should these types of laws go into effect, they will do nothing more than remove the personhood of the pregnant woman, while granting rights to a collection of cells, when a large percentage of such "beings" would never survive past the very earliest stages of the pregnancy before being destroyed by the natural means of miscarriage.
Then there are further implications of these types of laws. Forgive me the slippery slope argument for a moment if you will, but should these types of laws go into effect, will we be punishing the woman who slips and falls down a flight of stairs, causing a miscarriage, because her fall destroyed a "person"? Would such a woman be charged with involuntary manslaughter, as would be allowed by the laws? What of a woman who causes injury to a fetus before she is aware of it's existance? Would a woman who, shortly after a night on the town including alcohol discovers she's pregnant, be subject to legal repercussions for child endangerment or similar charges for possibly harming a being she didn't know existed at the time? These ideas may seem laughable, but they are serious concerns. The night before I found out I was pregnant with my third child, I had a glass of wine, not realizing I was pregnant at the time. When I went for the doctor's appointment and found out, one of the questions asked was "have you had any alcohol recently". Should I have been charged with child endangerment for that glass of wine, due to the damage that could have been caused to a fetus I didn't know I was carrying at the time?
To take this slippery slope theory a step further, would a woman who spontaneously miscarries a much wanted child be subject to investigation in her time of grief to ensure that nothing she has done during her pregnancy (including the time after the egg was fertalized, but before she was aware of the pregnancy) could have caused the event? And if it's found that something simple she might have done could have caused that miscarriage, would she then face manslaughter charges, as would any person who caused the death of a person outside of the womb? If we're going to give legal rights, and legal personhood to the unborn, these are the ethical questions we must ask ourselves.
In a society with such laws, every woman of childbearing age, who is sexually active, and is not known to be infertile or steralized, would have to watch her every move at every moment to avoid the legal repercussions of causing potential harm to a life she may or may not be carrying, and may not even know exists.

Submitted by Equalist on January 25, 2009 - 2:54am.

"Science tells us that a fertilized egg has unique DNA from the mother and the father - therefore it is a unique life. This life is not part of the mother (if it were it would have her DNA), so what right does she have to destroy it?"

By this definition, cancer is a unique life, owing to the fact that it has DNA that is different from the host's DNA. That's what makes it cancer. So do we have no right to remove cancerous objects from a person's body? Your arguement has no legs to stand on. Until the child can live outside of the womb, it's a part of the mother's body.

Submitted by Kay on January 24, 2009 - 9:27pm.

Matt, you have a vagina or uterus? No? Then your narrow minded opinion means exactly diddley-squat.

Submitted by Anonymous on January 25, 2009 - 7:07pm.

Kay, I don't know where you get the idea that opposition to birth control is one of the firmest tenents of the anti-abortion movement. You are confused because you don't understand the difference between "contraceptives" which are actually abortifacient because they allow fertilization some or much of the time (BCPs, ECs, IUDs) and real contraceptives which actually prevent fertilization and don't rely on preventing embryos from implanting (barrier methods, sterilization).

The reason for your confusion is that the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (ACOG) has redefined the words "conception" (and therefore, the "beginning of pregnancy") to mean "implantation" instead of "fertilization" so as to make abortifacient forms of "contraception" palatable to women - especially those that think that their children's lives begin at "conception". If that was a confusing sentence, that's what ACOG intended. CONFUSION. If you don't get it, how can you expect the general population to make the distinction? That was ACOG's intention. Now, even pro-life women think that EC is OK because they are told that it doesn't harm a pregnancy (which they think begins at conception, but supposedly now officially begins at implantation). WHEW!!

The segment of the pro-life movement (it's a small part) that opposes contraception, does so because it is aware of the abortifacient effects of many so-called contraceptives. Kay, can you respond to this?

Submitted by Michaela Brady on January 24, 2009 - 5:32pm.

Sigh...here we go again. Apologies to all of you who have heard it before

So Ms Brady...what about the non-contraceptive applications of chemical BC? By your reasoning, women who use the pill to treat other conditions are simply out of luck?

Annnd...by your own reasoning, extending equal protection under the law to zygotes cannot be accomplished without
implementing "the systematic removal/restriction of women from ANY employment/activity that increases the potential for miscarriage.

Employers, fearing liability, will simply not hire women.

Female cops? Well, maybe desk jobs.

Recent studies of women lawyers in high stress firms showed the risk of miscarriage was tripled.

Military Service? No can do...

Construction? High risks there.

One of my girlfriends races dirt bikes. Another competes in mountain biking. Again, high risk hobbies.

Even the medical fields could be off limits. Chemical and radiation exposure are known to threaten pregnancies.

IUDs? Nope."

The list is endless.

Essentially Ms Brady...you cannot apply equal protection laws to the zygote/embryo/fetus without simultaneously stripping all fertile women of that very same equal protection.

But by all means, tell us your plan.

Submitted by ahunt on January 24, 2009 - 7:02pm.

If you use BCPs for medical reasons, you need to be aware that they can also have an abortifacient effect, that's all. So, maybe use a barrier method, or abstain, or ask your physician for something that will "do no harm" (God forbid doctors should be held to that standard once more).

And if the humanity of zygotes is acknowledged by law, then, they may finally get some protection from mothers who abuse them with alchohol or abortion. What those penalties might be is up to our legislators. Would unintenionally caused miscarriages be considered manslaughter or a misdemeanor or something else? Physicians deal with life and death decisions every day and comparatively few are prosecuted when they make the wrong call and someone dies. Life is risky. I think legislators would take into account the special situation of an early miscarriage due to stress etc. versus an intentional abortion or infanticide.

The law aside, don't you think it would be good to acknowledge that women have the privilege of having new life pass through their bodies and that they and the new life be given special consideration by employers? Fertility is not a disease but a blessing. I think we need to learn something from our experiment with trying to ignore the difference between the sexes. The first part of that learning is to acknowledge biological reality. We can learn to be responsible parents without resorting to killing in order to limit family size. We can ask for family planning methods that don't do this.

Submitted by Michaela Brady on January 25, 2009 - 2:17am.

"If you use BCPs for medical reasons, you need to be aware that they can also have an abortifacient effect, that's all. So, maybe use a barrier method, or abstain, or ask your physician for something that will "do no harm" (God forbid doctors should be held to that standard once more)."

What of the women who take the pill for needed hormone effects, and NOT to prevent pregnancy? A friend of mine has a hormone deficiency, and should she go off her pills, she grows facial hair, her voice deepens, and she begins to show "masculine" traits, not to mention that the pills ease the ovarian cysts, and other painful symptoms of her deficiency. Is she just out of luck here? For her the pill is not a tool to prevent pregnancy (she actually desperately wants to have a child, but due to her hormone deficiency, and the resulting damage to her body, it is highly unlikely she will ever get pregnant or should she get pregnant, the chances of her sustaining that pregnancy to term are next to zero) but a way to prevent and aleviate the symptoms of a true illness.

"And if the humanity of zygotes is acknowledged by law, then, they may finally get some protection from mothers who abuse them with alchohol or abortion. What those penalties might be is up to our legislators. Would unintenionally caused miscarriages be considered manslaughter or a misdemeanor or something else? Physicians deal with life and death decisions every day and comparatively few are prosecuted when they make the wrong call and someone dies. Life is risky. I think legislators would take into account the special situation of an early miscarriage due to stress etc. versus an intentional abortion or infanticide. "

But what about investigation into such matters? What decides if a woman has been abusing her zygote, or if she was simply unaware of its existance and was going about her normal life? What are the chances that the "I didn't know it was there" defense would be enough to prevent such an investigation and the psychological damage it could cause to a woman who is already grieving over the loss of her pregnancy?

"The law aside, don't you think it would be good to acknowledge that women have the privilege of having new life pass through their bodies and that they and the new life be given special consideration by employers? Fertility is not a disease but a blessing. I think we need to learn something from our experiment with trying to ignore the difference between the sexes. The first part of that learning is to acknowledge biological reality. We can learn to be responsible parents without resorting to killing in order to limit family size. We can ask for family planning methods that don't do this."

The fact of the matter is that a woman shouldn't have to choose between retaining her fertility and a career she loves. Would a woman have to get a signed waiver of infertility from her doctor in order to persue a career considered dangerous to any potential fetus she may become pregnant with at a later date? I think that could be a very real possibility as employers scramble to protect themselves from potential lawsuits or criminal charges. To impose laws such as this is to put women back into the kitchen barefoot and pregnant (or at the very least limit us to only having the career choises of secretary or teacher), and women as a whole have struggled too hard and too long to break out of those molds to be crammed back into them.

Submitted by Equalist on January 25, 2009 - 3:10am.

Hormonal contraception prevents ovulation. Period. Ask any OB/GYN and you'll find out the truth, Ms. Brady.

In the meantime, please take a good look at what's going on in Nicaragua, where abortion is banned in all cases. Women are being charged with attempted murder for attempting to have ectopic pregnancies terminated even though they're not viable, and miscarriages have to be "proved" not to be abortion somehow or the local prosecutor will bring charges of murder.

You care more about a zygote than a woman. Your hardheartedness and turning away from God makes me physically ill.

Submitted by Ellid on January 25, 2009 - 11:24pm.

"Fertility is not a disease but a blessing." For you maybe.

There are women and men, myself included, who do not want to be parents. Ever. Under any circumstance. Period.

For us, fertility is a curse. A condition that must be fought and overcome.

Glad you love the baaaabies, and want to be a mother.

Don't assume I do.

Submitted by Scootermom on January 26, 2009 - 4:12pm.

AMEN!

Submitted by z3ncat on January 26, 2009 - 8:47pm.

which is another point that's been bugging me lately in this whole HHS fiasco... why are so many pro-lifers against sterilization? i mean, if there are no sperm or eggs to be fertilized, there will never even be the chance of a zygote being killed. seems to me the best option for people like scootermom and i, but still, it's lumped in with abortion and contraception as part of the BIG BAD. someone, please explain.

Submitted by Anonymous on January 27, 2009 - 3:36pm.

 Anti-choicers are opposed to ALL reproductive choices other than childbirth. That means no BC, no EC, no reality based sex ed and no sterilization. Please note not all those who identify themselves as "pro life" feel this way, only a small majority of the movement are this crazy.

 

Your grievance shall be avenged.

Submitted by otaku1960 on January 28, 2009 - 5:15pm.

Because so many anti-choice arguments boil down to two ignorant, faulty beliefs: 1. Sex = procreation, and 2. Any woman who dares to engage in consensual sex without being willing to procreate deserves, nay, NEEDS to be punished.

 

Of course, anti-choicers aren't the only ones who have a beef with elective sterilization.  Our society as a whole still has this hangup with the idea that there is NOTHING - not curing cancer, not reaching the highest office of government, not single-handedly bringing about world peace, NOTHING - that anyone with a 'pink blanket' can do that is greater than going through pregnancy and childbirth.  And, therefore, unless you're past your prime childbearing years and have given birth to 'enough' children to meet some kind of secret standard, it is considered UNTHINKABLE that any woman would willingly LESSEN herself by giving up the most important part of her: her ability to reproduce.

 

Forgive me if I'm a little bitter on the subject - I'm enraged by the fact that I, and thousands of other women, are patronized, belittled, and told that we can't be allowed to make decisions for ourselves simply because our decision is a rational, thought-out, and unchanging decision to remove our ability to procreate.

Submitted by z3ncat on January 28, 2009 - 6:01pm.

Actually, it's pretty much impossible to be sure of fertilization. In fact, about 50% of fertilized eggs never implant at all. So what about those? And BC works mainly to stop fertilization. So you've got no real argument there either.

Submitted by Kay on January 24, 2009 - 9:43pm.

"Actually, it's pretty much impossible to be sure of fertilization."

Precisely. So logically, in order to implement equal protection under the law for the zygote/embryo/fetus, the law would be obliged to assume that all women of childbearing age are pregnant at all times, and define protections accordingly.

Submitted by ahunt on January 24, 2009 - 10:03pm.

Actually, around 90% of zygotes are able to implant. The 50% statistic is based on one outdated study. Laboratory animal studies confirm a much greater survival rate. Even if the bogus research were true, what difference would it make? Nature taking its course is quite different morally from the intentional killing of innocent human beings.

About confirming fertilization - yes, there are currently no tests to do this before implantation. All the more reason for women to act differently from men and take care of themselves in case they might already be a mother without knowing it.

Yes, the BCP mainly acts to prevent fertilization by preventing ovulation. But another mechanism of action is to prevent implantation should the first mechanism fail, which it does around ten percent of the time.

Submitted by Michaela Brady on January 25, 2009 - 12:53am.

"About confirming fertilization - yes, there are currently no tests to do this before implantation. All the more reason for women to act differently from men and take care of themselves in case they might already be a mother without knowing it."

Women are different from men, yes, but not to the extreme you seem to believe. A woman should by no means have to put her entire life on hold during her childbearing years based on the idea that she might be pregnant at any time in that life. Because you are happy to be confined to a strict gender role does not make it so for the rest of the female population. While I take no issue with women who are happy in their traditional gender roles, I find those who would have the rest of us forced into them against our will incredibly offensive and disturbing.

Submitted by Equalist on January 25, 2009 - 3:17am.

"All the more reason for women to act differently from men and take care of themselves in case they might already be a mother without knowing it."

Good God, you are serious here! You do realize, Ms Brady...that you are telling us that all sexually active women of childbearing age should consider themselves pregnant at all times and restrict themselves from any employment, hobby, and activity that may have a negative impact on the hypothetical pregnancy?

You do get that, right?

Submitted by ahunt on January 25, 2009 - 1:01pm.

credible scientific or medical evidence to prove this 90% theory. All internet sources I've looked at give a figure ranging from 30% up to 75% for failure of the zygote to implant. 

<blockquote>Even if the bogus research were true, what difference would it make? Nature taking its course is quite different morally from the intentional killing of innocent human beings</blockquote>

I can't believe you jsut said the facts don't matter.

 

Your grievance shall be avenged.

Submitted by otaku1960 on January 25, 2009 - 7:08pm.

Contraception prevents fertilization, for one. If it actually did prevent implantation - which is when pregnancy starts - so therefore it can't be abortificant, as abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy. You fail on all fronts.

Submitted by Anonymous on January 26, 2009 - 4:14pm.

I'm sorry. I refuse to curb my life, because there is a slim, tiny possibility that I might at some date find myself pregnant. By this rationale we should tell men to avoid certain foods, not go in hot tubs, and do whatever else they need to do to ensure healthy sperm, because at some point they might be needed to make a baby.
But we don't. Because this is about controlling women, not about babies.
Additionally, that argument is, in the end, bad for children. This is because we live in a world where women need to work, simply for the fact that without a second income, most families can't make ends meet. If women curb their lives to make way for a possible baby, that child will inevitably be born into a worse situation than it would have been otherwise. This includes married people.
Maybe you should think you theories through to their logical conclusion before you advocate them.

Submitted by Kay on January 29, 2009 - 3:47pm.

I'm not sure about the percentage of failed implantations, but I do know that the estimate is that at LEAST 80% of conceptions never make it to successful development for purely biological reasons.

Submitted by z3ncat on January 26, 2009 - 5:32pm.

I'm not sure about the percentage of failed implantations, but I do know that the estimate is that at LEAST 80% of conceptions never make it to successful development for purely biological reasons.

Submitted by z3ncat on January 26, 2009 - 5:34pm.

"The reason for your confusion is that the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (ACOG) has redefined the words "conception" (and therefore, the "beginning of pregnancy") to mean "implantation"
instead of "fertilization" so as to make abortifacient forms of
"contraception" palatable to women - especially those that think that
their children's lives begin at "conception"."

 

So, you're claiming that the  American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians conspired to redefine the meaning of 'conception' in order to hoodwink fundie women? And you expect us to believe this without any proof whatsoever because you sound so reasonable and sane? I believe it far more likely that it is you who are confused.

Particularly when one considers the fact that we've decades of  documented and extremely destructive opposition to all forms of contraception from various factions of the religious right both Protestant and Catholic and, for that matter, Mormon. Perhaps y'all should have a conference about it.

Submitted by colleen on January 25, 2009 - 6:07pm.

Zygotes fated to become identical twins do not split into two beings until a few days after fertilization. That tells me there is no soul associated with a newly-fertilized egg.

I think of a newly fertilized egg as a blueprint for a future human being. There is no human being there yet until there is a functioning brain with brain waves, which doesn't happen for weeks after fertilization.

Submitted by Richard Winger on January 24, 2009 - 9:20pm.

Why are you trying to make this a religious argument? You can talk about personhood without talking about souls. Personhood is an attribute of all human beings. You can't have some humans that are persons and some that aren't. A newly conceived person has the same dignity as one in a coma - as one with severe birth defects - as one on their wedding day - as one discovering DNA. According to our Constitution, all men (people)are CREATED equal.

Where do you get the brain wave definition of personhood? We don't have the right as individuals to arbitrarily draw lines wherever we think personhood begins. That's what makes this debate like the ones surrounding slavery. In both cases, humanity is acknowledged, but personhood is defined according to the "owner's" self-interest.

Modern day abolitionists don't want the decision to go back to the states and wind up having some "free" and some subject to abortion. Roe was as wrong as Dred because a human being's personhood and dignity are not dependant on how convenient, dependant, large, healthy, or properly colored or parented she is. It's inherant in her human nature. Thank yo very much!

Submitted by Anonymous on January 25, 2009 - 1:53am.

If brain waves do not define personhood, then an individual who is brain dead is still a person and should never be removed from life support, yet this is done all the time to preserve the dignity of that person, and if that person is an organ doner, to provide life giving organs to other persons. Should we begin refusing to take brain dead individuals off life support, (and by brain dead I mean truly brain dead, when their brain no longer functions even in the capacity to force the body to breathe or the heart to beat, which is the state of a zygote before brain function begins) and force such individuals the indignity of remaining on unwanted equipment to sustain the life of their bodies long after the natural death of the person themselves has happened? Should this kind of thinking be supported, how many families would be driven into poverty by medical bills their loved ones would have wanted prevented? How many formerly active individuals would be forced to live on as empty husks based on the morals of someone else? Where do you truly draw the line?

Submitted by Equalist on January 25, 2009 - 3:53am.

The point is a women has a right to do what she wants with her own body which does not belong to science the church or the gov. and anti choicers etc,etc. Wars kill thousands of innocent children. Who stops the wars???

Submitted by Anonymous on January 24, 2009 - 9:35pm.

The point is that the pregnant woman's body holds another's body.

Submitted by Anonymous on January 25, 2009 - 12:55am.

The pregnant woman's body is her own. It does not belong to the zygote inside of her to do as it wishes. It does not belong to those who would force her to do with it what they believe is moral or right. It does not belong to the church, the government, her husband, or her father. It belongs to her and to her alone, and it is the pregnant woman's choice alone what to do with that body and anything inside it, alive or not. To take that choice away from the woman is the same as slavery or rape. A rapist takes away a woman's choice not to have sexual contact. A slave owner takes away the rights of another person to live their lives how they choose, and the anti choice movement takes away a woman's choice on if and when to bear children.

Submitted by Equalist on January 25, 2009 - 3:31am.

Just as no on owns the pregnant woman's body,
no one owns the child's body inside her.
Mothers don't own their children. Or they shouldn't have a right to. As the law stands, they do, and they can do anything they want to with them before they are born.

Submitted by Anonymous on February 6, 2009 - 7:13pm.

Women really shouldn't be putting children inside their bodies. That's disgusting.

Submitted by Anonymous on February 7, 2009 - 10:30pm.

And just like I'm under no obligation to donate marrow or an organ even if my refusal to do so would mean certain death to another, no woman is under any obligation to allow her body to be used as a life-support system for a z/e/f.

Submitted by z3ncat on January 27, 2009 - 4:45pm.

She was proud of the fact the personhood amendment was simple: "Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms 'person' or 'persons' shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization."

Except, of course, if that "person" is a pregnant woman. Then she gets to be incubator of the holy fetus whether she wants to or not.

I grew up among right-wing anti-choicers, and there were a lot of women like her who couldn't see - or refused to see - the connection between forced reproduction and the return to women-as-property in every other aspect.

Submitted by Princess Rot on January 25, 2009 - 10:35am.

So, you think that someone who isn't able to abort her children is not a person?

And what is this "holy fetus" stuff? I suppose we are all jsut animals? If human life stops being sacred to us then we have entered a truly "Brave New World". We are there.

Submitted by Anonymous on February 6, 2009 - 7:17pm.

I agree... if the life of a woman ceases to be highly valued and important, then we have entered a "brave new world." Thankfully, at this time, the lives of women are considered valuable and important... whew!

Submitted by Anonymous on February 7, 2009 - 10:35pm.

Ours is the one great nation in all of history that was founded on the precept of equal rights and respect for all humankind, for the poorest and weakest of us as well as the richest and strongest. As our Declaration of Independence put it, in words that have never lost their power to stir the heart: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." A nation founded on these principles holds a sacred trust; to stand as an example to the rest of the world, to climb ever higher in its practical realization of the ideals of human dignity, brotherhood, and mutual respect... It must be recognized that our model was never one of realized perfection, but of ceaseless aspiration. From the outset, for example, America denied the African slave his freedom and human dignity. But in time we righted this wrong, albeit at an incalculable cost in human suffering and loss of life. Our impetus has almost always been toward a fuller, more all-embracing conception and assurance of the rights that our founding fathers recognized as inherent and God-given. Ours has ever been an inclusive, not an exclusive society. And our steps, though they may have paused or faltered now and then, have been pointed in the right direction and have trod the right path. The task has not always been an easy one, and each new generation has faced its own challenges and temptations. But in a uniquely courageous and inspiring way, America has kept faith. Yet there has been one infinitely tragic and destructive departure from those American ideals. It was in this Court's own decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) to exclude the unborn child from the human family. Our court ruled that a mother, in consultation with her doctor, has broad discretion, guaranteed against infringement by the United States Constitution, to choose to destroy her unborn child. Your opinion stated that you did not need to "resolve the difficult question of when life begins." That question is inescapable. If the right to life is an inherent and inalienable right, it must surely obtain wherever human life exists. No one can deny that the unborn child is a distinct being, that it is human, and that it is alive. It is unjust, therefore, to deprive the unborn child of its fundamental right to life on the basis of its age, size, or condition of dependency. It was a sad infidelity to America's highest ideals when this Court said that it did not matter, or could not be determined when the inalienable right to life began for the child in its mother's womb. Look how the decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed our great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has protrayed the greatest of gifts - a child - as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilage conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign. Our nation was founded on the proposition that human life is a gift of immeasurable worth, and that it deserves, always and everywhere, to be treated with the utmost dignity and respect. In conclusion, the common ground we seek has already been written by our founding fathers - we just need to read and live what they intended. Life, liberty and then the pursuit of happiness... This prioritized order was not by mistake.

Submitted by Truth on January 25, 2009 - 12:18pm.

Whatever

Submitted by Anonymous on January 25, 2009 - 1:50pm.

I've given up reading "Truth"s rants, as they rarely make any sense unless you are completely and totally brainwashed by your religious convictions.

 If abortion contributed to all these allegedly horrible things, it would have done so since the beginning of time. Roe v Wade did not magically make abortions appear; it only established a woman's legal right to bodily autonomy, so that they could seek abortion in a safe manner from trained medical professionals without fear of legal reprisal. Abortion was technically legal in pretty much every state until fairly recent history; self-abortion products (ie "menstrual inducers") were advertised in newpapers and magazines. All that making abortion illegal would do is create a new black market in providing them, and more dead women from back-alley butchers. But that's ok if you get to ride the moral high horse eh?

Submitted by TheRealistMom on January 25, 2009 - 8:30pm.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, admits that they made up the figures of the number of pre-Roe back alley abortions as part of their campaign to scare the public into legalizing aboriton.

Submitted by Anonymous on February 6, 2009 - 7:21pm.

Saying it in all caps doesn't make it true.

Submitted by TheRealistMom on February 6, 2009 - 8:30pm.

Actually, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is based on Locke's idea: "No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."
The order wasn't a mistake, Locke was trying to justify the over throw of King James. I don't think Locke cared to write a philosophy on what makes man a human or some such. He was just trying to prove politically why King William was justified to be the new king.

Submitted by Anonymous on January 26, 2009 - 3:14pm.

If abortion is inconsistent with the U.S.A.'s "original values system", then why didn't the founding fathers criminalize it? Abortion was LEGAL before the founding of this country, and it was LEGAL AFTER the founding of this country.

Of course, we mustn't forget that slavery apparently WASN'T inconsistent with the country's "original values system", considering that it, too, both preceded and proceeded the founding of our government...

Submitted by z3ncat on January 27, 2009 - 4:49pm.