"What If My Mother Had Aborted Me?"
By Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check
November 3, 2009 - 7:00am
Kathleen Reeves turned her eyes to the way the recent and immediately notorious anti-choice episode of “Law and Order” employed the “born alive” myth that’s so near and dear the anti-choice heart. I would like to tackle another hoary myth of the anti-choice pantheon that made it onto the show, the “How would you like to be aborted?” ruse. On “Law and Order”, it shows up in the form of one of the detectives suggesting he was nearly aborted by his mother throwing herself down the stairs at 7 months---but instead, he was just prematurely delivered. Like most of the episode---including an exchange a few moments before when the same detective suggests that forcing an 11-year-old to give birth is nothing short of a the most wonderful thing you can do---the exchange only works if you share the writers’ assumption that once penetrated, a woman can be assumed to have no feelings or thoughts worth respecting, and should be regarded as nothing more than a womb, and abortion is a frustrating misfire, much like when the clutch goes out on your car.
But let’s deal with the attempt to get around women’s basic human rights by appealing to the egotistical assumption that your own birth was inevitable, and that the only thing that could have threatened this inevitable trot to you existing was the legality of abortion. “How would you like it if your mother had an abortion?” ask the anti-choicers, without realizing that’s like asking, “How would you like it if the night you were conceived, your dad decided to go to bed early while your mom stayed up to watch Johnny Carson?” The answer is, you wouldn’t be here to regret their selfish actions in the abortion or late show department.
It’s a trick of the brain that makes us think this question has any meaning. We don’t remember a time when we didn’t exist, and for the slower-witted amongst us, this means that not existing isn’t quite real. But even anti-choicers who buy into this line have to know there was a period before their lives began. They may not feel it’s true, but they know it intellectually. In fact, the question buys into the premise that we accept that our own “not-existing” was possible, because the question assumes that before you were born, your mother had the choice not to have you. The question therefore folds in on itself in a vacuum of self-contradiction.
To ask it is to ignore the fact that any of us exist by pure chance, and that many things could have changed it so we weren’t here. What if your parents never met at all? I probably wouldn’t be here for something as simple as my grandparents moving to a different neighborhood in El Paso than the one they lived in. That’s how my mother met my father, after all, but if she’d lived on the west side instead of the east side, they probably wouldn’t have met at all. It is, after all, a big city.  Does that make settling in one neighborhood and not the other immoral, and if so, how do you know which is the moral neighborhood? What if my grandmother’s first husband hadn’t died in the war? I wouldn’t be here; that doesn’t mean that we should think wars are some great thing because they set in motion series of events that lead to certain births. Truth is they also shut down another range of possibilities; think of all the children that man could have had and didn’t.
Some of us are here today because of abortion and birth control. Many women tell the story of the abortion that they had to have because the time wasn’t right for a baby, but it led them on a path that made having a baby possible in the future. The writer Susie Bright is a good example. She wrote:
In the case of my first abortion, the aftermath was the beginning of my realization that I was capable and desirous of having a child. I could feel the possibility, the confidence, for the first time. I didn't see that coming. I ended a relationship that I hadn't had the guts to say "No" to before. It was like I grew a spine— and my maternal instincts— out of the abortion decision. She now writes a column at Jezebel with her grown daughter Aretha, a daughter that might not exist if it weren’t for legal and safe abortion.
Contraception and abortion (to an extent) allow birth spacing, which reduces the chances of having an unhealthy baby or having an infant die. It also improves maternal health, which means that getting pregnant frequently increases the chance of miscarriage. Abortion and contraception play a role in creating not just life, but strong, healthy life, and the medical community knows it even if anti-choicers don’t.
But at its base, the “What if you were aborted?” question employs a model of reproduction that has no basis in biological reality. Anti-choicers treat the whole process of reproduction as if getting pregnant is a rare and precious event, like finding a giant lump of gold in your backyard, and as if nature was stingy about attempts to create life. If this was true, they might have more of a reason to get offended at attempts to control when you give birth. But outside of those people who suffer from infertility (in which case, they have every reason to grab onto every chance at childbirth that comes along), the biological fact of the matter is that our reproductive systems are all about waste, all about killing billions in order to have the few that have the best shot.
Using abortion and contraception to make sure that you can give the few children you do have the best possible life fits neatly in with the way biology does it. Men make enough sperm in a week to populate the planet; women are born with almost half a million eggs. Many eggs that are fertilized never even implant, and even when pregnancy happens, 15 to 20 percent miscarry. Nature throws a lot at reproduction, with the purpose of only having a few healthy babies as the final outcome. This creates a lot of “what ifs” that never come to fruition, and obsessing over what if too long will drive you mad. On any given day, there are billions of theoretical babies never born for the thousands that are born. In the grand scheme of things, abortion doesn’t even shut down that many doors as it opens new ones.
If the man-made event of abortion is "murder" or "killing", why aren't the natural events of miscarriage (and other natural events described above) a "death by natural disaster"?
Well, that's just swell for you, Amanda Marcott-your parents were living in a wholesome environment, which substantially decreased your own chances of being aborted. YOUR mother wasn't doing drugs, being abused by her mother's boyfriend, and living with a mother who had such bad alcoholism that she died a few months after you were born. I, on the other hand, wasn't so fortunate-my biological mother was experiencing all these things. I WAS likely to be aborted, so I don't appreciate people who were conceived under better circumstances and didn't really face that possibility poo pooing away this concern. You honestly have no idea. Secondly, aborting a pregnancy that has already implanted is NOT the same as never having sex on a particular night-we are dealing with a life that has begun and is terminated vs. a life that never began in the first place. Plain old reason tells us that this is not the same thing at all.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Were in great danger of not being born because this sperm swam faster than that. Do you want to regulate sperm speed? Do you feel sorry for all the millions of potential babies that weren't born because your sperm got there first?
Secondly, aborting a pregnancy that has already implanted is NOT the same as never having sex on a particular night-we are dealing with a life that has begun and is terminated vs. a life that never began in the first place.
Why not? Do you deny that sperm and eggs are human life? Biologically, they are as alive as you or me, or embryos for that matter. They don't have feelings or thoughts or identities, though, so I don't consider them people. Neither do embryos, of course, so I'm consistent. But you aren't. Sperm and eggs fit your definition of "life", and yet, you refuse to consider ejaculating into a sock to be a crime.
That is a stupid comparison. Sperm and eggs have only the DNA of the woman and her partner. an embryo/fetus has an entirely new set of DNA, iand, just a few short weeks later, it's own organ systems, etc. STUPID comparison.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Do you think they're not real people?Â
Sorry, no matter how you slice it, it seems that most people define "person" as someone with a brain and a separate identity. The only time we don't do so is when we're looking for an excuse to take away women's basic human rights.
Identical twins having the same DNA has nothing to do with the abortion debate. Of course they have the same DNA-they formed from the same ovum that was fertilized to create a SEPERATE SET OF DNA from the woman's. The point is that the woman is taking a seperate life from her own when she has an abortion. My point is that a conception that never occurs and never results in an implanted pregnancy is not the same as a conception that never occurs.Â
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Identical twins are formed after implantation of the embryo into the uteran lining. There is one embryo that later splits into two (when the split is incomplete, the result is a set of cojoined twins). At what point does one life become two? Why consider fertilization (or even implantation)Â to be the criterion for determining the begining of a new human life when there is still potential for that zygote/embryo to become numerous lives?
My point in asking is to show that our definition of when life begins is flexible and arbitrary. Not everyone uses the critereon of "DNA unique from the parents'" to mark the beginning of life. Some mark quickening as the point when an embryo comes alive. Some people mark the capacity for consciousness as the beginning of life. Others mark birth as the beginning. Some cultures even hold that life begins at points days, weeks, or months after birth. (And yes, these cultures can be found in America.)
If the central question of abortion's morality revolves around "new life" then it is entirely reasonable to question when and how we define the beginning of new life. If you want to stick with science, it is important to realize that even scientific definitions of "new life" are arbitrary, as in the case of determining at what point one embryo's life becomes two embryos' lives and why (particularly in the cases of cojoined twins, who are sometimes deemed two lives in one body and sometimes one life with a body that has a few extra parts).
If "new life" cannot be given a concrete definition, then abortion cannot have a concrete moral value based on it.
That a person is defined as an individual, not by their having unique DNA? Because a minute ago, you were saying that DNA makes the person, that any object with unique human DNA should be treated like a full human being. Now you're switching. Huh. It's almost like you have a predetermined conclusion---whatever works to reduce women's rights!---and you fit the evidence to your conclusion.
I maintain that we should stick with the same definition that we use for all other situations where a woman's rights aren't in question, which is that a person is defined by having a separate body and brain, which a fetus doesn't even start to have until late in the pregnancy, and doesn't really have until it's born. I will concede that I think the closer it gets to a person, the more protection it deserves, but certainly the primative, basically brainless fetus you get in the first trimester deserves none.Â
I will concede that I think the closer it gets to a person, the more protection it deserves, but certainly the primative, basically brainless fetus you get in the first trimester deserves none.
Maybe you could put that to music and sing it to your children after they are born?
Maybe you could put that to music and sing it to your children after they are born?
We are receiving reports that Anne, a reputedly anti-choice-leaning poster at the RHRealityCheck.org Web site, has just discovered that not all women romanticize the process of reproduction and motherhood. She is alleged to have written a snarky reply to a comment written by Amanda Marcotte. Ms. Marcotte stated that a first-trimester fetus is basically brainless, a relatively uncontroversial assertion backed up by medical science. Anne's reply is said not to have addressed this point, but instead to mock Ms. Marcotte for not expressing proper motherly reverence for a first-trimester fetus. We also have unconfirmed reports that Anne even presumed that Ms. Marcotte intends to have children in the future---a possibility that would further corroborate Anne's belief in Ms. Marcotte having an inherently maternal nature for no reason other than her physical sex and cisgender expression.
Um... no, I'm saying that having a distinct set of DNA indicates that the fetus gestating inside a woman's body is NOT PART OF her body. It's attached to her body, but it's not part of her body in the way that her lung or intestine is. Clearly, you are bright enough to get this, Amanda. Stop twisting my words around. Â
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Well, I love my mom too-the one who adopted and raised me-who I never would have met if my biological mother had had an abortion. I also don't consider myself culpable for having gestated inside my biological mother's uterus. My mother wasn't forced to have me, either. Abortion was not only available and legal-she had already had one. I will repeat again that that doesn't make her a bad person in my eyes, but it does have relevance to my own conceptions of what is right and wrong. It wasn't my choice to be concieved, but when I was, I don't feel that my biological mother had any moral right to end my life.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Can I ask if you think you'd feel differently if your bio-Mom had NOT had that legal choice? Obviously, I'm asking you to speculate, but I do think your response begs the question.
About the possibility of having been aborted? Well...yes and no. Because of abortion's legality and the current propensity to push it as the answer to an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, I feel that it "would have made sense" for my biological mother to have gotten an abortion. After all, this was 1982, and abortion had been legal for nine years. She had already had one, so what's one more?
It makes much less sense for women to seek abortions in societies where it is illegal and doing so could lead to extreme physical harm/legal intervention, etc. So, in a society where abortion wasn't "the answer" for an unplanned pregnancy, I suppose the concern over possibly having been aborted wouldn't be as significant.
However, when I recount my story, my primary purpose is to try to get pro choice people who see abortion as no more significant than having one's appendix out to take a second look at their point of view. That purpose doesn't necessarily depend on how I feel about abortion's legality. Irregardless, I still feel that it takes an individual life, and I feel that everyone should be cognizant of that fact, even if the reasons behind an abortion are "good" ones. So, even if abortion were illegal at the time that my mother had me, I would still recount my story as a way of trying to get people to reject the idea that unplanned pregnancies are so horrible that women should go and seek out illegal abortions, that some sort of eugenics policy should be put in place, etc. The point is that unplanned pregnancy isn't necessarily a tragedy for the woman or child involved.Â
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
"I still feel that it takes an individual life, and I feel that everyone should be cognizant of that fact"
I am now cognizant of that fact. Thank you, you have done your duty.
I'm still going to terminate a pregnancy if I feel that is the best thing for me and that potential child, for whatever reason I deem reasonable
Amanda-I am NOT in crisis over this. Believe me, I have FAR too many problems in my life to walk around being in crisis over the fact that my biological mother might have aborted me. My point in recounting that story is not to dwell on some nonexistent existential crisis, but to point out that abortion thwarts individual destiny. Some people see that as a uniquely religious POV, but I don't think one has to be religious to believe that each person has an instrinsic purpose for being here and that the world wouldn't be quite the same without each indvidual. That's not egotistical, it's appreciation for the fact that each person has the opportunity to fulfill their potential to do good unto others, etc, even if they are doing something as simple as offering a kind word to someone else on a daily basis.Â
Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
You're flipping out here, having a crisis because other people's rights send you into a tailspin of "what if?" But your crisis is only provoked by other people's private choices. The possibility that my parents might not have met---or yours---doesn't bother you. Just that an individual woman might choose to have this baby and not that. You start to freak out about the possibility that you could have been that baby and not this baby. No sympathy for this baby that that baby could have prevented.
I don't know. Your self-centeredness strikes me as the sort that stems from an existential crisis. That it's provoked strictly by women's rights is interesting, but not unusual for anti-choicers. There's something about the combination of female sexuality and questions about our own existence that really sets people off.
You have no idea, Amanda. The latest claptrap in woman-hating spewed by the SBC is based entirely in Genesis.
Are those the ones that are rewriting the Bible to take out the 'liberal' parts that were probably added by the ancestors of commie pinkos? You know, all that forgiving the adultress and caring for the poor nonsense.
But, Amanda-I'm not freaking out. Once again, you have no idea what I am like when I am truly "freaked out." Last week, I was freaked out because the school I go to decided to drop one of my accommodations, in a disgusting display of anti-disability prejudice. THEN I was freaked out. I broke down crying several times because getting this graduate degree is so, so important to me and without the accommodation, I don't know if I'm going to be able to complete it. THAT is a crisis. Good thing that I didn't have any extensive communication with the people who decided to deny the accommodation last week, for I would have had a difficult time not freaking out. Having a reasonable debate about how I feel in regard to the abortion debate does not constitute "freaking out"-it's just a debate on an issue I feel strongly about. I'm not walking around crying or lying in bed losing sleep over it-I'll save that for worrying about how I'm going to complete my degree.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
The creationism vs. evolution debate is a lot more complicated than a simple clash of religious vs. secular ideologies, but that aside, the Adam and Eve story and others in the Bible only undercut women's rights if they are employed for the purposes of doing so. There are lots of instances of strong, independent women in the Bible, such as Esther, Mary and Mary Magdalene, along with several new Testament stories of Jesus paying particular attention to women in a way that was not common in his day. Even Timothy's statement, "wives, submit to your husbands" is balanced by, "husbands, treat your wives as Christ treated the church." Since Christ died, ie, submitted himself, to the church, that passage implies an equal partnership, not one in which the woman is a "second class citizen." So, the creation vs. evolution debate is a moot point in regard to women's rights when one considers more current interpretations of the Biblical text.
Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
It actually says "wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord" and "husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church." It also specifically says that "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church." If that's your definition of "equal partnership," I think you may need to consult a dictionary.
You might want to go to that link about de-liberalizing the Bible. The interpretations you cite are EXACTLY the type of thing they feel has been slipping in by liberals and which they want to remove.
First, the statement you quote about wives submitting themselves to their husbands isn't in "Timothy."Â It's in Paul's letter to the Colossians 3:17-19.
Second, drawing such broad conclusions from any of Paul's letters is dangerous. He was a very situational writer who could tell women in one church to be quiet and ask their husbands to explain what they didn't understand, and tell another to direct their questions to his friend and fellow apostle Phoebe, who was the leader of her congregation and was carrying Paul's letter to Rome. The passage you quote in Colossians is a possible indicator of later interpolation by a Pauline follower who was concerned about attracting too much Roman attention.
Third, creationism v. evolution is not a complex debate. Creationism is scientifically inaccurate and religiously literalist. Evolution is scientifically correct and says nothing about religion. The former has no business in a public school classroom, as it is not scientific, while the latter has no business in a Sunday School, as it is not religious. Â
Finally, if my mother had aborted me, or a potential sibling, it would have been to save her own life. She nearly died having me, and her own doctor explicitly told her not to push her luck. Unlike the heroines of so many movies of the week, she chose to put her own life above that of a potential fetus. Besides, if I'd been aborted, how could I possibly have any feelings or thoughts on the matter unless my soul had somehow been incarnated in another fetus that came to term and somehow came to learn of my mother's predicament?
You know, I had a pretty lousy childhood too, and I've got to say, if as you state you actually experienced it yourself, your insistence that abortion be made illegal so that women will be forced to give birth to a million unwanted children who will ALSO have to endure rotten childhoods doesn't meet my definition of "plain old reason". If your 'biological mother' "died a few months after you were born" did you then live somewhere else, possibly in an entirely different and 'wholesome' environment?
Except, of course, that someone in that new environment apparently shared this information about your 'biological mother' for some bizarre reasons of their own. I certainly cannot imagine any adult having a good reason to inform a child of the adult's speculation that the child was "likely to be aborted". Obviously, the child WASN'T, so where does the 'likely' come from? From the fact that the mother was abused and used drugs leading to the conclusion that the mother was a 'bad person' and bad people are the ones who are 'likely' to get abortions?
Frankly, I can't imagine telling an ADULT that information about biological origins, since there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to do so.
Crowepps-you should have read what I wrote more carefully-I wrote that my bio-mother's mom (my biological grandmother) died a few months after I was born.Â
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Sorry, that wasn't clear. But why are you talking about your 'bio-mom'? Who told you all that vile drek about your grandmother? What possible purpose could they have had for telling you all that?
My mom was an eighteen year old high school dropout stuck with an abusive boyfriend, no job, and no license. I go into all the reasons that she was, but let's just say everyone thought he was the cat's meow and she didn't exactly have anywhere to go. Oh, and she was living among drug dealers. Sense would say my mother /should/ have aborted me. Those were not good circumstances for bringing a child into the world. Maybe she could have clawed her way out of that situation and had another child at a later date. One that wasn't being born into a family where all of her siblings had been the victims of abuse and poverty.
I am not at all bothered by the fact that my mother could have (and probably should have) aborted me. I wouldn't know the difference if she had, and frankly there are more important things in the world to work myself up over than pointless hypotheticals.
So take your contrived existential quandry and stuff it. The point of this article is not that miscarriages are equal to abortions, but that all hypotheticals of this kind are essentially exercises in vanity that serve only to make us feel special because we happen to exist *against the odds!* Reality has already happened and it's not going to change because you're twisting yourself in knots about the past. Maybe focus on something that matters, like real women being told that their hypothetical children are more important than they are.
Sorry, Cola, I'm NOT going to stuff it, but since you think I should, perhaps you should set a good example. Â
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Ooh, are we playing Childhood Trauma Show-And-Tell? 'Cause, it's funny actually, my family background of abuse, drinking, and drugging is one of the biggest reasons why I am pro-choice. A young woman in an ugly situation has way more options for getting out if she doesn't have little kids to support.
It is a simple, unsentimental fact that my mom's life would have been *immeasurably* improved had she aborted me when she became pregnant as a teenager. In a society where conservatism gives such lip service to the beauty of childbearing, yet condemns the unforgivable sins of single motherhood, working motherhood, and social assistance for poor mothers, the life prospects for an uneducated, unskilled, pregnant teenager with an abusive boyfriend are *not*appealing. They look more or less as follows:
- Stick with the abusive, addicted layabout for the rent money that's sometimes left over, if he's working at the time, after he's done buying beer... so your soon-to-be baby has a roof over her head?
- Leave him, and go on welfare, so the rent doesn't come with a broken nose and tufts of your hair on the floor where he grabbed you in a rage and drove your face into the dining room table... and your soon-to-be baby has a roof over her head?
- Or have an abortion, thank God that you live in a free nation where your actual real existing born life matters, and with luck and a little grace, start over again at building a sane and stable life into which you'll bring children when the time is right?
In her shoes, I would've aborted, without hesitation. And I wouldn't blame my mother for having done it... not that a person who never existed has the capacity for blame or regret or anything else, as Amanda so rightly points out.
I second that, Clinic Escort! I was not a planned child. My father and mother got married in their early twenties because that's what you did when you got knocked up and you were from conservative families. I spent a large portion of my life struggling with the idea that the emotional abuse and torment that my parents inflicted upon one another (and to some extent my siblings and myself) was my fault -- we would not have been a family if it hadn't been for my conception. I would not dream of begruding someone the right to do something different. Even at this point, married for two years in a healthy and stable relationship, I do not know that I would carry a pregnancy to term, and I want that control over my reproduction.
Michelle Bell
Just so we're clear, I had a very pleasant and stable home life as a child, despite the unfortunate circumstances surrounding my conception and nine month gestation.So, I'm not swapping "childhood misery" tales with anyone. (Now, that doesn't mean that I didn't have bad experiences outside of my home, so I'm not saying that my childhood was idyllic, either. I'm not going to go into the severe abuse I suffered at schvool, church, and other public places, but in terms of home life, it was a very good situation. I had two parents who were together, a parent with a steady and solid income, and a dedicated mom who put her heart and soul into raising me and my brother. I only wish that every child could have the kind of home life that I had. My parents also advocated like crazy for me when the school system discriminated against me because I had learning disabilities.)
I also think that my story just shows the difference between getting pregnant in the sixties or even the early seventies and getting pregnant in the eighties, nineties, and today-my biological mother was not shelved in some home for nine months and she wasn't forced to keep me, either. So, stories of traumatic childhoods don't sway me toward support for abortion because I see them as indicating the need for something else, such as support for single mothers, continued work against domestic violence, quality adoption options, and other measures to make the world a better place to be.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Some of us who also had a mother (in my case, both parents) with very rough circumstances, or with painful childhoods because of the circumstances of our birth/parentage still feel as Amanda does, though. I don't think it's fair to suggest that Amanda only feels the way she does because of the unique circumstances of her birth.
My biggest issue with this -- and yes, I wish the law and my mother's circumstances had been such that she could EITHER have legally accessed contraception or abortion: neither were available to her legally given the time -- is that it seems to assume that the only way any of us would be here is if we had the exact parents and birth we did. When, in fact, that's just not something we can know. When I consider that I do wish my mother had been able to terminate her pregnancy with me, I don't really go to an "But I wouldn't be here," place, because my presumption is that if I was supposed to be here, I'd be here by some circumstance or another, not only the one I'm here this time via.
Lots of people wouldn't mind a bit if they had been aborted, especially those who had a rotten childhood in a dysfunctional family, as the whole phenomena of depression and suicide attest.
And I'm also sure sick of the response when that's pointed out - "Well, anybody who feels THAT Way must be mentally unhealthy and need therapy!" When life is a burden, as it all too often is, being labeled 'mentally unhealthy' really doesn't make a person feel a whole lot more reconciled to having to struggle on with it.
This exercise of should-she-have or should-she-not-have had an abortion is really pointless. I had a friend who said she was alive because her mom aborted a pregnancy not long before she was conceived. And if you really want to talk about all the potentials that have been "lost" through abortion, then why not ask about all the potentials not conceived for a variety of reasons. If my dad had died in Vietnam, I wouldn't be alive. If my parents had married later, I wouldn't be alive. If my parents had met earlier, I might have more brothers or maybe sisters. As it happens, I have one brother, four cousins on my mom's side and six on my dad's. I could have more or less, depending on life circumstances. The reason *this* question isn't viewed as belonging only to philosophy majors is because abortion is seen as illegitimate to others. Sure, I could have been aborted, but there are several other circumstances that could mean I would never have been born (and plenty more where I could have died after birth).
The question also attempts to legitimize some reasons women have abortions and hold judgment over the other reasons. Poor women have legitimate reasons while middle class women perhaps not so much. It's pointless, stupid, and dangerous.
Suppose I had two embryos in test tubes from an infertility treatment. For my own reasons, I decide to give one to a mother and another to discard. The one I gave to the mother grew up to a be a doctor. What about the one I discarded? Should I be "condemned" for flushing down the biohazard bin another "potential doctor"? Did I "deny the world" this would-be doctor's skill? Or lawyer, or Peace Corp, or whatever else we can imagine?
At what point to we get to call this fantasizing of what would have been just that - fantasizing?
Beacuse of the idea that we could be ditching another doctor/lawyer/person with kind words/etc.?
Must we demand that what happens in a woman's uterus - at the cellular level - happen in a way so that the zygote gestates? Even if the woman doesn't want it?
The answer to the hypothetical question, what if my mother had aborted me? is, I'd figure she probably had a pretty damn good reason, and I'd respect that. (As you say, not that I'd ever have known anyway.)
My mother told me that she did have an abortion in her 20s,during the 1940s when it was still illegal (and I was yet to be born). It was apparently a gruesome, back-alley abortion, but she doesn't regret it, and I never think about the possible half-sister or brother I might have had. It's moot.
What the experience did do was convince her the procedure should be safe and legal. When I was a teenager, she always told me that if I ever had an accidental pregnancy and needed an abortion, she'd stand by me every step of the way. I appreciated that (and never did get pregnant anyway).
I listened to a local NPR interview with those "Personhood Nevada" people and their opponents. Had I not been driving, I might have called in.
Legally defining a constitutionally protected "person" as of the "moment of conception," while perhaps providing ethical dilettantes with a nice self-reflecting narcissistic glow, is simply untenable.
See http://bgladd.blogspot.com/2008/04/diploid-dave-et-al.html
I continue to be amazed at the incoherence surrounding this debate -- on both sides.
I'm sorry, the born-alive "myth"? http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/06/florida.abortion/
This was discussed in a separate thread and if you follow the links there you will see the coroner said the cause of death was "extreme prematurity" - in other words fetus at nonviable stage of development.
Crowepps-
Honestly, your dishonesty makes me sick. It is true that the coroner said that the infant's death was caused by "extreme prematurity," because the infant was 23 weeks old when it was accidentally born at an abortion clinic. Infants that young ARE viable if they are given appropriate care, but they are not if such care isn't provided. Infants that young MUST be given care at a neonatal intensive care unit or they will die of extreme prematurity. The people in attendance when the child was born did not call 911 or do anything to help the baby-thus, it's death due to "extreme prematurity."Â
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
While I agree with you that in a neonatal intensive care unit the fetus would have had a 20% to 35% chance of survival, and I also agree with you that these people did not follow medical protocols in any way whatsoever, should have done a lot more than they did, and should not be practicing any kind of medicine, it's equally dishonest of ProLifers to tout this case as typical abortion clinic practice. Using that rationale, Michelle Kehoe is a 'typical mother'.
http://www.wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_34ea9bf6-c4a4-11de-b294-001...
I remember obsessing about this very thing when I was around twelve or thirteen. What if my parents had changed positions during sex - I'd never have been conceived. What if my parents had started fooling around five minutes earlier - perhaps I'd never have been conceived. What if my mom had gotten a leg cramp during sex on the night of my conception - it might have interrupted things and my dad might have come a couple of minutes later. And then, there'd be no me. Maybe they would have had a son. Or a daughter who looked sort of like me. Â
Yeah, I thought about this kind of thing when I was young. Pondering "what ifs?" and being completely self-involved and fascinated by the mere fact of one's existence is fairly common for kids. Not a very intelligent thing to base public health policy on, and not a very firm basis to deny women bodily autonomy. And I was sort of repulsed and fascinated by the obvious fact that my parents "did it" at least three times. This kind of fascination with other people's sex lives is normal for children and teenagers, but rather unseemly in adults. Yet all too common.Â
Fact of the matter is, if I'd never been born, I wouldn't know the difference. No more a tragedy than that my two brothers were born as who they are when I could have had two completely different siblings if only the sex act that resulted in their conception had been a bit different. Oh, how I mourn those non-existent siblings! Maybe they would have been taller. Or given me more nieces and nephews. Or had made more attractive friends to introduce me to. Or one of them would have bought me a winning lottery ticket. Cruel fate.Â
Oh, well, guess I'm a liberal, then. As to "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is head of the church," I still think that there is probably a concurrent verse that implies equality for male and female in the marital (and any other) relationship, although I don't have time to go and look it up right now. I suggest that anyone seeking to determine which of us is right in regard to this issue go and read those passages/the biblical book in which they are written themselves.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
The idea that I had a right to my mother's uterus/that she was obligated to gestate me - is kind of awful to me. I love my mother; I wouldn't want her to be forced to endure a pregnancy she didn't want. My mother wasn't in the best of circumstances, either: my father was diagnosed with cancer shortly after my mother realised she was pregnant, so she was dealing with preparing to lose her partner and then dealing with his death, plus being a first-time mum, and the stress of becoming a single parent nine months after I was born. I'm grateful that she had me, but I'd hate for her to have had to go through all the extra stress of having a kid if it hadn't been what she wanted. No one, including me, should have been entitled to make that decision for her. She's an autonomous person, not a bloody vessel.
It's just so entitled for anyone to believe they have some kind of right to occupy their mother's uterus. That their mother owes it to them in some way. Anti-choicers need to get over themselves.
 In my opinion, the argument that "you had no right to your mother's uterus" implies that the embryo/fetus had a choice about being there. As if the fetus marched in one day and said to the woman, "Lady, I'm taking over your uterus for nine months, and there isn't jock shit you can do about it." This gets into what pro choicers like to call "do the crime, do the time." I don't think that people who have sexual intercourse are committing a crime, or doing anything wrong. As such, I do not believe that being pregnant is a punishment. It may not be what the woman wants at a particular time, but I don't believe that being pregnant for nine months is some sort of natural penance for a woman who has had sex. So, I don't view denying a woman an abortion, particularly one after nine weeks of pregnancy, as being a way to punish women for something. But, the only two people responsible for an embryo/fetus being inside a woman's uterus is the woman and man whose sexual relationship resulted in the pregnancy. The embryo/fetus didn't ask or demand to be concieved. That is why arguing that the embryo/fetus had no right to the uterus misses the point. I am not saying that I had a "right" to occupy my biological mother's uterus, only that once I was there, she didn't have the moral right to end my life.Â
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Obviously an embryo can't think and therefore has no choices about its location. It's more just this idea of 'hey, mum, you slut. you spread your legs, now this is your punishment. you owe it to me, bitch'. It's what runs through my head when I hear the 'what if I'd been aborted?!!' question.
Crowepps yeah, maybe 'entitled' isn't the right word...I was just thinking, though...if I ever have a kid, I think I'll name her/him 'Consequence'. ;-P
(Kidding. Obvsly.)
It's just so entitled for anyone to believe they have some kind of right to occupy their mother's uterus. That their mother owes it to them in some way. Anti-choicers need to get over themselves.
I'm not sure the feeling is "I'm entitled" but I surely do hear implications that being a mother is such a lousy deal that nobody in their right mind would choose it deliberately and that raising children is such a bummer that if people aren't forced into it, nobody will have kids.
Which seems to me kind of self-defeating 'advertising' - the more they talk about how women should get married and 'serve' their husbands and about how mothers should be self-sacrificing and live for others and put their families first, etc., the less attractive marriage and motherhood are going to sound to young women.
"What if my mother had aborted me?" is a fairly bad argument. Moving on... You said,
Using abortion and contraception to make sure that you can give the few children you do have the best possible life fits neatly in with the way biology does it.
Eugenics fits in to how natural selection operates, but that does not make eugenics OK. One more thing:
Sorry, no matter how you slice it, it seems that most people define "person" as someone with a brain and a separate identity. The only time we don't do so is when we're looking for an excuse to take away women's basic human rights.
I think that most people think of a person as being someone who has been born, and there's a reason for this. During evolution, induced abortions did not exist. Our ancestors, going all the way back, did not have the intelligence or technology to perform them. They did have the intelligence (or lack of intelligence) to abandon their born children, and kill born members of their species. Natural selection acted swiftly against infanticide and the killing of born members of the species. So our ancestors quickly evolved a sense of love for their fellow species, and in particular for their born children. But since our ancestors could not perform induced abortions, natural selection could not act on it. We never could have evolved any sense of compassion towards our unborn children, since natural selection did not exist to act on induced abortion.
Take any attribute you use to determine when prenatals (fetuses) supposedly are persons, like consciousness. Then, ask yourself how you would feel about killing a baby born very prematurely who does not possess that attribute. Would it be OK to kill that baby? Aside from us not really feeling bad about it, how would abortion be different from that? If you're going to treat abortion and infanticide differently, on what basis are you doing so?
Eugenics fits in to how natural selection operates
Actually, it doesn't. Natural selection is about how well an organism is adapted to survive in its environment. Eugenics, as practiced by...well, pretty much anyone who practiced it...dealt with socially-preferred traits that had nothing to do with adaptation to the environment.  Â
I think that most people think of a person as being someone who has been born, and there's a reason for this. During evolution, induced abortions did not exist. Our ancestors, going all the way back, did not have the intelligence or technology to perform them. They did have the intelligence (or lack of intelligence) to abandon their born children, and kill born members of their species. Natural selection acted swiftly against infanticide and the killing of born members of the species. So our ancestors quickly evolved a sense of love for their fellow species, and in particular for their born children. But since our ancestors could not perform induced abortions, natural selection could not act on it. We never could have evolved any sense of compassion towards our unborn children, since natural selection did not exist to act on induced abortion.
Point 1: The tradition of killing "unfit" infants persisted well into recorded history. The Spartans loved it. Given the length of human lifespans and generations, a few thousand years is far too short a time for evolution to make a significant difference in our species-wide brain chemistry (which is, after all, the source of emotion).
Point 2: Why do you assume that those who killed or abandoned their infants killed or abandoned all of them? In many cases (see the Spartans), they were getting rid of an infant they deemed unlikely to survive so they could try again or devote their resources to the children they already had. Which worked, in evolutionary terms - their genes were passed on. Thus, no selection pressure to make the changes in brain chemistry that you suggest.Â
Point 3: In the same way, there will be no selection pressure to change people's brain chemistry to make people feel differently about fetuses, since most women who abort pregnancies either already have, or later will have, children.
Take any attribute you use to determine when prenatals (fetuses) supposedly are persons, like consciousness. Then, ask yourself how you would feel about killing a baby born very prematurely who does not possess that attribute. Would it be OK to kill that baby?
Fetuses born that prematurely would have a very, very small chance of survival in any case, but the answer to your question is no. Once born - that is, once they're no longer attached to a woman's actual organs as their life-support system - they have their own right to whatever infinitesimal life may be ahead of them. Â
Aside from us not really feeling bad about it, how would abortion be different from that? If you're going to treat abortion and infanticide differently, on what basis are you doing so?
Amazing. You don't even see the woman in this hypothetical scenario of yours, do you?
Actually, it doesn't. Natural selection is about how well an organism is adapted to survive in its environment. Eugenics, as practiced by...well, pretty much anyone who practiced it...dealt with socially-preferred traits that had nothing to do with adaptation to the environment.
Killing handicapped people = eugenics, and it fits in perfectly with the way natural selection operates.
Point 1: The tradition of killing "unfit" infants persisted well into recorded history. The Spartans loved it. Given the length of human lifespans and generations, a few thousand years is far too short a time for evolution to make a significant difference in our species-wide brain chemistry (which is, after all, the source of emotion).
I'm talking about before humans existed. Natural selection acted against infanticide long before humans came onto the scene.
Point 2: Why do you assume that those who killed or abandoned their infants killed or abandoned all of them? In many cases (see the Spartans), they were getting rid of an infant they deemed unlikely to survive so they could try again or devote their resources to the children they already had. Which worked, in evolutionary terms - their genes were passed on. Thus, no selection pressure to make the changes in brain chemistry that you suggest.before humans existed, that were passed down to us from our ancestors. Point 3: In the same way, there will be no selection pressure to change people's brain chemistry to make people feel differently about fetuses, since most women who abort pregnancies either already have, or later will have, children.
I don't see how this affects my point. We care profoundly about our born children. We generally do not care about our unborn children. This is why post abortion syndrome is a myth, but so much as putting your born child up for adoption often has serious psychological effects.
Fetuses born that prematurely would have a very, very small chance of survival in any case, but the answer to your question is no. Once born - that is, once they're no longer attached to a woman's actual organs as their life-support system - they have their own right to whatever infinitesimal life may be ahead of them.
A baby born into an environment in which there is no replacement available for her mothers breastmilk needs to be attached to her mother's organs in order to survive.
Amazing. You don't even see the woman in this hypothetical scenario of yours, do you?
You didn't answer my question. Interesting...
<blockquote>Killing handicapped people = eugenics, and it fits in perfectly with the way natural selection operates.</blockquote>
Only if your understanding of natural selection is limited to a bumper sticker that says "Survival of the Fittest". If someone is so catastrophically "handicapped" that they die on their own, that's natural selection. If their disability somehow prevents them from passing on their genes, that's natural selection. If someone is able to survive in their environment (i.e. human society) despite their difficulties, then killing them (eugenics) is <i>not</i> the same as natural selection.Â
<blockquote>I'm talking about before humans existed. Natural selection acted against infanticide long before humans came onto the scene.</blockquote>
Then you're even more wrong. There are plenty of creatures out there to this very day that will kill, drive away, or even eat their own young.  Â
<blockquote>I don't see how this affects my point.</blockquote>
By pointing out that the pseudoscientific foundation of your reasoning is wrong, it establishes that any conclusions you reach - even if they're correct - are extremely shaky. Â
<blockquote>We care profoundly about our born children. We generally do not care about our unborn children.</blockquote>
Do we? I've known people who were absolutely devastated when a pregnancy failed, and others who treated their born children like garbage.  In a lot of cases, it seems that whether the pregnancy was wanted and whether the parents were prepared to have children were more important factors than evo-psych.  Â
<blockquote>This is why post abortion syndrome is a myth, but so much as putting your born child up for adoption often has serious psychological effects.</blockquote>
This is what I was talking about when I mentioned correct conclusions based on shaky foundations.Â
<blockquote>A baby born into an environment in which there is no replacement available for her mothers breastmilk needs to be attached to her mother's organs in order to survive.</blockquote>
Let me get this straight. We're in a situation where the mother is unable to breastfeed the infant (which is entirely different than a fetus's parasitic existence <i>inside</i> a woman's uterus, in case you're just being disingenuous) and there are no substitutes around, so you think the solution is to reattach the infant to the mother's body somehow? I don't even know how to argue with that. That's some science-fictiony shit right there.Â
<blockquote><i>
Amazing. You don't even see the woman in this hypothetical scenario of yours, do you?</i>
You didn't answer my question. Interesting...</blockquote>
Actually, I did. The fact that you still don't see it tells me pretty much all I need to know about you.Â
I think the "mother's organs" Austin referred to were her breasts. (I don't recall ever seeing the word "attached" used to describe breastfeeding, either.) I can't say that I followed the point of the comment, however.
Only if your understanding of natural selection is limited to a bumper sticker that says "Survival of the Fittest". If someone is so catastrophically "handicapped" that they die on their own, that's natural selection. If their disability somehow prevents them from passing on their genes, that's natural selection. If someone is able to survive in their environment (i.e. human society) despite their difficulties, then killing them (eugenics) is not the same as natural selection.
Eugenics is not natural selection, but it fits in to the way it works, by definition.
Then you're even more wrong. There are plenty of creatures out there to this very day that will kill, drive away, or even eat their own young.
We are not one of them. We feel bad when we do it. Post-abortion syndrome is a myth, but putting your born child up for adoption often has serious psychological effects. This is a scientific fact. We do not feel nearly as bad about abortion as we do infanticide. You disagree? Are you going to seriously argue that we feel as bad about abortion as we do infanticide? This is self-evidently false.
Do we? I've known people who were absolutely devastated when a pregnancy failed, and others who treated their born children like garbage. In a lot of cases, it seems that whether the pregnancy was wanted and whether the parents were prepared to have children were more important factors than evo-psych.
The plural of anecdote is not "evidence".
Let me get this straight. We're in a situation where the mother is unable to breastfeed the infant (which is entirely different than a fetus's parasitic existence inside a woman's uterus, in case you're just being disingenuous) and there are no substitutes around, so you think the solution is to reattach the infant to the mother's body somehow? I don't even know how to argue with that. That's some science-fictiony shit right there.
No, we're in a situation in which the baby will either be breastfed by her mother or starve. We are obviously a species that bonds with our born children. We do not really bond with them until birth. We do not feel particularly bad about killing them until they are born.
Eugenics is not natural selection, but it fits in to the way it works, by definition.
...yeah. Let me see if I understand your point here: Although you concede that eugenics is not, in fact, natural selection, you insist that your personal definition of eugenics allows you to "fit (it) in to the way (your personal definition of natural selection) works", pretty much for the sole purpose of equating Amanda's statement:
Using abortion and contraception to make sure that you can give the few children you do have the best possible life fits neatly in with the way biology does it.
To an argument for eugenics. Have I pretty much got that straight? If so, unimpressive.
We are not one of them.
Not anymore, you mean. Not in our culture, at least. The fact remains that your foundation argument is wrong: natural selection does not weed out species that kill or abandon some young in order to devote more resources to raising others. Any true and correct statements you make based on that foundation are nothing more than lucky guesses.
The plural of anecdote is not "evidence".
Now there, you're absolutely right. With that in mind, here's some data. And here's some more.
No, we're in a situation in which the baby will either be breastfed by her mother or starve.
Which you consider equivalent to actually being attached to the mother's body, drawing oxygen and nutrients from her blood? Are we even talking the same language?
...yeah. Let me see if I understand your point here: Although you concede that eugenics is not, in fact, natural selection,
Eugenics is the intentional killing of human beings on the basis of some undesirable trait. I am not "conceding" anything when I say that this is not natural.
you insist that your personal definition of eugenics allows you to "fit (it) in to the way (your personal definition of natural selection) works", pretty much for the sole purpose of equating Amanda's statement: Using abortion and contraception to make sure that you can give the few children you do have the best possible life fits neatly in with the way biology does it. To an argument for eugenics. Have I pretty much got that straight? If so, unimpressive.
Her argument could be used to justify eugenics. The fact that killing certain people "fits in nicely with some natural process" does not justify killing those people; this is the mindset of eugenics.
Not anymore, you mean. Not in our culture, at least. The fact remains that your foundation argument is wrong: natural selection does not weed out species that kill or abandon some young in order to devote more resources to raising others. Any true and correct statements you make based on that foundation are nothing more than lucky guesses.
We bond with our born children in a way that we do not bond with our unborn children. Some species do not feel bad about killing their born children in order to devote more resources to raising their other children. We are not one of those species. That is my point, and that is all that is relevant.
Now there, you're absolutely right. With that in mind, here's some data. And here's some more.
Some children raised by one parent do very well. Some children raised by both parents do poorly. This does not mean that, on average, children raised by a single parent do better than those raised by both. I'm sure some people do not care about their born children, and some people do care about their unborn children. This is not par for the course; on average, we typically care much more about our born children than our unborn children. Look at the average psychological differences between having an abortion and putting your born child up for adoption.
Which you consider equivalent to actually being attached to the mother's body, drawing oxygen and nutrients from her blood? Are we even talking the same language?
The baby would be physically attached to her body, and would be using her body as a means of its own survival. For all practical purposes, the situations are identical.
Eugenics is the intentional killing of human beings on the basis of some undesirable trait. I am not "conceding" anything when I say that this is not natural.
Sorry. This may work when you're arguing with someone out loud, but here, people can go back and read what you wrote.
Her argument could be used to justify eugenics. The fact that killing certain people "fits in nicely with some natural process" does not justify killing those people; this is the mindset of eugenics.
The fact that a sociopath like yourself can twist "Using abortion and contraception to make sure that you can give the few children you do have the best possible life" into an argument for eugenics doesn't make it wrong. It only illustrates your sociopathy. Sorry.
We bond with our born children in a way that we do not bond with our unborn children. Some species do not feel bad about killing their born children in order to devote more resources to raising their other children. We are not one of those species. That is my point, and that is all that is relevant.
Wrong. What's relevant is that your point is based on a generalization from evolutionary psychology that is overbroad at best and utterly, utterly wrong in some details. Therefore, none of your conclusions can be trusted because even the correct ones are just lucky guesses.
Which you consider equivalent to actually being attached to the mother's body, drawing oxygen and nutrients from her blood? Are we even talking the same language?
The baby would be physically attached to her body, and would be using her body as a means of its own survival. For all practical purposes, the situations are identical.
We're not talking the same language. Okay, to give one example of how it's different: breastfeeding can lead to some nutritional imbalances if the mother doesn't have a proper diet available. Pregnancy can be fatal.
Wrong. What's relevant is that your point is based on a generalization from evolutionary psychology that is overbroad at best and utterly, utterly wrong in some details. Therefore, none of your conclusions can be trusted because even the correct ones are just lucky guesses.
You're looking at it backwards. I think that it is painfully obvious that we do not feel as bad about abortion as we do infanticide; all the evolutionary psychology seeks to do is explain this.
This is the logic of the fetal handicap exception: the large majority of women would rather kill their child before she is born than watch them live a short life and then die. It's better to kill her before you have to bond with her. In other words, it's better to kill her before she is born and before you care about her; in the majority of situations, this is preferable to giving birth to a child who will die soon after birth, i.e. soon after you have bonded with and care about her.
We're not talking the same language. Okay, to give one example of how it's different: breastfeeding can lead to some nutritional imbalances if the mother doesn't have a proper diet available. Pregnancy can be fatal.
We don't allow abortion just because pregnancy carries an extremely small risk of death. In third world countries, breastfeeding and caring for two infants is far, far more burdensome than a pregnancy in the US. The two situations are not substantially different. Abortion is not substantially different from child abandonment and infanticide in the breastfeeding scenario.
You're looking at it backwards. I think that it is painfully obvious that we do not feel as bad about abortion as we do infanticide; all the evolutionary psychology seeks to do is explain this.
And fails.
Look. You had your initial data (on average, adoption causes more psychological stress to women than abortion). You developed a hypothesis (humans bond more with their born children than developing fetuses because of evolutionary psychology - natural selection weeded out the species that killed or abandoned their offspring, but artificial abortion is too new for natural selection to work against those that use it). Further data demonstrated that your hypothesis was seriously flawed. Therefore, any statement you make that is based on that hypothesis is, at best, a lucky guess.
This is the logic of the fetal handicap exception: the large majority of women would rather kill their child before she is born than watch them live a short life and then die. It's better to kill her before you have to bond with her. In other words, it's better to kill her before she is born and before you care about her; in the majority of situations, this is preferable to giving birth to a child who will die soon after birth, i.e. soon after you have bonded with and care about her.
Speaking of data and hypotheses...
Have you ever read any stories by women who had late-term abortions, since that's what you're talking about now? Why don't you head over to www.aheartbreakingchoice.com, or perhaps to Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish and search for the "It's So Personal" series of posts from late May and early June, around the time that George Tiller was murdered. I think you might find that women seek late-term abortions for reasons other than "it's easier now than killing a baby after they're born".
We don't allow abortion just because pregnancy carries an extremely small risk of death.
That's true. We do it because women have a right to control of their own bodies that no one - not an adult human, still less an embryo or fetus - has the right to encroach upon. Still, since you don't seem to care about women's rights as such, I thought the health risks might get your attention. Apparently not. Apparently, as long as the risk of actual death is small in places where modern medicine is available,that's a risk you're willing to take force on others.
In third world countries, breastfeeding and caring for two infants is far, far more burdensome than a pregnancy in the US.
You're basing this statement on what, now? Please elaborate. And while elaborating, please explain how this, even if true, makes it okay to force women in the US to endure pregnancies they don't want. Are you saying that they should be grateful they only have one unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy to deal with, instead of one pregnancy after another, such as might be expected of them in other cultures?
The two situations are not substantially different. Abortion is not substantially different from child abandonment and infanticide in the breastfeeding scenario.
Yes, in the sense that both are a failure for a woman to fulfill her responsibilities as a member of the breeder caste. That's the only way you could possibly compare the physical changes and health risks of pregnancy to breastfeeding, or insist that a woman has the same responsibility to let an unwanted embryo/unhealthy fetus inhabit her body as a parent has to keep their infant alive.
Those of us who consider women to be people think differently.
Seraph,
Similar conversation is going at this link in the comments section...
http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/misogyny_hijacks_health_care...
Seeing him making the "breastfeeding" argument there as well pretty much killed any illusions I had that he was arguing in good faith. But then, as Seebach pointed out, he's just "a college freshman, fresh out of a private rural Catholic school". Poor kid has probably never dealt with actual pro-choicers, and he just can't understand why the argument that he'd been told was a magic bullet just isn't working. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was on a list of "arguments pro-aborts can't answer", and he was told that pro-choicers would fall before him and convert instantly if he used it. Too bad no strategy survives contact with the enemy. I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't so obnoxious.
If you're going to treat abortion and infanticide differently, on what basis are you doing so?
No, we're in a situation in which the baby will either be breastfed by her mother or starve. We are obviously a species that bonds with our born children. We do not really bond with them until birth. We do not feel particularly bad about killing them until they are born.
Austin,
You seem to have answered your own question here.
What exactly is your point in all of this? Are you suggesting that your overgeneralized claim that "We do not really bond with them until birth" is not an appropriate basis for treating abortion and infanticide differently? Why not?
Additionally, as Seraph has pointed out multiple times, abortion and infanticide cannot be equated without disregarding the humanity of the pregnant woman. You seem to believe that fetuses should have the unique right to attach to another human being for life support against that person's will. On what basis would you grant this right?
What exactly is your point in all of this? Are you suggesting that your overgeneralized claim that "We do not really bond with them until birth" is not an appropriate basis for treating abortion and infanticide differently? Why not?
You'd effectively be saying that it was OK to kill people up until other people started feeling bad about killing them. The only thing bad about killing other people would be that it makes people feel bad.
Additionally, as Seraph has pointed out multiple times, abortion and infanticide cannot be equated without disregarding the humanity of the pregnant woman. You seem to believe that fetuses should have the unique right to attach to another human being for life support against that person's will. On what basis would you grant this right?
I don't see why you cannot equate them without ignoring the humanity of the pregnant woman. No one has explained this to me. Prenatals would ahve the right to continue to be attached to their mother's body against her will, because the connection constitutes a normal and natural means of preservation. That is to say, it is a basic human necessity.
I don't see why you cannot equate them without ignoring the humanity of the pregnant woman. No one has explained this to me. Prenatals would ahve the right to continue to be attached to their mother's body against her will, because the connection constitutes a normal and natural means of preservation. That is to say, it is a basic human necessity.
I, as an adult human being with undeniable life, consciousness, self-awareness, love of my life, ability to suffer, and people who care about me, have no right to force any other human being - not even my mother - to allow me to attach myself to their body as a means of life-support. Even if, for some reason, it were to become a "basic human necessity" for me. They might volunteer, but my needs do not trump their right to bodily autonomy.
With that in mind, you're essentially insisting that an embryo actually has more rights than an adult human being.
Pretty sure I did all those HTML tags right. Wonder why they're not working.
If you don't click "disable rich-text" HTML tags that have been manually inserted will be reproduced literally.
I did that this time, and it still didn't work.Â
I performed the following steps (order is very important):
- clicked "disable rich-text"
- copied your last post into the Comment box
- clicked "Preview comment"
The resulting comment was was formatted correctly.
If you are not typing directly into the comment box or using a text editor such as Notepad, then other issues could be affecting you. I highly recommend use of the "Preview" button.
The anthropic principle! Brilliant!
Yes, my mother could have had an abortion, and I wouldn't be here. A different sperm could have made it to the egg, and I wouldn't be here. Homo eructus could have gone extinct, and I wouldn't be here. Archaebacteria could have died out in the early stages of evolution, and I wouldn't be here. The Earth could have fallen into orbit closer to, or farther away from the sun, and I wouldn't be here. The physical laws of the universe set out in the big bang could be fundamentally inhospitable to life, and I wouldn't be here. But here I am, thinking about it.
The odds against my life are so inconceivably long already, that single question seems kind of silly.
videolar Emeginize saglık....
Video
Ncfor
Youtube
Ä°zlesene
Video izle
Learn more about the 10Questions project and why RH Reality Check wants you to participate.
1
Glenn Beck, Alveda King, and Reproductive Rights
By Marjorie B. Signer on August 30, 2010 - 7:00am | 1 comment
Waiting For Results: When Ultrasounds Just Aren't Perfect
By Robin Marty on August 30, 2010 - 7:00am | 0 comments
2
California's Military Women Support Our Freedom. Shouldn't We Support Theirs?
By ACLU on August 27, 2010 - 2:18pm | 6 comments
"Natural" Family Planning? Women in Africa Deserve Better
By Sharon Phillips MD on August 27, 2010 - 7:00am | 1 comment
3
Get Real! We Did Everything We Could to Make Things Go Just Right, But it Didn't
By Heather Corinna on August 27, 2010 - 7:00am | 3 comments
Women's Equality and the Climate Change Challenge
By Kathleen Rogers on August 26, 2010 - 7:00am | 0 comments
4
Weekly Pulse: Stem Cell Hell, Bad Eggs, and DIY Abortions
By Lindsay Beyerstein on August 26, 2010 - 7:00am | 19 comments
STOKING FIRE: Urban Outfitters Practices Withdrawal Without "Proper Attire"
By Eleanor Bader on August 25, 2010 - 7:00am | 19 comments
5
Lacking Health Insurance, More Women Turning to Do-It-Yourself Abortion
By Robin Marty on August 25, 2010 - 7:00am | 22 comments
U.S. Submits Historic Human Rights Report to U.N., but Seriously Disappoints
By Michelle Movahed and Meredith Zingraff on August 24, 2010 - 7:00am | 29 comments
(AUDIO) Former Wisconsin School Board President's Answer to Sex Ed? Ignorance is Best
By Lon Newman on August 24, 2010 - 7:00am | 7 comments
Today
- Glenn Beck, Alveda King, and Reproductive Rights
- Waiting For Results: When Ultrasounds Just Aren't Perfect
- Study: Simple Intervention May Reduce Reproductive Coercion
- New Measure Puts Alaskan Teens At Risk
- Punishing Women: A Woman's Job?
- California's Military Women Support Our Freedom. Shouldn't We Support Theirs?
- Get Real! We Did Everything We Could to Make Things Go Just Right, But it Didn't
- Haitian Women Fight Sexual Violence
- Study Suggests Women Using Internet to Avoid Restrictive Abortion Policies
- Roundup: Did Measure 2 Sink Murkowski's Campaign?
Discussions
- The Faux Feminism of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops
- Punishing Women: A Woman's Job?
- Ordaining a Woman Equals Raping a Child
- The Duggar Family on How to Prepare for Courtship and Marriage
- In Illinois, Doctors Refusing to Treat Women Who've Had Abortions
- Lacking Health Insurance, More Women Turning to Do-It-Yourself Abortion
- Weekly Pulse: Stem Cell Hell, Bad Eggs, and DIY Abortions
- Roundup: Want to Anger a LOT of Women? Propose Eliminating Epidurals to "Save Money"
All Time
- Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage
- Ten Things To Do Before You Have Sex
- Get Real! What Does Sex Feel Like?
- Get Real! The Great No-Orgasm-from-Intercourse Conundrum
- You Tube Wins Debate: Age Appropriate Sex-Ed Discussed
- HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion
- It's Time to End the Epidemic of Prisoner Rape
- Slutty Girls and Stupid Boys: Today's Abstinence-Only "Education"
- Obama's Late Term Abortion Comments Ignore Stark Realities
- Home Delivery Video
RH Reality Check Blogroll
|
State Blogs: | |
