The Faux Feminism of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops
August 20, 2010 - 9:40am (Print)
This article was originally published by the National Women's Law Center.
Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal reports on the “controversy" over Wisconsin’s efforts to make contraception more available and affordable to women. A small but important part of the Affordable Care Act, championed by the National Women’s Law Center, allows states like Wisconsin to make more women eligible for family planning and other basic reproductive health services—contraception, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and other preventive health care—through the Medicaid program, without having to get special permission from the federal government to do so. Twenty-seven states – including Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and Louisiana – have sought and obtained this special permission, known as a “waiver,” to expand eligibility for family planning services to low-income women not otherwise eligible for the full package of Medicaid benefits. With passage of the Affordable Care Act, states like Wisconsin are taking steps to strengthen and improve their programs and help make contraception more affordable for women.
But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, not content just to try and take away insurance coverage for abortion, is going after this new program. In the article, Richard Doerfinger of the Conference expresses his concern – without a hint of irony – that the provision reflects “a very dismissive view of women: the reproductive system is the only part of you we're interested in, and our interest is only to make sure it doesn't produce."
Thanks for your concern, Richard. But here’s the truth: contraception helps women.
The National Women’s Law Center, in honor of the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill, recently asked to hear from women about how the Pill changed their lives. One woman wrote that the Pill improved her health:
When I was 12, I began suffering from severe menstrual cramps that would keep me bed-ridden for about two days every month. Not until I was 25 did my doctor recommend the Pill! I wish I had known earlier because now I no longer need to call out from work or miss out on other things. The Pill has alleviated all my pain and now I’m able to live a 'normal' life.
Another wrote in about how the Pill helped her leave her abusive husband:
Thanks to the Pill I was able to have one planned child, able to leave my batterer and not be kept barefoot and pregnant. It saved my life.
One wrote about the impact the Pill had on her financial future:
Without access to birth control, my ability to flourish in my educational and professional career would be severely limited. Thanks to the Pill I have control over my reproductive health and can have children on my terms.
And another wrote about how the Pill has made her a better mom:
A few months ago, I had a baby. I don’t know much yet about being a mother, but I do know one thing for sure: I am a better parent in my thirties than I would have been in my teens or twenties.
We don’t always stop to think about it, but it’s true: contraception has helped women—millions of us—lead happier, healthier, fuller lives.
And women of all stripes know it. A 2007 survey found that 89 percent of Americans overall and 71 percent of Catholics favor legislation that would make it easier for women at all income levels to obtain contraception. And a 2009 survey found that even 63 percent of Republicans and Independents favor the “controversial” legislation included in the Affordable Care Act that gives states the flexibility to expand insurance coverage for contraceptives under Medicaid.
Bottom line: the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ faux-feminism is trying to make it harder and more expensive for women to get contraception.
You know what? It’s one thing to oppose birth control. But it’s especially galling to oppose birth control and claim that it’s for my own good.
Enough is enough.
So, now the U. S. Conference of Celibate Buffoons knows more about women than women know themselves.
At age 63, I consider myself pretty jaded, but the degree to which some people divorce themselves from reality continues to amaze me.
The USCCB is the organization that is interested in only one part of women's anatomy-the uterus. Aside from that organ, the USCCB has no interest in women as full human beings who are capable of making their own decisions.
Especially since Catholics uniquely restrict women from becoming priests solely based on that part of their anatomy. Seems like they are more interested in limiting women for being women than people who support VOLUNTARY affordable birth control.
make more women eligible for...basic reproductive health services—contraception, breast...cancer screenings
At least they're doing the responsible thing and increasing breast cancer screenings along with apparently providing more oral contraceptives, because they're going to be more likely to need it.
See the discussion here: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/08/17/reproductive-health-roadtr...
This is an evidence- and science-based community.
So what science says that abortion is not manslaughter?
So what science says that abortion is not manslaughter?
Gosh, I dunno. What respected science says that it is?
Pretty much any standard Biology textbook will show that the unborn are complete, distinct, living beings that are fully of whatever species their parents were.
No one is arguing that a pregnant woman is going to suddenly give birth to a puppy. We're arguing that there is a difference between a z/e/f and a person. Just like there's a difference between a human corpse and a person. Just like there's a difference, IMO, between a brain-dead human body and a person. Having human DNA is not enough to make a clump of cells into a separate person--whether that clump of cells is in a chimeric person (a person with two sets of DNA) or whether that clump of cells is a zygote.
Personhood is more like a philosophical construction than it is a scientific fact. It relies upon what we *believe* to be essential to being people, not upon DNA. As such, you're free to believe that a zygote is exactly the same as a three-year-old. However, your religious/philosophical belief in the personhood of zygotes does not trump my right to control what happens in my own body.
Personhood is more like a philosophical construction than it is a scientific fact. It relies upon what we *believe* to be essential to being people, not upon DNA.
But the Editor-in-Chief of this site said:
This is an evidence- and science-based community.
Was I misled?
Hey, if you can find a scientific definition for the terms 'person' or 'personhood', I'll be willing to listen.
"Personhood" is a philosophical and religious construct, not a scientific fact as had been said before.
The difference here is that we do not "make up" science where none exists.
There is no "scientific fact" regarding whether a blasocyst or an embryo or a fetus before viaibility is more important than the health or life of the woman carrying it, and indeed no religious consensus on this because as you must know some branches of Christianity, and the majority of Jewish, most Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist interpretations of the balance between the two is always in favor of the mother. Likewise, the right of a woman to decide freely about whether to end a pregnancy early on is supported by most religious traditions. And indeed the majority of Catholics, despite the fanatical fundamentalism of the Vatican on these issues, use birth control and have abortions at the same rate as the rest of the population.
If science and evidence were important in these discussions, for example, we would never need to have an argument regarding contraception, nor for example, emergency contraception, which acts before a pregnancy is medically recognized. However, in blurring the lines between fertilization and pregnancy, the radical anti-choice community continues to fight the very means women can use to prevent unintended pregnancy.
What you are attempting to do, and these discussions have been long-held here, is to impose your own religious ideology on others, pure and simple.
But thanks for checking.
There is no "scientific fact" regarding whether a blasocyst or an embryo or a fetus before viaibility is more important than the health or life of the woman carrying it
Neither is there a scientific fact that says an embryo or fetus is equally important to the life of the woman carrying it after viability, either, or even after it's born, for that matter. Science can tell us what an embryo or fetus is, however, which has to be the basis for any reasonable philosophy about what its status and rights should be.
the right of a woman to decide freely about whether to end a pregnancy early on is supported by most religious traditions
No religion I'm aware of considers "freedom of choice" to be a virtue in and of itself. Making the right choice when one must be made, yes, but not merely the availability of a choice.
While it's true that different religious philosophies have varied on the seriousness of abortion, all of the major religions, including those you named, have always held that abortion is evil. In those cases where you might say they "permitted" abortion, it wasn't that they didn't view it as evil, but that they viewed that the good done equaled or outweighed the evil permitted (e.g. saving the life of the mother).
The historical views of the gravity of abortion were varied and often saw it as less serious than, say, the modern Catholic Church, not because those earlier philosophies ignored science, but because science at the time had a limited understanding of the relevant facts. Just a couple centuries ago doctors didn't have the benefits of X-rays or even a stethoscope, let alone ultrasound or knowledge of DNA. Even since Roe v. Wade in 1973 we've learned a great deal about the genesis of human beings and the independence and abilities of the embryo/fetus.
All reasonable and living philosophies, though, must continually take scientific discovery into consideration, perhaps adjusting their view of the gravity of an evil or even determining that something previously seen as good is really evil - or vice versa - based on new facts as they become known. Ironically, while claiming to have a respect for science, some on the pro-choice side have used philosophies' willingness to adapt to scientific discovery against them. A prime example is the Catholic Church, which some pro-choicers happily point out used to permit abortion until "quickening" prior to 1869. 1869, however, also happens to be the year that DNA was discovered.
Your primary charge, however, is that I'm trying to "impose your [my] own religious ideology on others." While that's true, the fallacy is the implication that this is something exceptional, when in fact there are a great many other laws - many of which you yourself respect - about which one could say the same thing. The federal, state and local statutes of this land are not laws of nature or suggested by scientific knowledge alone. They are laws of man, and are necessarily based on what people think is right and wrong - their philosophy. And with each one of them, there is inevitably a group of people who don't agree with the philosophy behind it. Sometimes they even rebel, like groups who hole up in a compound and go to war against the government because they don't agree with paying federal taxes.
The implication that those on the pro-choice side have a philosophy about "personhood" that differs from that of the pro-life side is also a lie. Even the most liberal and ignorant historical philosophies about it would not permit abortion as it is practiced in the U.S. right now, where a woman can legally procure one for any reason throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. In fact, no reasonable philosophy about personhood can be inferred from U.S. abortion practice, much less one that in any sense respects scientific knowledge. You claim that you 'do not "make up" science where none exists,' but I say that it is just as bad to ignore science that does exist.
The unique thing about abortion in this country is that instead of having related laws based on the philosophy that has won the greatest share of hearts and minds, or even one that a court has deemed superior to others, it has been determined that laws should not be based on any philosophy at all. This, rather than all the factors pro-choicers like to fantasize about, is the reason that people are up in arms over abortion. All we want is to let the competing philosophies battle it out in the public square, like they do when making practically any other kind of law.
Until that time, or at least until you can formulate a reasonable and competitive philosophy of your own, you have no basis for saying that I shouldn't be doing what I'm doing, or that I am in any sense wrong.
But thank you for responding.
Science can tell us what an embryo or fetus is, however, which has to be the basis for any reasonable philosophy about what its status and rights should be.
So we start from the scientific fact that the embyro is a clump of cells, and the fetus is a blob of tissue. Sounds reasonable.
While it's true that different religious philosophies have varied on the seriousness of abortion, all of the major religions, including those you named, have always held that abortion is evil.
Even Episcopalianism? Reform Judaism?
Even since Roe v. Wade in 1973 we've learned a great deal about the genesis of human beings and the independence and abilities of the embryo/fetus.
Which don't seem to include the ability to develop independently of a woman. So I guess we still need abortion, then.
All reasonable and living philosophies, though, must continually take scientific discovery into consideration, perhaps adjusting their view of the gravity of an evil or even determining that something previously seen as good is really evil - or vice versa - based on new facts as they become known.
Yes, abortion as something that was previously seen as evil, and now as good, is certainly a trend given that womens' rights are being more and more respected.
Your primary charge, however, is that I'm trying to "impose your [my] own religious ideology on others." While that's true, the fallacy is the implication that this is something exceptional, when in fact there are a great many other laws - many of which you yourself respect - about which one could say the same thing.
When you have 90%+ agreement across the population that abortion is bad and should be illegal in most if not all cases, we'll talk. Otherwise, it's like Muslims and pork---if you don't like sausage, don't order it on your pizza.
Even the most liberal and ignorant historical philosophies about it would not permit abortion as it is practiced in the U.S. right now, where a woman can legally procure one for any reason throughout all 9 months of pregnancy.
Well, so much for your argument being knowledgeable. At least your spelling is decent.
The unique thing about abortion in this country is that instead of having related laws based on the philosophy that has won the greatest share of hearts and minds, or even one that a court has deemed superior to others, it has been determined that laws should not be based on any philosophy at all.
I didn't know that respecting the privacy (and rights) of women wasn't a philosophy. Does it make the grade for fortune-cookie platitude?
This, rather than all the factors pro-choicers like to fantasize about, is the reason that people are up in arms over abortion. All we want is to let the competing philosophies battle it out in the public square, like they do when making practically any other kind of law.
I especially like it when the more gung-ho of your ilk suggest that abortion should be prohibited even in the case of rape or incest. Can it be considered a battle if one side shoots themselves repeatedly in the foot?
Until that time, or at least until you can formulate a reasonable and competitive philosophy of your own, you have no basis for saying that I shouldn't be doing what I'm doing, or that I am in any sense wrong.
"Women are people" works for us. It's sad to see you and others like you continue to deny it.
So we start from the scientific fact that the embyro is a clump of cells, and the fetus is a blob of tissue.
Certainly allowing a "blob of tissue" to die cannot be considered manslaughter. Interestingly, your position actually suggests a wonderful compromise, at least when it comes to late-term abortions. If a woman wants to end her pregnancy and there's any chance at all that the baby might survive outside the womb, why don't we simply require that it be delivered? It's a win-win situation all around. The woman gets to end her pregnancy, we have eliminated (in my view at least) an instance of institutionalized manslaughter, and the baby very possibly lives. While that may not be exactly what the woman had in mind, logically she cannot insist on an outcome - manslaughter - that she doesn't believe would occur anyway.
And to think how needless all the battles over partial-birth abortion were.
There's a few flaws in that reasoning, the main one being that late-term abortions are almost always done for medical reasons--either an incompatible with life diagnosis, or health risks to the mother. In the former case, there's really little reason to go for full-blown LnD. In the latter case, trying to deliver the baby alive could have disaterous health effects on the mother. Abortion isn't as physically demanding and LnD or a C-section (although if the woman wants to go this route, she is free to do so--I just don't think it should be mandated).
That aside, I still think there were be a number of messy issues--choice of the mother what kind of procedure she wants to undergo, and who gets the baby? (I especially don't think figuring out who pays for the child's medical bills would go well at all). Not to mention possible health effects of being born premature.
(I would actually be willing to discuss the ramifications of your suggestion if I thought it was practical. But for the reasons in the first paragraph, I don't think it's worth the energy.)
If a woman wants to end her [late-term] pregnancy and there's any chance at all that the baby might survive outside the womb, why don't we simply require that it be delivered?
If the pre-term baby were healthy, and if inducing labor would be safe for the woman, and if there were some issue that made waiting for the due date infeasible... then why would you need to require it at all? Don't you think that's what the mother/parents would want to do anyway?
(Though I have to admit, the fact that you said the C-word, and basically ceded ground on all early-term abortions, is impressive.)
Double-dook!
Even the most liberal and ignorant historical philosophies about it would not permit abortion as it is practiced in the U.S. right now, where a woman can legally procure one for any reason throughout all 9 months of pregnancy.
No. Nowhere does a woman have a legal right for "abortion on demand" after viability. This is a constant libel that groups and people who want to reduce or eliminate abortion access repeat ad nauseum. Per Roe v. Wade, abortion after viabilty are where abortion "is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."
The second point is that in a late abortion a woman requires a surgical procedure, which means the willing help of surgeons and other medical staff. There isn't any "problem" I know of with late abortion that wouldn't be better handled by getting surgecal abortion out of isolated clinics and back into hospitals where oversite is stricter and ruled by medical standards rather than by sexist and classist anti-abortion laws.
Are you suggesting that since Roe v. Wade a woman has ever been denied an abortion because it wasn't necessary to protect her "life or health?"
Please keep in mind that this is not at all a legal question, and I never claimed that the law doesn't say what you say it does.
Are you suggesting that since Roe v. Wade a woman has ever been denied an abortion because it wasn't necessary to protect her "life or health?"
Yes. After the second trimester, the state can impose restrictions, including flat-out prohibition---as long as there is an exception for the woman's health.
I think you have some homework to do.
As I figured, you are unable to provide any evidence to refute my claims.
As I figured, you are unable to provide any evidence to refute my claims.
And the claim would be "...abortion as it is practiced in the U.S. right now, where a woman can legally procure one for any reason throughout all 9 months of pregnancy."
If you're going to pretend that abortion laws say something they don't, why not just pretend that all abortion is illegal? It'll do wonders for your blood pressure, and save you lots of free time!
fetus where her local hospitals wouldn't operate until she started bleeding heavily & called her doctor to tell the doctor not to keep sending women to the hospital "too soon" [the umbilical had wrapped around the fetus' neck & strangled] ... There's lots of other examples. Here's a cite to another article that has been discussed here:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/short/98/10/1774
When There's a Heartbeat: Miscarriage Management in Catholic-Owned Hospitals
Lori R. Freedman, PhD, Uta Landy, PhD and Jody Steinauer, MD, MAS
The authors are with the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences and the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Global, University of California, San Francisco.
As Catholic-owned hospitals merge with or take over other facilities, they impose restrictions on reproductive health services, including abortion and contraceptive services. Our interviews with US obstetrician–gynecologists working in Catholic-owned hospitals revealed that they are also restricted in managing miscarriages.
Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees denied approval of uterine evacuation while fetal heart tones were still present, forcing physicians to delay care or transport miscarrying patients to non–Catholic-owned facilities. Some physicians intentionally violated protocol because they felt patient safety was compromised.
Although Catholic doctrine officially deems abortion permissible to preserve the life of the woman, Catholic-owned hospital ethics committees differ in their interpretation of how much health risk constitutes a threat to a woman's life and therefore how much risk must be present before they approve the intervention.
It's not difficult at all to find a hospital or doctor that will refuse to perform an abortion. What I'm looking for, however, is an instance where a willing doctor/hospital refused to perform an abortion at any time during the whole 9 months of pregnancy because the woman's "life or health" were not at stake.
Pretty much any standard Biology textbook will show that the unborn are complete, distinct, living beings that are fully of whatever species their parents were.
Evidence for the assertion "abortion is manslaughter" was not detected in the above comment.
Comment categorization: THE_STUPID_IT_BURNS
Comment author credibility: 0.0%
Warning: Reading comments by this author may be hazardous to I.Q. levels. Keep stupidity exposure levels below 16 millifourchans to minimize long-term effects.
So if these unborn are so complete, why do they need to be carried for 9 months by women. Why aren't 3 week or 3 month pregnancies (or pretty much anything prior to viability - after which it's 50/50) able to survive on their own from the beginning?
What part of this is complete????
Or this?
Or any of these?
So if these unborn are so complete, why do they need to be carried for 9 months by women.
It's not completing that's going on, it's just development. All the baby needs during those 9 months is oxygen, water, Wheaties and an environment suitable for life - the same things we all need to continue living day to day. And that development doesn't end at birth, either - it continues until puberty.
If you want to say that something is incomplete, then you have to identify something that it's missing - something which is to be added later. A sperm or egg is not a complete human being, because each needs one of the other to complete it. But nothing is added to an embryo to make it complete. It doesn't need cells from its mother. There is no further injection of biological material into the baby after fertilization has taken place.
If you have trouble grasping the completeness of the unborn, think of embryos which are frozen for some number of years, then implanted in a woman totally unrelated to the people who first supplied egg and sperm, who then births a baby without any of the normal contributions from her or her husband. The embryo certainly didn't have identifiable hands or eyes, but it's born with the same hands and eyes it would have had were it carried to term by its biological mother. From fertilization it is complete in the most fundamental, biological sense.
Sure, a z/e/f has a complete set of DNA--so did that fertilized egg that may or may not have been on my tampon this month. I'd hardly say that it was complete in any sense of the word.
And those "Wheaties" that you're talking about? It is literally the blood and bone and nutrients of the woman (you remember the woman, right?) in whose body the z/e/f is developing. The z/e/f is *lacking* those things, so it takes it from the woman's body to build itself. You are literally built from your mother's flesh.
Saying a fertilized egg is a complete "person" is like saying that a chromatic scale is a complete symphony. Sure, it might have all the same basic parts, but it's ludicrous to say that they're the same.
(As for your earlier post, Jodi can speak for herself. I'd wager, though, that she called you out for spreading...misinformation...about things that already have been scientifically studied. That's all I have to say on the matter. )
And those "Wheaties" that you're talking about? It is literally the blood and bone and nutrients of the woman...You are literally built from your mother's flesh.
Wow. Now I see what they mean when they say that our schools are failing our children. No, the woman's "blood and bone" and "flesh" don't go into the baby. Oh, occasionally some of her cells may get through the placenta to the baby, but even then, the baby's immune system is supposed to identify them as foreign bodies and deal with them just as your body deals with a cold or flu virus. It's only nutrients, water and oxygen that the baby needs from its mother, which is why she needs to make sure she gets enough of those things every day for both her and her baby. On a related note, do you know that the baby almost from the point of conception has to defend itself against its own mother's immune system? For a long time scientists thought that the mother herself provided protection for the embryo/fetus in the womb, but a few years ago they discovered that it's all the baby's doing.
Jodi can speak for herself. I'd wager, though, that she called you out for spreading...misinformation
Well, not to worry. All of the challenges to the "misinformation" to which you refer that I've seen on this site depended on outdated information and research.
Yeah...you really need to do some reading, Kevin. Pregnancy is generally not good for a woman's health.
And I'm still waiting for your analysis of our collective contraceptive mentality. Eagerly!
The woman's body releases natural immunosuppressants during pregnancy that are supposed to prevent her immune system rejecting the fetus, you dolt. Some miscarriages are caused by hyperactive immune systems that the body fails to suppress or doesn't suppress correctly. This why pregnant women are more at risk with infectious diseases because their defences are down, this is why you can't be on antibiotics/psyche meds/certain other drugs while pregnant, this is why it is potentially dangerous for women with auto-immune disorders/diseases to be pregnant.
Oh, occasionally some of her cells may get through the placenta to the baby, but even then, the baby's immune system is supposed to identify them as foreign bodies and deal with them just as your body deals with a cold or flu virus
What? Go and do some homework and work out at which LATE stage of pregnancy "the baby's" immune system actually develops. Then, go and do some more research at work out exactly when a born, healthy child's immune system works strongly enough for it to be considered fully functional. Wonder why kids get sick more easily/more often than a healthy adult? Wonder why preemies have to be isolated? Wonder why you can't give preventative vaccines (which often use dead or weakened versions of the virus/disease they are preventing to allow the body to identify and defend against those cells) to infants or children under certain ages? Go figure.
No, the woman's "blood and bone" and "flesh" don't go into the baby.
You are taking her rather too literally. It's more to do with the fetus leeching cellular information from the mother to be able to form it's own flesh, blood and bone in the first place, which still wouldn't happen if the woman was not acting as an organic respirator while providing it with the building blocks of life and building a wall for it. I'm no biologist, and I got what she was talking about.
It's only nutrients, water and oxygen that the baby needs from its mother, which is why she needs to make sure she gets enough of those things every day for both her and her baby.
Alright, I'll do this really simply... the placenta is like a organic heart and lung machine. The embryonic sac inside the uterus is the isolation chamber. The woman's whole body, really, could be considered organic life support. She breathes FOR the fetus until birth, when it is supposed to take it's own breath, which beats it's own heart, which does all the other processes we associate with independent living things.The fetus CANNOT do these things for itself. All "viability" means is that it is at a late enough stage of gestation to do these things for itself (with or without medical help) once it is outside the womb. Every pregnancy still continues the parasitical relationship until the placenta ceases to function. Only then does the neonate do them itself. The. Woman. Does. Everything.
On a related note, do you know that the baby almost from the point of conception has to defend itself against its own mother's immune system? For a long time scientists thought that the mother herself provided protection for the embryo/fetus in the womb, but a few years ago they discovered that it's all the baby's doing.
Pregnancy is supposed to naturally suppress the host immune system. The definition of parasite: an entity causes suppression of and/or co-opts the host organism's bodily functions/processes to sustain itself longterm. See my first paragraph. I suspect you are confusing a woman with an immune system problem whose body is attacking the pregnancy and doctors are attempting to control this medically with artificial immunosuppressants with "the baby" somehow magically "fending off" the mother's disease/disorder by itself. "The baby" does not do anything until it can survive outside the womb, and even at the point of medical viability is still lives off the woman until it is born. Viability=/=independence. One of these things is not like the other.
I'm no biologist
Obviously. The small fraction (and it's very small) of correct information you provide simply repeats what I said in other words. Here:
http://creation.com/abortion-argument-unravels
And here:
(Don't miss the critical statement, "Genetic tests on the child's blood cells showed that she had the cancer cells at birth and that they came from her mother...Closer investigation revealed that the daughter's leukaemia cells were missing a vital piece of DNA that would have flagged them up as 'intruders' to her immune system... Professor Peter Johnson, of Cancer Research UK, said: 'This is an extremely unusual case, but this study is particularly revealing because it suggests that the cancer cells could only cause a problem in the baby by evading their immune system.'")
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1219862/Expectant-mother-passe...
You do realize posting materials from Creation Ministries isn't exactly compelling... right?
Also, your forming your understanding of prenatal growth and development off of an extremely rare case of pediatric leukemia (e.g., the exception to the rule)? Even in med school they start with healthy, normal patients.
(Don't miss the critical statement, "Genetic tests on the child's blood cells showed that she had the cancer cells at birth and that they came from her mother...Closer investigation revealed that the daughter's leukaemia cells were missing a vital piece of DNA that would have flagged them up as 'intruders' to her immune system... Professor Peter Johnson, of Cancer Research UK, said: 'This is an extremely unusual case, but this study is particularly revealing because it suggests that the cancer cells could only cause a problem in the baby by evading their immune system.'")
I never said a developing fetus doesn't have an immune system, I said that like the rest of the fetus/child, it is developing, a work in progress, and not always capable of defending itself and for that very reason, for the duration of gestation a healthy woman's immune system should, to a certain extent, be naturally suppressed so the body does not attack the pregnancy as it would a disease, to allow the fetus time to develop and not have to stave off an attack from it's host.
I also said some women have a problem/disease/disorder/inheritable illness in which their immune system is incorrectly or not naturally suppressed during pregnancy, and their body attacks/passes on the illness to the pregnancy and makes the fetus/child ill before or after birth. This is what happened. The Daily Fail/Heil/Male, which is well known for it's hyperbole and right-wing slant, is not a compelling source of information, but even in the extremely rare case documented therein does not disagree with me. Even so, immune faults in the pregnant woman making the child sick are only a small percentage of things that can go wrong during gestation that a developing fetuses' immune system cannot fight adequately or at all.
That article does not tell me much other than the child's immune system didn't recognise inherited cancer cells as cancer cells because they were invisible to the child's immune system, which did nothing to protect her because it didn't "read" the cells as malicious because they were missing the component needed to "flag" them as malicious. She still got the disease and is only in remission now because of medical intervention. The child's immune system didn't do anything. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, here, unless it's the uncontestable one that some diseases are inherited and others are not, and even that's a generous stretch.
Obviously. The small fraction (and it's very small) of correct information you provide simply repeats what I said in other words.
Not sure why you're attempting to be sarcastic, here. I'm not the one saying that developing fetuses do not cannabilize their host's resources and require no other biological input other than that provided at the moment of conception... and that women's bodies are passive vessels in which "babies" subsist on a diet of water, air, and... cereal? And they don't need the woman to act as an organic heart-and-lung machine and do all of it's living processes for it, while at the same time providing all the cellular information to build it, and actually building it into something viable until it is developmentally ready to survive on it's own... and then saying that viewpoint is a rational, objective, science-based viewpoint.
There's nothing cute about those pictures! No wonder pregnancy blogs choose to compare fetal size to fruits and vegetables... Telling me my fetus is the size of a kiwi is way more adorable than showing me what it actually looks like.
All the baby needs during those 9 months is oxygen, water, Wheaties and an environment suitable for life.
There is no further injection of biological material into the baby after fertilization has taken place.
See, this is the result of abstinence only sex education - people who have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING OF HOW BABIES ARE ACTUALLY MADE. If the umbilical cord were only providing "oxygen and water" we'd be growing plants... then again, even plants take nutrients from the soil.
Using little words, fertilization results in the creation of new DNA, which are directions for creating a new life. These directions do not contain all of the necessary materials they are simply a "how to manual." Liken this to blueprints versus building materials for a house: unless you go get some wood, bricks, and mortar, all of the most beautiful blueprints in the world aren't going to build that house. These materials are provided by the woman's body and include an overwhelming number of vitamins, minerals, and other organic substances used as the building blocks of life. I really don't have time to go into each and every vitamin, mineral, and hormone that are required during development of the ZBEF so I'll use Vitamin A as one example.
In a recent paper,1 Maija H. Zile, of the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University, details the role of vitamin A in fetal development.
Vitamin A requirement begins at the time of formation of the primitive heart and circulation, and the development of the hindbrain, a period that corresponds to weeks 2-3 in humans. Without vitamin A, the embryo succumbs to gross abnormalities of the heart and is aborted.
Each organ system begins development during a specific window of time. Vitamin A regulates the differentiation of the primitive cells into cells specific to each organ system, in essence signaling to the genes their marching orders so they "know" where to locate themselves and what kind of tissues to become. If vitamin A is lacking during any of these windows, the organs develop abnormally or not at all.
The major target tissues of vitamin A deficiency include the heart, central nervous system, the circulatory, urogenital and respiratory systems, and the development of the skull, skeleton and limbs. Vitamin A deficiencies during the period when any of these systems begin specialization can result in abnormalities and defects.
According to Zile, even partial vitamin A deficiency affects the sensitive developing central nervous system; it plays a key role in the development of the visual system, the retina, the inner ear, the spinal cord, the craniofacial area including the pharyngeal and branchial arches and the thymus, thyroid and parathyroid glands.
1. J Nutr. 2001;131:705-708.
http://www.westonaprice.org/childrens-health/309.html
The developing mammalian embryo is entirely dependent on the maternal circulation for its supply of retinoids, the vitamin A metabolites produced in the body. These are essential nutrients and they control the formation of the embryo's heart, central nervous system, eyes and other important organs and tissues. Malformations of the developing embryo can occur when too little, or too much, vitamin A is consumed by the mother.
Just so we're clear, this Vitamin A didn't just magically "appear" out of thin air and the developing embryo didn't have it locked away in some super secret box... it TOOK IT FROM THE WOMAN. In little words again: without the woman supplying all of these materials with HER BODY, that fertilized egg WILL NEVER BE COMPLETE. Now take the process I just described for Vitamin A and apply it to EVERY OTHER CHEMICAL NECCESARY TO CREATE A NEW HUMAN BEING. Lather, rinse, repeat.
If you have trouble grasping the completeness of the unborn, think of embryos which are frozen for some number of years, then implanted in a woman totally unrelated to the people who first supplied egg and sperm, who then births a baby without any of the normal contributions from her or her husband.
Frozen embryos/fertilized eggs may have a complete set of directions, but each and every one of those frozen embryos still hijacked the new woman's body and TOOK all of the nutrients that it needed to create itself into a complete human being. If you still have trouble grasping the incompleteness of a developing ZBEF, please go read a biology book.
Or what you said in much greater detail.
even plants take nutrients from the soil.
You were supposed to figure out that by "Wheaties" I meant nutrients. Perhaps expecting you to think about what I say is too much to ask, however.
fertilization results in the creation of new DNA, which are directions for creating a new life. These directions do not contain all of the necessary materials they are simply a "how to manual." Liken this to blueprints versus building materials for a house: unless you go get some wood, bricks, and mortar, all of the most beautiful blueprints in the world aren't going to build that house.
DNA is truly a blueprint, but a fertilized egg is more than DNA. A more accurate analogy would be that an embryo is like an acorn that not only contains its own blueprints, but has the ability to generate by itself all the materials it needs to build the structure the blueprints specify, where all you need to provide is water, oxygen, nutrients and a shield from the elements so that it can complete its own construction.
I'd recommend laying off the science gambit. It's really not an ally of the pro-choice mentality.
You were supposed to figure out that by "Wheaties" I meant nutrients. Perhaps expecting you to think about what I say is too much to ask, however.
See, one minute y'all are getting pissed cause teh womenz are reading to much into what you type and the next we're teh mean womenz who don't read your mind automatically. Apparently expecting you to use big boy words is too much to ask.
Please do the rest of society a favor and go read a book... one with more than two-syllable words and pretty pictures.
has the ability to generate by itself all the materials it needs to build the structure the blueprints specify, where all you need to provide is water, oxygen, nutrients and a shield from the elements so that it can complete its own construction.
Wow, the embryo is "generating" it's own building materials now too? Sure bud. Just in case you were home-schooled by fundies and missed out on all of chemistry and biology, those "nutrients" ARE the building materials. Without them the fertilized egg doesn't have any materials to build with.
I'd recommend laying off the science gambit. It's really not an ally of the pro-choice mentality.
Oh shit, there goes my life plan. I guess I'll put away the dissertation and stop working on my PhD then, yah know, since some random person on the Internet who refers to biological building materials as "Wheaties" told me to. :/
Wow, the embryo is "generating" it's own building materials now too? Sure bud. Just in case you were home-schooled by fundies and missed out on all of chemistry and biology, those "nutrients" ARE the building materials. Without them the fertilized egg doesn't have any materials to build with.
They're the same nutrients and "building materials" that you yourself need every day. Are you suggesting that they have a vastly different function in an embryo/fetus than they do in you, or are you not "complete," either.
The fetus doesn't 'generate' shit. It takes it's building materials directly from the mother. Otherwise, you could put it in a cardboard box and wind up with the same result.
The embryo/fetus takes in oxygen, nutrients and water and generates cells and tissues, just like you do. There is no difference in biological function between you and a fetus. The only difference is the pathway by which it receives its oxygen, nutrients and water.
What's the difference?
Please go troll somewhere else.
A more accurate analogy would be that an embryo is like an acorn that not only contains its own blueprints, but has the ability to generate by itself all the materials it needs to build the structure the blueprints specify, where all you need to provide is water, oxygen, nutrients and a shield from the elements so that it can complete its own construction.
Note how in the pro-life POV women are passive 'soil' and it's the ZBEF which is active and completes it's own construction.
I like to think of it as modern homunculus theory, except that instead of the man providing a very tiny complete baby as a "seed" which grows bigger in the passive flowerpot that is the uterus, the man fertilizes an egg, which transforms magically into a very tiny complete baby that proceeds to "build" itself with very little biological input other than what the man provided at fertilization. Anything to erase the woman from the equation, no matter how patently silly.
See, this is the result of abstinence only sex education - people who have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING OF HOW BABIES ARE ACTUALLY MADE.
This is a 'pro-life', republican male and they've been raised to believe that the world revolves around them. The reason he says that no further injection of biological material is necessary is because he and the rest of his kind believe that the really important part of human reproduction is accomplished when a man ejaculates. (thus the idiocy of the 'personhood' of zygotes and blastocysts) The rest is woman's work and thus beneath serious consideration and unworthy of respect.
For Kevin and the rest of the pro-life men who post here women are an inferior sub-species of livestock. They don't hate women any more than they hate dogs. they hate us here because we're poorly trained, rebellious dogs who need to be punished lest their daughters and wives rebel too.
These are 'men' who are unable to have relationships that aren't based on dominance and submission. They dominate through emotional manipulation, bullying and verbal, emotional and physical abuse. Pimps do the same thing. The difference is that these men view women as breeding stock and a source of cheap or free labor whereas pimps value women as a source of income and as masturbatory aids.
I don't see much difference between the two although I must admit that the fact that 'pro-life' men would try to force us to believe that their form of objectification is morally superior and values 'life' really appalls me. That the ''pro-life' men who post here actually believe they're entitled to some sort of spiritual or moral authority and deference is the silliest thing the culture wars have ever brought us.
I especially love the claim that it's the z/b/e/f that does all the work and generates itself. Then point out that an embryo not inside of a woman does none of these things and...crickets chirping or some ludicrously convoluted nonsense.
I'm actually finding the sciency drivel posted by the forced gestation proponents to be rather entertaining. But, goddamn, is the ignorance astounding!
I especially liked the one that was posted here earlier that suggested that pregnancy is an illness. Given that no reputable medical source would call pregnancy a pathology, it gave me a good laugh, at least until it was removed from the site (not sure why or how).
... is it that most every insurance company that does cover pregnancy, treats it like any other illness?
If an illness is something that should be gotten rid of as soon as practically and medically possible, then I would say that no, insurance companies don't treat pregnancy like "any other illness," despite the fact that many who post on this site apparently would.
... are curable. Some are simply treated or managed because they have a specific course of development (e.g., chicken pox, multiple sclerosis)
Even in your criteria, pregnancy is expected to be "gotten rid of" as soon as practically and medically possible (e.g., childbirth following a full term pregnancy). In fact, if a pregnancy goes longer than expected, doctors may induce to speed it up.
Edited to add - my specific health care plan through Aetna reads:
"Covered Medical Expenses for pregnancy, childbirth, and complications of pregnancy are payable on the same basis as any other sickness."
Oh...so pre-natal care is unnecessary? Just checking.
and...
My wife and I having been through four healthy pregnancies and deliveries, including one C-section and three VBACs, plus two miscarriages that involved a hospital visit and at least one that didn't, I think I can safely say that I've got a pretty good handle on the current state of pre-natal and maternity care in the hands of competent professionals. My view after it all is that a lot of the pre-natal care that happens is unnecessary, and delivery and post-partum care could also be simplified a lot in most cases, greatly reducing the cost of the whole affair. This may surprise some, but I am also of the philosophy that pre-natal doctor visits and normal deliveries should not be covered by health insurance policies, unless there are complications, with the possible exception of an ultrasound at the appropriate time to determine if there are correctable issues with the baby (which would then be covered as with any unhealthy condition or complication of pregnancy).
My view after it all is that a lot of the pre-natal care that happens is unnecessary, [...] This may surprise some, but I am also of the philosophy that pre-natal doctor visits and normal deliveries should not be covered by health insurance policies,
Perhaps you should talk with parents of children born with congenital birth defects. I'm sure they have a bit of expertise on the importance of good pre-natal care.
I suggested "an ultrasound at the appropriate time to determine if there are correctable issues with the baby." I would certainly add any other tests for correctable conditions that would be recommended based on family history.
I suggested "an ultrasound at the appropriate time to determine if there are correctable issues with the baby." I would certainly add any other tests for correctable conditions that would be recommended based on family history.
Great. So after all the qualifications and exceptions you'd make to safeguard against the various issues that often can and do arise during pregnancy... we'd end up with a pre-natal care system at least as extensive as what we have now.
You mean your wife is an expert? :)
I am also of the philosophy that pre-natal doctor visits and normal deliveries should not be covered by health insurance policies
Part of me gets what you're saying about prenatal care and the what not (as I think plenty of childbirth has been "medicallized" in this culture) but I'm going to venture a guess and say that you're white, fairly educated, healthy, likely middle class or higher, and your wife wasn't a teen at the time. All of these things would lend themselves quite nicely to a less medically involved pregnancy and childbirth experience. Sadly, for really young, low income, unhealthy, uneducated individuals this isn't usually the case. These individuals have higher rates of pregnancy complications and need more prenatal care. And if insurance didn't cover them, most would not receive these services as they couldn't afford to pay out of pocket.
If you don't need or want those things, great... don't use them or pay out of pocket on principle. But I think it's rather narcissistic to expect public policy to be designed around your personally "ideal" experiences. The rest of the world doesn't always live the way you do.
Actually, being a bit older than typical mothers, my wife (and I) would actually prefer a more medicalized delivery were she to become pregnant at this point. For the vast majority of women of more typical childbearing age, however, I don't think that's necessary. I stand by everything I've already said.
Again, I get your perspective... I just think you might want to look at all of the women having children and not just the "ideal" candidates.
If your insurance hadn't covered the pre-natal care, I find it hard to believe that at the time, you would not have been at least a little pissed. If there had been indicators of a complication requiring more care, you probably would have been really pissed. Even if you weren't pissed, I doubt you would have chosen to pay out of pocket for those expenses when the insurance was available. (I'm not trying to put actions on you, but I really, really think that most people who have similar views about what should/should not be covered by health insurance simply haven't had the experiences that offer a different perspective.)
I agree on the point about overcare. I have a light distrust of doctors who tell me I need repeated appointments just to check on stuff when there aren't any indicators. (Except the dentist. If you are lucky enough to have dental insurance, use it!) However, I'm pretty sure that if/when I get pregnant, my partner and I are going to be doing all the checks that are safe. We'll want to be sure that we're fully prepared.
Actually, our insurance didn't cover the bulk of pre-natal care, which was mostly the frequent visits to the doctor to listen for a heartbeat, etc. The only thing it covered was an ultrasound and any complications that arose (which thankfully there weren't any). What it did cover very generously was routine delivery, and that's what I'm saying I could have done without. There's not much to do in that direction, however - those kinds of policies are becoming a thing of the past all on their own. (At least that's true in the individual insurance market where I am - employer-sponsored policies are still much too generous in many areas.)
Where did you get your medical degree, Kevin?
@ Kevin Rahe Actually, pregnancy and birth are treated as pathology rather then the normal physiological process that it is all the time. It's basically the norm, ask anyone who knows anything about modern maternity care in the US (which I assume you do not). That being said, pregnancy and birth can be very dangerous, and would most certainly exasperate any illness that a woman might have going pior to becoming pregnant, and can also create illness and injury where there wasn't one before. SO in that sense, yes pregnancy can have a negative impact on a woman's health, and that's probably what the poster meant by refering to it as an illness.
I especially liked the one that was posted here earlier that suggested that pregnancy is an illness. Given that no reputable medical source would call pregnancy a pathology, it gave me a good laugh
One thing that kills women in childbirth is the fetus/baby's head being too large to pass her hips. From an evolutionary perspective, it's odd that a process breeds true that can kill or cripple the mother in a significant percentage of births. However, increased brain size was such an advantage that those genes did breed true, even if mothers were dying. The mother's genes are going to be passed down if she manages, for instance, 4 live births before the 5th birth kills her. Even the genes that cause a woman to die with her first birth may be passed down if there's another mother in the vicinity who's still got milk and adopts the baby.
- Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's necessarily safe, and not something to worry about.
It's my opinion that anyone who believes [attempting to] complete a pregnancy is an obligation, not a choice is someone who believes (probably unconciously) women and poor families are 2nd class. They are in denial about the burden because they are so focused on the "babies".
anyone who believes [attempting to] complete a pregnancy is an obligation, not a choice is someone who believes (probably unconciously) women and poor families are 2nd class
If the alternative never involved perils of its own, perhaps you'd have a point.
That's the outcome of obligatory pregnancy: a higher, unfair burden on women and the poor.
If the alternative never involved perils of its own, perhaps you'd have a point
The alternative being abortion? because the "perils" range from small to non-existant if we're talking about safe abortion done by a trained medical professional. Post- abortion syndrom, the breast cancer link, abortion causing infertility, are all myths, literally total fabrications. Giving birth, is still, and will always be far far more dangerous then having a safe legal abortion. It's when abortion isn't regualted or legal that it becomes perilous.
Post- abortion syndrom, the breast cancer link, abortion causing infertility, are all myths, literally total fabrications.
I might say those things too if I weren't posting comments under my real name.
Most of us post under anonymous screen names because the AC/PL side has a tendency to attract some psychos. Granted, I'm certain that doesn't apply to 90% of your side, but for the 10% it does, well, most of us aren't willing to risk our lives and our families' privacy like that. Sorry.
Do you think I feel entirely safe when I make statements like I do here, especially when I submit them to my local paper and they print them with not just my name but my town? I keep my doors locked at night, and watch my back. It's a risk I'm willing to take, though. If what I say isn't worth putting my name to, then it isn't worth saying.
Right...what with that looooong, documented history of pro-choice violence an' all.
Right...what with that looooong, documented history of pro-choice violence an\' all.
Well, if we are going to play this game, then pro-choicers have document 5,164 cases of violence (including 17 attempted murders, three kidnappings, 152 assaults, 305 completed or attempted bombings and arsons, 375 invasions, 482 stalking incidents, 380 death threats, 618 bomb threats, 100 acid attacks, and 1,254 acts of vandalism), while pro-lifers have documented 8,519 acts of violence (including 1,251 homicides and other killings, 157 attempted homicides, 28 arsons and firebombings, 904 assaults, 1,908 sex crimes, including 250 rapes, 106 kidnappings, 420 cases of vandalism, 290 drug crimes and 1,616 medical crimes). And now you know.
Also, on topic, there is this -> http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/index.html
And then there is this -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKe14jtpbbY&feature=player_embedded (skip to 0:35 if you cannot wait)
Harlan James Drake was just some crazy guy - he was not part of any pro-choice movement. He was fed-up with a bunch of people for different reasons and went on a shooting spree:
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/09/owosso_man_was_looking...
I think most instances of assault on the pro-life are by people who just want you to get out of the way, not because they're necessarily pro-choice. Protesters are annoying when you're trying to conduct your day to day business. And you push buttons, you know you do. We on the other hand just want to go on with our *private*, personal business.
What a great guy that Pouillon guy was anyways:
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2009/09/james_m_pouillon_criti...
As for the video, I hear a lot of pain in that person's voice - but they merely grabbed a sign and ran away. Nobody got hurt.
1.) Do you think a pro-lifer would shoot another pro-lifer because he did not like the sign the other pro-lifer was carrying? I do not, and most people do not. In fact, the reason he shot the pro-lifer was because he was offended by his sign. Trying to divorce that fact from the whole pro-life/pro-choice debate is, well, absurd. If someone were to shoot a pro-choicer because they did not like what that protester was demonstrating or advocating for, you can be sure that the shooter would be labeled as pro-life. The opposite holds true in reverse.
2.) Are you kidding me? The protester was wearing the sign on her body. The pro-choicer came up behind her, knocked her over, took the sign off of her body and then proceeded to run off with the sign until she dropped it while screaming obscenities the entire while. And you justify that on the basis that no one got hurt? What a joke. If that was a pro-lifer who did that to a pro-choicer, no way in heck you would be trying to justify it. No way. It is amazing just how quick pro-choicers are to dismiss violence against pro-lifers.
As for the video, I hear a lot of pain in that person's voice
Certainly more pain than someone who believes what they did to be no more serious than having an appendix removed. You just want to give her a big hug if she'd accept it. Hopefully some day she will.
He was fed-up with a bunch of people for different reasons and went on a shooting spree:
I followed this case quite a bit, and spree is the operative word. I'd be very interested in seeing his psych workup at admit.
What we do know is that initially he was declared incompetent to stand trial and it took them quite awhile to stabilize him enough to stand trial.
After his conviction he expressed remorse and clearly understood the gravity of his criimes so I'm assuming the medications were effective in controlling his psychosis.
while pro-lifers have documented 8,519 acts of violence (including 1,251 homicides and other killings, 157 attempted homicides, 28 arsons and firebombings, 904 assaults, 1,908 sex crimes, including 250 rapes, 106 kidnappings, 420 cases of vandalism, 290 drug crimes and 1,616 medical crimes). And now you know.
Sources please....? Particularly the homicides...looking specifically for police reports.
Should I find it funny how you chose not to dispute the first figure? At any rate, the first number was reported by the National Abortion Federation while the second from Human Life International (and, yes, I used the figures reported by each group, so as to avoid any kind of accusations of being biased).
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_violence.html
http://abortionviolence.com/SUMMARY.HTM#NOTE1
pro-choicers have document 5,164 cases of violence (including 17 attempted murders, three kidnappings, 152 assaults, 305 completed or attempted bombings and arsons, 375 invasions, 482 stalking incidents, 380 death threats, 618 bomb threats, 100 acid attacks, and 1,254 acts of vandalism),
I must have missed reports of the pro-choice acid attacks (spilling orange soda on a protester), bombings (bad pro-choice jokes), and assaults (telling anti-choicers that they are poopyheads).
Also, on topic, there is this -> http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/11/michigan.shooting/index.html
Why yes, you don't have to be a pro-choicer (nor sane, nor law-abiding) to find anti-choicers offensive!
I must have missed reports of the pro-choice acid attacks (spilling orange soda on a protester), bombings (bad pro-choice jokes), and assaults (telling anti-choicers that they are poopyheads).
No. They just attack and shoot pro-lifers they do not agree with, as well as kill their girlfriends and/or wives when they refuse to get abortions. Well, that and the botched abortions that kill women which, apparently, do not really happen.
Why yes, you don\'t have to be a pro-choicer (nor sane, nor law-abiding) to find anti-choicers offensive!
So you are saying that an anti-choicer would find himself or herself offensive?
Oh look...KOOL-AID!
And here you were, Born/Bei....arguing in the not too distant past that men with no history of domestic violence who beat their wives and girlfriends post-abortion....do so BECAUSE these women had an abortion.
Hmmmmm. Need stats.
as well as kill their girlfriends and/or wives when they refuse to get abortions.
How is disagreeing with a partner's choice to the point of domestic homicide pro-choice violence? ... does not compute ...
Missed that, Jules...thanx!
that the logic fail was quick to spot.
How is disagreeing with a partner\\\'s choice to the point of domestic homicide pro-choice violence? ... does not compute ...
Because-- and this is something that happens quite a bit-- you seem to be under the mistaken impression that men who consider themselves pro-choice do not consider themselves pro-choice because they would have no problems with and would even want their partners to get an abortion if she became pregnant. That is how. No, really. It is either willful blindness or willful ignorance if you believe that there are not a sizable portion of men who consider themselves pro-choice solely because they hope the woman aborts to keep him from being a father or taking care of a child he does not want. I believe the point was reiterated best in Fools Rush In when Matthew Perry gives mock praise to god, says he understands and states that he believes in the right to choose when he thinks Selma Hayek is going to have an abortion. But I suppose that when you have constructed a world entirely of your own fashioning, that you see solely want you want to see.
Oh, and as to your title, indeed I do not.
Because-- and this is something that happens quite a bit-- you seem to be under the mistaken impression that men who consider themselves pro-choice do not consider themselves pro-choice because they would have no problems with and would even want their partners to get an abortion if she became pregnant. That is how. No, really. It is either willful blindness or willful ignorance if you believe that there are not a sizable portion of men who consider themselves pro-choice solely because they hope the woman aborts to keep him from being a father or taking care of a child he does not want.
Your argument is so weak and threadbare that you went from "someone who kills his partner because she did not have an abortion" to "they would have no problems with and would even want their partners to get an abortion if she became pregnant." Why do you even bother?
I'll make it simple for you: Being pro-choice means you let the woman make her choice, and once it's made, you respect it. This is not incompatible with having a personal preference for one choice or the other. It is incompatible with pulling a gun on her for not choosing the way you wanted.
Your argument is so weak and threadbare that you went from \"someone who kills his partner because she did not have an abortion\" to \"they would have no problems with and would even want their partners to get an abortion if she became pregnant.\" Why do you even bother?
Yes, my argument is so weak that you ignored it in its entirety. That kind of begs the question as to why, if my arguments are so weak, you struggle trying to respond to them, whereas I have no trouble responding to yours?
I\'ll make it simple for you: Being pro-choice means you let the woman make her choice, and once it\'s made, you respect it. This is not incompatible with having a personal preference for one choice or the other. It is incompatible with pulling a gun on her for not choosing the way you wanted.
Yes, if you ignore the fact that, as I pointed out, some men are pro-choice because they would want their SO to obtain an abortion if she became pregnant. Of course, you ignore this because it does not fit into your nice little view of pro-choice men (though you have no problems making all sorts of fanciful claims about pro-lifers in general, especially the men). In other words, ignoring it is the only thing you can do, even though it is certainly true of many men. And why do you ignore it? Because if you acknowledged this simple fact, then you would also have to acknowledge that there is a such thing as pro-choice violence. So, PCF, why do you consistently ignore large portions of what people type out and rely on failed attempts at sarcasm? Are you that insecure in your own beliefs/arguments? Are you going to tell me that some men are not pro-choice because of the fact that they would hope their partners would obtain an abortion because they do not want to be fathers or pay child support? I hope that is what you are telling me, because then you most definitely would not be living in reality as you somehow think you are.
(Oh, and I am sorely tempted to point out your unwillingness to apply the No True Scotsman fallacy to pro-lifers as you do pro-choicers, but that would be a waste, as you do not understand the definition of the word irony.)
Yes, if you ignore the fact that, as I pointed out, some men are anti-choice but pro-abortion because they would want their SO to obtain an abortion if she became pregnant.
There, I fixed that for you. You're welcome.
Oddly, I've come to expect at least a little more from you. :/
Pro CHOICE... not Pro Abortion
This really isn't a difficult equation. Again, underlying issue being choice. Forcing or coercing a woman into any reproductive decision is just wrong. I made the choice to carry my son to term and I trust women to make those choices for themselves as well. I'm just as offended by somebody forcing or coercing a woman into an abortion as I would be them forcing or coercing her to carry to term. Hence that whole choice designation.
Do I think their are men out there who would call themselves pro-choice and actually mean they'd expect their SO to abort... sure! Just like how I'm sure there are women in the PL/AC crowd who obtain abortions. Oddly like one of the most hateful people I've met in my life called himself a Christian. Very much like, just because a woman calls herself a feminist doesn't mean it's true. Kinda like how I could call myself a purple people eater and it doesn't mean I'm purple or a cannibal. Sometimes people usurp labels for their own purposes or due to their own ignorance.
Honestly, I don't want men like that on this side. I don't want anybody like that on this side. It's wholly contradictory to everything choice should be.
There are some people who are truly pro-choice, but they can only be so as long as they avoid having to really deal with the issue. Inevitably, when someone who starts out being pro-choice is pressed to defend their position, they either become pro-life, or they deny some truth or disseminate or accept what they know are lies about abortion, in which case they become pro-abortion.
... thanks for your biased personal opinion. Now just swap all of the occurrences of pro-choice/abortion with pro-life and you've got an equally valid personal opinion.
There are some people who are truly pro-choice, but they can only be so as long as they avoid having to really deal with the issue. Inevitably, when someone who starts out being pro-choice is pressed to defend their position, they either become pro-life, or they deny some truth or disseminate or accept what they know are lies about abortion, in which case they become pro-abortion.
Or they successfully defend their position, and the anti-choicers get all pissy about it. That's certainly what I've seen happen around here.
because his anti-abortion protest was not "peaceful"? ... But he had [has?] Pro-Life visitors & contributions to his defense fund. I consider him an extremist Pro-Lifer.
.
A "Pro-choice" man who disagrees with his partner's choice to the point of domestic homicide [ie, No True Scotsman] does not get support and contributions to his defense fund from pro-choicers. I don't think I'm using a "No True Scotsman" fallacy to say such a murderer is not "Pro-Choice".
No. They just attack and shoot pro-lifers they do not agree with, as well as kill their girlfriends and/or wives when they refuse to get abortions. Well, that and the botched abortions that kill women which, apparently, do not really happen.
Yes, they happen. (Most are the result of homebrew procedures performed because a safe, professional-grade abortion is not legally obtainable.) But the fact that you count anti-choice domestic violence and the repercussions of an anti-choice legal regime as "pro-choice violence" once again reveals the anti-choice penchant for shooting oneself in the foot.
(Hey, look! Three counts of pro-choice cannibalism! I'll have the protester penis fajitas, please.)
So you are saying that an anti-choicer would find himself or herself offensive?
Quite possibly, yes. Wouldn't trolling a pro-choice Web site be an effective strategy to redirect one's self-loathing toward an external target?
Yes, they happen. (Most are the result of homebrew procedures performed because a safe, professional-grade abortion is not legally obtainable.)
Well, see. How can you possibly argue something you are unwilling to look up? Yes, it is an evil anti-choice website, but it has sources, so it will do (http://abortionviolence.com/DEATHS.HTM).
But the fact that you count anti-choice domestic violence and the repercussions of an anti-choice legal regime as \"pro-choice violence\" once again reveals the anti-choice penchant for shooting oneself in the foot.
Well, you are going to be quite hard pressed to argue that someone who kills his partner because she did not have an abortion was anti-choice. At any rate, I direct you to my response towards Julie above, though I feel it will be ignored and discounted all together, as things usually are.
Quite possibly, yes. Wouldn\'t trolling a pro-choice Web site be an effective strategy to redirect one\'s self-loathing toward an external target?
No... I think that would be what failed sarcasm is for. Also, I do not believe I saw anything which says that you must be pro-choice to post on this site. I guessed I must have missed that sign.
Well, see. How can you possibly argue something you are unwilling to look up? Yes, it is an evil anti-choice website, but it has sources, so it will do (http://abortionviolence.com/DEATHS.HTM).
So the site claims 365 abortion fatalities from "'safe' and legal abortion" from 1967 to 2007. That's forty years. Given what appears to be a total of fifty million abortions in that time frame, that works out to a mortality rate of 0.000736%.
Now, according to this page, heart-valve replacement surgery has a morality rate of 1.8%-2.4%. I'm going to get out of the way now so that you can rail at how evil heart-valve replacement surgery is, and advocate for its complete prohibition.
Well, you are going to be quite hard pressed to argue that someone who kills his partner because she did not have an abortion was anti-choice.
No, actually, it's very easy. "Pro-choice" means "pro-whatever the woman chooses," not "pro-the choice of abortion and nothing else."
You're as bad as that guy who denounces Roe v. Wade without even knowing what it says.
Also, I do not believe I saw anything which says that you must be pro-choice to post on this site. I guessed I must have missed that sign.
No, it's quite okay for anti-choicers to post to this site. It provides us with entertainment!
So the site claims 365 abortion fatalities from \"\'safe\' and legal abortion\" from 1967 to 2007. That\'s forty years. Given what appears to be a total of fifty million abortions in that time frame, that works out to a mortality rate of 0.000736%.
Now, according to this page, heart-valve replacement surgery has a morality rate of 1.8%-2.4%. I\'m going to get out of the way now so that you can rail at how evil heart-valve replacement surgery is, and advocate for its complete prohibition.
I see. So you claim that most abortion deaths are the result of homebrew procedures performed because a safe, professional-grade abortion is not legally obtainable, after which I point out to you that it is false and that virtually every death by abortion over the past forty years has been doing in one of those safe environments you like to go on about, you turn around and start arguing the morality rate between heart-valve replacement surgery and having an abortion? Funny. That does not change the fact that you were, as you often are, wrong. Of course, you are more than willing to prove that the majority of deaths were caused because a woman could not obtain a safe abortion, which would make you right, but I will not hold my breath. After all, looking things up is, apparently, an art form restricted to the human species.
No, actually, it\'s very easy. \"Pro-choice\" means \"pro-whatever the woman chooses,\" not \"pro-the choice of abortion and nothing else.\"
I said it meant pro-the-choice-of-an-abortion-and-nothing-else? Really? I am fairly positive I did not, but that is just you trying your hardest to misconstrue what I have said into what you want it to say. As I have grown used to it, it really does not bother me anymore (not that it ever did, mind you).
You\'re as bad as that guy who denounces Roe v. Wade without even knowing what it says.
You kind of mean like you who tried telling me that late-term abortions are illegal because they are risky for the woman?
No, it\'s quite okay for anti-choicers to post to this site. It provides us with entertainment!
Not to mention a look into the real world.
I see. So you claim that most abortion deaths are the result of homebrew procedures performed because a safe, professional-grade abortion is not legally obtainable, after which I point out to you that it is false and that virtually every death by abortion over the past forty years has been doing in one of those safe environments you like to go on about,
Yes, your little anti-choice Web page only listed deaths from "'safe' and legal" abortion procedures. Which, for you apparently, means that abortions from unsafe/illegal procedures are a figment of the imagination.
Maybe if Lifesite put up an article on womens' rights, you might begin to believe those exist for real, too.
I said it meant pro-the-choice-of-an-abortion-and-nothing-else? Really? I am fairly positive I did not, but that is just you trying your hardest to misconstrue what I have said into what you want it to say.
I wasn't particularly keen on hearing "a man pulling a gun on a woman who refused to have an abortion is pro-choice," but if you really want to make an assertion that moronically dumb, that's your prerogative!
You kind of mean like you who tried telling me that late-term abortions are illegal because they are risky for the woman?
Sorry, you must have me confused with someone who doesn't know Roe v. Wade and why it allows restrictions in the third trimester.
Yes, your little anti-choice Web page only listed deaths from \"\'safe\' and legal\" abortion procedures. Which, for you apparently, means that abortions from unsafe/illegal procedures are a figment of the imagination.
Maybe if Lifesite put up an article on womens\' rights, you might begin to believe those exist for real, too.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5609a1.htm#tab19
Table 19 is what is really important. As you can see, from the years between 1972 and 2003, there were 386 deaths via legal abortions (which means the website I gave you underreported the number of deaths) and 94 via illegal abortions. Last I checked, 386 is greater than 94 and unless you are going to tell me that 94 is greater than 386, then your assertion was and forever will be false. You are welcome to continue flailing about, though.
I wasn\'t particularly keen on hearing \"a man pulling a gun on a woman who refused to have an abortion is pro-choice,\" but if you really want to make an assertion that moronically dumb, that\'s your prerogative!
Oh? That stops him from being pro-choice? Because if we are going to play with this logic, then the next time a pro-lifer does something that would go against the basic principles of the pro-life position, I expect you to state how (s)he is not really pro-life. But, oh, you will not do that, will you?
Sorry, you must have me confused with someone who doesn\'t know Roe v. Wade and why it allows restrictions in the third trimester.
No. I have the right animal.
That stops him from being pro-choice? Because if we are going to play with this logic, then the next time a pro-lifer does something that would go against the basic principles of the pro-life position, I expect you to state how (s)he is not really pro-life. But, oh, you will not do that, will you?
My god, the anti-choicers are head-smackingly dumb lately here.
First, killing or threatening violence on a woman because you need to control her reproduction has absolutely no shred of pro-choice in it. It is exactly the same mentality that makes an abuser think he can control when a woman has a baby, and such men are also known to sabotage birth control, as in sticking a pin through a condom, in order to get women pregnant. These people are NEVER found with any pro-choice literature, do not go to pro-choice meetings, do not know any of the history of the pro-choice movement and can't name its leaders. The only ones who would ever associate these assholes with the pro-choice movement are anti-choicers because they are so stupid that they think that their internal insanity will be believed by normal people.
On the other hand, people who wish violence on abortion providers, harrass, threaten, or murder them in cold blood, are generally seen well entrenched within the anti-choice movement. You are right, I don't call the pro-life. Actually you are wrong again because you say I do call them pro-lifers, whereas I only do so in jest and generally put quotes around the term to indicate I don't agree with it.
But where is the basic tenet in the anti-choice movement that says that preventive homicide is always wrong? Many within the movement support the death penalty for murderers, and they believe abortion to be pre-meditated, malicious aggravated murder. So what in that contradicts the shooting of an abortionist? The rhetoric leads directly to the violence. Case in point: John Burt, Florida regional director of Rescue America and "Spiritual" adviser to a group of activists who bombed three abortion clinics, and to the man who murdered Dr David Gunn.
"Jesus was zealous," Mr. Burt said. "Some people believe you should sit in church and pray for abortion to stop. I believe in putting feet on my prayers."
Asked if that includes attacks on abortion clinics, bombings and other acts of violence, Mr. Burt replied, "Whatever it takes."
Well there are many other examples, but I would like to know of any serious pro-choice side that owns anti-choice murder and terrorism the way the Army of God does http://www.armyofgod.com/ Warning: hateful anti-choice gory website.
You have terrorists in your midst, idiot. Do something about it already.
I just thought of another way to show what a collosal fail Born's quote above is, and I wouldn't blame him for deleting it now to prevent any more embarassment.
It's simple as ends-and-means thing. Anti-choicers agree with Tiller's murderer's end goal of stopping women from getting abortions. Many of them don't agree with the means. On the other hand, a man who threatens his girlfriend because he doesn't agree with her reproductive choice, would not be supported by any pro-choicer on either the ends or the means. God this is so basic!
First, killing or threatening violence on a woman because you need to control her reproduction has absolutely no shred of pro-choice in it.
I know a woman who was pressured to have an abortion by the father of her baby. Thankfully, she didn't go through with it, but while I'm not aware that he threatened her with violence, had abortion not been legal, he would have had no reason to think he could pressure her to get one.
The reasoning against the "right" to physician-assisted suicide is the same. It's far too easy for a right to die to become a duty to die.
I know a woman who was pressured to have an abortion by the father of her baby. Thankfully, she didn't go through with it, but while I'm not aware that he threatened her with violence, had abortion not been legal, he would have had no reason to think he could pressure her to get one.
Ahaharhar... do you think women were never pressured to go to backstreet butchers or attempt home methods back in the day, and still are in some countries now? Do you think male attempts to control their girlfriend/mistress/wife/relatives reproduction (forced birth or forced abortion) just suddenly pop into existence along with legal abortion?
I wouldn't say it never happened, but I think it's reasonable to say that it's easier to expect someone to get an abortion when it's completely legal.
Riiiight. The mere legality of a procedure forces entitled men to assume they are the ones in control of a woman's reproduction. That is neither pro-choice or relevant except in the way it is the same as anti-choicers assuming women can't be trusted to make decisions because there is a risk we may not want to do what you want.
... doesn't mean people automatically participate or imbibe. I've never put a cigarette in my mouth, let alone smoked one. Between the advertising and it's legality you'd think EVERYBODY would smoke. Voting is your right but how many people don't? Plastic surgery is legal but I wouldn't do it (and it's prohibitively expensive).
At any rate, abortions are expensive and I don't know of any women that would just decide abortion is a great alternative to preventative contraceptives or alternately something fun to do cause it's legal.
Similarly, just because something is illegal doesn't mean people don't do it... and it doesn't mean it's automatically more difficult to do/find. Case in point - more teenagers report easier access to street drugs than alcohol and/or cigarettes. Why? Because we strictly regulate those substances and make it very difficult for minors to procure... no so much for weed and coke.
I had a "lover" threaten to kill me if I got pregnant by him while at the same time force himself on me, unprotected. Fun stuff. (not)
... of course there are no men who've ever pushed their SO down stairs, beat them up, or attempted to chemically induce a miscarriage.
The reasoning against the "right" to physician-assisted suicide is the same. It's far too easy for a right to die to become a duty to die.
Does that necessarily mean that we should stay as far away from that line as possible? What's wrong with wanting to find the balance between having to live, and having to die?
And, since you've said that choice itself is not a virtue, I have to ask--what virtue is there in making good choices if there are no options to make bad choices? Choice may not be virtuous in and of itself, but being virtuous requires having the option to not be virtuous. Choice isn't good or bad, but it is necessary for a person to be either good or bad.
What's wrong with wanting to find the balance between having to live, and having to die?
So when we wear out and just don't seem worth fixing any more, we should just be dispatched?
what virtue is there in making good choices if there are no options to make bad choices?
True. But there is no virtue in going out of one's way to make sure that a bad choice is available to someone who would otherwise simply do the right thing.
So when we wear out and just don't seem worth fixing any more, we should just be dispatched?
Do y ou even read what you respond to? I just said I wanted to find a BALANCE, IOW let people be able to choose to die if they personally feel their own lives are no longer worth living, because there's more pain than pleasure. Having an option to do something doesn't mean you HAVE to do it.
But there is no virtue in going out of one's way to make sure that a bad choice is available to someone who would otherwise simply do the right thing.
A lot of people don't think that abortion is actually a bad thing. And they only reason that we even need to fight to keep it legal is because people like you fight so damn hard to change that. It's not like abortions don't happen in places where it's illegal--women just suffer more in obtaining one. Maybe if your side spent less time trying to take women's options away, and more time trying to help women make the 'right' choice (and honestly, pro-choicers would love to see more supports available to women who want to carry to term), we'd be able to move on to other issues.
A lot of people don't think that abortion is actually a bad thing.
Then why don't they talk about it? There are plenty of women who've had abortions and are willing to witness to it being a bad thing, but the one who's willing to say it was a good thing is pretty rare.
pro-choicers would love to see more supports available to women who want to carry to term
So do they ever actually support pregnancy resource centers that work to help provide pregnant women in crisis pregnancies with support and supplies?
Then why don't they talk about it? There are plenty of women who've had abortions and are willing to witness to it being a bad thing, but the one who's willing to say it was a good thing is pretty rare.
Do you talk about every private medical procedure you've procured? Prostate exams? Plastic surgery? STI/STD treatment? I also tend to not discuss my bodily functions in polite society either... it doesn't mean I don't shit or piss or that I feel "bad" about it. By the way, many women don't talk about it because of the social taboo and preference to not be hassled, judged, or harassed by people who don't share their perspective.
Additionally, some women do share their experiences with choice...
There are also several documentaries (whose titles are eluding me at the moment) that cover those stories and experiences as well.
On a related note, I firmly support the rights and plights of those women who had negative experiences or regret their abortions. I feel for those women. I do. But we don't deny all women the right to make choices because some people regret them. Short of being coerced or forced, that was a choice that adult woman made for herself. And guess what? Sometimes we regret decisions we make... that doesn't mean we do away with the choice. We don't deny people the ability to buy cars because some people regret them. We don't ban plastic surgery or tattoos because some people made ill-informed choices and later regretted it. We don't ban alcohol because some people are alcoholics.
Do you talk about every private medical procedure you've procured? Prostate exams?
I would if someone claimed the procedure was awful and I disagreed, or if they said it was great when I found it to be a terrible experience.
So do you know of people who consider prostate exams to be immoral procedures? Do they protest outside of clinics that provide those services or scream at you when you go to obtain that legal medical procedure. Try as I might, I am at a bit of a loss to find a male procedure (maybe sex reassignment?) that is truly comparable to the overly stigmatized abortion services for women.
Does that make sense?
So where do you suggest someone go to learn whether abortion is right for them, especially someone who didn't have the benefit of any significant moral direction from their parents?
Your philosophy is not unreasonable given the facts about abortion that you're willing to accept. What we're arguing is that those facts are incomplete at best, and often untrue altogether. This has been proven by the several failed attempts to contest the facts that can be see just in the group of comments on this story.
But if the effects of a philosophy put into practice are sexist and classist, shouldn't we look at the history of how such a philosophy came to it's current form?
I don't support a philosophy that disproportionally puts obligations on the lower levels of society to the advantage of the ruling oligarchy. The rulers have been massaging these religious doctrines and ethics for thousands of years; they have the resources to support the theologians & philosophers who arrive at answers they like, and to suppress those ideas they consider dangerous to their wealth and power. I feel no obligation to sign on to millenia of misogyny, ... especially when Nature is less stringent in her demands on women than "traditional" socities' rigid gender roles.
Your philosophy is not unreasonable given the facts about abortion that you're willing to accept. What we're arguing is that those facts are incomplete at best, and often untrue altogether.
Good luck with that.
You may want to get some tips on challenging those pesky reality-based facts from the Intelligent Design people!
... not really (See: White Supremacists/Nazis, the Catholic Church, Holocaust deniers, Creationists).
So do they everAugust 26, 2010 - 2:44pm
<blockquote>
So do they ever actually support pregnancy resource centers that work to help provide pregnant women in crisis pregnancies with support and supplies?
Oh, you mean the fraudulent fake "clinics" that mislead women into coming in the door by offering services they don't really provide, terrorize them once they do enter, and badger them into carrying to term so the fake "clinic" can make big bucks on adoption scams? Why would ANYBODY support vermin like this?
So when we wear out and just don't seem worth fixing any more, we should just be dispatched?
Dispatching with an individual is still the result of an external choice or decision on the part of another person. This would still be anti-choice in spirit. Nobody has the right to make those decisions except the person themselves. This isn't a difficult concept.
What's wrong with wanting to find the balance between having to live, and having to die?
A tip of the hat to moderation and compromise :)
Table 19 is what is really important. As you can see, from the years between 1972 and 2003, there were 386 deaths via legal abortions (which means the website I gave you underreported the number of deaths) and 94 via illegal abortions. Last I checked, 386 is greater than 94 and unless you are going to tell me that 94 is greater than 386, then your assertion was and forever will be false.
Oh, I'm sorry. Were you under the impression that I only cared about women in the U.S., where abortion remains (at least nominally) legal, and good emergency medical care is widely available? You should know better than that.
Good luck with that whole "Not that many women are dying from illegal abortion in the U.S. lately... so let's make abortion illegal!" argument. Perhaps some people will interpret your strident citation of CDC statistics as actual concern for women.
Oh? That stops him from being pro-choice? Because if we are going to play with this logic, then the next time a pro-lifer does something that would go against the basic principles of the pro-life position, I expect you to state how (s)he is not really pro-life. But, oh, you will not do that, will you?
Do the "basic principles of the pro-life position" include bombing womens' health clinics and shooting abortion providers? There seems to be some disagreement among the upper echelons of your movement on that point!
Oh, I\'m sorry. Were you under the impression that I only cared about women in the U.S., where abortion remains (at least nominally) legal, and good emergency medical care is widely available? You should know better than that.
Oh? Funny how this thread has been about the U.S., more specifically the USCCB, and more specifically, as of late, about people responding to my post about reports of pro-choice violence in the U.S.. Funny how you respond to that post, stating that the majority of those deaths were because of unsafe abortions, and after I point out to you that they were legal abortions, you turn and say something to the effect of But-I-was-talking-about-the-world-not-the-U.S.!. But, as I am a generous fellow, I will let you backtrack.
Good luck with that whole \"Not that many women are dying from illegal abortion in the U.S. lately... so let\'s make abortion illegal!\" argument. Perhaps some people will interpret your strident citation of CDC statistics as actual concern for women.
Odd. I do believe you were the one who stated that the majority of deaths related to the aforementioned botched abortions (see the original anti-choice, as you call us, link I originally gave you) were due to the fact that woman could not obtain them safely. But you can continue to pretend as if you were not proven wrong by trying to obfuscate as you usually do. It is, after all, very entertaining to watch you do so.
Do the \"basic principles of the pro-life position\" include bombing womens\' health clinics and shooting abortion providers? There seems to be some disagreement among the upper echelons of your movement on that point!
And, in the same vein, there also seems to be disagreement as to whether or not being pro-choice allows one to kill another because they did not make the choice one wanted them to make.
And, in the same vein, there also seems to be disagreement as to whether or not being pro-choice allows one to kill another because they did not make the choice one wanted them to make.
Nope, there is no disagreement among pro-choicers. None of us believe that being right entitles you to kill someone just for making the "wrong" reproductive choice. There is, however, a very loud and ugly disagreement among so-called "pro-lifers" about that whether or not it is their right to kill abortionists.
Nope, there is no disagreement among pro-choicers. None of us believe that being right entitles you to kill someone just for making the \"wrong\" reproductive choice. There is, however, a very loud and ugly disagreement among so-called \"pro-lifers\" about that whether or not it is their right to kill abortionists.
Obviously, the above is untrue seeing as how people who deem themselves pro-choice, even abortion doctors, kill their partners because they did not obtain an abortion. As I have said many times, we can play this game, though I do not think you will be keen on doing so ;)
Obviously, the above is untrue seeing as how people who deem themselves pro-choice, even abortion doctors, kill their partners because they did not obtain an abortion.
Next, I suppose you'll argue that if a serial killer claims to be a policeman, the people he murders should be counted as police killings.
people who deem themselves pro-choice, even abortion doctors, kill their partners because they did not obtain an abortion.
Unbelieveable.
As I said before, it's about MEANS and ENDS. Killing someone because you don't like their choice is an ANTI-CHOICE end. Both the ENDS and the MEANS are anti-choice.
A lunatic taking the "pro-life" line of abortion is murder and following the logic to its conclusion of murdering an abortion provider is using a means to an ANTI-CHOICE END. You may disagree with the means, but the end effect is fewer abortions performed, which is an end you would be happy with.
And show me evidence of a murder by someone who professed pro-choice philosophy. Pay attention now, show me evidence that any murderer, as in letters, testimony, speach or any writing, who professed pro-choice philosphy. An insane morderer who happend to be an abortionist does not count unless you show me evidence that such a person endorsed the pro-choce philosophy and that the killing was in keeping with that philosophy. Anyone can be a murderer, a baker murder does not say anything about bakery, especially if the baker-murderer was not motivated by baking. Show me the pro-choice websites defending violence and murder the way Army of God and even websites you have linked to that excuse and defend clinic violence. Your side has the terrorists, not ours.
But "pro-life" murderers defend themselves on "pro-life" grounds. THAT my obdurate friend, is the DIFFERENCE.
Oh? Funny how this thread has been about the U.S., more specifically the USCCB, and more specifically, as of late, about people responding to my post about reports of pro-choice violence in the U.S.. Funny how you respond to that post, stating that the majority of those deaths were because of unsafe abortions, and after I point out to you that they were legal abortions, you turn and say something to the effect of But-I-was-talking-about-the-world-not-the-U.S.!.
Yes, I do care about women outside the U.S. Sorry if this is an inconvenience for you.
Odd. I do believe you were the one who stated that the majority of deaths related to the aforementioned botched abortions (see the original anti-choice, as you call us, link I originally gave you) were due to the fact that woman could not obtain them safely. But you can continue to pretend as if you were not proven wrong by trying to obfuscate as you usually do.
Unsafe-illegal abortions aren't a big deal in this country because abortion is still legal and we enjoy a relatively high standard of medical care. Safe-legal abortions have a very, very low mortality rate, as your own statistics show.
If you were trying to make some kind of argument against abortion in light of those facts, you've done a good job of obfuscating it.
And, in the same vein, there also seems to be disagreement among anti-choicers as to whether or not being pro-choice allows one to kill another because they did not make the choice one wanted them to make.
There, I fixed that for you.
Yes, I do care about women outside the U.S. Sorry if this is an inconvenience for you.
I never said you did not. That does not change the fact that you were, and still are, wrong :)
Unsafe-illegal abortions aren\'t a big deal in this country because abortion is still legal and we enjoy a relatively high standard of medical care. Safe-legal abortions have a very, very low mortality rate, as your own statistics show.
Oh? So making abortions legal made them safe? If that is your argument, then why did the biggest drops in the abortion death rate occur before Roe v. Wade? If you did not know, even though you should as I have pointed this out many times before, the morality rate in regards to abortion are directly linked to whether or not the country the abortion is performed in has access to the latest medical technologies; not whether abortion is legal or illegal. I would be willing to bet that you would much rather have an illegal abortion in the United States than you would have a legal abortion in, say, the Republic of Congo.
If you were trying to make some kind of argument against abortion in light of those facts, you\'ve done a good job of obfuscating it.
It seems to me that you are the only one making arguments, with me being the one correcting your arguments. But do not stop throwing out the arguments now.
There, I fixed that for you.
To fix something, you generally make it correct, not incorrect.
I never said you did not. That does not change the fact that you were, and still are, wrong :)
It goes right with many of the other "facts" you've entertained us with here.
Oh? So making abortions legal made them safe?
It made them safer, since it increased womens' odds of being able to visit one of those nice clinics with advanced medical technology instead of breaking out the coat hanger.
I would be willing to bet that you would much rather have an illegal abortion in the United States than you would have a legal abortion in, say, the Republic of Congo.
I'd be willing to check out the illegal U.S. abortion clinic, but they just got raided by the FBI and shut down as part of a crackdown championed by Republicans. Oh look, the state attorney general is on TV: "Women are no longer in danger of dying in this unsafe and unlawful house of horrors."
Or when you argue that abortion should be illegal, are you implying that law enforcement is just going to allow these illegal-if-not-all-that-unsafe clinics to operate in peace? That they will keep anti-choicer vigilante groups in check so they don't track down and firebomb these places? That state legislatures won't make the elimination of these clinics their top priority?
Sorry. We'll stick with legal abortion, and legal facilities in which to have them done, thank you very much.
It goes right with many of the other \"facts\" you\'ve entertained us with here.
Yes, it is amazing the things you can find when you look things up. Should I find it funny that you still have not bothered to address any of them, even though they are sourced? I should not. After all, it is hard to argue facts.
It made them safer, since it increased womens\' odds of being able to visit one of those nice clinics with advanced medical technology instead of breaking out the coat hanger.
No, it did not. For one, prior to Roe v. Wade more than 90% of abortions were performed by licensed practitioners, with even one source saying as much as 96%. Did, on January 22, 1973, all those back-alley abortionists suddenly become respected and trained physicians? Where, exactly, did they go? Secondly, take a look at the picture in the following link (http://img135.imageshack.us/i/graph.gif/). Roe v. Wade occurred on that tail end of a downward trend in the number of deaths via illegal abortions. In fact, the downward trend was occurring more than 30 years prior to Roe v. Wade. As you can see, the advent of both sulfa and penicillin, along with advancements in medical technology, was the driving force behind the number of deaths via illegal abortions, not their legal status (that is, legal or illegal). Feel free to ignore this, though :)
Oh, and could you provide, say, just ten examples of a woman self-inducing an abortion with a coat hanger?
I\'d be willing to check out the illegal U.S. abortion clinic, but they just got raided by the FBI and shut down as part of a crackdown championed by Republicans. Oh look, the state attorney general is on TV: \"Women are no longer in danger of dying in this unsafe and unlawful house of horrors.\"
Wait. So if no clinics which perform abortions legally exist today because of crackdowns, then why would you think that clinics existed prior to Roe v. Wade that performed abortions illegally without being shut down?
Or when you argue that abortion should be illegal, are you implying that law enforcement is just going to allow these illegal-if-not-all-that-unsafe clinics to operate in peace? That they will keep anti-choicer vigilante groups in check so they don\'t track down and firebomb these places? That state legislatures won\'t make the elimination of these clinics their top priority?
History was never your strong point, was it? Prior to Roe v. Wade, was there ever an illegal abortion clinic? I am going to go out on a limb here and say there was not. Of course, you would never argue that because there was never a clinic devoted specifically to performing illegal abortions that no illegal abortions ever occurred, would you? Well, I would not put it past you, as you just might. Anyway, with that being pointed out, my question still remains. Would you rather have an illegal abortion in the U.S. or have a legal abortion in the Republic of Congo. It was not that hard of a question, and I figured you would have picked a legal abortion in the Republic of Congo on account of them being, you know, legal.
Sorry. We\'ll stick with legal abortion, and legal facilities in which to have them done, thank you very much.
Poor PCF. It must really bother you to have to rely on psuedo wit in order to attempt to answer points you cannot address.
One more time, Bei:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=283931
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/1/gr060108.html
One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.
Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.
These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.
A clear racial disparity is evident in the data of mortality because of illegal abortion: In New York City in the early 1960s, one in four childbirth-related deaths among white women was due to abortion; in comparison, abortion accounted for one in two childbirth-related deaths among nonwhite and Puerto Rican women.
Guess who did not click on the link I provided? You did not. So what is the point? If you are not going to click on what I provide, or actually what I type out, then do not bother because it wastes both of our times. At any rate, I would point out that the year before any state legalized abortion (1967) there were about 130\'ish deaths via illegal abortions, or that the year before Roe v. Wade (1972) there were only 39 deaths via illegal abortions.
Snerk...intellectual dishonesty much?
Oh look...antibiotics!
Your contention is shit, Bei.
'Twas the application of antibiotics that limited the deaths from illegal abortion prior to RvW.
You have no argument here...so what say you give us a rest from this particularly slovenly line of reasoning?
Snerk...intellectual dishonesty much.
Oh look...antibiotics!
Your contention is shit, Bei. \'Twas the application of antibiotics that limited the deaths from illegal abortion prior to RvW.
You have no argument here...so what say you give us a rest from this particular slovenly line of reasoning?
Funny. I do believe I said, and I will quote myself verbatim here:
In fact, the downward trend was occurring more than 30 years prior to Roe v. Wade. As you can see, the advent of both sulfa and penicillin, along with advancements in medical technology, was the driving force behind the number of deaths via illegal abortions, not their legal status (that is, legal or illegal). Feel free to ignore this, though.
Imagine that. Oh, and before I forget:
Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15; and, while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting
all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 per cent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373382/pdf/amjphnation00308-0022.pdf
I am sure you will be trying again, though.
So Bei...you are conceding that illegal abortion was NOT safer....and ONLY medical intervention after the fact is responsible for the reduction in deaths?
Correct?
No, because it is false. Talk to me when you get around to clicking on the above link :)
Okay....so you are insisting that because a larger percentage of illegal abortion did not result in sepsis, illegal abortion was safer prior to the development of antibiotics?
This just keeps getting better.
Yes. That is precisely what I said.
And on another note, I have to yet again ask you what percentage of abortions prior to 1973, or even 1967, per year, resulted is sepsis? And, yet again, I really want you to go and find the source of that Harlem claim. I will give you all week to do it (Good luck, though).
I really want you to go and find the source of that Harlem claim.
Check with Guttenmacher.
As for what percentage of abortions ended in sepsis...dunno. What I do know is that in every major US city prior to RvW...there was at least one hospital with a septic abortion ward, and that these wards were regularly full.
What is sadly interesting, Bei, is that you reduce the lives of women to percentages, in order to determine public policy. We know septic abortion wards were doing brisk business prior to RvW. Not so much, these days.
So let me ask you....what percentage of women developing sepsis post illegal-abortion is acceptable to you?
Is a cop-out. I was hoping you would realize that the claim is not sourced, but apparently you are okay with unsourced claims. Amazing the stuff you pro-choicers allow yourselves to get away with.
At any rate, you are the one reducing the lives to percentages, mainly the lives of the unborn by arguing that abortion should be legal based on the safety of the operation. Notice that I have never argued that abortion should be legal based on the fact their safety, as that fact does not matter to me one bit. It is oddly humorous how you do not recognize this, but I have come to learn that irony is the never the word of the day around here.
And, fyi, I really have no idea who you are talking about with the whole Bei thing. I have been posting here for months.
Now Bei....we were discussing the actual lives of women, in your percentage game.
You are pulling a double Red Herring here....so let us get back to the issue under discussion.
Can you give us your source as to the numbers of illegal abortions performed safely prior to RvW?
So how do you know the vast majority of abortions were safe prior to RvW? Please be brief?
