I Was a "Prolife" Republican... Until I Fell in Love
February 8, 2011 - 6:34pm (Print)
This is cross-posted with permission from Hay Ladies.
I had a favorite line, in high school, when debating people on the subject of abortion. It was “Hey, that thing in your stomach’s not gonna come out a toaster, right? It’s a baby!”
Oh, I thought I was really, super clever with that one. Because I loved talking about the babies. I talked about the babies at the high school Young Republicans Club–not only was I the president, but also the founder. I talked about the babies at Club 412, the evangelical punk teen hang-out in Fort Worth I frequented with my friends. I talked about the babies in class. I cried about the babies while I strummed my guitar. I wrote songs about the babies, imagining myself as a broken, murderous whore who regretted her abortions.
I didn’t have an opinion one way or the other on abortion until I started hanging out with right-wing punk rock kids in high school. Then, somebody–probably one of the older teenage punk rock boys I would later fend off in the back of a car or behind the chapel at church camp–handed me a pamphlet with an aborted fetus on the front. The pamphlet told me all about how abortion causes breast cancer and about how women who abort can never be redeemed in the eyes of God and will live with heartache and depression for the rest of their lives, a shell of the beautiful thing they could have been if they’d only carried to term. I was outraged. I couldn’t believe women were killing members of my own generation–my sisters and brothers!–just because they couldn’t keep their legs together.
Because while I said it was about the babies, it wasn’t. It was about slut-shaming. I absolutely loved slut-shaming. Because I was saving myself for marriage–well, oral sex doesn’t really count anyway, does it?–-I knew that I would always be right and virtuous and I would never be a murderer like those sluts. The issue couldn’t possibly be up for real debate, to my mind: either you were a baby-killer slut, or you behaved like a proper Christian woman and only let him get to third base. Babies were simultaneously women’s punishment for having premarital sex and beautiful gifts from Jesus Himself. That didn’t seem like a contradiction in my mind. It was just another one of God’s perfect mysteries.
After all, I was 16, 17, 18. I knew everything. And what I knew more than anything else was that anyone who got herself into the position of having an unwanted pregnancy was filthy in body and soul. And again, since I would absolutely never have premarital sex, I would absolutely never make the decision to murder my child. Because I was pure, and so were babies, and together, me and the babies and my perfect hymen, we were all going to be fine if we could just fight the ignorant sluts. So that’s what I did. I talked and argued and cajoled and pontificated. I ministered to the heathen nerdgirl sluts in Telnet chats and online bulletin boards. I stood up for what I believed in, which was: If you do not believe like me, you deserve whatever brand of God’s wrath comes your way.
But, you know, to hear me talk, it was all about the babies. The innocent children. The mass genocide! Perpetuated, of course, by millions of American women who I imagined happily scooping out their wombs with ladles before heading back out for another gang-bang. In private, my anti-choice friends and I would laugh and laugh (or, in some cases, LOL and LOL, if we were chatting online) about how stupid women were for having premarital sex. How evil they were for not being able to control themselves. How great I was for not having sex with my boyfriend. How loved and special I was in the eyes of God because I didn’t let my boyfriend, you know, do it with me.
If I’d thought about it any, I might have realized that it takes two to create an unwanted pregnancy. But the conversation was never, ever about men or their behavior. It was only about women.
So, what happened? How did I come to be editing a lefty, pinko-assed feminist blog?
Well, I got off my religious high horse and on to a sex life I enjoyed and found fulfilling.
At college, I met a wonderful, sweet Jewish boy who fell in love with me and who I fell in love with right back. And he didn’t have any hang-ups about sex, though he was also a virgin. And we did all of the things except for The Big Sex, and the more I grew to love him, the more I thought back on those people I knew back home who told me sex was awful and would break me. How could sex with this guy, this absolute sweetheart, break me? And so we had The Big Sex. And it was great and fun and loving, and we kept having all of The Big Sex, for about three weeks, until I realized it was about time for my period.
Suddenly: I was the dirty, filthy slut. I was the horny bitch. I was the callous murderer-in-training. What, did I think my womb was going to grow a toaster if we had a condom mishap?
Of course not. I didn’t think babies were toasters and I didn’t believe I was going to birth a toaster if I got pregnant, so how had I managed to belittle women for years with this condescending, patronizing line about a small kitchen appliance? I was frozen in a kind of moral limbo–I couldn’t believe I found myself simultaneously relieved that I could access an abortion if I wanted to, and saddened and stressed out by the possibility of having to make that decision.
So I went right the fuck out and got myself some hormonal birth control, is what I did.
I marched into my college women’s health center–oh, thank God they had one–and I got my first pap smear and the Ortho-Evra patch and talked to the nurses about STD’s and pregnancy and how to take care of my body. I had never had any of those conversations with my family or church or friends or teachers back home in Texas. I learned more in a two-hour visit to that college women’s health center than I had in the 19 years leading up to it. And yet as a passionate anti-choicer, I had considered myself an expert on sex and reproductive health–my own and everyone else’s–because of a few pamphlets and preachers.
Today, I see that nothing about my religious anti-choice views did anything to prevent abortion. They did a lot to shame myself and my friends, but nothing to prevent abortion. Today, I hear anti-choicers talk about the babies and the unborn and the American genocide, but what I really hear beneath all that is slut-shaming and fear of female sexuality. I hear that language clearly because I spoke it once, myself. It is a familiar language to me.
And I even have a little bemused sympathy for old men who try to pass anti-choice legislation. Because they really will not ever have to worry about abortion. And once, I thought I wouldn’t, either. So I see where they’re coming from. I see how blind to the experiences of others they are. Privilege does that to people. If they weren’t so damned full of themselves, and so damned politically powerful, I might even find them funny.
What saddens me more than anything else are women who want to make abortion either so inaccessible as to render it impracticable, or who want to outlaw it altogether. Because I truly believe that most women, anti-choice or otherwise, who’ve experienced even a flicker of uncertainty about a pregnancy in this country since 1973 have been glad, in their hearts, to have a choice. I believe wanting to take that choice away from others is deeply about shame and punishment and judgment, and not about righteousness and love. I believe that because I rarely see those who want to outlaw abortion doing anything to combat its cause: unintended pregnancy, and I see them doing a lot to punish and shame women.
There is nothing “pro-life” about sonogram bills and denying Medicaid funding to (some!) rape victims or allowing doctors to opt out of giving pregnant women life-saving abortions. I know that what has kept me from having to make a decision about an unintended pregnancy is not the prospect of hearing a fetal heartbeat or having to go through a 24-hour wait period, but safe, easy and affordable access to contraception and good, honest medical information disseminated by doctors and medical professionals without religious agendas.
I was a girl growing up in Texas who was failed by abstinence-only education and soured by extreme religious dogma. I don’t want other girls to go through that, too. And so if you’ve gotten through this whole essay, consider donating to Planned Parenthood. Get on a NARAL mailing list. Fight HR3. Stand up against empty religious and political pandering and stand up for real solutions like affordable health care, comprehensive sex education and contraceptive access.
Um...oh look...Young Love! That never happens! No rilly.
Welcome to the reality-based community, Andrea...and to friendships with people you would not find in abstinence land, and to experiences and life outside of the "purity bubble."
Unnerving....but that is always the case when one thinks for themselves.
Glad to have your voice in the pot, especially now that the water is boiling.
I'm a good ol' Texan girl myself; albeit a decade or two older than you I dare say.
I was one of those sluts in high school. My father was an alcoholic who used sexual inuendo and filthy language as opposed to actual incest with me, my sister, and my two brothers. We went to the Baptist church every Sunday morning. I was saved and baptized. I never had a discussion with my mother or father about sex, abstinence or otherwise until I was 14. That was the first time my father called me a whore. I didn't know what it was, but I did find out. You have to understand that back in the early 70s, we still weren't even having more than a discussion about periods, there was NO mention of sex or anything relating to it back "in the day". But that didn't stop boys from trying and girls trying to figure out on their own whether to stop them or not, and then how to stop them.
My point, my dear girl, is that we are all lucky and should fight our asses off to keep abortion safe and legal and accessible for women all over our country.
Excellent post. Thanks for reminding us that some of us do grow up!
Wow, Thank you for the honesty, and for sharing your story. I laughed while reading many parts, but I have to admit that I felt a little nauseous while reading others, because of all the mentions of reveling in slut-shaming, which is what I've always suspected that (many) anti-choicers get off on.
I'm a college student and I keep hoping that the "pro lifers" at my school will "grow up," and educate themselves, in the same way that you did. Many of them come from very small, parochial towns, grew up with hateful religious rhetoric and zero discussion of sex, and they haven't really been out in the world to understand diverse life experiences of others. I'm hoping that when they find a significant other that they will realize that the abortion "debate" isn't so black & white and all about "teh babies" as they wanted it to be.
Well, I got off my religious high horse and on to a sex life I enjoyed and found fulfilling.
Lucky you. So many of the other girls in the young republican club married Christian conservatives like ones who post here. No hope of a decent relationship or even an enjoyable sex life there.
I've never understood the joys of slut slamming but it's pretty obvious that the 'pro-life' movement is all about male entitlement and the subjugation of women.
I am not so sure that all the pro-life movement is about slut -shaming only, because in the Bible (and all good Christians are suppose to go by the Bible) it very clearly states tha BOTH men and women will remain virgins until marriage. Men have taken it upon themselves to control what women do. In other words what is ok for men is not ok for women. This is not how it is written in the Bible.
I believe this has a lot to do with controlling women and getting us out of the workforce for greed or ego purposes as well. Companies believe women cost them too much money. By keeping us pregnant and poor or trapped in abusive marriages as it used to be in the bad old days. UGH!
We live in a very greedy, selfish world.
it very clearly states tha BOTH men and women will remain virgins until marriage. Men have taken it upon themselves to control what women do. In other words what is ok for men is not ok for women. This is not how it is written in the Bible.
Freetobe, I think that is a very good point. The bible has been used by right-wingers for centuries, to promote patriarchal, religious, tyrannical dogma. It has nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with power and control. For those who can escape its entrapments, especially those of the ProLife movement (who typically claim some kind of affiliation with religion), I say good for you, because they can, then, learn to understand the true meaning of the bible.
Because I truly believe that most women, anti-choice or otherwise, who’ve experienced even a flicker of uncertainty about a pregnancy in this country since 1973 have been glad, in their hearts, to have a choice. I believe wanting to take that choice away from others is deeply about shame and punishment and judgment, and not about righteousness and love. I believe that because I rarely see those who want to outlaw abortion doing anything to combat its cause: unintended pregnancy, and I see them doing a lot to punish and shame women.
I believe, wholeheartedly, that there are very few ProLife women who carry unwanted or untenable pregnancies to term.
Excellent post. I hope people from all sides of the debate get a chance to read this.
I was actually glad to read this, because it's nice to see someone who's not afraid to admit the underlying theme of being anti-choice. Thanks for offering a glimpse of the reality!
Thank you for such an amazing and insightful article! Thank you for sharing your thoughts and explanations of your former views, and how and why you've come to change. Great tie-in to the current legislation, too. You hit the nail on the head - there's nothing "pro-life" about the "Stupak on Steroids" bills or "heartbeat" or sonogram bills - it's about shame and a fundamental lack of respect for women.
Once again, this post stereotypes anyone who has a pro life position. It's unfortunate that you were so judgemental and uninformed in your youth, but your attitude is not reflective of how serious pro lifers (particularly those of Gen X/Y) view women, birth control and sex. Why am I pro life? At the most basic level, I saw "The Miracle of Life," a movie that shows human development from conception to birth in the eigth grade. I am not pro life because I want to punish other women, think sex is evil, or oppose sex ed. If there were no fetus with a beating heart involved, no one would care about abortion. But there is, and that is the true basis of the pro life position.
your attitude is not reflective of how serious pro lifers (particularly those of Gen X/Y) view women, birth control and sex
Honestly, I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. A lot of the talk about punishing women, or fearing female sexuality is oftentimes a subconscious motivating factor. It's between the lines. It's not something that one may even recognizes in one's thinking until, for example, they become pro-choice and write a retrospective piece.
At the most basic level, I saw "The Miracle of Life," a movie that shows human development from conception to birth in the eigth grade.
My boyfriend saw the exact same movie a couple times during those years and he is 100% pro-choice. I think the difference is that he self-identifies much more with the woman (and the pain and the burden that she experiences) than he ever self-identified with an embryo or fetus (which does not experience anything until live delivery.)
Yeah, this woman is just sounding more and more like Marie, every time. At least, her disingenuousness remains intact in this piece. I say disingenuous because her inability to recognize that there is a beating heart on the other end of organ donation, too, makes her statement about 'the real problem with abortion', a lie.
I am not pro life because I want to punish other women, think sex is evil, or oppose sex ed. If there were no fetus with a beating heart involved, no one would care about abortion. But there is, and that is the true basis of the pro life position.
I believe [attempting to] give birth (give life) should be a gift not an obligation. If women and the poor do not have free choice without legal or social coercion they're being treated as second class by society.
From the above, it seems you believe the moral problem of not accepting an unwanted pregnancy is of more weight to you than systemic sex and class discrimination. I'm sorry those are your priorities because I believe you are being unfair.
Untrue. Every time someone points out that, while also possessing beating hearts, no other born human can force another to risk their life or health for theirs, the pro-life camp turns to the argument that women somehow are responsible for doing exactly that simply for having sex. How is that not punishing women simply for having the bodies that they do?
You don't think sex is evil. You just think that a status quo that places all of the risk and burden of pregnancy on women is worth keeping. Never mind that the actual, real-world, non-theoretical effects that this has on women's sexuality but not men's.
You don't want to punish other women, you just think that women whose health would be threatened by pregnancy shouldn't have sex. You just think that nine months of pregnancy is a reasonable consequence for a contraceptive oops. You somehow think that pregnancy and childbirth aren't a punishment when women are forced to endure them when they don't want to.
You just want to opine that a fetus's beating heart is more important than the entire lives and desires of the women whose bodies built those hearts one molecule at a time.
Once again, this post stereotypes anyone who has a pro life position. It's unfortunate that you were so judgemental and uninformed in your youth, but your attitude is not reflective of how serious pro lifers (particularly those of Gen X/Y) view women, birth control and sex. Why am I pro life? At the most basic level, I saw "The Miracle of Life," a movie that shows human development from conception to birth in the eigth grade. I am not pro life because I want to punish other women, think sex is evil, or oppose sex ed. If there were no fetus with a beating heart involved, no one would care about abortion. But there is, and that is the true basis of the pro life position.
How many children who are unwanted have you adopted? I mean it is admirable if you actually believe what you are saying but if you are like the rest of the conservative religious right your hypocrysy will trump your words.
Examples: Wars kill living beings and unborn fetuses.
The death penalty
Ending support for mothers on poverty with wic programs and welfare.
Better yet read this new report and list of all the things republicans want to cut. It pretty much goes agains ALL living beings!
Well, Freetobe, it just so happens that I am adopted. I'm not in a financial position to adopt a child right now, but when I do acquire the means, it is something that I will seriously consider.
As for this, Are: "I say disingenuous because her inability to recognize that there is a beating heart on the other end of organ donation, too, makes her statement about 'the real problem with abortion', a lie. " WTF does that have to do with an abortion? Cardiac arrest must take place before organ donation. Otherwise it isn't allowed.
"From the above, it seems you believe the moral problem of not accepting an unwanted pregnancy is of more weight to you than systemic sex and class discrimination. I'm sorry those are your priorities because I believe you are being unfair."
You are mischaracterizing what I said. There is a moral problem with killing a fetus. It is not morally wrong to not want to be pregnant. The thing that makes abortion immoral in my eyes isn't the fact that the pregnancy wasn't continued, it is the fact that the fetus was killed in order to end the pregnancy. If, for instance in the future there were a way to terminate pregnancies and somehow finish growing the fetuses in artificial wombs instead of killing them, that would be fine with me.
Julie wrote: "From the above, it seems you believe the moral problem of not accepting an unwanted pregnancy is of more weight to you than systemic sex and class discrimination. I'm sorry those are your priorities because I believe you are being unfair."
Progo wrote: You are mischaracterizing what I said. There is a moral problem with killing a fetus. It is not morally wrong to not want to be pregnant. The thing that makes abortion immoral in my eyes isn't the fact that the pregnancy wasn't continued, it is the fact that the fetus was killed in order to end the pregnancy. If, for instance in the future there were a way to terminate pregnancies and somehow finish growing the fetuses in artificial wombs instead of killing them, that would be fine with me.
Let me rephrase my question to be more clear:
Do you believe a woman not accepting and voluntarily attempting to end a pregnancy is a larger moral problem than the systemic sexism of nature and the systemic sexism and classism of society?
adopted as well and all I could think about growing up was what my poor mother went through! I ruined her life! Even if she is ok now haveing a baby and putting it up for adoption does not just end the mothers feelings on the subject nor does it end the child who was given up's feelings as you must already know. I never met my birthmother and my birth father was not willing to take care of his share of the burden no it was left up to her alone! Ijust wish I could say how sorry I am for putting her through that misery.
I think until you actually adopt a child you should not assume anything.
I think until you actually adopt a child you should not assume anything.
Particularly since he says that it's his financial situation which is keeping him from adopting currently--meaning he doesn't feel like he's in the right place to be a parent right now.
Do you know how many women who have abortions list their financial situation as the reason for not giving birth and parenting? It's the majority of them, in one way or another--either their job isn't good enough or they're still in school or they aren't living in a good enough place yet.
So Progo's being responsible and making his decision about when to parent and when not to parent based on real-world concerns such as money--but thinks that the women who actually have to give birth to the children (and therefore pay months of doctor's bills on top of what happens after the baby is born) aren't allowed to do so?
Pretty damn hypocritical.
Gen-
The idea of me calling an adoption agency and filling out a profile would be pretty damn hysterical: "Hi, I'm a grad student who is currently on state assistance and makes about 2 hundred dollars a month...so, when can we start the adoption process?" Ie, even if I thought it was a good idea, my financial constraints would bar me from adopting a child. But, if I somehow got pregnant, I wouldn't have an abortion based on my situation. THAT would be hypocritical. Also, for the thirtieth time: I am a female.
And, if you had said that in the first place, we might not have said anything (in direct reference to the situation you outlined, that is). So, don't expect any back-stepping, here.
But, certainly, it is still hypocrisy that women have to be financially comfortable in order to adopt, but ProLifers don't want you to have an abortion even if you are not financially ready to do so.
Are-you've been commenting here for awhile, and in my posts and diary entries I have mentioned that I am female several times, so you definitely knew that. Am I supposed to preface every single post with: "I'm a female."?
Are-you've been commenting here for awhile, and in my posts and diary entries I have mentioned that I am female several times, so you definitely knew that. Am I supposed to preface every single post with: "I'm a female."?
Your definition of hypocrisy is just a little off - it's apparently acceptable to not allow poor folks to adopt but it's not okay to let poor folks abort. Really? You don't see any hypocrisy in that equation?
On a side note, I honestly think all folks who support anti-abortion legislation should be entered into a lottery that if/when "won" are given a child regardless of their life situation or personal desire and forced to care and provide for said child. Alternately they could participate in living organ donation as a way to "adopt" out that responsibility. No other options though. Either raise the kid or pass along a part of their body to another. I mean, it's really the only morally righteous thing to do.
Well, Freetobe, it just so happens that I am adopted. I'm not in a financial position to adopt a child right now, but when I do acquire the means, it is something that I will seriously consider.
But, you would force disadvantaged women (in the same position as yourself) with unintended pregnancies to provide health care for the fetus? Hypocrisy.
As for this, Are: "I say disingenuous because her inability to recognize that there is a beating heart on the other end of organ donation, too, makes her statement about 'the real problem with abortion', a lie. " WTF does that have to do with an abortion? Cardiac arrest must take place before organ donation. Otherwise it isn't allowed.
Umm, you just described a situation where a corpse has MORE rights than a woman. UNbelievable. Besides, I guess you are enTIREly unaware that living organ donations DO take place. Eyes, kidney, lungs, liver, etc.... Hmmm, you might have to rethink that, eh?
You are mischaracterizing what I said. There is a moral problem with killing a fetus. It is not morally wrong to not want to be pregnant. The thing that makes abortion immoral in my eyes isn't the fact that the pregnancy wasn't continued, it is the fact that the fetus was killed in order to end the pregnancy. If, for instance in the future there were a way to terminate pregnancies and somehow finish growing the fetuses in artificial wombs instead of killing them, that would be fine with me.
And, once again, a ProLifer puts a woman in an untenable situation, simply because of the way her body was developed. Is it HER fault that intercourse, fertilization, ovulation, ejaculation and implantation all occur the way they do, forcing her to opt-OUT of organ usage, rather than opt-in as would be the case in organ donation? Oh, it's not about blame, you say? ProLifers automatically make it about blame when they say the fetus doesn't 'deserve' to have its life ended.
And any solution that arrives at the conclusion that women must risk undergoing invasive surgery, is tested by the women's right to medical privacy, the right to CHOOSE what medical risks they will take. Such as, whether they CHOOSE to carry a high-risk pregnancy to term or not.
Btw, if both men and women had similar but separate organs for gestating a fetus, if both men and women could control when sperm and egg development, ejaculation, fertilization, implantation, labour and delivery, and if the entire process of unborn development, occurred outside of the body, if intersexuals, cissexual homosexuals and transsexual heterosexuals and homosexuals had an equitable arrangement whereby they, too, shared in this process of creating a child and, finally, if all people held the same right to life that present anti-choicers would like to grant to feoti, then I'd probably be ProLife.
opps, please delete
Today, I see that nothing about my religious anti-choice views did anything to prevent abortion. They did a lot to shame myself and my friends, but nothing to prevent abortion. Today, I hear anti-choicers talk about the babies and the unborn and the American genocide, but what I really hear beneath all that is slut-shaming and fear of female sexuality. I hear that language clearly because I spoke it once, myself. It is a familiar language to me.
Well said.
I love that child and miss him everyday
I'm sorry you're hurting and hope you have some sources of support to lean on.
You might find more useful information for your case somewhere like Exhale http://www.4exhale.org/about.php, as this site isn't specifically a counseling or support site so much as a news and advocacy site. Exhale has a decent list of web resources as well. http://www.4exhale.org/resources.php
entitles you to try to deny US citizens their Constitutional right to privacy in health care decisions?
Why do you think that your regret entitles you to force women into involuntary servitude?
Why do you think that your regret entitles you to insist that all women's rights be stripped from them from menarche to menopause, and that a fertilized egg be given rights above and beyond any living, breathing person?
And why are you not making an iota of effort to deal with your issues in a private, dignified manner befitting the level of their severity to you? Hint: coming to a women's website for freedom and justice, to say that you regret your CHOICE, that you HAD thanks to us, is NOT a way to deal with your issues in any kind of realistic or helpful manner.
There are therapists, counselors, yea, entire organizations that respect female autonomy and are dedicated to helping women deal with the outcomes of abortions, miscarriages, stillborns, and all manner of reproductive issues. Bad things happen to good people, that's life. An inability to deal with the outcome of an abortion is way down the list of life challenges and problems that many good people face on a daily basis.
I suggest you stop being a drama queen, acting out for the sole purpose of attempting to strip US citizens of the Constitutional rights that allowed you to have a choice. It was YOUR choice. Live with it, deal with it, get the help you need for it, but by all means, stay out of the business and lives of others.
And honestly, if this is the worst thing that ever happens to you in your life, you are a very, very lucky woman in the grand scheme of things. Maybe, just maybe, if you got away from those who are manipulating your grief to use it, and you, to deny others their Constitutional rights - their very autonomy and dignity - you might have a clearer eye about the pain and suffering of others around you.
I hear that language clearly because I spoke it once, myself. It is a familiar language to me.
Andrea, unfortunately, the truth is that you didn't really learn the language. It's a language of love. True, authentic, self-sacrificial love — even at the expense of comfort, lifestyle, pride, or independence. It is not a language that creates shame, guilt, or hopelessness. It recognizes its presence, definitely! But it talks about overcoming that, not wallowing in or succumbing to it.
I am really sorry that you had such a shallow and uninformed experience in the Christian and Republican groups you mentioned. At least somewhere in there, someone should have been a living example to you that the core of the Christian teaching is that our bodies are a reflection of God's love for us. Someone should have clarified that "proper Christian women" use their physicality to glorify God and treasure the intimacy of sexuality.
Somehow, the doctrine and the dogma you were fed missed out on the essence of what it means to be Christian, even to live in the light of God. And it makes me SO sad, because they failed to help you see that it's not about "hang-ups," "slut-shaming," or "fear of female sexuality." It's about love. About gratitude for what God has given us, and about living with an appreciation and respect for those gifts.
Coming to the defense of the unborn is an appreciation of the gift of life. Coming to the defense of women everywhere is an appreciation for what our bodies can create and what our sexuality means — we should empower one another to be women that have the strength to get through difficult situations like unexpected pregnancies, not convince one another that we are too poor, too young, too weak, too heartbroken, too busy, or too unaccomplished to give birth.
And so often, we (Christians and prolife) are coming to the defense and fighting semantic battles with people who don't speak a language of love. It makes things extremely difficult. I cannot convince anyone to love God or love their neighbor — it takes a change of heart, not debate — but I can expect that everyone I meet is at a different point in their search and journey towards that. Sometimes, it's about looking out for their entire well-being when they can't see how. It's about loving others when they can't fully love themselves.
I have yet to hear arguments against abortion, against contraception, or against sex that doesn't happen in the context of a monogamous Christian relationship that actually come from a position of love. With these attitudes being so rare, is it any wonder that the author, and every other ex-Christian or ex-pro-lifer I've talked to has a very similar story? If the language she heard is what the majority are speaking, I don't really think you have an argument for telling her she didn't learn it correctly.
I think that's what makes me sad MOST of all. That the situation is so rare, such a minority — EVEN in the midst of groups that claim to exemplify it. It's a shame, because it makes those who are truly prolife out of love work to overcome more than just the life argument.
She can't claim to have learned or spoken the language. She didn't learn it correctly because no one gave her anything to learn. You are right. The underlying flaw is that the whole article claims she used to be the same as prolife Christian Republicans... but it's very obvious that this is false. She never truly understood or lived their perspective or philosophy. What she learned was false, stereotypical, and shallow. And sad.
We've just switched gears to the (non)persuasion technique that I usually associate with proselytizing libertarians, 99% of which in my personal experience have been male.
The libertarians are fond of the idea that the reason that you don't agree with their flawed worldview is because you just didn't learn about it from the right people or places. If ONLY you really knew what libertarianism is, you would agree with it and them! And the fact that you DON'T agree only proves that you don't really know anything about it.
Interesting seeing this old saw trotted out as a selling point for patriarchal misogynist Dominionist fundamentalist religion and politics. However, Ron Paul's most recent campaign used the "LOVE" meme to try and sell the libertarian worldview to women, so perhaps that's where this whole rancid sales job derived some inspiration.
Too true. He even admits that the majority of the voices are ones that follow the language she's using. Since they consider themselves Christian pro-lifers, how does it not follow that she learned that language just fine? If you want to claim that there are multiple 'dialects', fine.
Though we aren't going to buy it just because some yahoo says so. I have yet to see a poster on this site or on their own sites who appears to come from a genuine place of love, who can use arguments that don't devolve to slut-shaming, or who can justify the idea that 'love' means 'I love you as long as you want to fit in the perfect little box I've made for you.'
I consider myself self to be libertarian (notice the little L there) in the sense that I appreciate and seek to apply classic liberal thought to politics and society.
Unfortunately, most of the douchebags touting the Libertarian title have done NOTHING in the way of educating themselves through real study, but rather watched a few television blurbs and thought it sounded neat. And many of those that have taken time to read some classic liberal philosophy pieces, forgot to read or merely skimmed the sections about INDIVIDUAL rights (as opposed to simple state rights) and social justice. They tend to like the sound of free markets and state's rights but are still just as anti individual liberty as most Republicans, particularly when it's a topic over which they're personally offended or opposed. :/
Noted. Most of the folks with Libertarian bumper stickers (or equivalent) in my neck of the woods tend to be free-market worshippers who also happen to think that it's silly to bust people for pot and that's about as in-depth as their political analysis gets.
If she's speaking the language that even you admit is in the majority, how can you say she can't claim to speak it...this makes no sense. Her claim is decidedly not false when she learned to speak the same language as the majority of pro-life Christians. She didn't claim to speak your rarified dialect of pro-life Christian love, after all. Nor do I ever hear such a dialect, ever.
If you're just going to come here claiming that such a language exists, you might want to back it up. When it's so rare, such a minority, we might all be excused for never having heard enough of it to recognize it.
At least we both seem to agree that the vast majority of pro-life Christians have a message that is false, shallow and sad.
The underlying flaw is that the whole article claims she used to be the same as prolife Christian Republicans... but it's very obvious that this is false. She never truly understood or lived their perspective or philosophy. What she learned was false, stereotypical, and shallow. And sad.
It is by no means obvious that "this is false". I don't believe that there is an alternative, little understood, secret message of love in the 'pro-life' Republican Christian message. I believe the Republican 'pro-life' Christian message is all about hatred, subjugation, power and control.
I point this out because I think it's important that words like love and compassion do have meaning and what the 'pro-life' movement calls 'love' is about as far from love as it's possible to get. Only someone who had never experienced love would believe you.
Dude, did you even read what she wrote?!
You still aren't speaking this so-called language of love. I DON'T think pregnancy and childbirth are automatically a gift of life, precisely beCAUSE it can only be used to demean the role of women. If all women were suddenly wont to view the uterus, pregnancy and childbirth as 'gifts', it would mean their whole lives depended on nothing more than a biological function, while men are allowed to explore every avenue of their lives without similar fear of reprisal. The ONLY way something becomes a gift is if someone truly WANTS the gift. Otherwise, it is merely an obligation. Thus, pregnancy and childbirth are only gifts if a woman WANTS them.
ProChoicers realize that. ProChoicers realize that convincing a woman one way or the other is NOT the answer. ProChoicers realize that women come to these decisions on their own. ProChoicers realize that women have abortions out of love. ProChoicers realize that sexuality and biological functions cannot be so intertwined, if we are to truly love women and their respective agencies, truly love them by not purporting that a fetal heartbeat is more important than a woman's dreams, wants, needs and desires.
As a ProChoice Christian, I do understand that. And I am hoping to eventually expose this love to all of Jesus followers, not just ProChoicer 's.
when we live in a patriarchal world full of violence, hate and wars don't you think? Maybe if we end all the wars against all the people on this planet, maybe if we learn to accept one another as is ,maybe if we stop abusing and killing animals,maybe if we stop worshiping the almighty dollar,maybe in the garden of eden oh hell we blew that GET REAL!!!
P.S.Why don't you tell your Republican and blue dog dem buddies this. They want women to be raped and die !!! I don't think that is LOVE it is HATE and it is a SIN!!!
And so often, we (Christians and prolife) are coming to the defense and fighting semantic battles with people who don't speak a language of love. It makes things extremely difficult. I cannot convince anyone to love God or love their neighbor — it takes a change of heart, not debate — but I can expect that everyone I meet is at a different point in their search and journey towards that. Sometimes, it's about looking out for their entire well-being when they can't see how. It's about loving others when they can't fully love themselves.
You know, I remember Jodie Foster was once stalked by someone who felt this same sort of "love" (you know, the kind that you insist on giving whether it's wanted or not) toward her. Thankfully, we have this nice thing called a "restraining order."
Shooting President Reagan didn't do much for the guy's freedom, either....
I squelched the initial truly nasty response to this, and will instead point out that those who speak the so-called "language of love" invariably descend into manipulative guilt-tripping when that "love" is rejected.
So tell us, ttmamgg...what do you say to a woman who has determined that abortion is the best course of action for her life? What does your "language of love" sound like then?
Fair question. Do not avoid it, if you expect to possess any credibility on these boards.
True, authentic, self-sacrificial love
When a sacrifice is made VOLUNTARILY it may indeed be 'true, authentic, self-sacrificial love'. When the law is used to ENFORCE the sacrifice by punishing people who attempt to do avoid it, there is nothing VOLUNTARY or loving about it at all. It's a lot more like 'act like my idea of a good wife or I'll beat you up.'
These anti choice fundamentalist christians that "speak the language of love," don't slut shame or fear female sexuality must be a lot like leprechauns, because I've never seen one. Having grown up in devout christian family that went to a southern baptist megachurch, you'd think I'd have run in to one or two. I did, however, learn that sexually active girls are a lot like used chewing gum, that my clothes cause my brothers in christ to succomb to "dirty thoughts," and a whole bunch of stuff on how to be a good little submissive girl. My parents would make me turn the tv or radio channel if the slightest sexual innuendo was made and I'd get punished for saying a phrase like "that sucks" (because its vulgar). My mother was also too embarrassed to give me any kind of a sex talk other than about menstuation. Meanwhile, my father, a deacon in our church, would come into my bedroom and help himself to my female sexuality several nights a week for most of my adolescense. i found out years later that he did the same to both of my sisters. When the head pastor of our megachurch found out, his advice for us girls was simply to forgive. Not call the cops, not divorce (wouldn't wanna break up a nice christian family for something so trite, now would we?)
So it cracks me up (and turns my stomach) when antiabortion fundamentalists go on about " loving others when they can't fully love themselves" or "looking out for (women's) entire well-being when (women) can't see how" or christian-splaining to me how beautious my ladyparts are, as long as I only use them within the church approved confines of marriage. I need only to remember my own history, my parents, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Jim Baker, Oral Roberts, Mr. "Rentboy", etc., to know that they set a standard that they themselves can't or won't follow, and that women and girls (and boys and men) are the casualties of this standard.
So, if you would, please stop using this word "love", as I do not think it means what you think it means.
oh yeah, and keep your laws off my body :)
What your father did was unconscionable. If you need counseling i recommend RAINN. For what it's worth, you have my condolences.
The "defense" to what?
To defend forcing me into involuntary servitude?
To defend me from having my life saved in a hospital?
To defend me from accessing reproductive healthcare?
To defend those (YES, YOU) who would slut-shame free, autonomous women?
To defend the priests who violated us in G-d's name as children?
Oh, by all means, defend us from any comfort, lifestyle, pride, or independence that we have worked hard for and rightfully earned for ourselves. If we aren't willing to sacrifice everything to a 1-cell fertilized egg, we'll NEVER know what L*O*V*E is!
Because it's LOVE that makes sickos murder doctors who REALLY have come to the defense of women everywhere... it's LOVE that forces a woman's every sexual act to endanger her with the risk of an unwanted pregnancy... it's LOVE to trivialize an adult woman's valid concerns about an unwanted pregnancy with insipid BS happy talk... it's LOVE to co-opt the language of freedom, liberation and autonomy, to use it as a frilly bludgeon with the sole aim of oppressing those it should be lifting up.
What a load of Hallmark Precious Moments saccharine drivel.
Keep your "defense of women", I don't need any such kind of defending.
What??? No protection and defense of my womanly womanness? No icky sticky Jesus-flavored L*O*V*E for this womanly woman?
But but but... I thought you were so so S*A*D because you wanted to teach us all about your and G-d's super special kind of L*O*V*E!
You were all gonna L*O*V*E me up, because without your protection and defense, I just can't really love MYSELF!
Man, you were gonna L*O*V*E me SOOOO much that I'd gladly sacrifice my life, not to mention any other ambitions not related to being a mommy, for a single-cell fertilized egg!
What a bunch of quitters. I guess they were all full of cr@p about that L*O*V*E stuff. So what else is new.
EEK! Goatini, I contributed to that.... I accidentally marked you a 4. >> >> Meh.
that was fine, it all doesn't have to be brilliant, but no sooner had you rated than some Trolly McTroll had to do a drive-by low-rate. Prolly the same L*O*V*E-r Boy who wants us to serenade him with "I Wanna Know What Love Is" at Catholic Karaoke Night down at the K of C hall.
goatini, I always give you a 5 rating. Your posts are brilliant!
Freetobe-
That is a very bizarre perspective on adoption. You did not ruin your biological mother's life. It's not like you had a choice about being concieved or born, so it is totally illogical to argue that you "ruined her life," as if you did something to harm her on purpose. Moreover, you're assuming, without any information to back the assumption, that your biological mother's life was ruined by the adoption. She may have gone on and had a very fulfilling life after that. That is what I hope for for my biological mother.
So says the person who thinks everyone can be put into neat, orderly, categorized compartments. Do you think a youngster whose mother died giving birth to him wouldn't feel guilty about her death? In fact that would probably be MORE likely than not.
You have a very bizarre perspective on abortion. Yet, there are more clinical studies to back up claims over adoption than abortion.
And, with how most adoptions run their course, nowadays, how do you know she *does*n't know?
Are-how do I know she doesn't know? Well, because she said so:
"I never met my birthmother and my birth father was not willing to take care of his share of the burden no it was left up to her alone! Ijust wish I could say how sorry I am for putting her through that misery."
As for the adoption vs. abortion studies you're talking about, you didn't specify what those studies were about, so I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make.
I think that this website specifcally highlights the negatives involved in adoption because most of the people here hate adoption as a competing choice with abortion. Ie, I think a lot of people here actually WANT women with unplanned pregnancies to have abortions. I have never seen so many morbid reflections on adoption in one place, seriously.
if every child were a wanted child, and if no one with an unwanted pregnancy EVER again had to be forced ino involuntary servitude for almost a year, subjected against her will to huge health risks up to and including death, and then be coerced under duress to sign over all rights the fruit of her forced labor to the billion-dollar human trafficking industry of the adoption-for-pay mills.
And for those women with unwanted pregnanies who for whatever reason want to go through it all and then consent to adoption, they should be treated like the generous queens they are. No woman OWES anyone a newborn to adopt. But for those women who have it in them to willingly make such a huge sacrifice with an open heart, they should be lavishly compensated, and honored and respected for sacrificing far above and beyond any sort of reasonable expectation of any human being. They should be generously paid until they recover from birth and for some time after as they get ready to move on back to their own lives. They should be an extended honored member of the child's adoptive family in a very open adoption. And did I mention that they should be very, very well paid? Like "down payment on a house " paid. Not "new iPad" paid.
Adoption: Safe, rare and legal.
I cannot change the way I feel because someone else who has been adopted tells me I should not feel this way. I do not know if you are a male or female but that may play a huge part. Maybe because as a woman I know what she went through. I felt intense emotions I was also counseled and every single counselor told me and my adopted parents this "who knows what goes through and adopted childs mind" I am glad you are alright. I am too but I felt my mothers pain! To make it worse I was in a catholic foundling home for six weeks and was a replacement child for one who died the same day. Talk about irony. Kind of sounds like a sweat shop or some kind of shelter for homeless animals.
Adoption in this country of babies is very very expensive. the red tape people have to go through is like as my adopted mom (who I felt was really my mom) used to say" I had a harder time adopting you than if I had given birth to you myself" that was back in the fifties too! I cannot imagine the red tape it takes now. Unless of course you can afford a high dollar lawyer and or a black market baby.
It gets even harder when the parents are much older than the children they adopt. Both my parents are deceased and have been for many years. I have no other living family except my own daughter. There is so much more to this than black and white there is all kinds of grey inbetween.
"I never met my birthmother and my birth father was not willing to take care of his share of the burden no it was left up to her alone! Ijust wish I could say how sorry I am for putting her through that misery."
And? That proves nothing. You don't have to meet your birthparents to know what kind of life they are leading....
You ask me what I'm talking about in regards to adoption and abortion studies, then go on to speak about the very thing I'm talking about?
People, such as yourself, have this very unrealistic view of adoption, even though more studies have shown adoption and relinquishment to exacerbate a woman's mental state of health moreso than abortion.
Goatini, the strangest thing about your post is that you characterize adoption where money changes hands (presumably ANY money, since, in a legal adoption, money is used to cover legal costs and the costs of the birth mother's pregnancy, not to "purchase" children, which is illegal) as "human trafficking, " yet then go and say that the birth mother should be "lavishly compensated." Either money involved in covering costs related to the adoption process is trafficking, or it isn't. Couldn't "lavishly compensating" (as in giving the biological mother a huge payout that exceeds the cost of her pregnancy) be considered a subtle form of pressure to get women to place babies they otherwise would have kept for adoption? Moreover, calling adoption a form of human trafficking is a disgusting mischaracterization of the adoption process and is disrespectful to everyone involved.
Secondly, some women DON'T WANT an open adoption. They want to put it behind them. Variability in preference is why there is a wide range of adoption options nowadays. The fact that you want adoption to be rare, but say nothing about wanting to do the same thing for abortion indicates to me that I am correct in feeling that you and others on this site actually want women with unplanned pregnancies to have abortions. Lastly there is the sense of entitlement you seem to feel adoptive parents have.My adoptive parents never felt that they were "owed" a child by another couple. They very much wanted another child and so they opened their hearts to adopting one. This was in 1982. People on this site act like adoption is still what it was in the 1950s. It isn't. My biological mother was not forced or coered into her decision, and that decision was made long before my parents were even involved.
There have been positive and insightful articles about adoption on this site, but they are few and far between. Reproductive rights and justice is supposed to be about choice, and most pro choice people I know personally fall into the camp of truly supporting all pregnancy options. But, many of the people here literally are pro abortion, not "pro choice," as the typical discourse around adoption on this site shows.
Freetobe-I'm not trying to invalidate your feelings, only to point out that most people I know do not feel that way. The people I read about on this site generally seem unhappy with being adopted and to regard their biological family as their "real" family. I don't think that that is how most of us adoptees feel, and it bothers me that this site pushes that as its primary narrative about adoption. It bothers me to read stuff here comparing my adoption to an incidence of human trafficking. It bothers me to hear you make the assumption that your biological mother's life was ruined when you have no indication of that, and to hear you say you feel SO profoundly uncomfortable with being adopted, as if that is the be all and end all of your life.
Finally, I am a 28-year-old woman and have had many obstacles to deal with in life, so I have a lot of sympathy for my biological mother. I just don't view my adoption as a bad thing or blame myself for "ruining her life."
for being the odd women out!! You are trying to shame me you are invalidating me AGAIN!! Just shut up ok you know nothing about me ! Damn it I am a fighter so if you want a fight stick it to me again!!! Your pissing me off.
Oh, this is rich, coming from one of the usual forced-birther suspects here on RHRC. A PERFECT example of the hypocricy of the forced-birthers -
* On the one hand, the supposed "value" to them of a single-cell fertilized egg is PRICELESS BEYOND MEASURE, worth stripping the woman of her Constitutional right to privacy in healthcare decisions, and her Constitutional right to life, liberty and property...
* But then, the forced-birthers also have a value in mind with which to compensate the tragic exploited container, now completely useless to them once the fruit of her involuntary servitude has been seized by coercion and/or force - it's "the cost of her pregnancy".
When wrongfully convicted and jailed people are proven innocent and released from prison, they get (and rightfully so) a big-time payout, sometimes to the tune of millions of dollars. I think that a container that has been wrongfully used and abused by the forced-birthers should receive just as big of a payday for (1) involuntary servitude, (2) being stripped of their human and civil rights, (3) being forced to assume health risks up to and including death, and then (4) being coerced into selling the fruit of their wombs to the highest bidder. But this noble act of sacrifice after what amounts to torture isn't valued to the forced-birthers.
Now go back and read my post again. I propose a world where the vast majority of women will NEVER have to suffer through an unwanted pregnancy, and where the remaining few who choose to do so are lavishly compensated for their generosity and kindness. If some women want to continue to bear children that they do not want, and if they want to gain financially from it, why do you have a problem with that? Is it only the billion-dollar human trafficking business of the adoption mills, the free-lance grifters in the field, and the shyster lawyers who aid and abet these criminal enterprises, that should make big money? Is there something wrong with the WOMAN being the one who gets the big pile of dough for HER effort? You think all she "should" get are EXPENSES? The WOMAN is not trafficking. She is the sole manufacturer of the product. The ONLY person who should gain from her tragedy and misfortune is the WOMAN.
Adoption IS human trafficking, because it inserts the layers of greedy grifter middlemen into the equation, all of whom are on the take. It's disingenuous at best to deny that MONEY for SELLING HUMANS is the foundation of the adoption mills.
http://www.adoption-articles.com/adoption_business.htm
http://www.antiadoption.org/faq.html
http://www.countercurrents.org/riben250407.htm
http://www.americanadoptioncongress.org/federal_regulate_adoption.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-491440/Billion-dollar-baby-tra...
As for the comment about open adoption, I think ALL adoptions should be open adoptions. Agreeing up front to open adoption should be required for all prospective donors. If they can't or won't do so, then best they should terminate early on. This would go a long way to insure that ALL parties truly had the best interests of the child in mind.
I'd vastly prefer a world where no woman would be interfered with, in any way, in conveniently obtaining cheap and highly effective birth control, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at as many locations all over town as ATMs are. A world where cheap, over-the-counter emergency contraception was equally convenient and available. A world where unwanted pregnancies were few and far between. A world where any woman anywhere with an unwanted pregnancy could quickly, with no interference whatsoever, conveniently, cheaply, and easily obtain an early termination. And a world where those few women who want to donate the fruit of an unwanted pregnancy for adoption would be lauded, loved by the adoptive family just like a family member, and very highly compensated.
That would be a world of happy women. And as the old saying goes, "When momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy", so it is in the best interest in humanity at large for women to be HAPPY.
Adoption: Safe, rare and legal.
First of all, Goatini, I have no idea how old you are, but you are talking about an adoption process that went out of vogue with the civil rights era. Adoption is no longer forced on women, and so she is not stripped of her human rights and there is no need to compensate her for the loss of such. Moreover, you are being totally ANTI CHOICE when you say that women placing their children in an adoption MUST choose an open adoption. I don't know where you get off making the argument that a woman who doesn't want to be involved after the adoption should have terminated.
In the year 2011, your precious "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" are just as enthusiastic, if not MORE so, about seeking out inventory for the adoption mill supply chain as the medieval "unwed mother's homes" of the 1950s. They even get to do it more cheaply, with less liability and with less overhead, because they don't have to lock the female up and provide room and board for the length of her pregnancy any more. For all the hypocritical weeping and wailing from the Christo-Fascist types about how terrible it is that "liberal mores" are to blame for the widespread latter-day societal acceptance of unwed pregnancy, the fact is that these modern-day mores are a huge boon to the bottom line of the billion dollar human trafficking industry of the adoption mills.
And what about that new-fangled "Magdalene Jail" that was featured here on RHRC a few months ago, in which a new order of so-called "religious", the "Sisters Of 'Life'", opened a reform school for females with unwanted pregnancies, funded directly from the Vatican billions? So the Vatican pays to produce the inventory and perform the stock transfer to the inventory of the adoption mill supply chain, thereby cutting even more from the bottom line in production and procurement.
And you're being completely disingenuous if you think that any of the women exploited thusly in the adoption mill supply chain of the 21st century feel any less emotional pain and suffering at their miserable uncompensated involuntary servitude than did their predecessors of the more openly cruel "baby scoop" era.
ANY woman with an unwanted pregnancy who is guilted, shamed, threatened with shunning and excommunication within a socio-religious family &/or community, and blatantly lied to about non-existent physical and emotional health "consequences" of safe, legal medical intervention, is wrongfully coerced into providing product for the adoption mills' human trafficking scheme, just as surely as were her predecessors of decades past.
And let me remind everyone that under this new rash of proposed forced-birth legislation from the mysogynist Republicans (who promptly dropped all that JOBS BS election rhetoric like a hot rock in favor of attacking, as soon as was practicable, automonous US female citizens), female citizens WILL be stripped of their Constititional rights to life, liberty, property, and privacy, their civil and human rights, and if the female demi-citizen will not or can not take on the lifelong burden of an unwanted child, she WILL be forced into sacrificing to the adoption mills.
Knowing a little bit more about your own personal backstory now, I am beginning to see that your adamant position that a woman exploited into making a human sacrifice deserves no compensation, may be coming from a severe lack of self-esteem and self-worth on your own behalf. Because it seems to me that any logical female with an intact sense of self-worth would enthusiastically support the idea of getting rid of the human trafficking middlemen, and the idea of directly compensating the female donor for her time, labor and materials from a project management perspective, instead of treating her time, labor and materials as a rightfully levied sentence and punishment for the "crime" of an unwanted pregnancy.
If you think there is "no need to compensate" the donor, you're asserting that the free use of her time and labor, and the seizure without compensation of the product of her time and labor, represents restitution rightfully levied against her for committing an offense against society, and that the price for her to rejoin society is hers to bear through her own fault.
The forced-birth movement, including the Christo-Fascist fundamentalists and the billion-dollar human trafficking business of the adoption mills, has, for many years, attempted to discredit, disenfranchise, and criminalize any organization, agency, facility, practitioner, staff member, or advocate of reproductive health care providers, by attempting to smear all involved with the memes of "THE BILLION DOLLAR ABORTION MILLS EXPLOIT WOMEN", and "PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS WEALTHY BEYOND BELIEF FROM THE MASSIVE PROFITS FROM ABORTIONS".
Not only are these memes completely false - but they are the sociopathic overreaction and projection from an industry that really DOES explot women, and that really IS wealthy beyond belief from the massive profits from ADOPTION. As long as the billion-dollar human trafficking business of the adoption mills, aided and abetted by the billion-dollar cult brainwashing businesses of the Vatican and the radical Christo-Fascist Dominionists, can continue to tell and spread The Big Lie that THEY are not the beneficiaries of the human misery and suffering of women, they will continue to use their well-funded power and influence to continue their battle to destroy the rights of US female citizens.
Reproductive health care facilities, including Planned Parenthood, provide actual safe and legal medical services, medical care, and medicine, all of which cost money.
The adoption mills, on the other hand, exist only to enrich human traffickers, as their only "product" is a human being for sale for profit, and their only "service" is the procurement, at the lowest possible cost, of humans to sell. The only actual costs are for the maintenance of the fungible inventory until the ultimate customer conducts the final sales transaction. It's a seller's market, so profit gouging, illegal stock transfers intended to circumvent regulations of local jurisdictions, and other such irregularities are largely ignored in order to keep the pipeline moving.
Women as a whole need to become more knowledgeable about economics and business accounting. Suze Orman would back me up on this, as this has been one of her mantram for several years now. If more women had an expert grasp of reading and understanding a P&L statement, all of the above would be abundantly clear to the majority of women, and the Christo-Fascist institutions and the adoption mills would see Egypt-style protests until their criminal enterpises were prosecuted for human rights abuses, convicted, bankrupted, and shut down. The ONLY things that means anything to these enterprises are MONEY and the POWER that money buys. Take away the MONEY and they will no longer have POWER.
Woot woot goatini! Well said. Thanks!
Hey, goatini, I agree with rg. VERY well said. I just wondered if you would feel comfortable if I shared this with some of my ProChoice friends on FB?
Could you provide links about this connection between adoption and human trafficking? It's not something I'd heard of.
She can't provide such links about legitimate adoption because it's bogus. When babies are illegally sold on the black market, as they sometimes are, the feds get involved and we all know about it. Again, having a baby and giving it to someone else to raise is a gut wrenching decision, and a professional, ethical adoption agency should help women make the choice to adopt or parent without pressure to choose either way. Doing so and asking the adoptive couple to pay for the legal and medical expenses involved in the process, including the biological mother's medical bills, is not human trafficking.
She can't provide such links about legitimate adoption because it's bogus. When babies are illegally sold on the black market, as they sometimes are, the feds get involved and we all know about it. Again, having a baby and giving it to someone else to raise is a gut wrenching decision, and a professional, ethical adoption agency should help women make the choice to adopt or parent without pressure to choose either way. Doing so and asking the adoptive couple to pay for the legal and medical expenses involved in the process, including the biological mother's medical bills, is not human trafficking.
... but one person ultimately provides another person(s) with a baby so...
Don't get me wrong, human trafficking obviously has some negative connotations to it, but ultimately is this not what is happening?
Put another way, is it any less prostitution if one is payed for their "time" as opposed to sex? Is it any less prostitution if she's paid in goods as opposed to cash?
Several Points:
1. "your adamant position that a woman exploited into making a human sacrifice deserves no compensation." That's not what I said, I said that women should be compensated for their medical and legal expenses. Given that most adoptions nowadays are VOLUNTARY (barring the occassional horror story, just like their are occasional abortion horror stories), carrying the child to term does not subject the woman involved to "involuntary servitude" or exploitation because she chooses to carry that child to term. In my case, I know for a fact that my biological mother had an abortion three years before I was born. She certainly could have gone and gotten another one, esp. since, having already been pregnant, she surely would have noticed the physical signs of pregnancy and been able to terminate relatively early. But, she didn't: for whatever reason, she chose an adoption instead, so the nine months she spent carrying me was NOT a bout of involuntary servitude.
2. "The adoption mills, on the other hand, exist only to enrich human traffickers, as their only "product" is a human being for sale for profit, and their only "service" is the procurement, at the lowest possible cost, of humans to sell."
First of all, many, if not all, adoption organizations are nonprofit and rely on donations to stay afloat. They do not charge the biological mother for their services and the adoptive parents are charged to cover the costs of the biological mother's medical needs and the legal costs involved, which is no more immoral than Planned Parenthood, also a NP, charging women for abortions. Secondly, what you describe is exactly what you are advocating by suggesting that infants be "purchased" from their biological mothers at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The possible exploitation involved in that process is obvious-a truly desperate women might feel pressured to choose adoption in order to secure a better financial future. This is exactly why there are laws enjoining the sale of organs, even as people are dying from the lack of them-because there is the concern that poorer people will sell their organs so that they can put food on the table. In short, your statements contradict themselves.
Lastly, inter-country infant adoption IS rare. Currently, only 1 percent of all births in this country lead to an infant adoption, with international rates being slightly higher. So, your description of "the adoption industry" as being a huge, evil monopoly is without any basis in fact.
Several Points:
1. That's not what I said, I said that women should be compensated for their medical and legal expenses. Given that most adoptions nowadays are VOLUNTARY (barring the occassional horror story, just like their are occasional abortion horror stories), carrying the child to term does not subject the woman involved to "involuntary servitude" or exploitation because she chooses to carry that child to term. In my case, I know for a fact that my biological mother had an abortion three years before I was born. She certainly could have gone and gotten another one, esp. since, having already been pregnant, she surely would have noticed the physical signs of pregnancy and been able to terminate relatively early. But, she didn't: for whatever reason, she chose an adoption instead, so the nine months she spent carrying me was NOT a bout of involuntary servitude.
You don't necessarily know that you're pregnant even if you've been pregnant, before. There can be several factors that disguise a woman's pregnant state, even from herself, even in the event that she's been pregnant, before: weight, menstruation, lack of nausea, etc, etc....
Besides that, you're missing the point... again. In large part, most women are exploited by the adoption industry, after all, simply being an unwed mother is a huge stigma and often coerces women into making poor decisions for themselves. Even poverty, as goatini mentioned, contributes to lack of choices.
Covering the legal and medical expenses are only a fraction of what she was discussing. Her time, her energy and her sacrifice. Those are all things goatini was referring to.
First of all, many, if not all, adoption organizations are nonprofit and rely on donations to stay afloat. They do not charge the biological mother for their services and the adoptive parents are charged to cover the costs of the biological mother's medical needs and the legal costs involved, which is no more immoral than Planned Parenthood, also a NP, charging women for abortions. Secondly, what you describe is exactly what you are advocating by suggesting that infants be "purchased" from their biological mothers at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The possible exploitation involved in that process is obvious-a truly desperate women might feel pressured to choose adoption in order to secure a better financial future. This is exactly why there are laws enjoining the sale of organs, even as people are dying from the lack of them-because there is the concern that poorer people will sell their organs so that they can put food on the table. In short, your statements contradict themselves.
What does the fact that these organizations are non-profit have to do with anything? I don't think goatini was making a distinction, either way, jsyk.
This has already been addressed but what do the sales of organs before the fact have to do with compensation, which, definitively, occur after the fact...?
And what does the rarity of something have to do with whether or not something is a huge, 'evil' monopoly? After all, rates of adoption are kept artificially low, due to huge financial barriers put in place, for prospective, adoptive couples.
You might also want to note that infant adoption occurs at far higher rates than non-infant adoption.
Finally, inter-country adoptions are also not a good measurement for whether this claim is true or not. Just because it occurs inside the country doesn't automatically make it a non-monopoly, after all.
And you are arguing for forced birth.
Why does adoption have to be brought into the discussion? Women have and always will strive to control their fertility. Abortion and birth control are not a new ideas, not a modern creation. If you don't believe me see, 4000 years for choice, http://4000yearsforchoice.com/4000/timeline/. You can't force women to give birth. Women have the right to bodily autonomy. Women have the the right not to be forced to continue a pregnancy against their will. It's as simple as that. And don't give me the fetus=baby crap.
Either people are for keeping abortion safe and legal or not. Abortions will happen regardless of illegality. Putting restrictions on abortion and birth control are a ruse to control women by controlling their fertility. Women will only attain true equality and autonomy if they can control when to have children, how many, or not to have children. I will not stand for my rights to my bodily autonomy to be taken away.
Rg, I think adoption was brought into the discussion, because Freetobe was asking ProLifers to endorse policies that would encourage women to turn away from abortion, as they want them to.
Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't keep track of when it came up. I guess, I just get sick of hearing that women shouldn't have an abortion when adoption is an option. I understand it's an "option" but I don't think it's for everyone.
As goatini pointed out, you completely misrepresented her point. But, let me make it a little clearer for you. Goatini wasn't taking issue with adoption, itself, but the fact that the same coercive methods found in the forced-birther view, that leave out any acknowledgment of the woman who puts all her time and energy into the delivery of said organism, are being used, here. Whether it's the overall health or finances of the women, the outcomes aren't satisfactory unless the woman has been made to suffer.
Whether one feels they are 'owed' a child or not, does nothing to change the overall theme of the practice, itself.
Lack of health care, low-income, etc... ALL contribute to the coercive aspect of adoption.
Again, see goatini's explanation as to why this is not truly about adoption.
I have several family members and friends who are adopted, relinquished their children to adoptive parents or entered into the family as stepchildren. The running themes throughout all these diverse experiences are simply this: If the adoption was open, the child felt more comfortable with their adoptive parents, if it was a closed adoption, they felt less so. If the children belonged to a mix of adopted and biological relatives, there were sure to be biological children favoured over the adoptive children; either way, when someone gives a child up for adoption, it should be about what's best for the child, should it not...?
Btw, adopted children often feel isolated simply because of genetic traits that don't appear anywhere in the adoptive family's history. Making them feel more connected to their biological family.
I believe you are the one who is making assumptions, now.
I think you're confusing empathy with obsession.
No, Are, it IS an obsession when knowing one's birth family is presentd as the be all and end all of life itself-ie, if one doesn't know one's birth family, than it is better to not have been born at all. Wishing one was not born is generally reserved for the darkest bouts of depression and to wish such a thing just because one is adopted indicates an uhealthy fixation on a small aspect of one's personal history. It's saying, "all the other things I've accomplished and enjoyed in my life are for not, for I do not know my birth family." That is crap. As for poverty and coercive adoption, that is exactly what goatini's idea of compensating the birth mother with tens of thousands of dollars could lead to-women who are poor feeling pressured to relinquish a child they might have kept because of the offer of money involved. But what makes me the angriest is your characterization of adopted people as feeling a certain way and valuing the same things. It's simply not true and I find the implication that I have been deprived of my "true identity" extremely offensive.
And that is an assumption on your part. All I saw Freetobe saying was that, as regards her adoption, all she could think about growing up was the fact it had ruined her mother's life. Let me reiterate: In regards to her adoption, y'know, the topic she was discussing in that thread. Which means, y'know, that it wasn't the be-all and end-all of her whole life, but, probably, just the 'be-all and end-all' of a small part of it.
As for poverty and coercive adoption, that is exactly what goatini's idea of compensating the birth mother with tens of thousands of dollars could lead to-women who are poor feeling pressured to relinquish a child they might have kept because of the offer of money involved.
Goatini never stated that we should promote this as a way to actively select clientele (as CPCs currently do) but to offer as an end result to women who have alREADY decided to relinquish the resultant child (a similar method to what PP currently does).
But what makes me the angriest is your characterization of adopted people as feeling a certain way and valuing the same things. It's simply not true and I find the implication that I have been deprived of my "true identity" extremely offensive.
Should I start calling you Stacy or Marie, now? Because that is exactly how she would twist my words and, thusly, mischaracterize their meaning. After all, I didn't say they all felt a certain way. Because, when I referred to my own family, I said that the running THEME (which means, in GENERAL, NOT all the time) behind each unique situation, therein, turned out that way.
I also NEVER said that all people who relinquish feel depression or suicidal, I was merely suggesting that there are more studies to support depression AFTER adoption than abortion.
NOR did I say that adopted children always feel isolated. I was merely suggesting the more frequent reason why many adopted children DO feel isolated.
Kthxbai.
Two alive and one depressed is a hell of a lot preferrable to one dead and the other happy.
Really? You heard it from the horse's mouth, people, women's well-being is NOT important to antis.
So if some man wanted to kill you as disallowing him from doing so would cause him to fall into a deep depression, would the fact that I'd say tough luck to him mean that mean I don't care about men's well-being? Because that's the very same thing you're somehow insinuating here.
Nope, it is NOT the same thing. Ignoring the fact that this is a wildly implausible situation in the first place, the fact that you continue to be unable to recognize the differences between the two doesn't surprise me. I am NOT infringing on his rights, as a fetus is in pregnancy.
Of course it's not the same thing, hence why it's called a comparison. Anyway, where someone is located is immaterial to the act of killing that individual. It's a shame YOU don't realize that. It's also a shame YOU don't realize that you cannot violate someone else's rights by the simply existing. What doesn't surprise me, though, is your consistent inability to really understand any of this, though, instead relying on misplaced claims of misogyny; a claim I just completely destroyed, as evidenced by your refusal to answer my question.
Anyway, where someone is located is immaterial to the act of killing that individual.
This is horseshit. We've been over this before when you were posting as Panhandler and as BornIn1984. A uterus is NOT A PUBLIC LOCATION. It is not public property. It is an organ within a body, and a living organism does not have squatter's rights to the organs within my body. I have the right to evict it - even if that means that it will die because it can no longer use me for sustenance. Also, please look up killing vs. letting die.
Before you call something horseshit, at least make sure it really is horseshit. No one said anything about a public location. That's a blatantly obvious straw man if there ever was one. There is no fundamental difference between killing someone one minute before they're born, and one minute after it. Murder isn't murder based on where someone is killed, but rather the circumstances under which they are killed. Saying that's it's okay to kill someone for reason X because they are located at Y, but not okay to kill someone for reason X because they are located at Z is completely nonsensical. It'd be like arguing that I should be allowed to kill you for being in my home against my will, but not for being outside against my will. It ignores the fact that even if I kill you because you're in my home against my will, I'd go to jail just the same for killing you because you were outside against my will. That is, unless I could prove that there was imminent danger to my life and/or well-being, in both situations I'd be in an equal amount of trouble. It's a shame this is a point you seemingly cannot understand. In fact, it's a shame that pro-choicers, in general, are unable to understand.
Anyway, since you want to mention "horseshit", then I feel compelled to point out that what you typed out really is horseshit. There is such a thing as gestational limits on abortion. It won't matter whether or not your uterus is yours; there will come a point in time where you will be told that you're SOL and that you can't "evict" the fetus just because you don't want it there anymore. Your "right to evict" isn't a right at all, nor is it something that the majority of pro-choicers would agree with, though a small but vocal group seem to believe otherwise.
Oh, and as to your "killing vs. letting die" spiel, find your nearest hospital with an intensive care unit. Find someone on life support, unplug them and then watch them die. When the hospital personnel arive, tell them that you really didn't do anything wrong, as you didn't kill him/her, but rather just watched him/her die, and see if it prevents them from calling the local authorities and carting you off to jail on a murder one charge. If it does, I'd be absolutely shocked.
And for the umpteenth time, no matter how many times you assert I'm someone else doesn't mean I'll suddenly become them.
Before you call something horseshit, at least make sure it really is horseshit.
Sorry, Mr. NiN-ny, but a woman's uterus belongs to the woman. And if she doesn't want you in there, then you're not staying in there. Even if you need to be in there to live.
All your yammering about "murder" and "killing" and whatnot fail to change this basic fact, so you may as well go home and play some Xbox or something. It'll be more productive than trying to argue against reality.
Oh, and as to your "killing vs. letting die" spiel, find your nearest hospital with an intensive care unit. Find someone on life support, unplug them and then watch them die. When the hospital personnel arive, tell them that you really didn't do anything wrong, as you didn't kill him/her, but rather just watched him/her die, and see if it prevents them from calling the local authorities and carting you off to jail on a murder one charge. If it does, I'd be absolutely shocked.
How funny. Nonsense thinks he trumped us even though he neglected to mention that these things (abortion and removal of life support) are carried out by the appropriate professionals. And neglected to consider the fact that this was done against the person's wishes, by virtue of the fact that it was not endorsed by the person, themselves, the medical practitioner OR the legal guardian. Much like (it is one of the reasons) why killing a pregnant woman and, thus, ending the life of her fetus can, tentatively, be considered two counts of murder.
Saying that's it's okay to kill someone for reason X because they are located at Y, but not okay to kill someone for reason X because they are located at Z
Good thing we don't say that, then. We say it's okay to have a life ended for reason X because they are located at Y, but not okay to have a life ended for reason A because they are located at Z.
You imPLIED it was a public location when you refuse to consider the circumstances surrounding pregnancy, AS USUAL.
And, once again, just because the law doesn't agree with us, doesn't mean that our position is, de facto, null and void. I don't agree with the laws on restricting late-term abortions, but, somehow, just because that is how the LAW interprets it, I'm supPOSED to agree with it? Isn't that like how some people assume that just because I have a uterus, it automatically means that I must WANT to have babies and be a mother? Derrrr....
There is ALways imminent danger to a woman's life/well-being in pregnancy.
It also seems you do not have a functional grasp of the laws, even within your own country.
Your "right to evict" isn't a right at all, nor is it something that the majority of pro-choicers would agree with, though a small but vocal group seem to believe otherwise.
Proof, please, of EITHER situation.
Btw, as I've said, previously, if you don't want people to think you're someone you're not, then there is a simple solution: Stop recycling the same arguments that your predecessors have used over and over, such as this one;
Saying that's it's okay to kill someone for reason X because they are located at Y, but not okay to kill someone for reason X because they are located at Z is completely nonsensical. It'd be like arguing that I should be allowed to kill you for being in my home against my will, but not for being outside against my will. It ignores the fact that even if I kill you because you're in my home against my will, I'd go to jail just the same for killing you because you were outside against my will.
Horseshit, bullshit, and endless lecturing from a 20-something MRA... I call it like I see it.
No one said anything about a public location.
You don't acknowledge that the "location" just so happens to be inside a uterus, inside of a woman's body, which absolutely changes the situation! And if you had it your way, anti-choice laws would essentially make the uterus into federally protected public property. That is why I said "public location." Don't pretend like this concept isn't something that anti-choicers haven't entertained. Have you ever seen the "pro-life" slogan - "Make the womb a federally protected wetland" ?
There is no fundamental difference between killing someone one minute before they're born, and one minute after it.
What makes you think that women are having elective abortions right before natural delivery? The safest method of "abortion" that late in the game would actually be induction of labor or c-section. Once again, this is not about killing, this is about removal of pregnancy.
It'd be like arguing that I should be allowed to kill you for being in my home against my will, but not for being outside against my will. It ignores the fact that even if I kill you because you're in my home against my will, I'd go to jail just the same for killing you because you were outside against my will.
No. It's not like that at all. Let us examine why it's not the same.
1. A woman's body is not an object; she is not a house; she is not insentient private property.
2. "I kill you..." Your scenario uses a person, and you do not have the right to kill a person (well, depending on where you live, the law might say that you have the right to defend yourself and/or property with lethal force from a violent trespasser.)
3. "I kill you..." I am not an embryo or fetus occupying your body against your will.
4. Killing a trespasser is an actively violent act; it is murder. Abortion is not violent, it is not killing, and it certainly is not murder. It is as innocuous as removing a weed from a garden (...letting die)
It may surprise you, but pregnancy is an incredibly unique scenario that is quite unlike almost anything else in human experience.
It won't matter whether or not your uterus is yours; there will come a point in time where you will be told that you're SOL and that you can't "evict" the fetus just because you don't want it there anymore.
First, I don't agree with the law, and you would know why if you were at all capable of empathizing with women who needed to have a late-term abortion. Second, I DO still have the right to "evict" a fetus from my body after the point in time that the law says I am SOL to have an abortion - via early induction or c-section.
The right to bodily autonomy is a real right. It is legal to let someone die rather than be forced to donate your organ(s) to them so that they can live. It is legal to refuse life-saving medical care/sustenance for yourself even if it means that you will die.
Find someone on life support, unplug them and then watch them die.
Another stupid analogy that is in no way comparable to terminating a pregnancy.
1. "Someone on life support" = born, and indisputably a person. Not an embryo or fetus (the imaginary personhood of which anti-choicers endlessly debate, but no scientists or religious leaders will ever agree upon).
2. Such a person is not occupying my body against my will.
I don't know if you are aware of this, but there are some countries that allow voluntary euthanasia of ailing family members. However, I don't know of anyone who would actually try to compare abortion to passive or active euthanasia. It's funny how you think that they are the same moral situation.
And for the umpteenth time, no matter how many times you assert I'm someone else doesn't mean I'll suddenly become them.
Liar, liar. Same arguments and analogies? Check. Same vocabulary, writing style, and voice? Check. Same pedantic, supercilious, snide, slimy, sexist comments? Check.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck.....
We have been over all of this before and it's old hat. BYE!
You don't acknowledge that the "location" just so happens to be inside a uterus, inside of a woman's body, which absolutely changes the situation!
Once again I candidly state, no it doesn't. Murder is not murder based on location; murder is murder based on the circumstances surrounding the incident, with there usually being a lack of threat to your life or well-being. This is a point you ignored the first time, because it's irrefutable, and will probably ignore again. I will simply continue to repeat it, though.
And if you had it your way, anti-choice laws would essentially make the uterus into federally protected public property. That is why I said "public location." Don't pretend like this concept isn't something that anti-choicers haven't entertained.
It's a rather large logical leap from "being disallowed from having an abortion" to "federally protected public property". To go back to my example, the law prevents me from killing you solely because I want to, even if you're in my house, eating my food and running up my electic bill. Does that make my house "federally protected public property"? Of course it doesn't. If you're going to straw man, then at least do a better job of it and make your straw men at least a bit coherent, if only a little.
Have you ever seen the "pro-life" slogan - "Make the womb a federally protected wetland"?
No. I was too busy looking at the "I <3 abortion" shirts and the "Kill yourselves motherfuckers"/"Keep your laws off my body and I'll keep my hands off your throat" signs pro-choicers somehow carry around.
What makes you think that women are having elective abortions right before natural delivery?
No one said anything about women having elective abortions right before natural delivery. The point, which clearly was above your head, is that your argument tends to boil down to it being perfectly okay to kill the unborn child because it's in the woman's body, whereas it would be an abhorrent thing to kill it if it were one minute into the future and that child was born. That's a point which is absurd on many levels.
The safest method of "abortion" that late in the game would actually be induction of labor or c-section.
You do realize that both early labor induction and c-sections are generally not performed before a certain time period (iirc, about 38 or so weeks, givee or take), as performing them any earlier will be no virtually no different than an abortion, usually a D&E, as the chances of the fetus survival are minimal, and if it does it would most likely have birth defects resulting from it. As I said, there will come a point in time where the law, and even most pro-choicers, will tell a woman that she is SOL and that it doesn't matter if it's her uterus and she wants to "evict" the unborn child. This is a simple fact, whether you accept it or choose to accept it as true.
Once again, this is not about killing, this is about removal of pregnancy.
Ridiculous! I have never met any woman who has an abortion expecting to be a parent to that child in the future. The majority of abortions are done not because the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, but because she does not want to care for that child as taking care of that child would impact her life in some way or some form. This is easily verified by data collected by Guttmacher.
1. A woman's body is not an object; she is not a house; she is not insentient private property.
Well, yes, it is an object. But that's inconsequential to what I typed out, since I specifically said location, not object. Straw men are bad. Use less of them.
2. "I kill you..." Your scenario uses a person, and you do not have the right to kill a person (well, depending on where you live, the law might say that you have the right to defend yourself and/or property with lethal force from a violent trespasser.)
Fwiw, it's not exactly legal to kill non-persons, just because.
3. "I kill you..." I am not an embryo or fetus occupying your body against your will.
And this goes back to my original comment. "Against your will" doesn't mean anything, as there will come a point in time when, even it's against your will, you will have no choice but to continue your pregnancy unless you go out and end it illegally. Yet again I feel compelled to point out that this is a simple fact, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept it.
4. Killing a trespasser is an actively violent act; it is murder. Abortion is not violent, it is not killing, and it certainly is not murder. It is as innocuous as removing a weed from a garden (...letting die)
It's comments like these which help the pro-life position. Whomever it was who said that "no [pro-choicer] devalues the fetus" obviously wouldn't like your comment, which somehow relegates killing the unborn to removing a weed in a garden. And to say abortion is not killing, nor violent, is disingenuous at best. But I suppose if you're not the one being dismembered, having your head caved in or being injected with toxins to stop your heart beat, it's easy to say such an act isn't violent. In any other circumstance, if I told you that someone was dismembered, had their head caved in and/or injected with toxins to stop the beating of their heart, you'd think it was cruel and murder. But because it's an abortion, then you think it okay.
It may surprise you, but pregnancy is an incredibly unique scenario that is quite unlike almost anything else in human experience.
The only reason you're throwing out the above statement is in an attempt to argue that women should be the grand arbitraters of whether or not abortion should be illegal or illegal or, after I point out that women (at least in the U.S.) are more apt to believe that abortion should illegal than legal, to argue that the pregnant woman should be the one who decides to terminate a pregnancy, which is also just as poor an argument, as acts are not allowed based on how the person engaging them feels about it. Otherwise, everything would be legal so long as the indidivual believes it's an acceptable actions.
First, I don't agree with the law, and you would know why if you were at all capable of empathizing with women who needed to have a late-term abortion.
Number one, it doesn't matter if you agree with the law. When you're callously arguing what is, you'd better damn well be sure that what you think is, is actually what is. And as it is, what you're arguing is, isn't. You make all sorts of incorrect claims which simply run contrary to the way things are. Number two, "need" would denote that you're having an abortion for a reason other than you "not wanting the fetus inside you" anymore. So while your attempt to label me an incapable of empathizing with women who need to have a late-term abortion was admirable, it was a failed attempt on account of you completely failing to read what I actually said.
Second, I DO still have the right to "evict" a fetus from my body after the point in time that the law says I am SOL to have an abortion - via early induction or c-section.
Once again, no you don't have such a right. I find it ironic that you, the female, don't know what the rules and regulations are concerning early induction and c-sections are while I, the male, do.
The right to bodily autonomy is a real right.
You're more than welcome to find the right to bodily autonomy explicity enumerated anywhere in U.S. law. I want the bill, paragraph and section number, please. In fact, I want to see where, under U.S. law, abortion is legal because of this supposed right to bodily autonomy. Where ever abortion is considered a right in the U.S., it's done under the right to privacy, not some right you made up to justify abortion after the fact.
It is legal to let someone die rather than be forced to donate your organ(s) to them so that they can live. It is legal to refuse life-saving medical care/sustenance for yourself even if it means that you will die.
And it's not legal to take something away from someone else and have them die because of it, and it's becoming increasingly unacceptable to deny life-saving medical care for someone else.
1. "Someone on life support" = born, and indisputably a person.
And why are they indusputably a person? Since you mentioned sentience earlier, then I feel compelled to point out to you that someone who is on life support is more than likely not sentient, which would make them a non-person in the same vein you think a fetus is a non person.
Not an embryo or fetus (the imaginary personhood of which anti-choicers endlessly debate, but no scientists or religious leaders will ever agree upon).
Who cares what scientists and religious leaders agree upon? That's a terrible argument, as you're just using there being no consensus on what constitutes a person to do to others you don't personally believe to be people. Such a rationale could, and has been, extended to other areas and to other individuals. Anyway, the one thing that science does tell us is that the unborn at all gestational ages are humans. It's only pro-choicers who look to exclude one group of humans from basic rights afforded to us all. It's even more funny when you look at the number of people on this very site bemoaning someone else excluding one group of humans from basic rights afforded to everyone else. Generally, those people are labeled as bigots. But when you do it? Well, that's okay.
2. Such a person is not occupying my body against my will.
Which is completely irrelevant as it relates to the killing vs. let die spiel. Walking into your local hospital's intensive care department and unplugging someone on life support is the same to having an abortion in your view, as they are both taking away and letting the individual die. Yet one of those situations would clearly be deemed as murder while the other isn't, which means that there's an incongruency there. Either both are or both aren't.
I don't know if you are aware of this, but there are some countries that allow voluntary euthanasia of ailing family members. However, I don't know of anyone who would actually try to compare abortion to passive or active euthanasia. It's funny how you think that they are the same moral situation.
Thankfully for us both, the implicit assumption in my suggestion was that you were neither a family member (and even that in an abortion the unborn isn't "ailing"). That, therefore, would make the above post yet another straw man, which by my count is your fourth or fifth in a single post.
Liar, liar. Same arguments and analogies? Check. Same vocabulary, writing style, and voice? Check. Same pedantic, supercilious, snide, slimy, sexist comments? Check.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck.....
We have been over all of this before and it's old hat. BYE!
Get real. I've noticed a patern with the pro-choicers here. They make the same accusations of virtually every pro-lifer here. I can go through any thread, find a comment by a pro-lifer (as it'll be rated as a 2 or less), and notice a trail of rabid pro-choicers calling him or her a misogynist, a sexist, a woman, this poster or that poster and whatever else comes to mind, so this doesn't really bother me. If we're going to get down to it, then every pro-choicer here is one individual, as they all tend to scream something about hating women or misogyny or something else equally absurd, while adamantly refusing to respond to the substance of what someone types out.
Anyway, since you want to speak frankly, let's speak frankly. Quite frankly, your position is absurd, unjustifiable and unsupportable. Yes, your friends will rate your comment a five regardless of what you type out, but that's essentially meaningless. When we get right down to it, you have no argument. This is why you-- and other's here-- are quick to resort to petty name-calling (i.e., claims of sexism, misogyny or hatred of women). It's quite common in debate to resort to insults when your argument lacks substance and, quite frankly, your argument lacks substance. It's either a bunch of unsupported claims, or it's bass ackwards "everyone-who-disagrees-with-me-is-a-misogynist!" line of thinking that most people roll their eyes towards. The fact of the matter is that, when we get right down to it, you can't explain anything. You can't explain why the unborn aren't persons, nor can you explain why the unborn should be treated differently than any other human being, nor can you provide a response to anything most of the pro-lifers here choose to write out. In the end, you're not exactly winning women over, nor are you winning over younger generations; pro-lifers are winning those. The question, therefore, is just who are you winning? Maybe it makes you feel good inside to think that you've "bested" me, but that's a false sense of accomplishment (based on nothing, really) which will ultimately lead to quickly being relegated as a side note.
And... ONCE AGAIN... I state that pregnancy is a SERIOUS THREAT to a woman's health and well-being. It's funny that I, the lowly ProChoice female who dares to never want to get pregnant *gasp*, knew that, yet the 'oh-so-almighty', 'omnipotent', omniscient' 'ProLife' male knows diddly-squat.
Hmm, federal laws restricting abortion means federal laws 'protecting' the fetus, which means, in turn, uteruses become federally protected public property. And the same can be said for your house. Really, reading comprehension is your friend.
If you want other people to stop using strawmen (although, it has been, by no means, settled to be the case), I encourage you to stop using your own. By NO means do we say that it is okay to terminate a pregnancy simply beCAUSE it's in the woman's body, we say that it's okay to terminate a pregnancy beCAUSE the woman's body is being used against her wishes.
You do realize that this WASn't what she was referring to, right? She was referring to the FACT that abortion is health care regulated like any other medical procedure by medical professionals. That medical professionals determine what is the safest and least risky method to providing that health care to their patients. That, at some point, early induction and/or c-sections become much safer than late-term abortions. Which means that your argument isn't actually addressing her argument, because it is only focussed on limits, period, not whether it is medically necessary or not.
I have no idea how this addresses her comment, either. Expectations don't have anything to do with whether an action is killing or not, after all. But, to address your own comment (and, yes, actually address it, which is unlike what you, yourself, have failed to do), a woman's personal reasons for not wanting a child arise from her desire to not be pregnant. SO sorry.
Well, yes, it is an object. But that's inconsequential to what I typed out, since I specifically said location, not object. Straw men are bad. Use less of them.
And what does that do? Why, reduce her to an *object*. You really do have trouble extrapolating the logic, don't you...?
And this goes back to MY original comment: Just because something is not legal doesn't mean we agree with it. Yet again I feel compelled to point out that this is a simple fact, regardless of whether or not you choose to accept it.
I was the one who said that. And I agree with her. Want to know why? Because, once again, you are constructing a strawman. This is not about a fetus but an ACTION. OBviously.
Do you know WHY it isn't violent or cruel? Of course you don't, because you are so focussed on making a fetus a person, that you can't even beGIN to conceive of the things it LACKS. Like consciousness, awareness, sentience, etc.... Everything a woman does NOT lack.
Um, no. She is arguing that pregnancy is the greatest physical burden that can ever be placed on a human and that only women can experience it. There IS no other experience it can be compared to equally. That is ALL she is saying.
Ugh, disgusting. Then no one can decide to end an act of rape based on how the victim feels about it, esPECially since, it seems I must remind you, rape, by itself, is FAR less life-threatening, shorter duration and physically harmful than pregnancy, itself. Like I said, disgusting.
Then, please do tell me where the 'right to be left alone' is 'specifically enumerated'? Then, please do tell me (keeping my last question in mind) why no one can force you to give up an organ, even in the event that it is to save their life?
If a fetus has the right to life you say it does, it isn't contingent upon anything, not even someone else's right to life. Which means, a woman's right to life is meaningless, which means you ARE saying what you THINK she implied you are saying.
Hmm, please do tell me how a woman doesn't have such a right, when you, the male, can't properly address her arguments. Please do tell me how early induction and c-sections are medically indicated AGAINST, in those circumstances.
Once again, please do specifically enumerate where the 'right to be left alone' is found in US (or any other nation's) law. Also, right to medical privacy DOES come under the right to bodily autonomy.
So, you ARE blaming women for their biology. As I said (MANY times, before), the fact that intercourse, ejaculation, ovulation, fertilization and implantation connect two otherwise completely separate organs, forcing her to opt-OUT of the organ usage, are the only things you are saying that should enable the law to deny a woman rights. And, before you say that women should just take it up with God or nature, I feel I should remind you that you have yet to provide precedent where someone else is denied medical remedy based on the way their organs and their functions were constructed, by God OR nature.
Denying a woman an abortion is unacceptable, then, since it is increasingly unacceptable to deny them life-saving medical care.
Nope, AS we've said over and over, feoti have the same rights as everyone else WITH abortion legal. You want to grant a right to feoti that doesn't exist anywhere else, (least of all in that constitution that you claim doesn't specifically enumerate the right to bodily integrity) thereby denying women the same rights that everyone else has. So, by your own definition, you ARE a bigot.
And, once again, the person who accuses US of strawmen, uses his very own. The intent is a WHOLE lot different. It would ONLY be comparable to abortion, if a woman had an abortion simply to end the life of a fetus, not to terminate a pregnancy. (And you can't prove that it is the former. Yet, sadly, you want us to stop making what you believe are universal declarations while you approve your own.) As I've also said, before, this isn't a medical treatment being performed by a medical professional, either, in congruence with the wishes of said professional and family member or legal guardian. So, no, either one is and the other isn't or one isn't and the other is.
Unless the woman is a surrogate for the fertilized egg of another woman, she IS a relative to the fetus. If the fetus isn't 'ailing', then it would be able to survive on its own. So, no, no strawmen, here, only what your fragile little mind can't comprehend: logic.
This is hiLARious. You ASSume that she was simply talking about the claims that one makes? If that were the case, then we would think EVERY ProLifer was you. We don't. OBviously for different for reasons you think, then. We HAVE responded. You just don't want to admit it. And we ARE correct in our claims, you just want to deny it.
So says the person whose own arguments are just as 'absurd', 'unjustifiable' and 'unsupportable', by his OWN logic (or lack thereof). We resort to these claims because they are the truth. You either use arguments that defeat your own arguments, while, in vain, attempting to defeat ours. OR you use arguments that are based on nothing other than nature's sexism. No, we resort to insults because it's quite tiring to argue with those who lack logic.
Again, W.R.O.N.G. If our claims are unsupported, yours are even moreso. If we claim you are a misogynist, it's because we have evidence to back us up, after all. For example, re-read above.
We've stated MANY times why a fetus isn't a person. You just didn't care to read them. My only guess as to why, being that you were AFRAID to read them. That we don't want to go into them, again, is merely a sign of our irritation with you. Nothing MORE, nothing LESS.
If a fetus is a person, then hydatid molar pregnancies, parasitic twins, fetus in fetu, etc. are persons, then twins are half a person, triplets a third of a person, and so on, then chimera are twice a person and then polar twins are 2/3 a person and semi-twins are 3/4 a person.
We are arguing aGAINST treating fetuses differently than anyone else. You are the ones arguing FOR treating them differently.
We have responded over and over again to ProLifers but it's like they can't comprehend logic. However, I am not going to compromise my position by lowering myself to your level and speaking gobbledegook.
So? Why would I want to win over women who can only follow the hive-mind and collaborate with the patriarchy?
Btw, we haven't 'bested' you several times over, ONLY in your own little mind. We're just humouring you. And giving your arguments equal weight, even though you don't feel it necessary to reciprocate.
Btw, we haven't 'bested' you several times over, ONLY in your own little mind. We're just humouring you. And giving your arguments equal weight, even though you don't feel it necessary to reciprocate.
Hell yeah! I am so sick of this bozo!
What kind of explaination do you have for all your lovely bloody wars?
A fetus is a parasite. look it up any living organism that must "feed" off of another living being in order to survive is a parasite!!
We already know that many many men HATE women so their is no argument there. I mean look at the Bible it is all about contolling everything a woman does.
If you are so hell bent on women never having sex again which is where this is leading than maybe you should read your bible again. It says that BOTH MEN and women should abstain from sex until AFTER marriage.
What's a man to do? Blame it on the women and go get a prostitute and then lie about it. Very christian of you guys.
You guys make your own rules and expect us uppity women just go by your rules? But why when they are faaaaaar from fair.
we are not stupid as you seem to think.
Now when you men end your killing wars and your violent tendencies maybe women who disagree with you will think otherwise. i mean what sane women wants to bring any children into such a patriarchal ,unfair and violent world?
On and on the young people being more pro-life just wait till reality hits them in the butt. it has happened before and will happen again. history repeating
Ridiculous! I have never met any woman who has an abortion expecting to be a parent to that child in the future. The majority of abortions are done not because the woman doesn't want to be pregnant, but because she does not want to care for that child as taking care of that child would impact her life in some way or some form. This is easily verified by data collected by Guttmacher.
Most women I know who have had an abortion DO go on to have children later or already have children and do not want to have more children.
OK, let's run with this "letting die" idea. People die EVERY DAY because they can't get transplants, so hie thee down to the nearest hospital to donate blood, bone marrow, a kidney, a lung, and part of your liver, or you're just "letting them die." What's that? You don't want to? Well then, you're being a tad hypocritical, aren't you?
Thank you la plume assassine! Brilliant post!
A uterus is NOT A PUBLIC LOCATION. It is not public property. It is an organ within a body, and a living organism does not have squatter's rights to the organs within my body.
I want to get this screen-printed on a t-shirt.
and Thanks, rebellious grrl!
Hmmm I have actually been looking around for a good pro-choice t-shirt actually. I saw a very subtle one with a screenprint of an acorn that simply read, "Not A Tree."
nonsense is Bei1052.
It's not a comparison, because it doesn't even come CLOSE to approximating the situation of fetus and woman. Which is why I DIDn't answer it. If I did, I would be suggesting there was truth where there was actually NONE.
It's also a shame YOU don't realize that you cannot violate someone else's rights by the simply existing.
Oh, the IRONY. A fetus cannot violate MY rights simply because I exist and a uterus exists, therein.
I never made any claims of misogyny in my previous post. You really can't address the actual claims in a person's post... can you?
It's not a comparison, because it doesn't even come CLOSE to approximating the situation of fetus and woman. Which is why I DIDn't answer it. If I did, I would be suggesting there was truth where there was actually NONE.
By the time it comes to relinquish a child for adoption, it's genreally been born. Have you already forgotten what you were talking about already?
Oh, the IRONY. A fetus cannot violate MY rights simply because I exist and a uterus exists, therein.
A fetus cannot exist without the actions of the woman, rape aside. They do not just kind of *poof* themselves into existence because the woman exists. Also, I fell compelled to point out that you're misusing the word "irony".
I never made any claims of misogyny in my previous post. You really can't address the actual claims in a person's post... can you?
Re-read what I typed out.
By the time it comes to relinquish a child for adoption, it's genreally been born. Have you already forgotten what you were talking about already?
No, but I think you did. YOU said that it was better for there to be two lives, even though one was depressed, than for there to be only one life that is happy. What do you think you were referring to, if not abortion, in the latter circumstance? Hmmm...?
A fetus cannot exist without the actions of the woman, rape aside. They do not just kind of *poof* themselves into existence because the woman exists. Also, I fell compelled to point out that you're misusing the word "irony".
So? Is it the woman's fault that intercourse, ejaculation, ovulation, fertilization, implantation, fetal development and childbirth all occur with a woman's body, even though the fact, that these actions connect two otherwise completely separate and unique organs, is outside of her control? If you want to make a claim that the woman is now responsible for the way her biology was constructed, and can be denied the same sexual freedoms her male counterparts can enjoy without fear of reprisal, due to that same factor, then, you must provide ample evidence of precedence having been set elsewhere where others are denied medical remedies because their biology was constructed to be used in only one manner and admit that you are supporting nature's sexism and attempting to modify the behaviour of (ie: to punish) women so that they will not have non-procreative sex. Because, really, what do you exPECT to happen, when women are told that they must take on a huge physical cost in the event that it actually happens to them? It will stop them from exploring their sexuality, while men will be able to continue unfettered, because they will not be able to have such restrictions placed on them.
Btw, it is irony, because I wasn't referring to myself. I was referring to you (although, I know the irony was unintentional).
Re-read what I typed out.
And you wonder why we think you're someone else. Either that, or a sock-puppet.
Btw, I did. I'm still reading it that way, so, do you just not understand what you 'typed out'?
Nonsense you are not making sense. No, not the same. Let's review -- A fetus does not equal a person. An abortion is not killing a person. If someone kills me that's murder.
And why isn't a fetus a person?
Because it's not.
Why not?
Because it's not.
Why not?
Because it's not. Do you want to keep going? A fetus is NOT a person. And don't ask me "why not?" You'll get the same answer.
You are the one making a ridiculous claim that an embryo or a fetus = person. The burden of proof is on you. There is nothing that suggests neurologically or philosophically that a human embryo/fetus is a person, like you and I. There is a reason that society has birth certificates and not "conception certificates" to document the existence of an individual. The concept of personhood, however, is irrelevant to the abortion debate. No "person" has the right to occupy space in my body and use my organs for sustenance. (And, no: Consenting to sex, protected or otherwise, is not an automatic and irrevocable invitation for a fetus to gestate inside of me.)
By the way, I am not going to get into this with you again for 10 f--king paragraphs of your endless circular logic and shitty analogies (I'm sure you'll bring up the one about cutting the cord of a window washer on the side of a building...because that is the exact same moral scenario as aborting a pregnancy OMG U GUYZ!!!!) You have already de-railed enough threads in the past on this site under different usernames. You really do not disguise your writing style very well.
Surely you mean his typing style? ;p
Seriously, my uterus is not a bassinet that one can say "look! a z/b/e/f in the bassinet is exactly the same as a z/b/e/b not in the bassinet! They are equivalent and have exactly the same qualities and rights but are just in a different location!" If he thinks this is the same as equating a z/b/e/f in a bassinet to one in a uterus, he has a really disturbing grasp of biology--just to hit the tip of the iceberg of fail involved in that argument.
You are the one making a ridiculous claim that an embryo or a fetus = person. The burden of proof is on you. There is nothing that suggests neurologically or philosophically that a human embryo/fetus is a person, like you and I.
Who is and isn't a person isn't defined neurologically nor philosophically, it's defined by the law, which makes no use of the latter two concepts. The thing is that you can't define a current definition of person which is in-line with the law, that also doesn't exclude some group of born humans.
There is a reason that society has birth certificates and not "conception certificates" to document the existence of an individual.
That's a societal convention, due in part that it's relatively easy to date the day someone is born, whereas it's a virtual impossibility to date the day one was conceived.
The concept of personhood, however, is irrelevant to the abortion debate. No "person" has the right to occupy space in my body and use my organs for sustenance. (And, no: Consenting to sex, protected or otherwise, is not an automatic and irrevocable invitation for a fetus to gestate inside of me.)
You obviously didn't read the text of Roe v. Wade, which very clearly states that if the unborn are persons, then abortion is impermissable. How can you argue what you don't understand?
By the way, I am not going to get into this with you again for 10 f--king paragraphs of your endless circular logic and shitty analogies (I'm sure you'll bring up the one about cutting the cord of a window washer on the side of a building...because that is the exact same moral scenario as aborting a pregnancy OMG U GUYZ!!!!) You have already de-railed enough threads in the past on this site under different usernames. You really do not disguise your writing style very well.
I'm still not whomever you assert I am, but whatever. All the accusations don't bother me all that much lol. As far as pro-lifers making "endless circular arguments or shitty analogies" goes, pro-life is kicking the crap out of pro-choice, especially among women and younger people, so apparently our arguments aren't too circular nor too shitty. It sure beats incessant straw men and claims of misogyny, sexism and patriarchy, that's for sure!
Who is and isn't a person isn't defined neurologically nor philosophically, it's defined by the law, which makes no use of the latter two concepts. The thing is that you can't define a current definition of person which is in-line with the law, that also doesn't exclude some group of born humans.
Really? If that were the case then there would be no clinical stage of personhood, such as fetal viability. But, let's say there isn't a philosophical or neurological definition of personhood. Let's say there is only a legal definition of personhood. That all humans born are persons. Why is it that the legal definition excludes, as you mentioned, some group of born humans from personhood, then?
That's a societal convention, due in part that it's relatively easy to date the day someone is born, whereas it's a virtual impossibility to date the day one was conceived.
Which is why that is considered the legal definition of personhood. It is the only way one can lawfully measure personhood. Which, you should notice, precludes there being only one definition of personhood.
You obviously didn't read the text of Roe v. Wade, which very clearly states that if the unborn are persons, then abortion is impermissable. How can you argue what you don't understand?
You obviously can't read very well, period. HOW many times do we have to say that just because it is codified in law, doesn't mean we agree with it, before it gets through your thick skull?
I'm still not whomever you assert I am, but whatever. All the accusations don't bother me all that much lol. As far as pro-lifers making "endless circular arguments or shitty analogies" goes, pro-life is kicking the crap out of pro-choice, especially among women and younger people, so apparently our arguments aren't too circular nor too shitty. It sure beats incessant straw men and claims of misogyny, sexism and patriarchy, that's for sure!
Um, do you SERIOUSLY believe it's your ARguments that are convincing others to be ProLife? Obviously, someone has never heard of the hive-mind.
How can it NOT be misogynistic, sexist or patriarchal constructs that define your movement, when you must base the denial of rights to one gender on that specific gender's biology?
If you believe that there weren't that many abortions prior to abortion becoming illegal, then you must also believe that making it illegal reduces the number of abortions. If it reduces the number of abortions the only factor that can be involved is pregnancy as punishment (behaviour modification) for women having non-procreative sex. However, if it isn't punishment, then making abortion illegal does nothing to reduce its numbers. Sorry, but can't have it both ways, even though you ProLifers often, illogically, make the attempt to do so.
Really? If that were the case then there would be no clinical stage of personhood, such as fetal viability. But, let's say there isn't a philosophical or neurological definition of personhood. Let's say there is only a legal definition of personhood. That all humans born are persons. Why is it that the legal definition excludes, as you mentioned, some group of born humans from personhood, then?
All born humans being persons does not mean that all persons are born humans.
Which is why that is considered the legal definition of personhood. It is the only way one can lawfully measure personhood. Which, you should notice, precludes there being only one definition of personhood.
I know I've pointed this out before, but the very fact that corporations are considered to be persons under the law means that what you consider to be the legal definition of a person, isn't.
You obviously can't read very well, period. HOW many times do we have to say that just because it is codified in law, doesn't mean we agree with it, before it gets through your thick skull?
To repeat what I said to that other individual, when you're going to bother arguing what is, you'd better damn well make sure you're arguing what is, and not what you think is, but isn't. To state that a person can't reside inside of someone else is to argue based on nothing more than personal, and flawed, ideology.
Um, do you SERIOUSLY believe it's your ARguments that are convincing others to be ProLife? Obviously, someone has never heard of the hive-mind.
So some people grow up to be pro-life because of a hive mind mentality, while other people grow up to be pro-choice because they're, as I could imagine you're trying to assert, free thinking? I don't think so.
How can it NOT be misogynistic, sexist or patriarchal constructs that define your movement, when you must base the denial of rights to one gender on that specific gender's biology?
This AGAIN? A woman wouldn't be denied an abortion on account of her being a woman, but on account of an abortion resulting in the death of another human being without any jusfiable kind of cause. The ability of some to see misogyny and sexism everywhere is astounding.
If you believe that there weren't that many abortions prior to abortion becoming illegal, then you must also believe that making it illegal reduces the number of abortions. If it reduces the number of abortions the only factor that can be involved is pregnancy as punishment (behaviour modification) for women having non-procreative sex. However, if it isn't punishment, then making abortion illegal does nothing to reduce its numbers. Sorry, but can't have it both ways, even though you ProLifers often, illogically, make the attempt to do so.
Fact: The number of performed abortions go up when it's made legal and down when it's made illegal. This is a simple common sense. People are less inclined to engage in an activity when it's legal than illegal.
All born humans being persons does not mean that all persons are born humans.
By YOUR logic it would be. OR it means that there ARE more than one type of definition for personhood. Do I HAVE to point out every 'little' connecting 'minute' detail to you? Believe me, it's quite irritating that ProLifers can't understand context.
I know I've pointed this out before, but the very fact that corporations are considered to be persons under the law means that what you consider to be the legal definition of a person, isn't.
And *I* know I've pointed out *this* before: I don't believe every law is interpreted correctly.
To repeat what I said to that other individual, when you're going to bother arguing what is, you'd better damn well make sure you're arguing what is, and not what you think is, but isn't. To state that a person can't reside inside of someone else is to argue based on nothing more than personal, and flawed, ideology.
Umm, here we go, again. Someone using strawmen, even after he accuses us of using it. We are NOT arguing about what is currently explicitly codified in law, after all. We are arguing about whether rights are present or not. Two things which are NOT automatically synonymous.
So some people grow up to be pro-life because of a hive mind mentality, while other people grow up to be pro-choice because they're, as I could imagine you're trying to assert, free thinking? I don't think so.
Nope, it was just a suggestion about what MIGHT be the reason other than logic that people follow you're position, as you CLAIMED it was. But, nice strawman.
This AGAIN? A woman wouldn't be denied an abortion on account of her being a woman, but on account of an abortion resulting in the death of another human being without any jusfiable kind of cause. The ability of some to see misogyny and sexism everywhere is astounding.
And why does it result in the death of a fetus (NOT a person, NOT a human being)? Because, the woman's body is developed in such a manner that intercourse, ejaculation, ovulation, fertilization and implantation connect two otherwise completely separate organs, forcing her to opt-OUT of organ sharing (rather than opting-IN as in normal organ donation), while, along with fetal development, labour and delivery, all occurring within it, are something she has NO control over. Meaning, that you are denying her her sexual freedoms and rights (as I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt with my most recent post), because of her biology. Which IS sexism AND misogyny. DUH.
Fact: The number of performed abortions go up when it's made legal and down when it's made illegal. This is a simple common sense. People are less inclined to engage in an activity when it's legal than illegal.
Can't you even atTEMPT to address someone's comments? Because, if you believe that, then, according to what I was ACTually saying, you ARE attempting to punish women and ONLY women, since there is no corollary that is equally identifiable and enforceable on men.
I'm tempted to sprinkle with 1s & 2s to collapse the whole exchange.
In his circuitous and tortuously pedantic diatribe, returning to the point that women are to blame, only proves the point of the article, which is that anti-choicers really just want to punish women.
Yes, it looks like he wanted to write a freakin novel. Even though I said that I'd read it all before in another thread and that it would be best to avoid copy/pasting the exact same 20+ paragraphs of TLDR "flawnalogies" (flawed analogies). I would prefer to save the essay-writing for my personal blog, and the ridiculous anti's on this site always give me good material...
I know I've pointed this out before, but the very fact that corporations are considered to be persons under the law means that what you consider to be the legal definition of a person, isn't.
I believe crowepps effectively demolished this nonsense by pointing out that corporations can be killed at whim, dismembered, divided, bought and sold etc...
Nothing to see here.
Who is and isn't a person isn't defined neurologically nor philosophically, it's defined by the law, which makes no use of the latter two concepts. The thing is that you can't define a current definition of person which is in-line with the law, that also doesn't exclude some group of born humans.
Untrue. Given that you've already brought up the whole corporate personhood thing elsewhere, and that corporate persons demonstrably do not have all the same rights as human persons, we can first acknowledge that there are obviously different legal classes of person. We can then easily define human persons, as opposed to corporate persons, as humans who have been born. Since this is how the law already works with regard to personhood, it's not exactly a stretch.
Do you have an actual reason why the law should extend personhood into the womb? Do you have a definition that can make born and unborn humans into persons without running into the absurdity of considering blastocysts to be people? Because, sorry, the law, science, philosophy, and the vast majority of people (corporate or human) see no reason to grant personhood to such early stages of human development.
That's a societal convention, due in part that it's relatively easy to date the day someone is born, whereas it's a virtual impossibility to date the day one was conceived.
It's also a recognition that there is very little sense in considering a blastocyst a person for any reason.
You obviously didn't read the text of Roe v. Wade, which very clearly states that if the unborn are persons, then abortion is impermissable. How can you argue what you don't understand?
And...they ruled that abortion was permissible. So, while they didn't rule that the unborn are persons, they rather obviously did not consider the idea of the unborn being persons to be a strong enough one to rule abortions impermissable.
I can get a social security number for a person and open a bank account for him/her.
I'm okay with the IRS definition of a person.
Define "person."
For the same reason that an acorn is not an oak tree.
... if I'm residing inside his body, he can feel more than free to do so.
Your willful refusal to accept that a uterus is part of a woman's body and not a "location" is a failure in your logic. And deny all you want, but you HAVE been told this before.
On a side note, what exactly do you do with yourself between your various incarnations here? Are there other sites you troll? Do you start/stop taking meds? Focus on schoolwork? Play Civ? I'm just curious. For as much time and effort you devote to your posts, I doubt that type of drive just dissipates. What exactly do you do with that energy after being banned?
squirrely girl,
How dare you reply with a side note that has nothing to do with anything Born/Pan/NIN typed out.
On a side note, what exactly do you do with yourself between your various incarnations here? Are there other sites you troll? Do you start/stop taking meds? Focus on schoolwork? Play Civ? I'm just curious. For as much time and effort you devote to your posts, I doubt that type of drive just dissipates. What exactly do you do with that energy after being banned?
I was wondering the same, actually. It is very tempting to go into an armchair psychoanalysis about the why behind this specific trolling (especially after being banned)... but I think it's probably best if I don't go there.
... his erectile dysfunction later in life will be banned from private and public insurance coverage and he'll be expected to jump through hoops to obtain treatment even when paying out of pocket with his own money and angry chicks will be picketing the providers he visits. ;)
...even more so if it is not immediately hidden.
As the due date for my first child approaches, I feel moved to make this comment, if only for the symbolic gesture as I am sure it will not be heard.
The columnist writes "What saddens me more than anything else are women who want to make abortion either so inaccessible as to render it impracticable, or who want to outlaw it altogether. Because I truly believe that most women, anti-choice or otherwise, who’ve experienced even a flicker of uncertainty about a pregnancy in this country since 1973 have been glad, in their hearts, to have a choice." (Emphasis mine.)
I was and am pro-life (or anti-abortion, if you like) and last year I found myself pregnant out of wedlock and in unfortunate circumstances. (The user ttmamdg is correct about prolifers, btw.)
The circumstances of pregnancy, as I said, were less that ideal. I stood to lose my job and the father was a problem. I dearly wished I had never gotten myself, but more so a completely innocent child who deserved better parents, into that situation. I wished I could rewind and not do the thing that got me there. I determined I would give the child up for adoption. But I was not "glad to have a choice." My only thought about this "choice" was terror that the already difficult father of my child would try to coerce me into having an abortion or that the doctors would.
What did come close to gladdening my heart (because "glad" wasn't a word I would have used at the time) was the knowledge that at least there were people who helped women in crisis pregnancies, women like me.
Unfortunately (that's way too weak an adjective, but I don't have another) I miscarried my child. It was the worst thing that ever happened to me - far worse than getting pregnant the way I did.
Where before my pregnancy and miscarriage, my prolife beliefs were personally untested and largely a matter of principle, now I take this promotion of "pro-choice" policies as good for women personally. Because of "pro-choice" laws, the unborn are not regarded as human and their death is of no consequence. Abortions are no big deal and neither are miscarriages.
If I were to get pregnant again, I am at a higher risk of miscarriage having miscarried my first child. Thanks to the "pro-choice" culture and the willful ignorance of our medical community that is wedded to hormonal contraception (and the big pharma companies that profit by it), I must go through either one (if it were to happen during my next pregnancy) or two (if I have children that survive in between) miscarriages before I can be tested for a problem. Because we value unborn life that little.
And de-valuing the unborn, we harm women. I never want to go through a miscarriage again; I do not want to mourn the death of another child. But in the current culture I am given no choice.
Perhaps you will say that I am projecting my experience on to others and that my complaints only apply to those women who agree with me. That may be true, but I say to you pro-choicers "look in the mirror." You are not standing up for all women - only women who agree with you.
Now
But I was not "glad to have a choice." My only thought about this "choice" was terror that the already difficult father of my child would try to coerce me into having an abortion or that the doctors would.
You were not glad to have a choice, and yet you were terrified of being denied a choice?
The legality of abortion gave those in authority (drs) or those in a position to exert pressure, a platform from which to bully me. I was frightened of that.
Again...why would any doctor exert pressure on you to choose abortion? I'm not following.
This sounds kind of like what someone said here about Miss Liarla Rose, she of the "professional" association with felon James O'Keefe - that her outrage against college health services was likely due only to the fact that she was offered a CHOICE, and that she only would have been satisfied if the professional health care workers had acted like bat-guano crazy harassers and stalkers aka "Sidewalk Counselors" and waxed loudly, tearfully and sentimentally against exercising her right to reproductive health care options.
The legality of abortion gave those in authority (drs) or those in a position to exert pressure, a platform from which to bully me. I was frightened of that.
The medical profession gives any doctor a position of power with respect to his/her patients, a platform from which to bully. Only bad doctors do this, however---and there are a lot of good abortion doctors out there.
Too bad that you were so terrified and ashamed of the possibility of having an abortion that you couldn't do what I like to call "asking around for recommendations".
Why weren't you considering that they would bully you into giving birth instead?
C-sections are legal - does it scare you that someone can bully you into this? Episiotomies? Breast augmentation? Nose jobs? There is no legal limit on the number of plastic surgery procedures you can have so are you afraid of being bullied into becoming a plastic-surgery-cat-woman? After all you could be involved in a traffic accident and the doctor, y'know, could bully you into having a complete face transplant. Perhaps the doctor will take advantage of you under anesthesia and give you a sex change operation, cat woman face, and inject you with botox and juvederm in your ass. Ass botox is not illegal.
You are not standing up for all women - only women who agree with you.
On the contrary I think that all the women here believe you should have been able to have the choice to gestate your child.
You're even welcome to choose irresponsible losers as lovers. God knows most Republican women do. Stop blaming other women for your poor choices.
This is the sort of comment I was expecting here. Just fyi, I am not and never have been a Republican.
Also, I note with interest that "slut-shaming" (although I'm not sure I really agree with the terminology - I did indeed make a very poor decision when I got pregnant) is not unacceptable, but merely reserved for those with whom you disagree.
Also, I note with interest that "slut-shaming" (although I'm not sure I really agree with the terminology - I did indeed make a very poor decision when I got pregnant) is not unacceptable, but merely reserved for those with whom you disagree.
I wasn't aware that conservative women believe pointing out that the men who try to force their reluctant girl friends to have abortions are losers is a form of 'slut-slamming'. That would certainly explain why the 'pro-life' movement never holds men responsible for ANYTHING.
Or perhaps you believe that pointing out you made some poor choices that we are not responsible for is 'slut-slamming'? What does that level of hypocisy feel like?
I determined I would give the child up for adoption. But I was not "glad to have a choice." My only thought about this "choice" was terror that the already difficult father of my child would try to coerce me into having an abortion or that the doctors would.
Um...I get the "asshole" concerns, but what makes you believe that any doctor would attempt to coerce you into an abortion? This bit alone has my "bullshit" radar beeping. Especially since you had already determined that adoption was your best course?
What did come close to gladdening my heart (because "glad" wasn't a word I would have used at the time) was the knowledge that at least there were people who helped women in crisis pregnancies, women like me.
So again, you knew there were resources for you. Where does this fear of physician coercion originate?
Unfortunately (that's way too weak an adjective, but I don't have another) I miscarried my child. It was the worst thing that ever happened to me - far worse than getting pregnant the way I did.
I relate...we endured two consecutive stillbirths, and twenty-five years later, the memories lay like a neverhealing bruise on my heart and mind.
Where before my pregnancy and miscarriage, my prolife beliefs were personally untested and largely a matter of principle, now I take this promotion of "pro-choice" policies as good for women personally. Because of "pro-choice" laws, the unborn are not regarded as human and their death is of no consequence. Abortions are no big deal and neither are miscarriages.
Well, we all react differently. My own experiences knocked my off of my anti-choice high horse.
If I were to get pregnant again, I am at a higher risk of miscarriage having miscarried my first child. Thanks to the "pro-choice" culture and the willful ignorance of our medical community that is wedded to hormonal contraception (and the big pharma companies that profit by it), I must go through either one (if it were to happen during my next pregnancy) or two (if I have children that survive in between) miscarriages before I can be tested for a problem. Because we value unborn life that little.
Not following.
And de-valuing the unborn, we harm women. I never want to go through a miscarriage again; I do not want to mourn the death of another child. But in the current culture I am given no choice.
You cannot be serious. My reproductive decisions are not your business, and it is not my responsibility to spare you squat, when it comes to my own health and well-being.
Perhaps you will say that I am projecting my experience on to others
Yes.
and that my complaints only apply to those women who agree with me. That may be true, but I say to you pro-choicers "look in the mirror." You are not standing up for all women - only women who agree with you.
Horseshit. We absolutely support your rights to determine your reproductive life. It is NOT pro-choice women looking to slash WIC...etc.
The reason you would have to go through another miscarriage before they would run tests has nothing to do with not "valuing unborn life".
20% of all pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage and the most common cause is a chromosomal abnormality- which no doctor could do anything about anyways. This isn't "pro-choice culture" , it's scientific fact.
One miscarriage is probably not a sign of a problem, only a biological flaw. 2 miscarriages however, could possibly mean something is wrong, and therefore warrant running tests. That's why it's done that way. Not because doctors don't care about your pregnacy.
So what is the rest of your point.. Just say it blurt it out. Women who are pro-choice are the evil vile snakes of the earth! We love sex and we are just plain nasty and loving life instead of crawling under a rock and playing the victim ! or the marytrs yes the women that do not play the role of martyrs are going to hell!!! we should all sacrifice are bodies for the good of MEN and take their beatings,acid thrown on us, sagging skin boobs to the ground unfair pay being bought and sold for our bodies all for the sake of being good women.
Idon't play by your rules sorry. I live by my own rules and no one tells me what to do and I will gladly die for my rights as an EQUAL human being on this planet.
Humans get none of my respect until they earn it. I have seen the most vile human beings and the most vile things they do to other creatures and humans that would make your skin crawl.
Sorry I just don't value humans like you do. That's my right!!
Why are you wasting your time here? I for one will never change my opinions which also is my right. Go tell it to people who want to be martyrs.
by OxyRush's baby brother David, about how PERSECUTED Christians in America are.
No-one is devaluing fetuses, here. Please stop insinuating that we are.
Anti-abortion only refers to those like Margaret Sanger who support universal health care, free emergency contraception, comprehensive sex-ed, effective birth control, etc.... Thus, why we call most of your movement anti-choice.
So, you would equate losing an existing child to a miscarriage? Well, that rather devalues the child....
Helped women in crisis pregnancies, through coercion, lies, stigma, shaming, etc...? And, yet you are afraid that someone might bully you into having an abortion...?
That may be true, but I say to you pro-choicers "look in the mirror." You are not standing up for all women - only women who agree with you.
This makes no sense. Anti-choicers are very definitely only standing up for women who agree with them, by denying the ability of women who disagree with them to have options available. How in the world are pro-choicers not standing up for all women? Having abortion as an option is not saying that we think everyone should have abortions.
I also fail to see how a pro-choice culture is responsible for you not being able to be tested for possible problems related to your miscarriage. Miscarriage in the first trimester is common even in women with no health issues, so there is no reason to spend a lot of time, money, and invasive medical procedures trying to find something unless there's more evidence that there might be something to find.
I determined I would give the child up for adoption. But I was not "glad to have a choice."
So, you weren't glad that you had the choice to carry to term and give a child up for adoption? Adoption IS A CHOICE, among others, and it was yours to make.
My only thought about this "choice" was terror that the already difficult father of my child would try to coerce me into having an abortion or that the doctors would.
First of all, I am sorry that your S.O. was abusive and controlling. But, why the hell would a doctor try to coerce you into having an abortion if you expressed that it was a wanted pregnancy?? Do you think this is some kind of commonplace practice, that doctors try to coerce women with wanted pregnancies into an abortion clinic? This makes no sense.
You express a fear of having your choice (giving birth + adoption) taken away from you. But you think it's okay to take away my choice (abortion)? You want us to sympathize with your fear of having your choice taken away from you, but you can't sympathize with us. Do you not comprehend the fear that I would feel if somebody tried to coerce me into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term? It is the exact same terror that you experienced of the possibility of someone coercing you into terminating a pregnancy.
It was the worst thing that ever happened to me - far worse than getting pregnant the way I did.
Honestly, I am sorry for your loss, and for your abusive ex, but it is never okay to use your personal grief as an excuse to exert control over others, and take away choices from other women. I should also mention that if experiencing a miscarriage was truly the worst thing that's ever happened to you, then you have lead a beautifully privileged life.
Abortions are no big deal and neither are miscarriages
Abortion and miscarriage are PERSONAL experiences. You should not expect all women to experience the exact same emotions. There are women who take miscarriage and abortion very, very hard and there are women who do not care either way. As a pro-choice woman, I believe that both are valid emotional responses! We, as women, are not a collective hive mind!
Thanks to the "pro-choice" culture and the willful ignorance of our medical community that is wedded to hormonal contraception
This sounds like you are blaming pro-choicers for your miscarriage. Spontaneous abortion is an extremely common experience and for many is not regarded as the loss of a person because most miscarriages occur very early and often without the woman's knowledge. We can not ask that every woman mourn a miscarriage and hold a funeral. As another commenter noted below, your waiting period for getting medically tested has nothing to do with politics; it has everything to do with normal reproductive biology: one or two miscarriages are normal and very common. Not only that, but even determining the cause of a miscarriage is extremely difficult.
And de-valuing the unborn, we harm women.
No, The problem is that a number of people (including you) tend to value the continued existence of an embryo or fetus over a woman's life circumstances. It's really none of your business because it's not your pregnancy. And it's none of my business what you do with an unplanned pregnancy, either.
You are not standing up for all women - only women who agree with you.
Wrong. I am standing up for all women, even you. Because I support YOUR CHOICE to carry an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy to term. I support YOUR CHOICE of giving a child up for adoption. Even though that's not what I would do in your situation, I trust you with your body and your personal life decisions! And even though you are against abortion, I support that choice for you and other women, too, should you ever need it.
Also, getting back to the subject at hand: IMO, convictions that change at the mere influence of a fairly common life experience (such as falling in love and worrying about one's sexual choices) weren't very strong to begin with.
This comment has been removed.
RH Reality Check is an unapologetically pro-choice publication, and the majority of our readers supports the struggle for sexual and reproductive rights, health, and justice. We realize that some of our readers and commenters do not support these goals. We embrace and encourage vigorous debate and civil discourse on the site and welcome comments representing diverse points of view that are evidence-based and reasonably engage the debate. We reserve the right to delete, without further explanation, comments that misrepresent evidence or promote misinformation, that threaten or demean others, undermine the civility of discussion or seek to divert conversation from the topic of the original article. We reserve the right to ban users who repeatedly abuse commenting privileges.
--RH Reality Check staff
