Anonymous circuit-riding abortionist identified
Abortionists don’t deserve anonymity. It keeps them from being held accountable for their actions. In some states, patients aren’t even told the full names of their abortionists and when things go wrong, women don’t even know who to file a complaint against.
People who are proud of their work are willing to put their names on it. People who are ashamed or are trying to get away with something, like bank robbers and abortionists, wear masks….
~ Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, revealing the identity of circuit-riding abortionist Nicola Moore, who currently kills children at various abortion mills owned by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, October 13
[Graphic via Operation Rescue]
Oct.15, 2011 9:15 am |
Abortionist quacks & pervs |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
You can’t see Nicola’s hands, but they’re either covered in blood or busy counting the money she’s making.
Maybe a site needs to pop up as well revealing information that can be gathered regarding women who get abortions – name, place of employment, contact information.
as i have said many times before abortionists arent doctors. they are killers in scrubs. abortion is not healthcare. its disgusting murder of children. women are killed in abortions and damage is done. it could be physical and its always emotional. it took me starting at this blog to realize that women are indeed damaged in abortion. i used to feel much contempt for post abortive women because i felt they were all cold blooded and selfish. especially those who would say “im glad i had it done.” i still know women who maintain this stance but carla pointed out the behavior. that was key for me. substance abuse cursing seeing psychiatrists etc. isnt that what they do on pandagon? swear mock god talk about how people with a lot of kids should have killed them. they are an angry bunch. that anger is coming from unresolved guilt and hate for christ.
well ex gop remember when abortionist provider threw all of his medical recods into his dumpster and some blew away. anyone could find out who had an abortion. i think it was hodari
Ex-GOP,
Why do you think anyone would want such a website?
ex gop thats a wonderful idea because its only a choice.
like i said ex gop ~ i tried to not post my typos~ you can thank abortionist hodari for that. so much for the hippa law. anyone could find that info. out that day. name place of employment etc. he chucked it into the dumpster along with the baby parts.
All I’m saying is that logically, if a pre-born baby is a person, then you have to treat all involved in the murder of that person like it is a murder. I’ve seen this crazy response that logically, in a world where abortion is illegal, the doctor should be punished but not the woman. It’s essentially hiring a hit man. Both the doctor and the woman should be prosecutable up to the full extent of murder, including the DP in some states.
So to say, let’s just post information on ONLY doctors seems to me to be missing a big component of the murder team, right? Maybe it is time for this board to start a list – heck, there’s posters involved here who should be at the top of the list!
Ex-GOP,
If we don’t want to punish the women, it is because they don’t know what they are doing, because the abortionists lie to them about it. If a woman knows that she is carrying another person and pays someone to kill that person, then yes, she should be prosecuted. When she has been lied to, manipulated and pressured to get an abortion, maybe she is another victim. The abortionist has no excuse.
ex gop i have expressed my opinion on this blog before. i believe that some women are victims and others are not. if you are a young teen who is lied to by the industry then id have to say you are a victim. many adult women are in a crisis and they are victims as well but a woman walking in for her 9th abortion is just using it as birth control.
example gloria steinem……i wont call her a victim. i call her an abortion pimp. she said that after her abortion the man told her “now go and live out your dreams.” she has never expressed any remorse and shes like 70 now. still supporting planned parenthood. i would not call her a victim.
Ex-GOP, two short weeks ago I would have agreed with you 100%. In fact, I was running my mouth off on one of Jill’s blogs about how post-abortive women need to accept responsibility for their choices. I think I angered and upset several women, especially one named Mary Lee.
But let me tell you what happened last week. My husband and I went out for drinks last Thrusday night, and we got to talking to a salesman who was just passing through. It’s amazing what you’ll share with someone you’ll never see again, because he told me, after about 90 minutes of just talking sports and kids and whatnot:
His college age daughter had an abortion in high school–in fact, she, her mother and the school colluded to keep it from him because they knew he might try to interfere. He was kept from her for 2 weeks after the abortion (the parents were separated).
Since then, the young woman has tried to commit suicide twice, and this man, the baby’s grandfather, has been LEVELED by this abortion. I saw tears in the eyes of a man who I’d never see again. So I told them what I learned here, on Jill’s site: THERE IS HEALING FROM ABORTION: for the mom, the dad, even the grandpa. Healing is possible.
Do you think for a second that if the clinic had told this girl in REAL TERMS what the next 4 years of her life was going to be like because of her decision, she would’ve signed up for any of it? Of course not, because abortion is the only way the mills get paid.
I was totally humbeled and chastised by this meeting, and I knew that my husband and I were meant to be there, drinking some beers, with Jaime from Indiana. He is suffering, his poor daughter is suffering, and all of this becuase she had been sold a intrinsically false and evil bill of goods by the liberal media and feminsts: it’s not a baby, and it’s not a murder. Call it choice and it can be over quickly.
I BELIEVE women, even the hardest of them, know differently.
To those of you whom I offended last week, please accpet my apologies. God showed me the truth this week, and I learned my lesson. He is amazing!
courtnay its okay because i have also said that women who have had aborted belong in prison. i even told a woman this over the phone years ago. she aborted a child from my ex. it was her 8th abortion and a hysterectomy was required after her last abortion. she had a constant period. after her hysterectomy she tried to drink herself to death. she became so depressed but she was a severe alcoholic when i met her. my ex stayed by her side. this was back in the tail end of the 90s but now i realize teresa was drinking and abusing coke to kill her pain.
Maybe a site needs to pop up as well revealing information that can be gathered regarding women who get abortions – name, place of employment, contact information.
I wouldn’t have a problem with having a site pop up with my name on the list for removal of my wart, polyps or wisdom teeth. I have no problem with a site listing what teens have body piercings.
You defend abortion so strongly, why care if anyone knows who has one or not? What is so personal about removing something unwanted from your body?
Along with this site, lets post a site of all the names of the fathers too. The ones who wanted to parent and the ones who wanted to run from their responsibilities. The ones who threatened to kill the mother if she didn’t have an abortion and the ones who cried on their knees in attempts to prevent the killing of their baby.
How about listing adults in schools who take girls to abort without parental permission? How about listing nurses and escorts who cover up for abortionists that abort on the underage who they know have an adult boyfriend? How about a site listing the names of those in the Catholic church who act prolife but work behind the scenes to keep it legal?
If nothing is wrong with abortion, let’s put it all out there.
Ex-Gop, the point to prosecution is you have to prove someone is guilty of a crime beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now a doctor, who 1) advertized for their services 2)counseled in favor of their services 3) required a fee for their services 4) is a professional that knows exactly what they are doing, can easily be found guilty of willfully, with criminal foreknowledge and intent, to have commited murder. But a woman who was 1) forced or cohersed 2) lied to or inaccurately counseled 3) possibly verbally withdrew consent 4) has a limited understanding of the medical/biological actions taking place is not someone you can legally convict of murder. Even *if* the woman doesn’t belong in those categories, how can you prove that in a court of law? You can’t. Or at least, only extremely rarely. Manslaughter? Possibly sometimes. Neglegent homocide? Again, on occassion. Conspiracy to commit? Maybe, but they can always claim they backed out and verbally withdrew consent. There are enough verifyable (others witnessed) cases of women saying ‘stop, I don’t want to do this’ or ‘let me up, I’ve changed my mind’ or some such that is would be extremely hard to prove that she didn’t. For the vast majority of women they lack the foreknowledge and intent to have commited a legal crime.
Historically speaking a woman who sought an abortion would have a cursitory investigation, but only very rarely did it got past questioning to a charge. The same certainly would be true in the furture if/when abortion again becomes illegal in this country.
Praxedes, you NAILED it.
abortion needs to be recriminalized
“If nothing is wrong with abortion, let’s put it all out there.”
Nothing is wrong with routine surgery; but because we are entitled to confidentiality (which doesn’t seem to be a concern for you), we have statutes regarding confidentiality of medical records. If, as you say, we should have websites that have names of folks who have had surgeries, what’t to stop a potential employer from not hiring them based on the exposed medical information.
And while we’re on the topic of lists, what would say about a list of all priests who have been accused of sexual abuse? Inasmuch as I loathe the Catholic church, I find it problematic that the names of these men are published in newspapers before any charges are filed. Obviously you don’t?
“If a woman knows that she is carrying another person and pays someone to kill that person, then yes, she should be prosecuted”
“abortion needs to be recriminalized”
Given an already overburdened court system, overcrowded prisons, and huge probation/parole caseloads with fewer workers – yeah, let’s jam up the system even more with these prosecutions.
“The ones who threatened to kill the mother if she didn’t have an abortion and the ones who cried on their knees in attempts to prevent the killing of their baby.”
If a woman files domestic violence/assault charges against a man who threatens her if she has an abortion and he is arrested, his name will be published. Funny, I never hear anything from you folks about the bruality of men who would take away a woman’s birth control or force her not to have an abortion. Interesting….
cc you got caught up again. less people? could it be because weve killed 80 million in the name of choice?
Funny, CC, we never hear you condemning men who force women into abortions or kill women who are pregnant… probably because you applaud their actions. Abortion at all costs, right?
oh and by the way im all for posting pics of priests who molest!!!!!! but abortion needs to become a criminal act again.
CC, there are blogs for you folks who hate the Catholic Church. This isn’t one of them.
Get a hold of yourself. There is nothing “routine” about abortion. You will no doubt go on and on and on about how it is the law of the land and women have enjoyed their abortions and no harm was done. You will, BY DEFINITION, always be wrong about that.
I am absolutely POSITIVE that when an abortion occurs, a human life is destroyed. Are you absolutely sure that it isn’t?
abortion is violent……why cant you see that?
oh but the pro aborts claim to be the “bastions of tolerance”…but they have no tolerance unless you choose the violent killing of the baby in the womb.
Yes Courtnay there is healing after abortion!!! I am grateful to God that he orchestrated that meeting!!
National Helpline for Abortion Recovery
1-866-482-5433
Rachel’s Vineyard(a weekend retreat for abortion recovery)
http://www.rachelsvineyard.org
Many CPC’s have abortion recovery.
I will politely excuse myself from any discussion of how I should be punished for my abortion.
Thank you Carla.
i am going to say this. if abortion were to be made illegal again it would reduce abortion. but it wont ever end because of the supreme court. i have heard some people say awful things about post abortive women but im not going to repeat any of it. too hurtful. i will leave it at that.
Besides the murder of an innocent baby, which is clearly evil to everyone who thinks normally, the FDA sites the grave harm this drug causes to the women who are lied to. So much for the peacefulness, joan:
http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2011/10/planned_parenth_45.php
wow joan c. just read your link. awful! the thing that puzzles me is that they always claim a shortage of providers yet pp seems to be doing Aokay. i dont get it.
Heather,
Never say never. :)
I really do think that Roe V Wade could be overturned. Maybe not in my lifetime…
PS Post abortive women have heard every name in the book. But being silent no more is important!
there sure isnt a shortage of “doctors” up the street from me who will be happy to kill your baby no matter how far along you are. i gave birth to all of my children there. ick! too bad they are excellent if you are having a live baby there. i know 2 girls who aborted there. both were about 5 months pregnant.
At Lutherans for Life (http://www.lutheransforlife.org/mediafiles/lifedate-fall-2011.pdf), Linda Bartlett relates a conversation, which was first documented by Abby Johnson, between an abortionist and a woman feeling guilty for wanting to abort her child.
(The abortionist) asked her why she felt guilty. She said, “Because I just know this is a sin.” He paused for a minute and looked at her. He smiled and said, “No. It is not your sin. It is mine. I will take on your sin. I commit the sin. Not you.”
Abortionists regularly display quite the narcissistic arrogance, making themselves God to have the power over life and death. In this case, the abortionist punctuates his narcissism to be Messiah, taking on the sins of another person. Wonder if he knows the wages of sin…
From the same article:
But, what about the Church? Some Christians, observes Abby, say, “Shame on the abortionist.” Others say, “Shame on the women who have abortions.” But, “you know what? Shame on us!”
hi carla:) it may sound like im judging but i prefer growing. im not trying to sound this way. i have met many women in snm and bonded with many so that contempt is lifting. most of the comments came while standing on the sidewalk. its a mixed bag. you dont know what people will say. some can be just as angry as pro aborts. they would see the pic of the mangled baby and omg!!!!!! one older lady remarked “if they are going to do that they need someone to sew their genitals up”~
i imagine they have just never seen an aborted baby before. just like pro aborts havent seen the end result of choice. the signs upset everyone. some people would walk past and ask “is that really what an aborted baby looks like”? “wow thats unreal that they do that in there. ” some just got sick and couldnt look.
my girlfriend in snm holds her sign ‘I REGRET MY ABORTION’ a woman approached her and got in her face. she asked “you do”? “well i sure as he** dont regret mine”! thats very common. also some say the signs are fake.
the signs are an educational tool. they are not meant as a form of harassment
I didn’t think you were judging at all, Heather!
No worries.
ok cool carla….i didnt want to step on your toes. ive got big feet:)
Jespren – Do you truly think women are so stupid that all most women have no idea what they are doing when they have an abortion, or do you simply say it would be impossible to prove that a woman had an abortion (which seems a bit silly). I can’t think of any strong premeditation than getting in one’s car, driving to a clinic, paying money for a procedure, walking into a room, and getting an abortion.
Assuming that a woman knows what she is doing, and abortion was illegal, do you advocate murder one charges against the woman, which would include the higher punishment a state offers?
Well, EGV… while I type a reply to your other comment on the “Palin” sub-issue: perhaps you could clarify your OWN thoughts, re: women who procure abortions? You (according to what you say here) think women obviously know what they’re doing when they get abortions (unless they’re “so stupid” as “not to have any idea”), and you’ve stated plainly that you think abortion to be a terrible thing that should be eradicated. Do you consider Carla, for example, to be a murderer? I do not, since I’m well aware of the manifold, society-wide net of deceit that has permeated every layer of our society in the past 50 years (to which Carla has attested, in her own story, many times over)… but you don’t seem to have that luxury (of calling such women “deceived”, since you think they’d have to be extremely stupid in order to qualify for that)… so: what say you?
Ex-Gop, I said I was talking about prosecution, what you can legally prove in a court of law. Look at it this way:
Prosecuter: this woman sought out a doctor willing to perform an abortion, she drove to the doctor, she paid the doctor, she laid on the table, she left the office and didn’t call the police. She is guilty of premeditated murder.
Woman/defense attorney: emotionally abusive spouse found abortion doctor and demanded she go, mother-in-law drove her to the office while threatening to tear apart her marriage if she doesn’t go through with it, she told the nurse at check in she didn’t want to do this and the nurse told her it would ‘be over soon’ and that they were ‘just removing a bunch of cells from the uterus, it’s not a baby yet’, the nurse then held her down while she begged the doctor to stop, she didn’t call the cops because she was afraid of her husband and public shame if she admitted what was done.
How could a jury convict? It’s her word against his, no evidence one can put forth can’t be countered by the other, those type of cases don’t typicially go to trial, much less conviction.
Now, is that the average abortion experience? Well, judging by post-abortive research a majority of women say they were cohersed or lied to, so average, maybe, maybe not. But common enough that proving that a woman actually went in with criminal premeditation to commit what she knew was a murder.
Do I think women who get abortions “know” what they are doing? To various degrees which means they are guilty to various degrees, almost none of them could be proven in a court of law. I have personally spoken to women (and I’m sure some could chime in on this blog) that really, truly believed when the person counseling then told them it wasn’t a baby, it wasn’t a human being, or it wasn’t anything but a clump of cells. They would never have had the abortion if they thought they were killing their offspring. And then I know people who had exspoused full understanding that abortion takes a human life, an innocent baby, and then, when faced with a ‘difficult’ circumstance (in the specific instance she was trying to hide her statutory rape relationship with a much younger man) decided to kill her baby.
Forgiveness and grace are wonderful, but are between individuals and God, *not* for the legal system. You murder, you should be punished for that murder (legally speaking). But you first have to prove that in a court of law. Anything you can’t prove is between you and God.
Paladin
I’m not aware of Carla’s story – most of the threads I jump on are more political in nature – I don’t stick around for the long, drag out debates between folks on the morality of abortion much. It is clear in my mind – long story short though, I’m guessing she had an abortion in life.
I’m saying that if we are going to make abortion illegal, I see no moral difference between the person who performs the abortion and the person who gets the abortion.
Now certainly there are exceptions – if a person was brought against their wil or if they have a mental deficiency – that is a different story. But if the legal definition is that a 1 week term baby is the same as a 40 year old, I don’t see how we could have laws that say that the woman is off with no legal punishment and the Dr. bears all the penalty.
At least if we have a law that said that, I wouldn’t see how it would be any more logical than a man who hires somebody to kill his wife, and then we punish only the actual person who pulled the trigger.
Now – with that being said, any woman who gets an abortion right now does so in a society in which we say that the legal definition is not what I said above – so somebody can simply and easily say that what they are abortion is not an actual person, so they are not a murderer. I can’t argue with that.
What I’m saying though is if abortion were illegal – or for anybody (including myself) that says that abortion is murder, separating the abortionist from the woman getting the abortion (along with anyone else involved) – I just don’t see that you can logically do that.
Jespren – I agree with you 100% actually – but if the law said that any pregnant woman is carrying a human being with full protection of the law, most of what you just said turns on its head. Somebody couldn’t believe that it was just a lump of cells anymore than a murder who says that somebody ‘deserved’ to die – to think so would really be no difference to the law.
The situation of forcing somebody – yes, surely that is different – but the vast minority. We’ve all seen the posts on this board of people who know exactly what they are doing, and go do it anyways.
“Woman/defense attorney: emotionally abusive spouse found abortion doctor and demanded she go, mother-in-law drove her to the office while threatening to tear apart her marriage if she doesn’t go through with it, she told the nurse at check in she didn’t want to do this and the nurse told her it would ‘be over soon’ and that they were ‘just removing a bunch of cells from the uterus, it’s not a baby yet’, the nurse then held her down while she begged the doctor to stop, she didn’t call the cops because she was afraid of her husband and public shame if she admitted what was done.”
And just how do you think any of these defenses would play out in a situation where abortion is now considered homicide? I have no idea what point you’re trying to make here, because if abortion is legal then it by definition cannot be murder and no charges can be brought in the first place, and if it isn’t legal, your suggested lines of defense in court would be as plausible as saying “my emotionally abusive husband demanded I shoot that convenience store clerk after taking the money from the cash register! My mother-in-law drove me there and said my marriage would fall to pieces if I didn’t do it! I thought he was a blob of cells!” and so on. You have either a very confused or very shallow understanding of the concept of criminal culpability.
And while we’re on the topic of lists, what would say about a list of all priests who have been accused of sexual abuse? Inasmuch as I loathe the Catholic church, I find it problematic that the names of these men are published in newspapers before any charges are filed
Thanks for that much anyway, CC. The persecution of priests, including innocent priests on these charges, is turning into a witch hunt.
Ex-Gop and Joan, the corrisponding legal system/defense is already frequently used. And, in all states, a person who is forced to commit a crime isn’t considered guilty (as in if you hold a gun on a store clerk while an acomplish robs it while a 3rd person holds a gun on you to ensure your complence), or if the person has diminished capacity because they were brainwashed/lied to (as in if you beat a guy off a girl screaming ‘rape’. Even if she *isn’t* being raped, she’s just setting the guy up, you aren’t guilty of assault, you were reasonable protecting the woman given the information you had), or if a person backs out (3 people are planning a robbery but at the last minute one of them runs away, he isn’t guilty of robbery, or if a woman says she wants sex but then, after some kisses says ‘no’, they guy is still guilty of rape if he continues even though he had her previous consent). Now I did note that it may be possible to prove them guilty of a lesser crime, manslaughter or neglegent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter. But a murder charge requires (the vast majority of the time) intent, but a woman who has been lied to or forced can’t intend to murder.
And Joan, your analogy is slightly off. It’s not ‘he deserved to die’ it would be more along the terms of ‘he isn’t alive so it’s impossible to kill him’. A person could very easily get found not guilty of a murder (probably due to diminished capacity or mental defect, but then it *is* something of a mental defect to think 2 human beings don’t create another human being, but many people believe that) if he convinced a jury he sincerly believed the person he shot/bludgened/whatever wasn’t alive when he did it. That he thought he was just disposing of a corpse. Abortion doctors, nurses, workers, and ex’s of all the above have been caught or have admitted they have told women the baby isn’t actually alive. Our society holds doctors and those who work in the medical field above the layperson, and automatically believes them which is sad because they lie like anyone else. But it does mean they are in a unique situtation to brainwash someone into believing that a living offspring isn’t really alive.
Most woman don’t choose abortion, they are forced into it, or have bought the lie that what they are doing isn’t a ‘real abortion’ (what I’ve heard people say about 1st term abortions or chemical abortions), or are convinced by current society that what they are removing isn’t really alive, human, or a real life. Just like slave holders frequently were. People who do an evil thing under the rule of law are very different than people who do the same evil thing when it is illegal. If abortion was illegal it would go back to being an extremely rare event, and those women who participate in it would be doing to from a completely separate mindset as women who would participate in it if it was illegal. Just like you can’t adequetly compair a slaveholder from the prebellium south to someone who keeps a slave today.
My original purpose was pointing out that expecting pro-life people to consider current abortive women with murders, expecting us to call to answer for their crime, is pointless from a legal perspective. If abortion became illegal tomorrow you simply couldn’t *legally* convict a women who aborted today (or tomorrow for that matter). Even the laws of yesteryear found such a conviction rarely possible.
None of this, frankly, as anything to do with what I would say from a personal or ideal situation. I’m strictly refering to a legal position and what is legally possible to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. We see it today in the opposite, lawyers and police who refuse to prosecute assault because the assalient is a doctor and the assault victim was in the hospital at the time of the assault. If abortion doctors by default because criminals we’d see the opposite, legally no one would believe the doctor that the woman fully consented if she says she didn’t.
sorry Joan, didn’t look back up while I was typing, Ex-Gop used that analogy, not you. You were more properly addressed later, I wasn’t really talking about a mindset where abortion is illegal, I was talking about why pro-lifers (rarely) call for the *current* prosecution of abortive women. Right *now* they can’t be proven to have criminal culpability. Doctors can be.
Joan, your slanderous comment has been removed.
I think it is pretty lame that Joan’s comment was deleted. If sites are going to post information on where people live, they should be able to deal with the criticism that this is going to bring. To try to hide behind that is sad.
Ex-GOP – I agree w/ you, but I do think you need to implement the prosecution in light of the years of propaganda and lies. After that, standard methods of proving intent at trial should be sufficient to deal with the various motivations and understandings of the mothers.
Carla, “I will politely excuse myself from any discussion of how I should be punished for my abortion.” Fair enough as long as you understand that the discussion is how you and others might be punished under a future system in which abortion is illegal and not retroactive punishment which is expressly forbidden by the constitution.
” Right *now* they can’t be proven to have criminal culpability. Doctors can be.”
No they can’t. Abortion is not illegal. You can’t be criminally culpable of something that isn’t a crime.
“Ex-GOP – I agree w/ you, but I do think you need to implement the prosecution in light of the years of propaganda and lies.”
Why would “years of propaganda and lies” matter at all if the law was changed?
Courtnay: Do you think for a second that if the clinic had told this girl in REAL TERMS what the next 4 years of her life was going to be like because of her decision, she would’ve signed up for any of it?
There is no way the clinic can predict just what all the woman’s experiences will be, and it would be ludicrous to assume that any certain conditions would necessarily apply.
Would you want women who willingly continue pregnancies and give birth to be told that they’re going to freak out, be suicidal, go all kooky, etc., just because some women have extreme post-partum feelings?
“I was totally humbeled and chastised by this meeting, and I knew that my husband and I were meant to be there, drinking some beers, with Jaime from Indiana. He is suffering, his poor daughter is suffering, and all of this becuase she had been sold a intrinsically false and evil bill of goods by the liberal media and feminsts: it’s not a baby, and it’s not a murder. Call it choice and it can be over quickly.”
Did you stop to consider that maybe her instability results from what seems to be a pretty poor relationship with her father? If you feel the need to “hide” something big like an abortion from your parents, then there’s probably something wrong there. What do you think he meant by “interfere,” too? Interfere, as in talk her out of getting the abortion? Punishing her for getting pregnant? Physically preventing her from getting to a clinic? What?
“Most woman don’t choose abortion, they are forced into it.”
Sure.
if abortion were to be made illegal once more then the punishment would depend upon the circumstances. i agree with ex gop. some women walk into that clinic because they know once they leave they wont be pregnant anymore. my moms friend in florida knows a doctor who had an abortion. she knew about fetal development. so do nurses who abort. i cannot label these women victims.
Did you stop to consider that maybe her instability results from what seems to be a pretty poor relationship with her father?
And why is it okay for other adults to enable what may already be a poor relationship and make it a worse one? How did killing an unborn child improve anyone’s relationships with their family members, Megan? Did you ever think that abortion has only caused more fathers to feel pushed away? After all, they have zero say in whether their children/grandchildren live or die.
If you feel the need to “hide” something big like an abortion from your parents, then there’s probably something wrong there.
You bet there is. Abortion is something BIG because a human life is lost. A family member is killed because no one steps in to help the family heal. Abortion further divides families.
Interfere, as in talk her out of getting the abortion? Punishing her for getting pregnant? Physically preventing her from getting to a clinic? What?
Maybe interfere as in offering to help her out, telling he loves her and his grand baby more than anything. Telling her he is sorry for his faults as a parent and wanting another chance to get it right.
This story seems to have hit close to home for you. I am sorry if you had a poor relationship with either or both of your parents, Megan. Even the women who freely choose abortion have my sympathy. Maybe even more than the women who are coerced/forced.
“After all, they have zero say in whether their children/grandchildren live or die.”
Wrong: they should have zero FINAL say. Kids should be able to talk to their parents openly. In my opinion, if a woman CAN’T talk to her partner about abortion, then something ain’t right. But ultimately, it’s the woman’s body. Her decision. She shouldn’t feel compelled to bear children for her partner, her family, or anybody else.
And a poor relationship with my parents…no, not at all. They supported me in my decision. They would have supported me to have made a different decision. There’s no reason to feel sympathy for me, at all. I made the decision I did and I’ll stand by it.
“Funny, CC, we never hear you condemning men who force women into abortions or kill women who are pregnant… probably because you applaud their actions. Abortion at all costs, right?”
Wrong. She has condemned on this site. Force of any kind is not pro-choice. This “abortion at all costs” BS (along with portrayals of PP as some kind of demented “industry”) is all part of this weird strawman argument you have going on. The fact that you’re starting to believe these lies is actually scary.
CT,
:) I have a lawyer friend who assures me of the same.
That would be ex post facto plus the statute of limitations. I can’t be tried for an offense which wasn’t illegal at the time I committed it. The constitutional and procedural impediments are insuperable. Any law that attempted to punish such past formerly legal conduct would violate the Constitution’s prohibition against ex post facto laws.
There are quite a few commenters that like to speculate on the punishment for post abortive moms. Kind of a “somebody’s gotta pay” attitude. They are free to yap without my input.
Megan and Doug,
I am praying for you today. You fail to mention the child. The child that dies in abortion. The child that was living was killed. That unique life was ended. You fail to see. You fail to acknowledge. You fail to grasp the truth. You fail to see that a woman killing her own child will absolutely suffer for it even when she herself does not realize it. It is inescapable. You don’t have a living human being, your own flesh and blood, sucked out of you and NOT be affected by it.
That, is cognitive dissonance. You deny the truth and trumpet lies here in the face of science and biology and human experience.
Megan you will continue defending the killing of your own flesh and blood for as long as you can bear it. It will begin to look like self punishment to come to a prolife blog and justify the death of your own child in your abortion. When/if it becomes too much for you and you need help you know where to find me. There is hope and healing after abortion.
Yesterday was National Infant Loss Remembrance Day. I thought of all of the women around me who pretend a bunch of cells or a piece of tissue was removed. I thought of them as I grieved my own children lost to abortion and miscarriage.
and just to be clear if ANY priests molest anyone they must be punished. cc do you hear me? he should go to jail like any child molester.~
Here you go Ex GOP
This is my story. A 7 minute 49 second video. Not too drawn out for you I hope. :)
And please remember that my story is hardly “isolated.” I am not alone in my experience at all.
http://outcrywisconsin.blogspot.com/2009/03/my-story-at-faith-community-church.html
Megan and Doug, I am praying for you today. You fail to mention the child. The child that dies in abortion. The child that was living was killed. That unique life was ended. You fail to see. You fail to acknowledge. You fail to grasp the truth. You fail to see that a woman killing her own child will absolutely suffer for it even when she herself does not realize it. It is inescapable. You don’t have a living human being, your own flesh and blood, sucked out of you and NOT be affected by it.
That, is cognitive dissonance. You deny the truth and trumpet lies here in the face of science and biology and human experience.
Carla, our differences are really matters of belief, not of cognition.
Megan: Wrong. She has condemned on this site. Force of any kind is not pro-choice. This “abortion at all costs” BS (along with portrayals of PP as some kind of demented “industry”) is all part of this weird strawman argument you have going on. The fact that you’re starting to believe these lies is actually scary.
You know, though, Megan it’s not unusual. Arguments, debates, social causes, demonstrations, crusades, etc., often include many people who want to rant and rave, to rage and complain against “the other side.” Pro-Choice has plenty of them too.
You refuse to use your brain to grasp basic human reproduction, Doug.
When sperm and egg meet a new human being develops with it’s own unique DNA, it’s own unique fingerprints. ALL human traits of that being are already there. Eye color, height, hair color etc….
My kindergartner has already grasped the facts of basic human reproduction.
FACTS, Doug. Facts.
Not theories. Not beliefs. Facts.
ive even said on this blog that i drove a friend to have an abortion back in 94. my mom even said “the poor soul shouldnt have to make that decision.” her “catholic” mom told her to abort. the father was a bum who turned his phone off after jan told him she was pregnant. heck i didnt feel there was much i could do and she turned to me to take her to the clinic. i agreed. i went into the clinic. some girls were already showing. i was shocked! they showed a movie with an abortionist who had the personality of a doorknob. he explained the procedure. they took jan back and i watched the snow fall. i felt so blue. why didnt she have any support? anyway years later i realized that i drove a baby to his or her death. what is the difference between the death of an unborn child and shooting someone in the head? what if my friend had asked me to drive her to kill someone who owed her money? no different. im a libra so i look at matters from both sides. do my friend and i DESERVE prison? yes! will we go to prison? no.
And a poor relationship with my parents…no, not at all. They supported me in my decision.
Did/do your parents support you in all your decisions?
There’s no reason to feel sympathy for me, at all.
I’ll agree to disagree, Megan.
my opinion doesnt make me very popular but so what? i knew what i was doing but i still went. and please note that i have said that i deserve prison. we put people away for writing bad checks. drug dealing non payment of child support but we can kill our own children and get on with life. its insane!
In my opinion, if a woman CAN’T talk to her partner about abortion, then something ain’t right
Did this young lady, her mother and school employee even try to talk with her dad? What about the father of the baby? As you stated, they have no FINAL say, so why waste anyone’s breath. You don’t want equal rights. You want more rights.
Carla, our differences are really matters of belief, not of cognition.
Wrong, Doug. Human life begins at conception. As Carla said, this is a FACT, not a belief.
The FACT is that you and Megan support a mother’s right to choose to kill some (specifically a family member) human life.
This is the FACT that you take to the mirror everyday when you are brushing your teeth and washing your face. Own it.
Carla, our differences are really matters of belief, not of cognition
No, Doug, they are not. I can believe something that’s not true- it doesn’t make it true. The truth is objective and falsifiable. I could believe the world is flat. It doesn’t make it so because I believe it. I would simply be wrong.
An unborn human being is an unborn human being who is living and whom abortion kills. This isn’t a matter of “belief”- it’s a fact. Those that believe others are simply wrong.
You refuse to use your brain to grasp basic human reproduction, Doug.
When sperm and egg meet a new human being develops with it’s own unique DNA, it’s own unique fingerprints. ALL human traits of that being are already there. Eye color, height, hair color etc….
My kindergartner has already grasped the facts of basic human reproduction.
FACTS, Doug. Facts.
Not theories. Not beliefs. Facts.
Carla, we weren’t even talking about that.
“Carla, our differences are really matters of belief, not of cognition.”
Praxedes: Wrong, Doug. Human life begins at conception. As Carla said, this is a FACT, not a belief.
Never have said anything to the contrary.
____
The FACT is that you and Megan support a mother’s right to choose to kill some (specifically a family member) human life.
Where do you see me saying anything different? We were talking about the experiences of women who have abortions and of women who give birth.
___
This is the FACT that you take to the mirror everyday when you are brushing your teeth and washing your face. Own it.
And it’s fact that there is matter and energy in the universe. There too, we weren’t talking about that. Even with respect to the rest of the abortion debate – we aren’t disagreeing on matters of physical reality, physical fact, really. We’re disagreeing on our philosophies, subjective beliefs, etc.
“Carla, our differences are really matters of belief, not of cognition.”
Jacqueline: No, Doug, they are not. I can believe something that’s not true- it doesn’t make it true. The truth is objective and falsifiable. I could believe the world is flat. It doesn’t make it so because I believe it. I would simply be wrong.
An unborn human being is an unborn human being who is living and whom abortion kills. This isn’t a matter of “belief”- it’s a fact. Those that believe others are simply wrong.
Perfect illustration of Megan saying, “this weird strawman argument you have going on.” Where in this thread, or in any other thread, for that matter, do you see me saying anything to the contrary?
The FACT is that you and Megan support a mother’s right to choose to kill some (specifically a family member) human life.
Where do you see me saying anything different?
Thanks for owning that this is what you support, Doug.
Would you wear a tshirt that says “I Support a Mom Having the Choice to Kill Her Unborn Child” ? Or put this bumper sticker on your vehicle?
Thanks Carla for posting – was able to watch the whole thing without a kid coming and needing attention!
Praxedes: Thanks for owning that this is what you support, Doug.
If we are going with a very broad definition of “human being,” nothing more than “living human organism,” then yeah – the unborn, from conception, qualify. Heck, maybe the sperm and egg qualify too..
And of course, this is not what we were talking about.
___
Would you wear a tshirt that says “I Support a Mom Having the Choice to Kill Her Unborn Child” ? Or put this bumper sticker on your vehicle?
No, because that is putting your own subjective spin on it. Since when are the unborn necessarily “children”? Since never – it’s just as correct to assert that they aren’t “children” as to assert they are.
Talking about physical reality is one thing. Ranting, raving, and pretending that your take on things *has* to be the correct one is certainly quite another.
FOR MY FRIEND jAMIE and his daughter, they have come to know that her abortion was a killing of her child. That is what is causing their suffering—if it had been a routine surgery or a (I love this one) “procedure”, there would be no guilt, shame, sadness. In this world, you can become hard, but these two chose not to. Their willingness to stay human has cost them their own joy, comfort and serenity.
Jamie’s daughter got pregnant in high school by another high school boy. The mom saw the pregnancy as a problem to be done away with, and on the day her daughter aborted, would not allow Jamie access to her. The school helped her with this. Yes, Jamie tried to interfere—so would have i, if my child was about to kill my grandchild. I obviously would have the wisdom to look beyond the scary moment and the scary situation and know abortion has at least 2 victims, minimum. Interfering would be my GOD-GIVEN responsibility.
Megan, i am sorry that your parents didn’t stand up for you and your baby. You will write back and tell me you aren’t sorry, but no one here who is for LIFE believes you. Again, there’s healing for you.
Doug: when a man and a woman procreate, it’s a baby. Another way to say this is a CHILD. Even my 8 year old who watches WAY too much Sponge Bob knows this. Why don’t you? Oh that’s right–in your world, if you redefine something, you can change what it really is.
Courtnay: Doug: when a man and a woman procreate, it’s a baby. Another way to say this is a CHILD. Even my 8 year old who watches WAY too much Sponge Bob knows this. Why don’t you? Oh that’s right–in your world, if you redefine something, you can change what it really is.
You can say “baby” or “not baby” and both are equally correct. Same, even more so, for “child.” That is not the abortion debate. And anyway – heh – again, this is not what we were talking about. You are proceeding as if one woman’s experience somehow magically “has” to be the “right” one and/or the same as that of other women, and that is simply not true.
Carla, I just watched your testimony. Thank you for the privilege. Thanks you for the work you are doing.
Doug, take the time to watch it. Whether or not it’s a baby or child is tied DIRECTLY to the abortion debate. Carla was told she was getting rid of red circles. When she miscarried, she realized, no, that was a child, her child that she had killed. We have already decided that we won’t kill children in America. It IS against the law. So, either that baby that Carla or Megan were carrying (not wanted) or the babies I carried (wanted) are persons, or they are not. It can’t be both. Either it is or it isn’t. Being wanted does not confer worth.
Megan will come to this realization. I hope the Holy Spirit is with her and comforting her when this happens. But not all choices are equal. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the unborn, this is the truth. You can’t reframe it any other way.
it’s just as correct to assert that they aren’t “children” as to assert they are.
Call THEM what you wish, Doug. It won’t change the FACT that THEY ARE before abortion and THEY AIN’T after.
“Would you wear a tshirt that says “I Support a Mom Having the Choice to Kill Her Unborn Child” ? Or put this bumper sticker on your vehicle?”
You know that we could both appeal to people’s raw emotions all day, right? Would YOU sport a t-shirt that says, “I support a rapist’s right to father his child?”
id happily wear a shirt that says “planned parenthood doesnt report rape or incest” it leaves an opening for the girl to be raped all over again. just like the 2 minors in kansas who both became pregnant from their dad several times each. he just kept taking them for abortions so he could keep raping them.
I support a rapist’s right to father his child.
We don’t. We think the rapist should be in jail, unable to father his child. We don’t support the death penalty for the child, though. You don’t oppose a rapist “fathering” a child, you just support killing the child. I would wear a shirt that says, “I support the right of children concieved in rape to live.” or “I oppose abortion is all cases, even rape.”
Megan, the rapist’s child doesn’t know how s/he was conceived. We can love and support BOTH the mom and baby.
Hi Doug,
Central to ANY discussion of abortion with those that believe as you do,(women’s right to choose, buncha cells, nonsentient, blob of tissue, simple procedure, helps women) is exactly what happens during an abortion. A unique preborn human being is killed. Another fact that you don’t want to face. But nice side step….We weren’t even talking about that!! :)
Thank you EX GOP! How did you manage to not be interrupted by a child? I need to know this information!
Thank you Courtnay!
I appreciate that you both watched it. It means a lot to me.
Would YOU sport a t-shirt that says, “I support a rapist’s right to father his child?”
Megan, no, I wouldn’t. I’d wear one that says, “Rapists Belong in Jail” or “Don’t Kill Children for the Crimes of Their Parents” or “Killing the Unborn Will Never Stop Rape”
Did/do your parents support you in all your decisions?
“Did/do your parents support you in all your decisions?”
I’m not sure where you’re getting at here, since you’ve asked this question twice. My parents have supported nearly all the decisions I’ve made since high school. Bright copper hair dye wasn’t really their thing.
“Megan, the rapist’s child doesn’t know how s/he was conceived. We can love and support BOTH the mom and baby.”
That’s certainly true. Listen, if something traumatic like rape happened to you and you wanted to keep your child, all the more power to you. I would want an abortion, though. “Oh, you were just violated? Well congratulations, now you get to be a mom, no choice at all. Woo!” That’s not my idea of compassionate, Courtnay.
Oh, you were just violated? Well congratulations, now you get to be a mom, no choice at all. Woo!” That’s not my idea of compassionate, Courtnay.
What is this false dichotomy that pro-abortion folks have that it’s either a dead baby or parenthood? Not killing a child doesn’t mean a person must RAISE that child- adoption is an option. Abortion is an inherently selfish thing so I know someone who supports abortion can’t fathom bearing a child if that person doesn’t want to keep the baby for themselves- but just because you would never do something sacrificial for your own child doesn’t mean that others wouldn’t. Adoption exists. It just doesn’t help your agenda to acknowledge it.
P.S. Violating a woman TWICE- this time with metal dialators, a suction machine and a currette isn’t my idea of compassionate, Megan. Taking hundreds of her dollars and giving her a shredded baby and returning her to the streets bleeding doesn’t sound compassionate to me, either. Compouding her trauma with more trauma doesn’t help. The second victim of rape, the baby- also doesn’t find your solution to rape compassionate when he/she could end up in the arms of a well-equipped and doting adoptive family rather than in a garbage disposal, incinerator or bucket of formaldehyde. Let’s be honest- you support abortion in cases of rape because you support abortion in all cases, even when a woman wasn’t violated, just irresponsible- like you.
Would you wear a t-shirt which says “I Support Forced Pregnancy“?
What about the second violation of forcing a woman to go through a complete pregnancy and then giving birth – with it’s accompanying higher chances of death – Jacqueline?
Rape that results in pregnancy IS forced pregnancy, because the person was impregnated by force. This is the only time that trite phrase has actually been used correctly- so kudos to you, Reality! A smidgeon of honesty emerges, even if by accident!
That being said-rape is a horrible thing, but violence doesn’t undo more violence. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Killing the child doesn’t un-do the rape. Overcoming a violent crime is unfair and complicated based on the consequences of that crime- but no one is forcing a woman to DO anything by opposing additional violence against the baby, another innocent victim of rape. Pregnancy and childbirth are natural acts, even if the impregnation was violent and unnatural. If I could un-do a rape I would, but killing the woman’s child doesn’t un-do anything. It just turns a rape into a rape and a murder.
But this is a futile conversation, because you support killing babies conceived with full consent by both parties who decide afterwards that they don’t want a baby after all- or wanted a boy and not a girl, or wouldn’t dare want a child with a cleft palate. You support killing children for any reason or no reason at all because you want to have sex but not responsibility for your actions- so of course you will support killing a child who has a rapist for a father. In fact, rape is what most abortion-fetishists steer debates toward so they can feign to be driven by compassion and not just depraved self-serving filth. But your reputation preceeds you so we all know better.
“Let’s be honest- you support abortion in cases of rape because you support abortion in all cases, even when a woman wasn’t violated, just irresponsible- like you.”
Yes, that’s right. I support a woman’s right to access abortion under any and all circumstances.
“But just because you would never do something sacrificial for your own child doesn’t mean that others wouldn’t.”
Sure, some do, and all the more power to them. But you really can’t compel women to bear children for other people, you know.
A young person is heavily engrossed in their studies or starting their career.
Heck, they may even be practising abstinence so they can devote all their time and energy.
Then they become the unfortunate victim of some crazed idiot’s power-trip and find themselves pregnant.
And your response Jacqueline is that they must go through nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth.
“but no one is forcing a woman to DO anything by opposing additional violence against the baby” – really? How does that work?
But you really can’t compel women to bear children for other people, you know
I don’t. I oppose surrogacy (where women truly are violating their dignity to serve as mere incurbators for pay- a form of prostitution)- and if any women were conceiving children to place for adoption I would be deeply disturbed. I am not compelling a woman to bear a child for another- I am saying that if one conceives a child and the cirumstances are so dire that she can’t or doesn’t want to parent to the extent that they would kill the child, then they should place the child for adoption instead. It’s not a choice shredded baby or parenting- a person CAN choose to not shred the baby and not parent either.
Once again, it’s not “for other people”- you act as if self-seeking adults are all who matter. It’s about honoring the child’s right to LIVE. I don’t care about making an adoptive couple happy (although that’s a great thing)- they aren’t on my radar as they don’t have a right to another person’s child. A person can give them rights, but until those rights are freely given, they don’t exist. It’s about an alternative to death and dismemberment for the child.
“In fact, rape is what most abortion-fetishists steer debates toward so they can feign to be driven by compassion and not just depraved self-serving filth. But your reputation preceeds you so we all know better.”
Maybe “abortion-fetishists” steer debates in that direction because there’s nothing that sounds more cruel than depriving a rape survivor control over her body a SECOND time. And I can’t believe you’d say something so horribly stupid, that pregnancy doesn’t require a woman to “do” anything. If a pregnant woman develops PPROM and needs to lie in bed for several weeks, is she sacrificing herself enough for your liking? Ha, What did they teach you in Catholic school, that babies are left by the tooth fairy? That lovely statement is just more irrefutable proof that you view pregnant women as mere incubators for developing life.
But back to the rape thing: it hits close to home. Two of my best friends were raped in college (one incredibly violently). Neither of them imagines, wistfully, what life would be like now if *only* that incredible act of violence had resulted in a pregnancy. Neither of them regrets taking a certain little pill the morning after those horrible nights. But if one of my friends had gotten pregnant and wanted to go through with it–that would have been her choice. Her. empowering. choice.
And beyond pregnancies that are a result from coercive sex–yep, it doesn’t really matter to me how a woman got pregnant. If she (and no, not her husband, boyfriend, mother-in-law, etc etc) wants an abortion, she should be able to access one.
A young person is heavily engrossed in their studies or starting their career.
Because no one can work while pregnant or studying?
Heck, they may even be practising abstinence so they can devote all their time and energy.
So what?
Then they become the unfortunate victim of some crazed idiot’s power-trip and find themselves pregnant.
That’s horrible. Absolutely horrible. Tell me again how killing the baby will un-do the rape?
And your response Jacqueline is that they must go through nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth.
The only alternative is murdering another victim of the rape. Even if killing the second victim would help the first victim, no, I would never support killing the second victim.
“but no one is forcing a woman to DO anything by opposing additional violence against the baby” – really? How does that work?
By not imposing additional violence against the baby. Do I really have to explain that NOT forceably prying open a woman’s cervix and entering her womb and cutting/sucking out the child will likely result in an infant in 9 months? Pregnancy is a natural state of being that involves no effort. You don’t have to DO anything to stay pregnant. You do have to have surgery to cease being pregnant, unless the child dies naturally or is born.
“Pregnancy is a natural state of being that involves no effort.”
Are you stupid?
“That’s horrible. Absolutely horrible. Tell me again how killing the baby will un-do the rape?” – it won’t, but the second violation of forcing her to carry and deliver is horrible, absolutely horrible.
Do I really have to explain that the risks of pregnancy and childbirth are greater than for abortion?
“Pregnancy is a natural state of being that involves no effort. You don’t have to DO anything to stay pregnant.” – seriously? No effort? And what about childbirth, how does that work, no effort?
What you describe is fetus first, woman second – again.
And I can’t believe you’d say something so horribly stupid, that pregnancy doesn’t require a woman to “do” anything.
Newsflash, Megan- you paid someone to surgically kill your child in the womb because you knew that if you didn’t, you would have a full-term infant you didn’t want to care for. You had to DO something to cease being pregnant- you wouldn’t have had to do anything to remain pregnant. It’s not stupid, it’s true. Most women don’t require surgery to stay pregnant, but most women require surgery to cease being pregnant (if you don’t count childbirth).
If a pregnant woman develops PPROM and needs to lie in bed for several weeks, is she sacrificing herself enough for your liking?
Because that happens all the time, right?
Ha, What did they teach you in Catholic school, that babies are left by the tooth fairy?
Didn’t go to Catholic school- all my degrees are from public universities, but you are the one that can’t grasp the connection between sex and babies. I know babies come from sex. Still waiting for you to grasp that concept that it’s completely possible not to conceive a baby if you don’t want to be pregnant. But any kind of self-denial is a non-option for you, isn’t it? You’d rather do as you please and kill any children you make.
That lovely statement is just more irrefutable proof that you view pregnant women as mere incubators for developing life.
Nope. I value women as women. You hate biological functions innate to womanhood- like ovulation (you take a pill to stop that), menstration (you probably take a pill to stop that, too), pregnancy (you have surgery to stop that) and lactation (you won’t let it get that far). You hate women- or at least, everything about a woman’s body that makes her a woman.
But back to the rape thing: it hits close to home. Two of my best friends were raped in college (one incredibly violently). Neither of them imagines, wistfully, what life would be like now if *only* that incredible act of violence had resulted in a pregnancy.
My sympathies to them. With rape so rampant that two of your best friends endured it, I wonder how legal abortion “fixes” rape. Maybe all it does it destroy evidence, allowing rapists to go free and victimize more women.
And beyond pregnancies that are a result from coercive sex–yep, it doesn’t really matter to me how a woman got pregnant. If she (and no, not her husband, boyfriend, mother-in-law, etc etc) wants an abortion, she should be able to access one.
At least your are consistent- insane, but consistent- only if you support abortion post-viability, too. You probably do.
Do I really have to explain that the risks of pregnancy and childbirth are greater than for abortion?
No, because you’d be wrong. There is a 100% chance that someone will die in an abortion. Most people do not die from pregnancy, but at least one person, something more than one, die from an abortion.
What you describe is fetus first, woman second – again.
Nope. I am not saying “kill the woman, save the child.” I’m saying DON’T KILL ANYONE. The stakes aren’t equal- it’s one person dying to supposedly make another person, who will live anyway, somewhat “better off.”
If a pregnant woman develops PPROM and needs to lie in bed for several weeks, is she sacrificing herself enough for your liking?
Because that happens all the time, right?
Recent studies indicate that the incidence of PROM among all deliveries in the US hovers around the 5% range. But conditions like gestational diabetes, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and pre-eclampsia also account for a lot of the maternal morbidity we see today. Oh, but according to Ms. Out-of-Touch, managing a complex diagnosis like diabetes during pregnancy doesn’t qualify as DOING anything. Fancy that. I guess unless a pregnant woman gets a c-section, an episiotomy, or some other form of invasive surgery, then she isn’t actively DOING anything.
“You hate women- or at least, everything about a woman’s body that makes her a woman.”
Again with the weird strawman argument. So now I hate womanhood. Interesting. Does that mean that I hate people with poor vision if I choose to wear glasses? Do I hate short people if I like to wear heels when I go out? Do I hate autistic people if I volunteer at a community center that helps them to develop better interpersonal skills?
“With rape so rampant that two of your best friends endured it, I wonder how legal abortion “fixes” rape. Maybe all it does it destroy evidence, allowing rapists to go free and victimize more women.”
Well no, see, that’s your own fabrication again. Rape stems from the same place that your pro-life mentality does: that other people’s interests and desires are more important than our right to say what happens to our bodies.
Oh good, so now you think unborn children should be used as “evidence” of wrongdoing. Wow. What does that make the pregnant woman, then? A crime scene?
Do I have to explain that we have NO VERIFIABLE DATA on the risks of abortion AT ALL. Some states do not even require such records be kept or reported. Anyone who says that abortion is safer than pregnancy is outright lying because YOU DON’T REALLY KNOW.
And it was nice to see an abortion advocate admit that women who let their babies live are more empowered than those that don’t. Let’s copy and paste, shall we:
and all the more power to them
Ah, I like that. It has a nice ring to it.
I’m bored with your pro-abortion rhetoric, commentors. You always do the predictable thing. Even though women kill their twins because they only want one, kill their daughters because they want sons, kill their extra embryos because they don’t want to raise them all, march in the streets chanting that they want abortion-on-demand-without-apology,
even though: you still try to throw the rape card and tell us how mean and uncaring we are because we don’t want rape victims to kill their children. You yourselves offer the rape victim nothing at all. Nothing. Just kill your child and it will be better than letting an innocent human being live.
And doesn’t this whole discussion about abortion always leave out men? Men, in the abortion advocates eyes, have no power over their own reproduction whatsoever. If a man wants to have a child, he must have the woman’s full consent because she’s allowed to kill his child at any stage of development for 9 months. Now, if a man rapes a woman, everybody agrees that’s illegal. But if a woman consents to sex, she can kill any man’s child, no matter how wonderful or terrible he is. A man, in 2011 American society, has no reproductive RIGHTS whatsoever. The future of his lineage, his very DNA, is in the hands of the opposite sex, yes, in the hands of a whole half of the human race that may at any time slaughter his unborn child legally and often using the taxpayers money.
Before you abortion fans jump up and cheer, Of course he has no reproductive rights!, just stop and think for a moment. Think how sad that is. It’s a sad, sad situation. And all you can say is yes, by all means, we must be able to kill. You are sick and your sickness has infected the human race itself.
Jacqueline, an early abortion is safer than pregnancy and childbirth.
Under your proposition, if a raped woman is prevented from having an abortion and then either dies or suffers a debilitating condition during pregnancy or childbirth it’s “oh well, it was worth the risk”.
You are forcing women to take a risk that they had no intention of undertaking at that time.
Like I said, fetus first, woman second.
“If a man wants to have a child, he must have the woman’s full consent because she’s allowed to kill his child at any stage of development for 9 months.”
Um, what’s your alternative there, ninek? Care to re-enact the “Rape of the Sabine Women,” hmm? Your girlfriend’s unwilling? Just take care of her when she’s sleeping! Really though, think about the inconsistencies in your logic. You don’t think that men should be able to tell women to get abortions, yet you have no problem with men compelling their partners to bear their children? Screwy.
And if you really want to know what I think, and not just whine about how much I hate men or whatever, here’s this: I think that sex and reproduction should be shared decisions. Both partners should be talking about contraception. Both partners should talk about pregnancy, childbirth, and abortion. If you can’t consult your partner when you want to get an abortion, what does that say about your relationship? But yes, ultimately, it’s the woman’s decision. Until we can incubate an unborn child in a test tube or something, then we have to respect the wishes of the woman giving up her body for that new life. You can’t try to restrict everybody else’s rights because you made a decision you can’t live with, ninek.
Also, our secondary data systems in the US can be pretty shoddy, mostly because the health care system is so fragmented. But in western European countries, they keep great health records, including statistics on abortion.
And surprise, first-term abortions are still safer than childbirth.
So now I hate womanhood. Interesting.
You see being a woman and functioning as a healthy woman as a problem you must fix. If you see functioning female reproductive organs as a problem, yes, darling, you are a self-loathing misogynist.
Does that mean that I hate people with poor vision if I choose to wear glasses?
Again, having something WRONG with your eyes that you need glasses to fix is not the same as having something RIGHT with your ovaries and uterus that you break. You don’t fix your female reporductive organs to function properly as a woman- you disable them in order to function like a man.
Do I hate autistic people if I volunteer at a community center that helps them to develop better interpersonal skills?
Ha! You lost me at “you” and “volunteering to help others” in the same sentence!
Well no, see, that’s your own fabrication again. Rape stems from the same place that your pro-life mentality does: that other people’s interests and desires are more important than our right to say what happens to our bodies.
Actually, you think YOUR interests and desires are more important than your own child’s existence. And for the last time: do what you want with your body, but dismembering your child is not acceptable.
And Megan, I rebuke your veiled curses that you throw upon me- all those evil wishes about horrible fates befalling me that you tend to throw out every chance you get- about my daughters getting pregnant (a legitimate fear of mine since they were sexually abused). I rebuke your curses on me and my happy family in the name of Jesus. Ironically, I can speak authoritatively that none of those scenarios you wish upon me that would supposedly change my convictions would actually change my convictions. No matter anyway, because my lifestyle guiding by my convictions has only brought me good things, in spite of inheriting pain from people who had different lifestyles and no convictions. I abide by reasonable convictions and those that also abide by them tend to be joyful, loved, loving and successful- just like I am. I already pity you and the life you’ve lived and continue to live. You are choosing to be an evil person who participates in evil rather than a good person sowing goodness. Believe it or not, I want you to choose good things and be happy and healthy and successful. I really hope you repent.
Jacqueline, an early abortion is safer than pregnancy and childbirth.
No, it’s not. Like I said, one person (at minimum) dies in an abortion. That’s a 100% mortality rate. That’s unsafe. We don’t kill some people because it would be “safer” for other people, especially when the risk of that person dying is negligable.
Under your proposition, if a raped woman is prevented from having an abortion and then either dies or suffers a debilitating condition during pregnancy or childbirth it’s “oh well, it was worth the risk”
You suggest that we should have killed the child “just in case” the woman might have a rare complication. Pre-emptive killing to save a life that is not in imminent danger- I don’t think so.
You are forcing women to take a risk that they had no intention of undertaking at that time.
No, the rape did that. I am simply not killing a child because of “risks”- The rape was a tragedy- The woman had no intention of being assaulted at that time, having nightmares, any of it. It sucks- but so does murdering a child.
Like I said, fetus first, woman second.
Actually, it’s mother and child as equally dignified human beings deserving of protection, but since you are fine with “woman first, fetus dead” for any reason, I could see you not understanding equality and having to put one human being in power, oppressing another human being. It doesn’t have to be that way. People can be given equal rights.
“No, it’s not. Like I said, one person (at minimum) dies in an abortion” – yes it is. An early term fetus is not a ‘person’.
“You suggest that we should have killed the child” – no I don’t. I suggest that the rape victim be free to choose to terminate the forcibly implanted fetus.
“Actually it’s mother and child as equally dignified human beings” – no, it’s not.
An early term fetus is not a ‘person’.
Neither were blacks according to the U.S. Supreme Court prior to the 14th amendment or Jews, Homosexuals, and the Disabled according to the Third Reich. Defining who is and is not a person in order to kill them is the oldest trick in the book. An early-term human fetus is a human being. Human beings are also known as people. One human being dies in every abortion- whether you call him/her a “person” or not.
Like I said, this is futile. You support killing human beings regardless of the circumstance of conception, so arguing the circumstances of conception is pointless.
There is a significant difference between a ‘person’ and an early term fetus, on many levels. There is no real difference between a ‘black’ person and a ‘white’ person. There is no real difference between a straight person and a gay person (albeit some of you would argue otherwise).
And you argue that the continued existence of a fetus is paramount no matter what the circumstance of conception or the impact on the woman.
This isn’t that hard to grasp, dude:
A human fetus is a human being. His/her mother is a human being. Human beings are of EQUAL VALUE and should have EQUAL RIGHTS. I have no right to kill another human being because of an undesirable impact on me. A human being has no right to kill me because of my impact of them. Human beings are EQUAL. You believe in oppression- one person having the right to kill another person if that person inconveniences or imposes upon them.
Differences between human beings don’t change the fact that all human beings are human beings. If I were disfigured and because disabled and no longer looked or functioned like a human being, I’d still be a human being. A human being at any stage of development is still a human being regardless of what “differences” you think make the human being less than a person and therefore acceptable to kill.
Megan 1:50am
“I hope you don’t accidentally marry some jerk who starts hitting you when you have an 18 month old and have just conceived another child”
When my mother was pregnant with me my abusive father knocked her down the stairs. She had two other children. I’m thankful she didn’t abort me.
BTW, do you realize you said “…conceived another child“?
The trolls need some sleep, y’all. Let them lie.
Seems that “abortion is safer than childbirth” may be proven untrue in the near future.
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/03/31/int-1496/
If you can’t consult your partner when you want to get an abortion, what does that say about your relationship?
The topic of abortion should come up before you have sex with him!
I repeat: You do NOT know the abortion complication information: it is not reported accurately. Anyone who says abortion this is safer, abortion that is safer IS A LIAR.
And Megsenstein, darling, if a man has consensual sex with a woman, she can kill his child at any time. Sure, you celebrate this. You are the stooge of the pornography industry. Follow the money, Megster, and you will see that pornographers have been financing abortion, Planned Parenthood, AND pro-abortion lobbyists and lawmakers for DECADES. Gosh, is there a link between pornography and rape? What? There is?! Whodda thunk, right? You and your fetus-hating friends just love to vilify men and try to link the pro-life movement with rape. It is YOU, abortion advocates, who are increasing a woman’s risk of being raped. It is YOU, abortion advocates, who are increasing a woman’s objectification. It is YOU who are helping eliminate women from the world’s population by sex selective abortions. It is YOU who are pushing the chemicals and procedures that increase a woman’s cancer risk. It is YOU, YOU, YOU who are killing off another generation of firstborn while rendering many of their mothers scarred and infertile. Look in the mirror, abortion fans, YOU are creating your own reality.
I maybe be pointing the finger at abortion advocates, and all the soft-n-mushy therapists write articles and books that you should never use you. But sometimes, we need someone to be blunt with us. I was pro-choice once upon a time. I had to face the hard facts, too. You can re-join the human race at any time. Get used to the phrase your peers will be saying in droves: “Well, I’m not one of those pro-lifers but I do think abortion is wrong.” I have great confidence in people, I think abortionists can see that it’s not worth it. There are better ways to use your medical education than traveling the country like a Halloween ghoul and killing children for money.
Courtnay: Doug, take the time to watch it. Whether or not it’s a baby or child is tied DIRECTLY to the abortion debate. Carla was told she was getting rid of red circles. When she miscarried, she realized, no, that was a child, her child that she had killed. We have already decided that we won’t kill children in America. It IS against the law. So, either that baby that Carla or Megan were carrying (not wanted) or the babies I carried (wanted) are persons, or they are not.
Courtnay, you are confusing many things. One woman’s experience in no way necessarily applies to all women or to another given woman. No, whether one thinks the unborn are “babies” or “children” or not does not have any necessary bearing on that abortion debate. One can be against abortion without thinking those terms apply, and one can think they apply and be for legal abortion. You then go on to confuse those terms with personhood, which is a different thing itself. However, at least personhood is indeed a meaningful part of the abortion argument.
“it’s just as correct to assert that they aren’t “children” as to assert they are.”
Praxedes: : Call THEM what you wish, Doug. It won’t change the FACT that THEY ARE before abortion and THEY AIN’T after.
If you have any point here at all, I can only think you are implying that I’ve said something to the contrary, and that would be you simply conjuring things up.
Carla: Central to ANY discussion of abortion with those that believe as you do,(women’s right to choose, buncha cells, nonsentient, blob of tissue, simple procedure, helps women) is exactly what happens during an abortion.
Carla, I know you’re a good, caring person, and I wasn’t even going to argue much with you on this thread…. Yet, quite a few people, as well as you, went totally tangential, at best. “A bunch of cells” applies to you and me. As far as the unborn “only” being a bunch of cells, i.e. before there is noticeable form – I’d say it’s between the blastocyst stage and the embryo. I believe that after conception, “a bunch of cells” applies until it does not. How can you argue with that?
____
A unique preborn human being is killed. Another fact that you don’t want to face. But nice side step….We weren’t even talking about that!! :)
That’s BS, nonsense, and baloney, plain and simple. What in the world do you mean by “you don’t want to face”? I’ve agreed with it literally hundreds of times. Yes, “human being” applies at conception, and agreed – it’s a living human organism, and unique.
Jacqueline: Like I said, one person (at minimum) dies in an abortion.
That is not true. It is the fact that personhood is not attributed to the unborn that has you dissatisfied with things, from the get-go, here.
“Neither were blacks according to the U.S. Supreme Court prior to the 14th amendment or Jews, Homosexuals, and the Disabled according to the Third Reich.”
It’s almost embarrassing for you to keep bringing up US slavery and the Holocaust. I wouldn’t expect you to get the irony that the rape, coercive impregnation, and general oppression of women were all hallmarks of these two dark periods of human history. Women forced to bear the children of their owners, women forced to continue unwanted pregnancies by fiat: same difference.
Doug the dancer, dancing through the issues of life and death with a callous regard only for empty rhetoric.
Person, not a person. Living human organism to which we assign no value. Fine, Doug. You assign it no value. Society (when it comes to abortion) assigns it no value. Therefore, you assume, the human life is intrinsically of no value since it’s not a “person.”
Living human organisms which are deemed to have no value to society are therefore exterminated at the will and whim of other living human organisms who are deemed to have rights accorded them by society. Do I have it right?
Reading crap from people who devalue other humans just gets nauseating after a while. I feel like I’m talking to the Mad Hatter in Wonderland.
That’s BS, nonsense, and baloney, plain and simple. What in the world do you mean by “you don’t want to face”? I’ve agreed with it literally hundreds of times. Yes, “human being” applies at conception, and agreed – it’s a living human organism, and unique.
Yes, “human being” applies at conception, and agreed,-it’s a living human organism, and unique THAT DIES IN AN ABORTION.
There much better.
Hey Courtnay,
As a rule
Doug will always try to minimize my abortion story as “just one woman’s experience.” You’ve done it for what? 4 years now Doug???
Carla, I got your back. Next time I’m in Wisconsin (I go 2x a year), we’ll get together for a drink and be “tangential” together.
Kel: Doug the dancer, dancing through the issues of life and death with a callous regard only for empty rhetoric.
Good grief – I’m the one who’s staying on track here. Yes, there is the issue of the life of the unborn. There is also the issue of the liberty of the woman. If there is “empty rhetoric” it is on the part of those who pretend that their opinion somehow magically *has* to be the right one, the only right one.
___
Person, not a person. Living human organism to which we assign no value. Fine, Doug. You assign it no value. Society (when it comes to abortion) assigns it no value. Therefore, you assume, the human life is intrinsically of no value since it’s not a “person.”
I am for letting the pregnant woman or the couple make the valuation, Kel. I am for letting them have the freedom to do that. “Person” or not is a separate thing – that’s really a societal construct and the application of it – on a societal basis, to the unborn – is what you want. “No intrinsic value” is not dependent on personhood or not. Personhood need not come into it. It’s enough to see the difference between mental feelings and external reality.
____
Living human organisms which are deemed to have no value to society are therefore exterminated at the will and whim of other living human organisms who are deemed to have rights accorded them by society. Do I have it right?
No, you don’t have it right. You’re generalizing incorrectly, first of all. I am not saying “no value.” I am saying to a point in gestation the liberty of the woman has enough value to outweigh society’s valuation, if any.
Carla: Yes, “human being” applies at conception, and agreed,-it’s a living human organism, and unique THAT DIES IN AN ABORTION.
And when have you ever seen me disagree with that?
___
Hey Courtney, As a rule Doug will always try to minimize my abortion story as “just one woman’s experience.” You’ve done it for what? 4 years now Doug?
That is also untrue. I’ve never said you should feel differently than you do. I’ve never said you were in any way being false about describing your experience. I’ve never demeaned you or put you down about anything you said, there. It is not minimizing your story to note that not every woman has anything similar, that in fact many, many women are quite satisfied with having had abortions, and that they would do the same thing again in similar circumstances.
And this is what I first replied to Courtnay about – she was talking about a clinic telling a girl what the next four years of her life were going to be like. There is no way any clinic can do that with any accuracy – it would be ludicrous for them to try – any sane clinic would see it that way. Courtnay was taking one given situation and proceeding as if it somehow has to apply to other given women, and that, frankly, is just silly.
Thus my example: “Would you want women who willingly continue pregnancies and give birth to be told that they’re going to freak out, be suicidal, go all kooky, etc., just because some women have extreme post-partum feelings”
Doug, the newborn I had who cried solid for 2 years? He was a REAL DRAG on any liberty I had. A couple times, I thought I was going to take him to the dumpster outside my back door. I couldn’t do that, legally. All he did was travel a few inches down my birth canal, and all of a sudden, I can’t kill him. WHAT GIVES?
Oh, BTW, his name is Blaise and he’s almost 12. He’s sitting across from me doing his Latin homework, and he says hi.
Good point, Doug. Maybe when my parents consulted an OB/GYN before they tried to conceive, the OB should have told my mom that pregnancy might exacerbate her asthma to the point where she would be hospitalized twice for it in the third trimester. I know that those incidents were pretty traumatic; maybe my mom should sue the OB/GYN for lying by omission. Why didn’t the OB show my mom pictures of inflamed airways before saying, “Go ahead and get pregnant!” Informed consent, right? Maybe we should outlaw childbirth because OB/GYNS are so nefarious. Ever hear of the birth industrial complex? Follow the money!
Yes Doug – Doctors should explain everything to patients – and offer them help – real help – when difficulties arise.
I’m sure that my girlfriend would prefer those possible ‘those post-partum feelings’ to what my friend has: no children now due to her abortion history. She aborted her only family with that fateful choice. after 20 years she still grieves.
Not for a ‘what.’ But for a whom – her own son or daughter.
Thankfully she is an adoptive mom – but her oldest child would be 20+, and no matter what, he/she would have been a gift.
Most of us grow up when we have children. We learn through the lean and challenging times. We grow – hopefully in love, sacrifice and ingenuity. We find what we are made of, and hopefully we find that even if ‘alone’ and doing a job that is hard, we can be proud that we did the right thing. And for those who have chosen abortion, we hope that they find the healing and strength they need.
We can not replace what is lost – but an honest look at what we have done, and taking responsibility for all of it can help us to help others as we heal and help the planet to be a better place. Ending a life on purpose will not solve the world’s ills, or our own.
Doug,
Call it what you will. You say you have no disagreement about the physical reality that abortion terminates the life of unborn human beings. You have said in the past that human beings have no inherent value, but only the value granted them by the societal fiat of bestowing personhood. If that is true, that line can be drawn anywhere society chooses. There is no protection for anyone except by the will of the majority. You have no right to your life unless it is granted to you. You think this is solved by drawing an arbitrary line at birth or at some other “point in gestation”, but one arbitrary line could easily be another.
You support the right of women to kill their unborn offspring. For any reason. Up to a line you arbitrarily draw and won’t define or commit to. Birth, sometime before then, sometime after? With slightly different wording which you think would make it more palatable, you should be willing to wear a t-shirt like the one suggested. Own what you believe.
Megan, you seem so bitter, even about your own life inside your mom. Do you think she regrets, for a second, her problems during her pregnancy? She has you. You, as her baby girls, now grown woman, are a gift. All children are.
Life, including pregnancy, is fraught with risks we can’t even see. But Megan, the world is a good place. Your mom’s OB/GYN is guilty of malpractice if he knew that carrying you presented unique problems and didn’t tell her. But the doctor’s main concern was to welcome you into this world, safely, as opposed to the doctor who killed your baby, whose only concern was to kill him/her and make you pay. In more ways than one.
And Megan , good thing your mom did not choose abortion with all of those difficulties lying ahead of her.
No one can predict what an individual will actually experience in life or in medical circumstances. But in all things trust. I am sorry that your mom suffered, but am glad that you exist.
I just wish that all mom’s make that life-affirming choice. Even if it’s costly in money or other realms. Life is worth it. We are all proof of that.
Courtnay: Doug, the newborn I had who cried solid for 2 years? He was a REAL DRAG on any liberty I had. A couple times, I thought I was going to take him to the dumpster outside my back door. I couldn’t do that, legally. All he did was travel a few inches down my birth canal, and all of a sudden, I can’t kill him. WHAT GIVES?
Courtnay, I see the point you are trying to make, but it’s not just that “in or out” difference that applies. There are also the restrictions we have on late-term abortions. Personally, I’m not for elective abortions late in gestation, either
You wanted to have a child – all fine and good. I’m pro-choice and would do nothing to interfere.
____
Oh, BTW, his name is Blaise and he’s almost 12. He’s sitting across from me doing his Latin homework, and he says hi.
“Hi” back to Blaise. I hope he’s doing well in his studies, and that he continues to pursue them. Seems to me it’s more and more important as these decades slide by…
Megan: I think that sex and reproduction should be shared decisions. Both partners should be talking about contraception. Both partners should talk about pregnancy, childbirth, and abortion. If you can’t consult your partner when you want to get an abortion, what does that say about your relationship?
No doubt – both people should be on the same page, i.e. “What happens if I/you get pregnant?”
Joy: I’m sure that my girlfriend would prefer those possible ‘those post-partum feelings’ to what my friend has: no children now due to her abortion history. She aborted her only family with that fateful choice. after 20 years she still grieves.
Not for a ‘what.’ But for a whom – her own son or daughter.
Thankfully she is an adoptive mom – but her oldest child would be 20+, and no matter what, he/she would have been a gift.
Joy, very nice post. I’m certainly not saying that nobody will regret having an abortion.
My parents have supported nearly all the decisions I’ve made since high school. Bright copper hair dye wasn’t really their thing.
Let me get this right. Your parents supported your decision to abort your child, their grandchild, but did not support your hair color.
Always remember, make sure the yard looks perfect because that is what people see. Doesn’t matter that everyone inside the house is nasty to each other. No one sees that. It’s all about appearances, my dear.
ninek @ 1:19 p.m. Exactly. Let’s objectify women some more. As long as our hair looks great, who cares!
I am for letting the pregnant woman or the couple make the valuation, Kel. I am for letting them have the freedom to do that. “Person” or not is a separate thing – that’s really a societal construct and the application of it – on a societal basis, to the unborn – is what you want. “No intrinsic value” is not dependent on personhood or not. Personhood need not come into it. It’s enough to see the difference between mental feelings and external reality.
Oh, so it gets even better. You sound like some abortionists that have been quoted here, who say the pregnant woman gets to decide when life begins. Awesome, Doug.
Pro-lifers agree that life begins at conception – human life, intrinsically the same as any other human life. Not worth more, and not worth less. That is not a mental feeling – it’s true scientifically that a pre born human is no less biologically human than one post born. That is external reality. The mental “feeling” of the woman who chooses to value or devalue the life of her pre born child (oh, am I allowed to call it a “child” Doug, or do you object to that? Shall I call it “biological offspring?”) should not outweigh the external reality that her offspring is biologically human – no less human than she is.
CT: Call it what you will. You say you have no disagreement about the physical reality that abortion terminates the life of unborn human beings. You have said in the past that human beings have no inherent value, but only the value granted them by the societal fiat of bestowing personhood. If that is true, that line can be drawn anywhere society chooses.
There are other entities – individuals, groups, etc., that make their own valuations, but yeah – if we’re talking about societal laws then indeed it’s a granting by society.
____
There is no protection for anyone except by the will of the majority. You have no right to your life unless it is granted to you. You think this is solved by drawing an arbitrary line at birth or at some other “point in gestation”, but one arbitrary line could easily be another.
Not necessarily a majority, but again – yeah – we’re talking about what society does or doesn’t do. CT, any line is going to be arbitrary – it’s going to come from the judgment, will, etc. of the entity doing the drawing. Even the Birth Standard itself, as vastly prevalent as it is, all around the world and throughout history, is “arbitrary.”
____
You support the right of women to kill their unborn offspring. For any reason. Up to a line you arbitrarily draw and won’t define or commit to. Birth, sometime before then, sometime after?
Personally – and I’ve said this many times – I’d put it at 22 weeks. This is where I’m seeing a balance between the wishes of the pregnant woman and the forming personality, sentience, etc., of the unborn. My opinion, and not saying this somehow *has* to be law. I’ve never really agreed with the “offspring” part, either – how can they be “offspring” if they haven’t yet sprung off?
____
With slightly different wording which you think would make it more palatable, you should be willing to wear a t-shirt like the one suggested. Own what you believe.
As far as “I support it being legal for a woman to have an abortion” (to a point in gestation, if clarification would be needed), yes.
“Do you think she regrets, for a second, her problems during her pregnancy?”
My mom made a conscious decision to have children. She could have ended the pregnancy and terminated my life at any point, but she chose not to. She made huge sacrifices to have me, and I’m grateful for that. I honor my mother for that. Go ahead, turn around and tell your mother that it ultimately didn’t matter if she was happy during her pregnancy with you. Tell her that even if pregnancy had made her go blind, it didn’t matter, that your life was more important. Sounds pretty self-centered to me.
“Let me get this right. Your parents supported your decision to abort your child, their grandchild, but did not support your hair color”
If that’s how you want to put it, sure. They knew it wasn’t the right time for me to have a child. And they don’t expect me to bear grandchildren for their benefit, only to support them in their old age (whether I’m childless or not, it doesn’t matter).
CT, thank you for that post.
I’ve never really agreed with the “offspring” part, either – how can they be “offspring” if they haven’t yet sprung off?
A perfect example of the kind of ridiculousness in rhetoric I’ve been talking about.
“I am for letting the pregnant woman or the couple make the valuation, Kel. I am for letting them have the freedom to do that. “Person” or not is a separate thing – that’s really a societal construct and the application of it – on a societal basis, to the unborn – is what you want. “No intrinsic value” is not dependent on personhood or not. Personhood need not come into it. It’s enough to see the difference between mental feelings and external reality.”
Oh, so it gets even better. You sound like some abortionists that have been quoted here, who say the pregnant woman gets to decide when life begins. Awesome, Doug.
Kel, honestly – how do you get that from what I said? Things of external physical reality, such as “life or not” – in no way am I saying they are a “decision” or “conscious choice, perception, etc.” I’m saying they exist external to the mind, i.e. it doesn’t matter what we think. The sperm and the egg are “living human beings” themselves – the “human” isn’t debateable, and they have existence, etc., and are alive. That’s not the legal definition nor the usage that is more frequent – it being applied to conception and later points, said usage being more restrictive and imputing more to the term (as we get farther from conception), but it’s still a matter of external reality.
Then we have things that *are* matters of opinion, etc., be it on the part of the individual, a group, or society itself.
___
Pro-lifers agree that life begins at conception – human life, intrinsically the same as any other human life. Not worth more, and not worth less. That is not a mental feeling – it’s true scientifically that a pre born human is no less biologically human than one post born. That is external reality. The mental “feeling” of the woman who chooses to value or devalue the life of her pre born child (oh, am I allowed to call it a “child” Doug, or do you object to that? Shall I call it “biological offspring?”) should not outweigh the external reality that her offspring is biologically human – no less human than she is.
Sheesh…. :) No, “offspring” just doesn’t sound right to me until they have actually sprung off. I know that language becomes more complicated over time, but…. Oy Vey. Kel, you can call it anything you want – heck, call it a rooty-tooty-fruity twinky or a Pal-Galactic Straw Boss if you want. Really – the argument is not terminology here.
Okay – agreed – human life is there at conception. And (in some ways) intrinsically the same as any other human life, agreed there too. But when you get to the “should” you mentioned, then we are entirely away from external reality. At that point we are into the realm that is internal to the mind. It’s no different than me saying your wishes should not trump those of the pregnant woman.
“I’ve never really agreed with the “offspring” part, either – how can they be “offspring” if they haven’t yet sprung off?”
A perfect example of the kind of ridiculousness in rhetoric I’ve been talking about.
Kel, in no way is that “rhetoric.” It’s just a humorous observation on my part.
Megan, not sure if my mom has ever been happyt…LOL! But I can tell you about my experiences as a mom, 3 born, 1 miscarried….
I would have done anything for them, would still. If that meant I had to lay still for 10 months so they could be born. If that meant I had to go off of my anti-depressants while I was expecting them. If I had to carry a hundred pound rock every second to make sure they were born…yes, anything. ANYTHING. I bet your mom would say the same.
Yes, I wanted children. Blaise came way too soon, but he was wanted. If Blaise’s dad had raped me, and Blaise was the product of that atrocious circumstance, Blaise would still be Blaise, and he would still deserve all of my protection PRECISELY because he was here, and mine, and innocent.
Doug, Blaise says he wants you to protect and speak up for all the babies, even those that are only 21 weeks old.
Doug, your attempt at “humor” might actually be funny if we weren’t talking about the taking if innocent human life and if you hadn’t made comments similar to that in the past on redefining whatever you believe a word should mean.
Also, a newly created human life with distinct DNA like no other individual is created at conception. It is not a sperm nor an egg – those are human haploid cells bearing one set of chromosomes – but a newly created life from the fusing of the gametes from the sperm and egg contains both sets of parent chromosomes and is a diploid cell. They are not the same thing.
Doug, your attempt at “humor” might actually be funny if we weren’t talking about the taking if innocent human life and if you hadn’t made comments similar to that in the past on redefining whatever you believe a word should mean.
Kel, not sure what you’re referring to, there, but if anything I’m guessing I lamented how things change or have changed. Perhaps I’m somewhat of a traditionalist there. Take the word “moot,” for example. It has come to mean 180 degrees opposite of what it used to.
I’m not saying the “offspring” deal has to be “funny” like everybody goes “ha ha,” but rather more like a rueful smile at the language being “smushed” all together into a more homogeneous, less-ordered and less beautiful thing.
I know that “offpsring” has come to mean progeny, descendants, issue, etc., and that the unborn here are that. Just too bad, IMO, that we are tending toward 18 crillion things that mean the same thing, versus us maintaining the individuality of the words, and the understanding and appreciation of them on their separate merits.
____
Also, a newly created human life with distinct DNA like no other individual is created at conception. It is not a sperm nor an egg – those are human haploid cells bearing one set of chromosomes – but a newly created life from the fusing of the gametes from the sperm and egg contains both sets of parent chromosomes and is a diploid cell. They are not the same thing.
Yep, no argument there, and once again – I’ve never said anything to the contrary.
Doug, this is what I was responding to, lest you think I’m just making things up:
The sperm and the egg are “living human beings” themselves – the “human” isn’t debateable, and they have existence, etc., and are alive.
Just to further clarify how sperm and egg are not on the same level as the newly created human life at conception.
I am the opposite y’all- Doug’s ho-humming, luke-warm and callously indifferent support of child dismemberment is more infuriating to me than Megan’s gung-ho, enthuasiastic championing of child murder. I prefer evil that owns their evil and actively pursues greater evil to evil by default because someone doesn’t even care. I hate indifference- it’s the most unloving thing someone can be. The opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s apathy, so although the hateful who support abortion with gusto are supporting something inhumane, hate is at least a sign of humanity and hope for conversion of heart. It’s not level-headed to be in the center of a divisive issue that is literally vital- it is merely the sign of someone who doesn’t care enough to get off the fence. When I was on the fence about the death penalty, it ate me alive and I put effort into forming a stance. Those that don’t care enough to either say that women have absolutely authority to evict another human from their body even though that human will die- OR- that human beings have a right to live at conception- those that make illogical concessions and play games with terms and such- that’s not level-headed. That’s lazy.
I really was giving Doug a little good ol natured ribbin!!
Didn’t mean to “start” something. :)
Jacqueline, I hear you. I hear you.
And Jacqueline?
EXCELLENT post! Totally agree!!
Yeah, Carla – I’m thinking everyone is just going to keep harping on it, so I’m removing comments.
Jacqueline – well said. I agree.
“If that is true, that line can be drawn anywhere society chooses. There is no protection for anyone except by the will of the majority.”
Let’s be practical here. If the majority’s will is that such and such category of “person” is not to have protection, then all the natural law in the world won’t change that. In a democratic, contractualist society, the consent of the governed is the only legitimate basis for government action, and, with exceptions made by institutions which are intentionally designed to limit “mob rule” in the short term with the understanding that such phenomena actually undermines the stability and potency of democracy, the will of the majority will always manifest itself in society’s laws over time.
Besides, what’s the alternative, if not will of the majority? If a majority of people (and again, I distinguish between a true majority, which is sustained in number over an extended period of time, and a “mob” which is temporary and fizzles out eventually) are permanently insulated from determining some aspect of the output of the government under which they live, then aren’t they little more than slaves, and isn’t the social contract then meaningless?
“You think this is solved by drawing an arbitrary line at birth or at some other “point in gestation”, but one arbitrary line could easily be another.”
But it isn’t, and society is made up of lots of arbitrary lines (i.e. 18 is the age at which one magically becomes a legal adult). In fact, you’re drawing an arbitrary line when saying that this particular arbitrary line is the one that should not be. Most people here would seem to allow for abortion in the absolute strictest of circumstances (i.e. when the life of the mother is gravely threatened). That’s an arbitrary line too, and if both mother and child are held morally and legally equal, as you want, consistency demands that there are no circumstances, no matter how dire, where one can be sacrificed for the other.
“I am the opposite y’all- Doug’s ho-humming, luke-warm and callously indifferent support of child dismemberment is more infuriating to me than Megan’s gung-ho, enthuasiastic championing of child murder.”
You’re mistaking diplomacy for indifference. No one would regularly visit a discussion blog concerning a particular topic if they did not have a robust interest in that topic from one side or the other. This place isn’t a social club and the latent hostility exhibited by so many people here would quickly drive off anyone who thinks otherwise.
Carla: I really was giving Doug a little good ol natured ribbin!!
Didn’t mean to “start” something.
Reminded me of Jimi Hendrix: “Are You Experienced.” ;)
Kel: Doug, this is what I was responding to, lest you think I’m just making things up:
“The sperm and the egg are “living human beings” themselves – the “human” isn’t debateable, and they have existence, etc., and are alive.”
Just to further clarify how sperm and egg are not on the same level as the newly created human life at conception.
Kel, it’s nice that you actually quoted – quite a few people don’t, and end up conjuring up words to put in other people’s mouths. I certainly agree that they are not exactly the same. It’s just one more good example of the broader use of a term, less restrictive and imputing less.
Jacqueline: I am the opposite y’all- Doug’s ho-humming, luke-warm and callously indifferent support of child dismemberment is more infuriating to me than Megan’s gung-ho, enthuasiastic championing of child murder.
;) Hey – I could rant and rave and foam-at-the-mouth about dastardly “women-slavers” who want to subvert pregnant women’s will to their own, just as the slaveowners wanted the will of the slaves subverted, etc. I’m really just not interested in that approach. It’s like I replied to Megan: “Arguments, debates, social causes, demonstrations, crusades, etc., often include many people who want to rant and rave, to rage and complain against “the other side.” If one wants to take that “drive-by” approach, even week in and week out, okay, but that’s not for me. Pound the table if you want, but don’t expect everybody else to.
____
I prefer evil that owns their evil and actively pursues greater evil to evil by default because someone doesn’t even care. I hate indifference- it’s the most unloving thing someone can be. The opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s apathy, so although the hateful who support abortion with gusto are supporting something inhumane, hate is at least a sign of humanity and hope for conversion of heart. It’s not level-headed to be in the center of a divisive issue that is literally vital- it is merely the sign of someone who doesn’t care enough to get off the fence.
This is just a relation of your own subjective pretenses and falsehoods. It’s not “unloving” to want women to maintain their liberty, to keep the freedom they have in the matter of abortion. I’m not “neutral” on abortion, I think it should be legal for any reason at all on the part of the woman or couple, to 22 weeks. In no way is merely being “loud” or outrageous or frequently losing your cool some sort of “merit badge.” If anything, it’s usually evidence of a weak argument that one is trying to make up for, consciously or subconsciously. “Evil”? Your opinion doesn’t determine that any more than mine does. You don’t have any “moral high ground,” here, you have a difference of opinion.
____
When I was on the fence about the death penalty, it ate me alive and I put effort into forming a stance. Those that don’t care enough to either say that women have absolutely authority to evict another human from their body even though that human will die- OR- that human beings have a right to live at conception- those that make illogical concessions and play games with terms and such- that’s not level-headed. That’s lazy.
Okay, Jacqueline, then you really weren’t “on the fence” about the death penalty. Yet there are probably other things where you are, and certainly – there are many issues where being in the “middle” is just human nature, the bell-shaped-curve in action.
It’s not a lack of “caring” that prevents me from saying women have “absolute authority” to have abortions, it’s that I don’t think there is “absolute authority” in the first place, and that the development of the fetus makes a difference to me. If there is being “illogical” in these matters, it’s pretending that one’s opinion represents a necessary external truth.
Joan: You’re mistaking diplomacy for indifference. No one would regularly visit a discussion blog concerning a particular topic if they did not have a robust interest in that topic from one side or the other. This place isn’t a social club and the latent hostility exhibited by so many people here would quickly drive off anyone who thinks otherwise.
No doubt (and overall excellent post, by the way). Yeah, I think Kel was wiping out some of the “social club” comments. ;)
I hardly ever post on pro-choice sites – I figure they have enough going on there already. Are we interested in discussion/argument/debate, or do we just want an “Amen chorus”?
This place isn’t a social club and the latent hostility exhibited by so many people here would quickly drive off anyone who thinks otherwise.
The only other commenter who displays “latent hostility” besides you Joan, is CC.
LOL
Doug, what kind of freaky universe do you live in where all opinions hold the same moral weight? Seems like you love the argument, you argue to argue, and yet I get the feeling that none of these life and death matters mean anything to you. You like to go round and round and round with definitions and terminology and language games, but this isn’t a forensics competition here. We’re talking about the slaughter of almost 4000 babies a day.
You and your dumb French language theory. How does that stand in the light of verified videos of preborn babies who try to get away from their killers’ instruments. Does any of that resonate with you??
You are hearing the testimony of many women on this site who never had an agenda before they aborted and now they cannot help but be a voice for the unborn. Does any of that resonate with you?
What happened in your life that turned your heart into a rock??
(And don’t you DARE cut and paste parts of this letter back to me. I KNOW what I wrote.)
Doug,
I really think you should read RH Reality Check. Read the comments. See how they chew up and spit out ANY prolifer, provided their comments even get published.
It is an angry, angry place full of “latent hostility.”
But at least you would find an “amen chorus” of those that are proabortion.
God help the post abortive mom who tries to explain why she stands with her I Regret My Abortion sign. I tried once. That was enough.
Doug, what kind of freaky universe do you live in where all opinions hold the same moral weight? Seems like you love the argument, you argue to argue, and yet I get the feeling that none of these life and death matters mean anything to you. You like to go round and round and round with definitions and terminology and language games, but this isn’t a forensics competition here. We’re talking about the slaughter of almost 4000 babies a day.
Courtnay, you’ve put into words what I was trying to say yesterday.
As for the “babies” part, well… we just can’t call them “babies” because some dictionary somewhere would say something otherwise. And we can’t call them “offspring” because they haven’t “sprung off.” And we know they’re human organisms, but hey, so are sperm and eggs, and ehhhh, we wouldn’t “kill” the “human organisms” past, ohhh, say, 22 weeks, just because we… uh… because we’re not “comfortable” with it when the human organisms get to that stage of development. Because until then we’ll just say those particular human organisms are only valuable if their moms SAY they’re valuable, just because… uhh… that’s what we’re comfortable with.
Carla, Joan has to accuse us of “latent” hostility because… well, I guess it’s somehow “worse” than the clearly evident hostility present in Megan’s, Joan’s, and CC’s posts. :D
Courtnay: Doug, what kind of freaky universe do you live in where all opinions hold the same moral weight?
I never said that, Courtnay. There are some opinions that I consider truly “nutty” – they will never become widespread or be acceptable to people in general, IMO. And there are others that will always be enshrined into law, again IMO. However, widespread or not, opinion is still opinion.
____
Seems like you love the argument, you argue to argue, and yet I get the feeling that none of these life and death matters mean anything to you. You like to go round and round and round with definitions and terminology and language games, but this isn’t a forensics competition here. We’re talking about the slaughter of almost 4000 babies a day.
And we’re talking about the liberty of women, women who are most certainly conscious, emotional, have cares and desires, who have personality, who can suffer, etc., while the unborn, in most abortions, do not.
If nobody wanted to have abortions, that would be fine with me. But I’m not about to accept your statement of the way “things should be” over that of the woman who is the one pregnant.
____
You and your dumb French language theory. How does that stand in the light of verified videos of preborn babies who try to get away from their killers’ instruments. Does any of that resonate with you??
:) Where in the heck did that come from – “French language theory”? I think you’re referring to faked things as far as getting away from the instruments.
____
You are hearing the testimony of many women on this site who never had an agenda before they aborted and now they cannot help but be a voice for the unborn. Does any of that resonate with you?
Yes, on the basis of those women themselves. If they could go back in time and not have the abortion, I think that would make them happier, on balance. That we sometimes have regrets, though, is not reason to make actions illegal.
____
What happened in your life that turned your heart into a rock??
I could ask you the same thing – what happened to you that you are putting non-thinking, non-feeling fetuses and embryos above women who are without doubt thinking and feeling?
The answer, of course, is that neither one of us is a “rock,” rather that we have different philosophies and opinions.
Carla: I really think you should read RH Reality Check. Read the comments. See how they chew up and spit out ANY prolifer, provided their comments even get published.
It is an angry, angry place full of “latent hostility.”
But at least you would find an “amen chorus” of those that are proabortion.
God help the post abortive mom who tries to explain why she stands with her I Regret My Abortion sign. I tried once. That was enough.
Carla, I posted there one time – disagreeing with the writer of the thread, in fact. I didn’t see any monolithic condemnation of pro-lifers, but maybe it’s as you say. I’m not looking for an “Amen chorus” of any stripe. And I’ve no doubt there is hostility there, as you say.
It seems foolish to me if they are “shouting down” women such as yourself.
Kel: As for the “babies” part, well… we just can’t call them “babies” because some dictionary somewhere would say something otherwise. And we can’t call them “offspring” because they haven’t “sprung off.” And we know they’re human organisms, but hey, so are sperm and eggs, and ehhhh, we wouldn’t “kill” the “human organisms” past, ohhh, say, 22 weeks, just because we… uh… because we’re not “comfortable” with it when the human organisms get to that stage of development. Because until then we’ll just say those particular human organisms are only valuable if their moms SAY they’re valuable, just because… uhh… that’s what we’re comfortable with.
Kel, “unborn babies” is fine with me. I don’t see the “offspring” deal as part of the abortion debate, rather just an observation upon language. I’ve explained “my” line at 22 weeks a little better than you’re giving me credit for, there. And of course it’s not only a consideration of the unborn babies, but of the pregnant women too.
Doug, what happened to me is that I never learned that some folks are more equal than others.
I leanrned that a true test of any society is how they treat their weakest members, here, the unborn.
I learned that all life is a gift from God and it is our poverty that we reject it.
I also knew that it is a lie that we have to posit the mom against her own baby, and when we do, the devil laughs louder.
I realized that it doesn’t matter what “abilities” a person has; the mere fact that they exist is what gives them worth, and we do ourselves a grave disservice when we rate who is more valuable.
Too, I had the privilege of working with throwaway kids for a time and came to see them as MY teachers, that my life was enriched by their merely showing up, that there was value in their being alive.
Oh, and then there was a time I thought I might go crazy from sorrow and depression and an out of control eating disorder, and even without the support of my parents, made it through to the other side, graduating Phi Beta Kappa, going through 2 graduate programs, and finding a man who loved me. And my story is not unique. We are much tougher than we appear to be.
And then I became a mom, and knew what every mom knows: abortion is murder. And it will be my duty till I die to be a voice for those who have none.
That’s what happened to my heart.
Courtnay (you already know we don’t agree on everything) – that was a very good post.
Seems like you love the argument, you argue to argue, and yet I get the feeling that none of these life and death matters mean anything to you. You like to go round and round and round
The Big Drama King goes round and round,
round and round
round and round
The Big Drama King goes round and round,
All through this thread
His Cold Drama Queens do cheer and clap,
cheer and clap,
cheer and clap,
His Cold Drama Queens do cheer and clap,
“We want them all born dead!”
“We want them all born dead!”
If your argument against abortion is so strong, then you don’t need these wild fabrications to bolster it. I don’t care how many children women have. I trust women to know what they want to do with their lives and bodies. If Michelle Duggar wanted to have five more kids, I’d be happy for her. Her choice.
I do have to agree with Jacqueline’s assessment of my position: “Women have absolutely authority to evict another human from their body even though that human will die.” It’s not a pretty conviction to support. But neither is the position that a pregnant woman should give birth regardless of the circumstances of conception, regardless of her physical condition (unless her death is imminent). The pro-life stance is one that treats pregnancy as a punishment for “illicit” sexual behavior: we, as a society, don’t try to deny secondary treatment for any physical condition besides pregnancy on the basis of how the condition arose, i.e., through “irresponsible” activity.
Sorry Megs. My bad.
My last line should have read, “We love to choose who will be dead!”
Megan, the pro-choice stance is the one who treats children as a punishment. I could care less how many men y’all sleep with….I REALLY don’t care. But when the baby’s here, he’s here. But pregnancy resulting from rape is a teensy tiny part of the abortion business….mostly PP and their ilk make money off a society that chooses expediency over love.
You as a mother will learn this, I guarantee you. But me not wanting you to kill any of your future children is my singular expression of my belief in you as a person. Pregnancy is not the worst thing that can happen to you. Abortion is.
I could ask you the same thing – what happened to you that you are putting non-thinking, non-feeling fetuses and embryos above women who are without doubt thinking and feeling?
The answer, of course, is that neither one of us is a “rock,” rather that we have different philosophies and opinions.
Doug, she’s not advocating KILLING anyone. You are. Your “philosophies and opinions” (again, you are so cavalier and trite about life and death) support killing children up to 22 weeks old at the mother’s whim. Her philosophies and opinions are that all human life from it’s conception onward should be protected and if someone were trying to murder those “thinking, feeling” mothers, she’d fight just as hard for them. You cite her as lacking compassion because she opposes one person murdering their child in order to be “better off”- Perhaps you need to stew over the definition of “compassion.”
I do have to agree with Jacqueline’s assessment of my position: “Women have absolutely authority to evict another human from their body even though that human will die.” It’s not a pretty conviction to support.
Why do you think that is? This idea of bodily sovereignty for women as so important that humans must die is wrong in and of itself- but it becomes even more disgusting when we remember that the child that had to die so the woman to control her body was put in the woman’s body by the woman herself. If babies got “caught” like a cold, that argument would make an inkling of an iota of a smidgeon of sense- but babies are made. Don’t want a baby in your body so badly that you’d kill your baby to evict them? Don’t make a baby. Pretty simple concept, is just doesn’t jive well with greed that makes people insist on having their way at other’s expense.
Okay, Jacqueline, then you really weren’t “on the fence” about the death penalty. Yet there are probably other things where you are, and certainly – there are many issues where being in the “middle” is just human nature, the bell-shaped-curve in action.
No, I really was. I won’t go into detail, but I really was. I started leaning against it, but wasn’t in favor of abolition like I am firmly in favor of now. VITAL issues, life and death are not something that you can capriciously disregard or support by default- especially when your default is death and not life, continuing to support killing until you figure out your stance. I needed to know what I supported definitively. Now I do.
True, I don’t have an opinion on MOST things because most things aren’t worth my time to form an opinion. Those areas where I am on the fence are inconsequential- they aren’t areas with only two outcomes: life or death. Issues this important can not be dismissed as you casually dismiss them. People routinely ask me how I feel about ______ and I reply with my gut instincts with a caveat that I don’t have a position on that issue- because I frankly don’t care enough to invest the brain power and time to weigh the facts and form an opinion on things that don’t matter. My motto is, “If it ain’t bleeding or on fire, it won’t get my attention” since I am a bioethicist dealing with life and death on a daily basis. So who cares if I’m on the fence about economic issues? I don’t. If we were talking about killing a human or not, then I would pray, study and seek until I had an answer. And on all vital issues, I do have an answer because I took the time and effort to learn the facts.
On a lesser note, I resent any implication that I am in the median of the normal distribution of idiots who can’t distinguish their anus from a hole in the ground. Yes, most people have no convictions. They stand for nothing. Most people are STUPID, too. They have opinion about things they know nothing of and have never actually thought about. I hate that, which is why I choose not to have opinions on things I know nothing of and haven’t given proper thought to. I am clearly on the end of the distribution, not the middle. I am an outlier- and I have standardized test scores and other evidence to back that up. Do not insinuate that I am either normal or luke warm. I am either hot or cold, and I am always hot regarding things that matter.
Jacqueline: Doug, she’s not advocating KILLING anyone. You are. Your “philosophies and opinions” (again, you are so cavalier and trite about life and death) support killing children up to 22 weeks old at the mother’s whim. Her philosophies and opinions are that all human life from it’s conception onward should be protected and if someone were trying to murder those “thinking, feeling” mothers, she’d fight just as hard for them. You cite her as lacking compassion because she opposes one person murdering their child in order to be “better off”- Perhaps you need to stew over the definition of “compassion.”
Jacqueline, there is the question of when the unborn become “anyone” or “someone” and just what we mean by that. It’s not cavalier or trite to be weighing these things, along with the woman’s liberty.
I understand that you and Courtnay don’t agree with me. I’m not saying that Courtnay is “lacking compassion” – it’s that her caring is directed differently than mine is. This is probably somewhat of a generalization, but relative to the pregnant woman, pro-lifers have more “empathy” for the unborn, and for pro-choicers it’s the other way around.
Part of why I’m pro-choice is that I question if empathy can really apply, prior to a point in gestation. This is by the definition of the word – seems to me that to empathize, there would need to be thoughts, feelings, etc., there, in this case on the part of the unborn, and I do not think that’s true – to a point in gestation.
Is it really possible to “have compassion” for the zygote, for example?
____
Megan: “I do have to agree with Jacqueline’s assessment of my position: “Women have absolutely authority to evict another human from their body even though that human will die.” It’s not a pretty conviction to support.”
J: Why do you think that is?
There’s something about it that Megan doesn’t like, just the same as she doesn’t like the position that the woman should have to give birth, regardless.
____
This idea of bodily sovereignty for women as so important that humans must die is wrong in and of itself- but it becomes even more disgusting when we remember that the child that had to die so the woman to control her body was put in the woman’s body by the woman herself. If babies got “caught” like a cold, that argument would make an inkling of an iota of a smidgeon of sense- but babies are made. Don’t want a baby in your body so badly that you’d kill your baby to evict them? Don’t make a baby. Pretty simple concept, is just doesn’t jive well with greed that makes people insist on having their way at other’s expense.
Again, there is the question of when the unborn get to be an “other,” that way. Humans do die, all the time. Whether the pregnancy is intended or not, whether it’s an abortion or a miscarriage. Whether it’s later in gestation or when there is failure to implant. By far, the primary sadness I see here is on the part of the woman/the parents, when they want to have a baby, and the pregnancy is lost.
Praxedes: “We want them all born dead!”
;) That was silly.
Jacqueline: No, I really was (“on the fence” about the death penalty). I won’t go into detail, but I really was. I started leaning against it, but wasn’t in favor of abolition like I am firmly in favor of now. VITAL issues, life and death are not something that you can capriciously disregard or support by default- especially when your default is death and not life, continuing to support killing until you figure out your stance. I needed to know what I supported definitively. Now I do.
Okay, I certainly have no problem with that. I would say that “being in the middle” is not necessarily disregarding vital issues, however. It may simply be that the given person is of two minds about it, etc., even while acknowledging that it’s a big deal.
For example, if somebody breaks into your home in the middle of the night, should it be legal for you to shoot them? Not saying you’re “on the fence” about this one either, but there clearly is a gray area, depending on the situation, and different states have different laws on it, reflecting that.
____
True, I don’t have an opinion on MOST things because most things aren’t worth my time to form an opinion. Those areas where I am on the fence are inconsequential- they aren’t areas with only two outcomes: life or death. Issues this important can not be dismissed as you casually dismiss them.
I don’t “casually dismiss” them. Do you “casually dismiss” freedom/liberty?
Good morning, Doug. And no, we don’t have differnt focal points of compassion. I have compassion, and you have none.
I want folks to be born, and you don’t care all that much.
I want women to have better options than killing their own children to further their own agenda, and you don’t care all that much.
I want to protect life at all stages, and you only want to protect it at some.
I think women are resilient, and you think women are fragile and that an unexpected pregnancy would destroy any chance they would have at a happy and fulfilled life.
Throw around words like empathy, gestation, other, etc. etc. (remember I come from the world of academia) all you want, but it really come down to is that people die at the end of your argument, and at the end of mine and the prolife folks? Well, life.
Quote my words back to me. Try to redefine it again. But at the end of the day, you and your pro abortion people have the body count.
PS–remember Carla’s testimony??? When she miscarried at 10 weeks, there was a REAL BODY.
Mornin’ Courtnay. Yeah, we do look at things differently, the unborn, the pregnant woman, and society. You confuse people having different opinions from your own with “not caring.” I don’t think women are “fragile,” I think they are capable of making their own best choices, and that unless society has a compelling need to restrict our freedom, and the women’s freedom in this case, that it’s better to allow us the liberty.
I don’t agree that “people die at the end of the argument.” Your definition in no way is the only one that’s applicable here – and the concept of personhood and just what we mean (and care about) by “people” is part and parcel of the argument. There is no question that the unborn are “really there,” of course, but that is not the argument.
Either it’s a person or it’s not. It can’t be both or different to persons, differing on the circumstances. If you refute its personhood then you are in error. You are denying not only what modern science now knows, but what every mother instinctively senses as she carries her child within her. Nothing magical happens at 22 weeks, Doug. I’m here to tell you. It’s a baby. The smallest of children know this. They have no problem with words and definitions, as you seem to have.
The baby has a beating, HUMAN heart. He/she wants to live.
It’s a different stage of being a person, on a timeline of conception till death, but still a human being. Not to me, because I wanted mine, and not not to Megan, because she didn’t, but simply because that’s what IS. The error is in your perception.
Your wordplay is exactly how slavery proponents justified what they did to their slaves, i.e., they’re not really persons in the “fullest sense” of the word, so it doesn’t matter as much what we do to them. In other words, my needs (crops, sex, housework) are more important because I am more human. Slavery hurt the slaves, no doubt, but even Southern women knew how much their folk were hurt by this institution as well.
Triage-style rights based on personhood present a dehumanization of everyone involved. You say FREEDOM, and I say we are not free when our most vulnerable are sacrified on the altar of my needs.
Either the unborn are human beings or they’re not, in every application. If they are, then they deserve our protection. And since you say you’re comfortable with a 22 week cut-off, it sounds like you are not truly sure, whereas prolife people are united in their assertion that life begins at conception. So Doug, if you’re really not sure, why not err on the side of life for everyone?
I’m spitting you out of my mouth, Doug. Had enough. Grow a pair and own what you support and defend it with conviction. These arbitrary games you play about when and where and why it’s okay to kill some children some of the time is exhausting.
Jackqueline, you seem to want everything cut-and-dried, black-and-white, open-and-shut, and things are not always that way. If everybody agreed with you about when is it a “child,” etc., as well as about the rights of the pregnant woman, then this stuff would not be issues. However, reality is that lots of people don’t agree with you, and thus they are indeed issues.
No, Doug- I don’t “want” life or death issues to be black and white- They ARE. There are only two outcomes- life or death. And life should be protected as much as we can. That is not how I want it to be- it’s how it is.
The truth is, you want things to be ambiguous because you hide behind it as rationalization to do as you please and believe what’s most palatable and comfortable and least offensive (and involves no real effort on your part). You create a ambiguity that doesn’t exist. It’s not a trade-off between freedom/liberty and life (because you can’t have freedom or liberty without life- life is preeminent). It’s simply that human beings have no right to kill other human beings- especially if that human being is there own son or daughter! People like you who don’t “agree” are not in intellecutal disagreement- they are seeking rationalizations that are comfortable and least impose on their lifestyle. My beleifs involve all my heart, soul, time and money. I can see why you’d want to beleive what you believe. It absolves you of any action. Like I said: lazy.
If everybody agreed with you about when is it a “child,” etc., as well as about the rights of the pregnant woman, then this stuff would not be issues.
Most everybody agrees that what women abort is a human. Those who disagree are uneducated. We are back to the facts, Doug. These you do not argue with.
Abortion kills humans. Some people support abortion. Therefore, some people support killing humans.
Abortion kills humans. Some people support abortion. Therefore, some people support killing humans.
But, Praxedes, it’s not that black and white. It’s kind of gray- because they are humans but not yet “people” unless the mother wants them, and then it is a person in that woman’s womb only- and if she changes her mind before 22 weeks, it’s a non-person again. But, if the human is born premature at 21 weeks, it’s a person outside the womb even if the mother doesn’t want her.
It’s dizzying. Evil is confounding and exhausting. Truly, it’s easier to accept the truth and give 100% of yourself to the movement than to go to these dissonant lengths to perserve inaction.
Either it’s a person or it’s not. It can’t be both or different to persons, differing on the circumstances. If you refute its personhood then you are in error. You are denying not only what modern science now knows, but what every mother instinctively senses as she carries her child within her. Nothing magical happens at 22 weeks, Doug. I’m here to tell you.
Courtnay, several things there. First, the unborn are not full legal persons, and this is a good bit of what the abortion debate is about. What you want is for society to grant the unborn different status from what they now have. It can certainly be different, to different people, depending on how we define “person.” There is no “error” in recognizing that fact, nor in pointing out that it’s the lack of personhood that has you dissatisfied.
Science does not pronounce upon personhood – if there is an error here, it’s in thinking otherwise. I certainly agree that 22 weeks is not “magic.” As I said, that’s just where I, personally, would draw the line.
___
Your wordplay is exactly how slavery proponents justified what they did to their slaves, i.e., they’re not really persons in the “fullest sense” of the word, so it doesn’t matter as much what we do to them. In other words, my needs (crops, sex, housework) are more important because I am more human. Slavery hurt the slaves, no doubt, but even Southern women knew how much their folk were hurt by this institution as well.
It’s not “wordplay.” If anything, you wanting pregnant women’s will subverted to your own is where the similarity to slavery comes in – the slaveowners wanted the will of the slaves subverted to their own.
“Human,” and “more human” are not in play here. That’s not the argument, and I agree that the unborn are just as human as you and I, as “human,” in that basic sense as they will ever be. The concept of personhood and the biological fact of having human DNA are not at all the same thing, however.
____
Either the unborn are human beings or they’re not, in every application. If they are, then they deserve our protection. And since you say you’re comfortable with a 22 week cut-off, it sounds like you are not truly sure, whereas prolife people are united in their assertion that life begins at conception. So Doug, if you’re really not sure, why not err on the side of life for everyone?
It’s that “every application” part that is the rub. No society, anywhere on earth, for all time, as far as I know, has granted personhood to the unborn, deemed them full, legal human beings the same as the born. Not saying it’s impossible that this would ever be the case, but to this point it’s as I say. Going well beyond having abortion be restricted or illegal, you’re proposing something quite a bit “beyond” as far as having the unborn truly be “persons” from conception.
If nobody wanted to have abortions, then we all could be “happy” and “err on the side of life.” I’m just as “united” as you are, as far as life beginning at conception – I’m not arguing that, and accept it – the unborn are alive all along. It’s weighing the unborn and the rights/desires of the pregnant women that leads me to my position, that’s all.
While we can agree that life is there at conception, I don’t see the monolithic opinion of “pro-lifers” when it comes to the circumstances of pregnancy. Rape, incest, etc., can and do make for allowable exceptions to an abortion ban, for many people who generally are “pro-life.”
“If everybody agreed with you about when is it a “child,” etc., as well as about the rights of the pregnant woman, then this stuff would not be issues.”
Praxedes: Most everybody agrees that what women abort is a human. Those who disagree are uneducated. We are back to the facts, Doug. These you do not argue with.
Nonsense. “Human” as far as an adjective is not at argument. “A human” – there, you will find varying opinions, but I hadn’t been arguing that it did not apply. Either way, your mistake is in proceeding as if “human” or “a human” must necessarily be the same as “child,” which is what I mentioned, and that’s the only factual error going on here.
Jacqueline: No, Doug – I don’t “want” life or death issues to be black and white – They ARE. There are only two outcomes – life or death.
That, of course, is not what is being argued.
___
And life should be protected as much as we can. That is not how I want it to be – it’s how it is.
No, not necessarily “as much as we can.” It depends on the situation. Self-defense, wartime, legal execution, unwanted pregnancies, etc. – all of these make a difference.
___
The truth is, you want things to be ambiguous because you hide behind it as rationalization to do as you please and believe what’s most palatable and comfortable and least offensive (and involves no real effort on your part). You create a ambiguity that doesn’t exist. It’s not a trade-off between freedom/liberty and life (because you can’t have freedom or liberty without life- life is preeminent). It’s simply that human beings have no right to kill other human beings- especially if that human being is there own son or daughter! People like you who don’t “agree” are not in intellecutal disagreement- they are seeking rationalizations that are comfortable and least impose on their lifestyle. My beleifs involve all my heart, soul, time and money. I can see why you’d want to beleive what you believe. It absolves you of any action. Like I said: lazy.
The “laziness” here, if any, is you taking the easy road of pretending that your opinions constitute some hard-and-fast reality, and the truth is that they do not. I don’t want things to be “ambiguous” – the issues here, the life of the unborn and the liberty of the woman, among other things, are clear. It most certainly is a trade-off: what you want is for the liberty of the pregnant woman to be curtailed, towards the end of satisfying your desire for more of the unborn to live.
Praxedes: “Abortion kills humans. Some people support abortion. Therefore, some people support killing humans.”
Jacqueline: But, Praxedes, it’s not that black and white. It’s kind of gray- because they are humans but not yet “people” unless the mother wants them
Wrong again. Pregnancies will be wanted or not wanted, on balance, no gray area there. Yet that is not what determines personhood, the mother’s feelings notwithstanding.
Doug, this is the crap we’re talking about.
Courtnay, why is it “crap” to be factually correct? “Human” and “a human” *are not* necessarily the same as “child,” for example.
Filter out the ad hominem arguments, the mistakes in logic, and the real abortion argument remains, and that is what I’m focusing on.
Why do you think there are so many pro-choicers, in the first place? It’s because not everybody shares your same opinions, the valuations you make.
Let’s take this one sentence: Either the unborn are human beings or they’re not, in every application.
Do you not see that that is really not the case? In the biological sense, agreed 100%. But in the legal sense, in the sense of how society treats the unborn, it is the fact that the unborn are not full, legal human beings (personhood and rights attributed) that accounts for you wanting things to change. Don’t you *want* a change in the application, there?
Doug, I’m leaving now for a Faulkner class I’m auditing. Truly, Benjy’s section in THE SOUND AND THE FURY is making way more sense that you are.
Peace, brother.
But in the legal sense, in the sense of how society treats the unborn, it is the fact that the unborn are not full, legal human beings (personhood and rights attributed)
Doug, even though you prefaced your comment with “In the legal sense…”, I am still not sure what you mean by “full, legal human beings”. A human being is a human being… it is an unjust society that says some human beings are “full, legal” while others are not. Would you say that prior to the American Civil War, African Americans were “not full legal human beings”? Or would Jews in Germany, between 1933 and 1945, be “not full, legal human beings” as well? For that matter, some societies today do not recognize women as “full legal human beings” for their testimony in court or property ownership rights.
Bottom line to me: they are still full human beings, regardless of the unjust society that tries to categorize them as less than full.
Eric, “full, legal human beings” have rights and personhood attributed to them. Biologically, sure – African Americans, Jews, women (and in this argument, the unborn) are human beings, fully, human, etc. Society doesn’t always treat them all the same though, per the examples you gave. And (again, as far as I know) no society anywhere, at any time, has treated the unborn as they do the born. This is a more far-reaching thing than just having abortion be illegal, i.e. “Hey, you did something that made the embryo develop differently,” or “You did something which made the egg not implant..”
Bottom line to me: they are still full human beings, regardless of the unjust society that tries to categorize them as less than full.
There certainly is the fact that they are inside the body of a person, however, even if you don’t feel that in any way justifies abortion. Nothing similar can be said for the Jews, women, African-Americans, etc.
This is a more far-reaching thing than just having abortion be illegal, i.e. “Hey, you did something that made the embryo develop differently,”
Sure is. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/6/gr030603.html
So…that there kinda blows your whole “they’ve never been treated as human beings in society, ever.” out of the water, Dougy.
And as far as accusing someone of doing something that might prevent a blastocyst from implanting (eggs don’t implant, Doug! Basic science here, buddy!), I’d defy ANYONE to try and a.) prove that that had happened or b.) prosecute such an occurrence. Your attempts at obfuscating what IS STILL a cut-and-dry issue is amusing to me, though. Keep it up! I’m bored now that I’m unemployed! XD
Courtnay,
I read Light In August when I was in high school, because my English teacher thought I was special or something. That was a mind-blower for a sheltered little girl like me. She also had me read The Color Purple. I’m glad she exposed me to things I wouldn’t otherwise have sought out myself.
Doug, in response to me you are now seriously going around about the word “a”?? A human vs. human. I’m sure you don’t think you need my sympathy anymore than Megan thinks she needs my sympathy.
But you both have it.
Round and round,
Round and round. . . . .
“Why do you think that is? This idea of bodily sovereignty for women as so important that humans must die is wrong in and of itself.”
Not to be too Socratic, but WHY do you think this is so self-evident? Release yourself from any emotional trappings of the debate for a second. How are we–as human beings, at any stage of development–guaranteed the “right to live” at one individual’s direct, physical expense? Wishes that people behave in a certain way cannot automatically be turned into injunctions. Raw emotion about the “compassion” or lack thereof of an action does not always translate well into reason.
One of the defining features of Western liberalism is the notion that human beings have the right to self-ownership, which includes and extends beyond the mere right to life. There is no “right to life” without the right to bodily sovereignty. If this were the case, then slavery would be permissible. Blood donation could be mandated. Drug companies could involuntary enroll people in clinical trials. Even if these things were necessary to save somebody else’s life, the benefactor would still need to give their consent. The right to life is not absolute when it interferes with these other two fundamental rights (think of self-defense, “just” wars, etc.).
“…was put in the woman’s body by the woman herself.”
Assuming that you believe in the right to self-ownership, having sex signifies, for you, tacit consent for the suspension of her right to bodily autonomy. I don’t. Sex doesn’t always result in pregnancy. A woman isn’t doing anything during intercourse to infringe on anybody’s rights (if the sex is consensual, of course) that would allow for her right to bodily sovereignty to be retroactively stripped. Leaving the house knowing that I “might” hit and injure somebody with my car does not mean that I have “agreed” to suspend my right to due process.
There is no “right to life” without the right to bodily sovereignty.
Does the right to bodily sovereignty extend to the unborn as well, or only to the mother? If bodily sovereignty is sacrosanct, then the unborn have a right to not have their sovereign body dismembered.
Right, Eric. And honestly, a woman’s body is coming out of the process pretty much intact. Not so after an abortion for the gestating party. Megan seems to forget that our bodies were made to gestate our young as placental mammals. There’s a special place inside of us just specifically for that purpose and everything. No bodily sovereignty is violated during gestation. Now…during an abortion…that’s a different story.
“Does the right to bodily sovereignty extend to the unborn as well?”
The unborn exist in a state of physical dependence. They can’t be guaranteed the “right to life” or, by extension, the right to “self-ownership,” if their very existence conflicts with another individual’s right to self-ownership.
“Megan seems to forget that our bodies were made to gestate our young as placental mammals.”
Doesn’t change the fact that the process is pretty inefficient and often painful. While maternal mortality has decreased significantly in the West, morbid conditions like gestational hypertension are on the rise. Regardless of risks associated with pregnancy, our ability to produce offspring is not like some kind of implied consent to gestating and giving birth to life that we conceive. What about women whose membranes rupture at 22 weeks? It happens. Is that woman’s body “made” to continue the pregnancy, or is her body telling her that it wants the pregnancy to be over? Is the act of pumping her body full of medicine and putting her on bed rest for weeks on end aligned with the “natural” functions of the human female body?
“And honestly, a woman’s body is coming out of the process pretty much intact.”
No, that’s not how we treat people. My partner has a universal blood type, and I have a rare blood type. If I were in grave need of a transfusion, I would hope that he’d help me out, but the state can’t mandate that he donate his blood to me. And it doesn’t make sense to say that by not giving me blood he would be violating my right to life, since he wouldn’t be the dependent one.
Yeah, this is a selfish mentality, but in this society, our bodies are regarded as sacred property. Pro-lifers have it all wrong in comparing abortion to slavery. The mindset that “a woman’s body is coming out of the process pretty much intact” closely resembles the assumption that some human beings are made to do work for others by virtue of who they are, and who cares about the consequences as long as they’re ensured a baseline level of existence?
Yeah, this is a selfish mentality
That’s why we prolifers are educating others about how damaging the proabort mindset is. We need less selfishness in our world, not more.
X–I am reading Light in August right now. Ironically, it begins with a woman named Lena who is setting out to find the father of her unborn child. She walks from Alabama to Mississippi, and it never once occurs to her that her child will be a burden to her.
“This is a more far-reaching thing than just having abortion be illegal, i.e. “Hey, you did something that made the embryo develop differently,”
Xalisae: Sure is. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/03/6/gr030603.html
So…that there kinda blows your whole “they’ve never been treated as human beings in society, ever.” out of the water, Dougy.
X, to the extent that there are restrictions on abortion after viability, I think that constitutes a limited form of rights and personhood (and I’ve said so many times). But that is not treating the unborn as we do the born, i.e. “full, legal human beings,” and that link doesn’t change it either.
____
And as far as accusing someone of doing something that might prevent a blastocyst from implanting (eggs don’t implant, Doug! Basic science here, buddy!), I’d defy ANYONE to try and a.) prove that that had happened or b.) prosecute such an occurrence. Your attempts at obfuscating what IS STILL a cut-and-dry issue is amusing to me, though. Keep it up! I’m bored now that I’m unemployed! XD
No attempt of obfuscation, and the examples were hypothetical. You certainly have a point about proving it, etc. I am saying that having abortion be illegal (in general) is one thing, but personhood for the unborn is quite another, a “can or worms” to be opened up that would bring up such issues as you mention.
And yeah, X, I guess it is a blastocyst when it implants (or not). :)
…( the unborn’s) very existence conflicts with another individual’s right to self-ownership.
Rather, another individual’s right to self-ownership conflicts with the unborn’s very existence. An unborn individual has a right to self-ownership as well. But if, as you say, dependence takes that right away, then it is simply a case of bullying — that is, weaker and therefore dependent individuals must give up self-ownership rights to the strong individuals upon whom they depend. Quite the primitive/barbaric approach.
Doug, in response to me you are now seriously going around about the word “a”?? A human vs. human.
Praxedes, sorry if it seems like “going around and around,” but there really is a difference. From egg and sperm to zygote, embryo, fetus, etc., nobody can really argue that “human” as an adjective doesn’t apply. However, when we go with the noun “a human” then there does exist significant disagreement. Personally, I’m fine with saying the zygote is “a human” though it feels like stretching the point a bit. Other people impute more to the term than that.
Would you say the unfertilized egg or sperm are “humans”? If not, isn’t it because you impute more to the term, you feel there has to be “more” there than what is present in the egg and sperm? Likewise, many people feel there has to be more than what is present in the zygote and blastocyst, for example.
___
I’m sure you don’t think you need my sympathy anymore than Megan thinks she needs my sympathy.
Well, I’m not sure what you mean there, Praxedes. :)
Perhaps I shouldn’t have mentioned the “a human” thing, but that is what you’d said, versus just “human” as an adjective. I had never argued that the zygote was not “a human” – I was just noting that now we were where there wasn’t as much general agreement.
The debate can be two people yelling at each other, “My way is right!” Or, at the other extreme, it can be taking into account all things that pertain to it. Maybe I’m trying too hard to keep toward the “all things” end, and should keep it simpler.
Megan, you recognize that your view is based on selfishness. You support one human being having the right to destroy another human being for selfish gain. Is selfishness really a “cause” you want to champion? People have a lot of vices that I wouldn’t choose, but certainly wouldn’t prohibit. I wouldn’t abuse substances- drugs, alcoholism- but I am not for prohibition, either. It doesn’t mean that I am in favor of addiction and self-destruction- it means that as much as I wish people wouldn’t, it’s none of my business if an adult chooses to do so. I don’t like it and wish it would go away- but I know where my business stops and another’s starts.
But you are the opposite- an abortion cheerleader. Because you aren’t saying, “although abortion is selfish and bad, it’s not my role to prohibit it”- you are saying that it is selfish and you did it and will do it again and wholeheartedly support others doing it for any or no reason whatsoever. That’s more than just “not a pretty conviction to support” – something you are uncomfortable with. You are very comfortable with it. You aren’t like me- I don’t like vices but don’t think it’s my place to prohibit them. YOU LIKE ABORTION. You had one. You declare you would have another, even though you know it’s a selfish thing.
Ask yourself: Do you want to be a selfish person that does and supports selfish things? Because it’s totally up to you if you want to be the opposite. It’s so much better in the light!
Megan: There is no “right to life” without the right to bodily sovereignty.
Eric: Does the right to bodily sovereignty extend to the unborn as well, or only to the mother?
Right there is a good bit of the abortion debate.
X, to the extent that there are restrictions on abortion after viability, I think that constitutes a limited form of rights and personhood (and I’ve said so many times). But that is not treating the unborn as we do the born, i.e. “full, legal human beings,” and that link doesn’t change it either.
So your rebuttal basically consists of “nanny nanny boo boo, I can’t hear you!”. Excellent.
Doug, that was not simply about abortion. I mean, the article was from Guttmacher, so of course they write it with the express concern of making sure abortion stays legal, but MY point in bringing it up is the court cases they cite. Charging a pregnant woman with child endangerment for giving her fetus illicit drugs IS treating that fetus like a “full, legal human being”, and you cannot say that this has NEVER occurred with cases like this on the books.
So many proaborts would like to ignore the fact that yes, these ARE gestating human beings, legally minors when their rights are to finally be recognized, and that what mom does while pregnant affects a REAL, LIVE BOY/GIRL. Out of sight, out of mind. I’m sure that they’d wish that all of these drug addict moms would just abort since it’s “safe and legal”, because that would help everyone to continue ignoring that-WAIT, OH MY GOSH, I THINK A REAL HUMAN BEING JUST EMERGED FROM THAT WOMAN OVER THERE HITTING THAT CRACK PIPE, AND NOW THIS WIERD, FLOPPY, HUMAN-LOOKING-THING IS ALL SICK AND MESSED UP. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN!?!!
But too bad, so sad, not every drug addict aborts, so you’re going to have cases like this that are a direct challenge to Roe, because they show who the unborn is and why we must protect them, even from their own mothers. Babies harmed by their mothers in utero are going to be the final nail in the abortion coffin. I LOVE YOU, GIANNA!
Yes, I surely would be interested in Megan’s approach to a problem like Gianna. Megan??
“X, to the extent that there are restrictions on abortion after viability, I think that constitutes a limited form of rights and personhood (and I’ve said so many times). But that is not treating the unborn as we do the born, i.e. “full, legal human beings,” and that link doesn’t change it either.”
Xalisae: So your rebuttal basically consists of “nanny nanny boo boo, I can’t hear you!”. Excellent.
Oh for Pete’s sake… ;) No, not “I can’t hear you.” I too thought of some limited areas where we can say “we treat them the same,” but that is not the same as the unborn having the same status the born do, i.e. being full, legal human beings. I even specifically mentioned that abortion restrictions are tending somewhat in that direction, but in no way does that mean that personhood or full rights are attributed.
The “nanny nanny boo boo” was cute. :)
___
Doug, that was not simply about abortion. I mean, the article was from Guttmacher, so of course they write it with the express concern of making sure abortion stays legal, but MY point in bringing it up is the court cases they cite. Charging a pregnant woman with child endangerment for giving her fetus illicit drugs IS treating that fetus like a “full, legal human being”, and you cannot say that this has NEVER occurred with cases like this on the books.
I disagree, because the idea was “And (again, as far as I know) no society anywhere, at any time, has treated the unborn as they do the born.”
Okay – while almost all such cases have ended up with no penalty for the woman, in that one case the woman’s conviction was upheld. Are you going to generalize from the particular, a particular in this case which is certainly the exception and not the rule? If 99 times out of 100, the verdict was “A,” and 1 time out of 100 the verdict was “B,” are you going to say “Society acts along the lines of B…”?
Even just looking at that one case, the woman got in trouble for her actions which were said to be abuse. She could also get in trouble for abusing a dog. Does that really mean that “we treat them (the dog and the unborn) the same”?
I grant you that we can say that “in this one case, society treated the woman the same as if she has abused a born child.” But the same baby could have been legally aborted a little earlier in pregnancy, and I maintain that this is not treating the unborn the same as we do the born.
If we are only looking for limited areas where, at least once, something was the same, then we can say that “we call both the born and the unborn human.” Does that really mean “we treat them the same”?
I also note that in that case the fetus was viable (which goes right along with the Roe restrictions and the state Supreme Court’s decision) – and I’m fine for such protection for the baby at that point.
X: So many proaborts would like to ignore the fact that yes, these ARE gestating human beings, legally minors when their rights are to finally be recognized, and that what mom does while pregnant affects a REAL, LIVE BOY/GIRL. Out of sight, out of mind.
I disagree here too, Xalisae. Unless a pro-choicer is against restrictions late in gestation then that would not necessarily be so. If a woman is going to have a baby, then I’m all for her staying off drugs and booze. I think the “legally minors” thing is very farfetched, a much different thing than just having abortion be generally illegal.
___
I’m sure that they’d wish that all of these drug addict moms would just abort since it’s “safe and legal”, because that would help everyone to continue ignoring that-WAIT, OH MY GOSH, I THINK A REAL HUMAN BEING JUST EMERGED FROM THAT WOMAN OVER THERE HITTING THAT CRACK PIPE, AND NOW THIS WIERD, FLOPPY, HUMAN-LOOKING-THING IS ALL SICK AND MESSED UP. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN!?!!
You know, Crack is much less harmful, usually, to the unborn than is alcohol. I learned that right here on Jill’s site – that fetal alcohol syndrome is frequently much worse than “Crack babies.” However, I don’t think that pro-choicers or pro-lifers in general really think that booze or drugs doesn’t affect the unborn.
___
But too bad, so sad, not every drug addict aborts, so you’re going to have cases like this that are a direct challenge to Roe, because they show who the unborn is and why we must protect them, even from their own mothers. Babies harmed by their mothers in utero are going to be the final nail in the abortion coffin. I LOVE YOU, GIANNA!
Why do you think such cases would be a challenge to Roe? It’s right in line with restrictions on abortion after viability – mentioned in the Roe decision.
Megan: Yeah, this is a selfish mentality, but in this society, our bodies are regarded as sacred property. Pro-lifers have it all wrong in comparing abortion to slavery. The mindset that “a woman’s body is coming out of the process pretty much intact” closely resembles the assumption that some human beings are made to do work for others by virtue of who they are, and who cares about the consequences as long as they’re ensured a baseline level of existence?
Everything in the debate is “selfish,” anyway. Our motivation comes from the self, and pro-lifer and pro-choicer alike, we’re saying what we think.
I do agree that just being a woman in no way means that the given individual “should have children,” unless she wants to.
Everything in the debate is “selfish,” anyway. Our motivation comes from the self, and pro-lifer and pro-choicer alike, we’re saying what we think.
No, it’s not. Ask yourself what a pro-lifer has to gain by acknowledging that 4,000 babies were killed today? Is that a warm, fuzzy thought? What does a pro-lifer have to gain by giving their time and money to women and children in need? What selfish interest is served by carrying a baby from a one-night stand, enduring questions, judgments, going through labor and then placing that child in the arms of an adoptive couple? What did that woman GAIN from that? Believe it or not, Doug, some people actually care about the well-being of other people and will make sacrifices of self for another person. That’s called LOVE. Love says, “I sacrifice myself for the good of another.” Abortion says, “I sacrifice another for the good of myself.” It’s your side that is selfish.
And I agree that being a woman doesn’t mean you “should have children”- I just don’t think killing children is an alternative to having them. Not making children is an alternative. After all, a woman who aborts has a child- that child is simply dead.
“Everything in the debate is “selfish,” anyway. Our motivation comes from the self, and pro-lifer and pro-choicer alike, we’re saying what we think.”
Jacqueline: No, it’s not. Ask yourself what a pro-lifer has to gain by acknowledging that 4,000 babies were killed today? Is that a warm, fuzzy thought?
No, but how does that refute what I said? Hey – you want the life of the unborn to trump what the woman wants (if she wants an abortion). I want the woman’s freedom and her wishes to trump the other concerns (to a point in gestation). You and I both have our desires about how things are/will be, and we’re both “having our say” here.
The pro-lifer who gives time and money to women and children in need gains happiness and satisfaction from the situation being that they got the aid, versus them not getting it. On balance, the pro-lifer would be less happy if they didn’t get it.
The woman who carries the baby from a one-night-stand does it because, on balance, she wants to. If she doesn’t, then she won’t. I’m not saying that pro-lifers or that woman are any different than the rest of us – we all operate this way – our motivation is us choosing what we want the most or that for which we have the least distaste, from among our available options.
Short of being physically compelled otherwise, even if we give every cent we have to a homeless person, we’re still doing what we want to do. If we throw ourselves in front of a charging killer sheep, to rescue another person, same deal.
___
Believe it or not, Doug, some people actually care about the well-being of other people and will make sacrifices of self for another person. That’s called LOVE. Love says, “I sacrifice myself for the good of another.” Abortion says, “I sacrifice another for the good of myself.” It’s your side that is selfish.
I’m not saying that pro-lifers are “bad people” because of their positions. But it’s no more “selfish” to want the wishes of the pregnant woman satisfied, versus the wishes of pro-lifers. In trying to keep to shorter posts, I’ll just say that not everybody agrees with you about “another person” applying to the unborn.
____
And I agree that being a woman doesn’t mean you “should have children”- I just don’t think killing children is an alternative to having them. Not making children is an alternative. After all, a woman who aborts has a child- that child is simply dead.
Well, too bad that not all pregnancies are wanted – then we’d all be happy. Here too, “child” is subjective and not everybody sees it your way. I agree that preventing a pregnancy is better than having an abortion. But once a pregnancy is underway, then of course that’s not an option, not a possible alternative.
Doug, you are so infuriating.
Hey – you want the life of the unborn to trump what the woman wants (if she wants an abortion).
Why? Why do I want a child to live? I know why the woman wants the child to die- because she doesn’t want to bear, care for, parent, place for adoption or otherwise give of herself for the child. She gains freedom, money, time, etc. by killing her son/daughter. What do pro-lifers gain by helping provide for her and helping her son/daughter? That woman has a ton of selfish reasons to abort- what selfish reasons do I have if she lets her child live? If anything, every woman that gives me “what I want” becomes one more set of crises I must deal with and fund resources for. It’s exhausting- worth it, but exhausting. I for one have other things I could be doing and spending my money on- Seriously, other than knowing I have a functioning conscience, what do I gain from a woman not aborting? We know what she gains from aborting. Clearly, one is a selfish act (abortion) and the other is a self-giving act (helping a woman in crisis- even after an abortion). In your scenario, if the woman gets what she wants, she personally gains at the expense of her son/daughter’s life. If I get what I want- I gain nothing at my own expense. Again, how is this selfish?
I want the woman’s freedom and her wishes to trump the other concerns (to a point in gestation). You and I both have our desires about how things are/will be, and we’re both “having our say” here.
Yes, “having your say” is the extent to which you care about a woman’s freedom and her wishes. Other than maybe you paying for an abortion for a child you didn’t want, name one thing besides talking that you actually “do” for women. How do you help her exercise her freedom and get what she wishes? I can almost guarantee that you don’t do a damn thing.
The pro-lifer who gives time and money to women and children in need gains happiness and satisfaction from the situation being that they got the aid, versus them not getting it.
Oh, we gain happiness! Yes, I am happy when I child lives and doesn’t die. Because I care about the CHILD. If I didn’t care about the child (not myself), I wouldn’t be happy. It’s not like I get to take these child home and cuddle them. I am happy that THEY are safe. It’s about THEM, not me. Again, you prove that pro-life work is inherently unselfish. We give time and money so someone else can live (unlike abortion, which kills someone else so a woman can live as she wishes and not have to share her time and money). Right and wrong could not be more obvious, Doug.
The woman who carries the baby from a one-night-stand does it because, on balance, she wants to.
No, she doesn’t. If she could go back and not get pregnant- she would. She would rather not be pregnant, but she simply can’t kill an innocent baby. What she’s doing is not for her- it’s for the baby. Again, that’s called LOVE. Take an exhausted, sick mother who finally falls to sleep 3:00 am while battling the flu- She WANTS to sleep, desperately- but her baby is hungry, so she gets up and feeds him. She didn’t WANT to get up and wishes he wasn’t hungry and would rather sleep- but she gets up. She doesn’t HAVE to- she could turn the monitor off and let the baby be hungry for a few hours. Love makes her get up when she doesn’t want to. She personally gains nothing from that. Doug, I have worked in adoption and those women don’t want to be pregnant, they wish they never got pregnant and would rather not be pregnant- and they could get what they want and have their “wishes” honored by aborting that child- but they don’t. They gain nothing for not killing their child. Rather, they often get judged and ridiculed and their heart breaks. No, she doesn’t f#cking WANT to, Doug. She just has a conscience- and courage to boot.
I’m not saying that pro-lifers are “bad people” because of their positions.
Bad people kill innocent human beings for the sake of themselves, Doug. Good people protect innocent human beings for sake of the innocent human beings. Not a difficult concept.
But it’s no more “selfish” to want the wishes of the pregnant woman satisfied, versus the wishes of pro-lifers.
The pregnant woman’s wishes are selfish. And abortion benefits BORN people at the unborn’s expense, like you, who don’t want to help women, raise your own children, or pay child support. Our wishes are not selfish. We gain nothing by protecting a child at our own expense. So, yeah- it is more selfish to want women to be able to abort than wanting children to live. After all, I have no fear of being aborted because I am born. What’s my motive for protecting human life again? Oh yeah, I get happy when a child is spared. You forget the pain when a child is killed. THAT happens way more often.
I agree that preventing a pregnancy is better than having an abortion.
Why? What do you care? If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why can’t women ditch all contraceptives and just have abortions?
Doug, where I am, it’s about 8am, and if I could tell you all the stuff I have already done this morning that I DIDN’T want to do but hadn to do because I put my family before my own wnats and needs. WE’ll start off with cleaning the tubs and toilets, ok?? I would MUCH RATHER be out walking the trails on this fine October morning, but I HAD A CHOICE. And I put the health and well bing of my kids before my own. ITS WHAT MOMS DO.
Not all choices are equal. Some are better than others. Making sure my kids have a sanitary place to do whatever it is they do in there is the better choice. Of course, letting them live had to (to use your favorite verb) trump all of them. We all have to do stuff we don’t want to do. Nobody said doing the right thing would be easy.
Doug, where I am, it’s about 8am, and if I could tell you all the stuff I have already done this morning that I DIDN’T want to do but had to do because I put my family before my own wnats and needs. WE’ll start off with cleaning the tubs and toilets, ok?? I would MUCH RATHER be out walking the trails on this fine October morning, but I HAD A CHOICE. And I put the health and well bing of my kids before my own. ITS WHAT MOMS DO.
Courtnay, I hear you, and understand all you do and all that so many do. If we say that “selfish” is doing for oneself, rather than for others, and that “selfless” is the opposite, then that is one thing. My point is that even with the above, our motivation still comes from our self, it’s what we want to do, on balance.
I’m not saying you love to clean toilets, but you would rather have them clean than have them dirty. It’s what you want. Mother Theresa got up each day and did what she wanted to do – her motivation, same as for all of us, was looking at her available options and choosing from among them those she liked best, or had the least distaste for. Short of being physically compelled otherwise, that’s the way we operate.
____
Not all choices are equal. Some are better than others. Making sure my kids have a sanitary place to do whatever it is they do in there is the better choice. Of course, letting them live had to (to use your favorite verb) trump all of them. We all have to do stuff we don’t want to do. Nobody said doing the right thing would be easy.
“Equal” and “better,” there, are matters of opinion. And again – I disagree about “we all have to do stuff we don’t want to do.” If we didn’t want to do it, on balance, we would not do it.
Jacqueline: Doug, you are so infuriating.
“Hey – you want the life of the unborn to trump what the woman wants (if she wants an abortion). ”
Why? Why do I want a child to live? I know why the woman wants the child to die- because she doesn’t want to bear, care for, parent, place for adoption or otherwise give of herself for the child. She gains freedom, money, time, etc. by killing her son/daughter. What do pro-lifers gain by helping provide for her and helping her son/daughter? That woman has a ton of selfish reasons to abort- what selfish reasons do I have if she lets her child live? If anything, every woman that gives me “what I want” becomes one more set of crises I must deal with and fund resources for. It’s exhausting- worth it, but exhausting. I for one have other things I could be doing and spending my money on- Seriously, other than knowing I have a functioning conscience, what do I gain from a woman not aborting? We know what she gains from aborting. Clearly, one is a selfish act (abortion) and the other is a self-giving act (helping a woman in crisis- even after an abortion). In your scenario, if the woman gets what she wants, she personally gains at the expense of her son/daughter’s life. If I get what I want- I gain nothing at my own expense. Again, how is this selfish?
Jacqueline, I’m truly not trying to be infuriating. I am just saying that everything here boils down to what we want. To what you want, what I want, to what pro-lifers and pro-choicers want in general. The reasons behind our desires really don’t matter – one side will say the other side’s motivation is faulty, etc. We still each have our say, our vote, etc. Yes, perhaps the pregnant woman does want money, freedom, time, etc. And pro-lifers want her not to have an abortion.
If we do look at the “why” of our wishes, what I disagree with is the concern about the unborn, before they are aware, conscious, have personality, etc., before there is “someone” there, over and above what the pregnant woman wants. And I know you do not agree with that.
____
“I want the woman’s freedom and her wishes to trump the other concerns (to a point in gestation). You and I both have our desires about how things are/will be, and we’re both “having our say” here.”
Yes, “having your say” is the extent to which you care about a woman’s freedom and her wishes. Other than maybe you paying for an abortion for a child you didn’t want, name one thing besides talking that you actually “do” for women. How do you help her exercise her freedom and get what she wishes? I can almost guarantee that you don’t do a damn thing.
I’ve never had anything directly to do with abortion, never gotten anybody pregnant, never paid for any abortions. I do tend to vote for pro-choice Presidents, though, and as far as helping pregnant women exercise their freedom, I bet if you ask women who have unwanted pregnancies, they’ll be strongly in favor of that.
____
“The woman who carries the baby from a one-night-stand does it because, on balance, she wants to.”
No, she doesn’t.
Yeah, she does. If she did not, she would have an abortion. Most times, there will be “pros and cons” in the mind of the woman. The balance will settle on one side of the other, and thus her decision to continue the pregnancy or end it.
____
If she could go back and not get pregnant- she would.
So what? That’s not an option once the pregnancy is fact. At that point, the woman will either continue the pregnancy or end it, whichever she wants the most.
____
She would rather not be pregnant, but she simply can’t kill an innocent baby. What she’s doing is not for her- it’s for the baby. Again, that’s called LOVE.
Okay, so she more wants the baby to live.
____
Take an exhausted, sick mother who finally falls to sleep 3:00 am while battling the flu- She WANTS to sleep, desperately- but her baby is hungry, so she gets up and feeds him. She didn’t WANT to get up and wishes he wasn’t hungry and would rather sleep- but she gets up.
Here too, sure – she might not “love” the idea of getting up, but she more wants to do that than to not do it. And I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that at all.
____
“I agree that preventing a pregnancy is better than having an abortion.”
Why? What do you care? If there is nothing wrong with abortion, why can’t women ditch all contraceptives and just have abortions?
Because they don’t want to. In no way am I saying that abortion, per se, is “great.” There is cost, there is hassle, there is time involved, abortion has a “yuck” factor (visceral, bloody, etc.), and most of that can be avoided by preventing the pregnancy. It would keep pro-lifers happier, too, even despite the objections some have to contraception.
“I have worked in adoption and those women don’t want to be pregnant, they wish they never got pregnant and would rather not be pregnant- and they could get what they want and have their ‘wishes’ honored by aborting that child- but they don’t.”
To echo what Doug was saying: technically, within our legal framework, they ARE doing what they “want,” to the extent that they’re choosing to assuage their consciences by continuing their pregnancies. There is a perfectly legal option out of that situation, but they’re choosing not to take it.
“What do pro-lifers gain by helping provide for her and helping her son/daughter?”
Oh, just a few intangible benefits, like knowing that you have helped somebody, have put your moral universe in a better working order, have inched a little closer to Heaven, etc. etc. etc. Human beings are inherently self-centered, even if it isn’t immediately apparent.