The Reproductive Life of Julia
Last week the Obama campaign unveiled a slideshow entitled, “The Life of Julia,” which was intended to show how much Obama, via the American taxpayer, has done and plans to do for women.
An honest feminist would be insulted by “The Life of Julia,” because its basic assumption is that women are unable to make it on their own without the patriarchal government’s assistance from cradle to grave.
I have been pondering “The Reproductive Life of Julia” under the Obama administration and have developed my own slideshow. Click on any of the individual slides in this post, and they will appear in enlarged slideshow format…
(View Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama’s vote in favor of K-12 comprehensive sex ed here, Obama’s endorsement of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States’ sex ed guidelines here, and the SIECUS material referred to above here.)
(View U.S. Senator Barack Obama’s vote against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act here.)
(View funding for school health clinics in Obamacare here; that 1 in 5 teens have genital herpes here; that Romney would repeal Obamacare here; and that Romney would promote abstinence education here.)
(View ACOG study, which found that 9% of women get pregnant every year on the birth control pill, and 18-21% get pregnant using condoms here, and meta-analysis of 22 worldwide studies, published in British Journal of Medicine September 2011, which found mothers who have abortions experience an 81% increased risk pf mental health problems. Separate effects: increased risk for anxiety disorders 34%; for depression 37%; for alcohol use/abuse 110%; for marijuana use/abuse 220%; and for suicide behaviors 155% here.)
(View risk of preterm birth after abortions here; Romney on Supreme Court justices here; and that Obama believes Constitution a “living document” here.)
(View Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act here; and that induced abortions can lead to infertility here.)
(Read studies on the link between abortion/hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer here; view the 2009 study co-authored by National Cancer Institute’s chief of Environmental Epidemiology Branch finding a link between abortion/hormonal contraceptives and breast cancer here.)
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.
Genius. Thank you, Jill.
“(assuming she wasn’t aborted first)”
The new prochoice argument is going to be that abortion will stop all these problems, lol. I mean you can’t have any abortions if you yourself were aborted.
The only thing that might have made this even more perfect would have been Julia getting one of her abortions right inside her college medical center for free, and with the same medical misinformation given to her beforehand. The University of Virginia, for example. UCLA? Harvard?
Sounds like a plan to me Jill. Genius is right, Mama MT. Great job, Jill.
Some women I talked to a while back talked to me about how abortion negatively impacted their lives even years later, some of them had abortions 15-30 years ago. They could all tell you how old their child would be today if he/she would have lived, some wept, all were hurting.
The only thing that might have made this even more perfect would have been Julia getting one of her abortions right inside her college medical center for free.
…This really happens? I don’t trust my college medical center to do a blood draw on me, much less a surgical procedure!
Not to mention, don’t these places receive tax dollars at public universities?
Dozens of universities all over the country have been doing thousands of abortions for decades now. Most keep it a secret. Click on my name to see how just ONE was outed..
Wow. The lies. The lies. And badly misspelled lies.
This is an example of fractal wrongness.
The only reason you think it’s all “lies” is because you have been lied to your whole life! You see something that goes against what someone else told you and you have to start screaming, “Lies!” instead of using your own mind to actually consider new information.
Actually, Michelle, I was raised by very conservative, pro-life parents in a very conservative, pro-life community. You would be run out of the city if you had an abortion. These things are lies because they ARE lies. I was a very pro-life person, until I started doing my own research. I dedicated the past five years of my life learning unbiased medical information, looking at different perspectives, examining evidence, and do you know what? These are lies. Blatant lies, and I’d bet money that Jill knows they’re lies and she is using them as propaganda.
Which part is a lie? That women actually do suffer from abortion? That women experience depression after abortion? If a woman told you that she had an abortion and complications from it made her infertile would you just say, “Nope, that’s blatant lie because I read somewhere that having a surgical procedure that removes a living human being from your body can’t possible have negative side effects!” Yeah, ok.
Ooh, Jill, you’ve really upset the choicers with this one. :)
This may sound like an extreme story but that does not make it unreal. All or one of these things could happen (I am in the medical field and have medical knowledge). An unborn child is a human life no matter which way you look at it. Thank you Jill for fighting for the unborn innocent children so easily and thoughtlessly killed in this country. God Bless You!
Julia’s daddy puts a chastity ring on her finger when she’s eight. Because she’s crawling out of her skin with lust by the time she hits twenty, she marries the first “Christian” ogre who waddles into sight. By twenty-two, she’s got a mommy blog and a nasty case of regret, which the good pastor is ever willing to “exorcise” from her.
Chris, Alix, and Sara,
I don’t understand why you think this is full of lies. Jill sites her sources under each frame. Do you have competing sources to disprove what Jill has said? It’s hard to believe that Jill is lying when she has citations and you just generally call her a liar. Alix, if you have been researching for the past 5 years, please share some sources.
You know they are beyond desperate when they just start hysterically posting “lies!” without even trying to engage in any meaningful, scientific discussion. Jill cited a source for each frame. They could, of course, cite one study here or there that says the opposite. But in the end, if we all cited every peer reviewed, published source out there – they know we’d come out on top. Look at all the sources we put on our document (click on my name). So they return to the schoolyard and post personal insults instead. Denial. It’s all they ever have left to go with.
1. Abortion hurts women who don’t want an abortion, who were forced, coerced, threatened into having one. My abortion was the best choice of my life, and I wasn’t hurt by it a single bit. What would have hurt me would be to be forced to carry my rapist’s child and take care of it as a sixteen year old. Neither are the thousands of women I have united with who have had abortions. I know a woman who was happy with all four of her abortions. When I counseled women who did regret them, every single one of them regretted it because they were either forced to do it or talked into it. Your attempt at telling me that abortion hurts is not only false, but stupid.
2. Complications with surgical abortion are extremely rare. You also have complications from getting your wisdom teeth removed. My mother has been in pain for years because of hers. Does that mean we should tell people not to do it? Of course not. There can be complications with ANY medical procedure. By your logic we should tell people not to have any surgery or medical procedure. I guess I should have just went ahead and died when my appendix ruptured, because no one wants complications.
3. I don’t give a flying corndog whether or not it is alive. It is inside of another person! They have the bodily autonomy for it to not be there. If I have a tapeworm inside of me, I can remove it. If I have a kitten inside of me, I can remove it. If I have the entire Swedish government was inside of my body, I can remove them! It is my body, and it is my choice whether or not I can get rid of what is inside of it.
4. Obama wouldn’t push sex education on kindergartners. Another outright lie. And I do NOT see why you guys are so against people getting a proper education. I spend my life as a sex ed teacher so that people don’t have to get abortions and so that they don’t get STDs.
5. Obama doesn’t cause gym teachers to molest children. You and I know that’s a lie and nothing more than an appeal to emotion and an ignorant one at that.
6. Birth control, condoms, and sex are not bad things. You guys are digging deep, slut-shaming and hating people who have sex.
7. Oh, gosh guys, pot-use is caused by abortion! Pffft, no. Another fallacy and appeal to emotion. Ignorance is running wild around this.
8. Obamacare would not cause “rationing” of health services, and especially not on life-saving care like cancer treatment. Do your research, countries with universal health care have much better rates than here. I am 18 years old and I’m already 80k in debt because I had to have my life saved when my appendix ruptured while I was walking around on campus. If we had universal healthcare, I wouldn’t have had to chose between debt and my life.
So yes, this is full of blatant lies, fallacies, inaccuracies, and ignorance.
Gone. Gone. And its over the fence. Crowd cheers.
(P.S. – Please, stop making me like Romney.)
I am sorry Alix that your child died in your abortion. I am sorry that you would come here to post all of that in an effort to convince us that it has never bothered you. It is all too obvious that you are trying to justify what you have done.
Just as I did. 21 years ago my daughter died in my abortion. I will regret it until the day I die.
There is help and healing for you.
http://www.rachelsvineyard.org
PS There is no name calling here so I deleted that one comment you made. I am sure you understand.
Honey I am not justifying anything I’ve done, I’m showing that you are wrong. You may regret it, but most women do not, and you do not have to regret it either. You choose to regret it because you have been fed the idea that abortion is wrong, when in reality it is not wrong. It is a choice women make every day, and they have the right to do so. You know why? Because it is their body, and they have the right to not be pregnant if they do not want to be pregnant. I do not, and never will, regret my abortion. I refused to have my rapist’s child. I refuse now to be pregnant against my will. I refuse to have my sexuality controlled by the government. I will forever love my birth control, my condoms, my sexuality, and my right to not be forced to be pregnant.
Having a vagina does not mean that I am a lesser person. I have every right, and deserve every right, to be pregnant or not pregnant at my own discretion, just as you do. I have and deserve the right to protect myself during intercourse. I have and deserve every right to have sex with any willing partner I want to! Your party trying to strip me of those rights is not only wrong, but disgusting.
It is my body, and if I want an abortion, then I will get one.
Alix, that child was not your rapist’s child or even your child – that was God’s child.
Alix, adult women cannot spontaneously grow male body parts. Nan you just grow an extra head, or beating heart. Nor can you suddenly sprout a spare set of hands and feet. The child you killed was not your body. That’s why HER body had to be disposed of after she was killed. One less woman in the world to have any opinion at all thanks to YOU. Science > Politics.
Now then, it should be exceptionally easy for you to show us where it is that ANY abortion provider like Planned Parenthood actually tells women that the pills they sell cause breast cancer, and the abortions they sell cause preterm birth later. Go ahead. Show us all where……..
I’m an an atheist, so no. It was a fetus caused by the rape I had to endure when I was sixteen. And if it were “god’s child,” then your god knew that I was going to get an abortion, so why would be even put me through it? Further more why would he allow me to be raped? Why would he allow my body to be violated?
And an even greater question is, why are you trying to force me to live through the traumatic rape day after day, being forced to give birth to a child I don’t want, who would either end up living in poverty or in an overcrowded orphanage? Why are you trying to force me to give up my body, simply because I am female? My uterus is not public property. It is mine. No one, fetus or not, has any right to it except for me.
Alix, you not only described your civil liberties (save one), you also described your responsibilities.
Abortion, however, is not a right. You do not have a right to a dead child. That child, on the other hand, had a right to life.
Your birth control may cause cancer. I will hope you will sue the Federal Government should you get breast cancer.
Alix is exactly the same kind of democrat that would have been been shouting 150 years ago that abolishing slavery was a War on White People. Same goes for the Civil Rights movement 50 years ago. They want everyone to believe in their blinded fantasy world where their victims simply don’t exist.
You try to play off that the fetus was going to be female. Hmm, there was a fifty percent chance it was male. Do you not care about male fetuses, too?
No, you simply trying to make me feel remorse by saying, “It was a girl, what about her rights, doesn’t she have the same rights, sob sob?”
Here’s your answer: Not when it is inside of my body. A tapeworm is a separate entity, too. Should I be forced to carry around a tapeworm? No. Your argument is invalid.
Jill, great blog. So appreciate everyone who fights for the innocent with no voice, against the oppressors of ‘choice’.
Oh Jill, Julia died too young in this story. Let her get to be 100 so Obama can tell her that she doesn’t get a needed pacemaker under Obamacare, she gets to take a pain pill instead:
http://visiontoamerica.org/9572/obama-giving-medical-care-to-old-people-is-a-waste-of-money-priceless-video/#.T6fnP6kSCpA.twitter
Abortion IS my right. It is my right to NOT be pregnant. It is my right to own my own body. It is my right to remove a fetus that I do not want. When something is inside of me, it does not have the right to use my body against my will. If you were to get into my uterus, even if it wasn’t your choice, I have the right to get you out if I so chose.
Alix, God gave you free will because He loves you. And He still loves you and He will forgive you, you just have to ask for His forgiveness – please see the link provided by Carla
http://www.rachelsvineyard.org
He also gave the rapist free will as well; however, God has a place reserved for him for his wrong actions, and it is not a very pleasant place. The rapist will be judged and punished appropriately by God, don’t you worry.
Oh, I would be a slavery supporter? That’s rich! I am standing here for bodily rights, for the right of women to not be forced to be incubators against their will. I would stand for the rights of ‘slaves’ to not be enslaved, just as I am right against the slavery of women today. You do not own black people. You do not own me. My body, not yours. My choice, not yours.
Prove he exists, Tyler.
Prove it.
Alix,
I am so terribly sorry that you were raped. And at such a young age! I hope you are getting some help to work through the trauma. Please take care of yourself. The tone of your posts seems very angry.
And an even greater question is, why are you trying to force me to live through the traumatic rape day after day, being forced to give birth to a child I don’t want, who would either end up living in poverty or in an overcrowded orphanage? Why are you trying to force me to give up my body, simply because I am female? My uterus is not public property. It is mine. No one, fetus or not, has any right to it except for me.
Alix, seriously, pregnancy and the fact a child shares a woman’s body are facts of life that someone should’ve explained to you when you were a young child. However, I realize that no one talks about these realities anymore. And that the only “sex education” provided to children is really “contraception education” – which is not the same thing.
Prove he exists, Tyler.
Prove it.
Alix I know it will be hard for you right now but if you believe in Love, Beauty,and Goodness he exists. The reward in Heaven is greater for those who believe without seeing.
Lrning,
Thanks for your sympathies. I am angry. I am angry that people want to force me to have children, to be without protection in sex, to be punished for having sex. I’m angry that people sit around and slut-shame sexually active women. I am angry that men get let off, but because I have a uterus, I am an awful person if I have sex. I’m angry that I am being slut-shamed because I was raped. I am angry that people are trying to take away my right to basic medical care, which is available in all developed nations. And I am angry that people are trying to turn this nation into a theocracy and force me to sit down and shut up because their religion says I’m not worthy, just because I’m a woman.
Alix,
I just wanted to say how proud I am of you for defending yourself against the likes of these individuals. People who seek to discredit you because they’re incapable of comprehending anything outside their myopic perspective. I know MANY women who have had abortions who – much like yourself – feel no regret over their decision to terminate their pregnancies.
The way Carla automatically assumed that you were upset just proves how terribly out of touch most Antis are. Do SOME women regret their abortions? Yes. Do ALL women regret their abortions? No.
And I don’t know anyone who dropped out of school and failed to fulfill their potential due to an STD, Jill. What a small world you live in.
Second try…….
Now then, it should be exceptionally easy for you to show us where it is that ANY abortion provider like Planned Parenthood actually tells women that the pills they sell cause breast cancer, and the abortions they sell cause preterm birth later. Go ahead. Show us all where……..
And Tyler, unless GOD raped Alix, it wasn’t “HIS” child. How does it feel to use your religion as a weapon against a rape survivor?
Tyler,
Just because a fetus “shares” my body does not mean that I have any obligation to let it control my life or my body. I learned all about sex and pregnancy in school, and continue to learn more and more, and that’s what I teach my students. I’m a sex ed teacher, not a contraceptive-only-teacher. My students know how the body works, how pregnancy works, how birth works, what STIs are, and how to protect themselves. You demean me by saying that I don’t know how pregnancy works. I do know, but I highly doubt you care. What the anti-choice crowd cares about is that I get put in my place, stay chaste against my will, and if I go against that that I am forced to be pregnant.
And I believe in love. I believe in beauty, and I believe in goodness. I believe in a lot of things, because they exist, and they exist openly. What I don’t believe in is things without any proof. I gave up the idea of “faith” when I was seven years old, because it makes no sense to believe in something without proof. If you want me to believe in something, you better be able to prove it.
Sean,
Abortions and birth control do not cause depression, cancer, infertility, or anything but reproductive freedom.
Beth, thank you, love! <3
The journal of the Mayo Clinic (Mayo Clinic Proceedings) has published a key article in it’s October 2006 issue entitled “Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Pre-menopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis”, authored by Chris Kahlenborn, M.D., (Internal Medicine, Altoona Hospital, PA), Francesmary Modugno, Ph.D., (Epidemiology), Douglas M. Potter, Ph.D. (Biostatistics) both from the University of Pittsburgh, and Walter B. Severs, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology at the Penn State College of Medicine.
The major findings from this careful analysis of the world literature were that oral contraceptives (OCs) were linked with a measurable and statistically significant association with pre-menopausal breast cancer. The risk association was 44% over baseline in parous women (having been pregnant) who took OCs prior to their first pregnancy. (See graph below to note risk of individual studies). The study re-enforces the recent classification of OCs as Type 1 carcinogens by the International Agency for Cancer Research*.
According to Dr. Kahlenborn, extraction of reliable data from the world literature is an extremely difficult task because no two studies are exactly alike. However, meta-analysis is a valid statistical tool that has the ability to identify associations and potential risk. He said the present research team was very careful to clearly present how the data were collected and processed, and welcomes opportunities for open and critical debate on this important subject by professionals as well as the lay public.
Dr. Kahlenborn** stated that he and the entire team believes that in accordance with the standards informed consent, women must be apprised of the potential risk of premenopausal breast cancer prior to commencing drug use.
See graph below:
http://polycarp.org/statement_mayo_clinic_article.htm
” Women with a history of induced abortion were at higher risk of very preterm delivery than those with no such history (OR + 1.5, 95% CI 1.1–2.0); the risk was even higher for extremely preterm deliveries (<28 weeks). The association between previous induced abortion and very preterm delivery varied according to the main complications leading to very preterm delivery. A history of induced abortion was associated with an increased risk of premature rupture of the membranes, antepartum haemorrhage (not in association with hypertension) and idiopathic spontaneous preterm labour that occur at very small gestational ages (<28 weeks). Conversely, no association was found between induced abortion and very preterm delivery due to hypertension.”
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
“Induced and spontaneous abortion are associated with similarly increased ORs for preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies, and they vary inversely with the baseline preterm birth rate, explaining some of the variability among studies”
Journal of Reproductive Medicine
“A consent form that simply lists such items as “incompetent cervix” or “infection” as potential complications, but does not inform women of the elevated future risk of a preterm delivery, and that the latter constitutes a risk factor for devastating complications such as
cerebral palsy, may not satisfy courts”
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
“Previous induced abortions significantly increased the risk of preterm delivery after idiopathic preterm labour, preterm premature rupture of membranes and ante-partum haemorrhage, but not preterm delivery after maternal hypertension. The strength of the association increased with decreasing gestational age at birth.”
European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
The latest statistics in the USA (2007) show a preterm (less than 37 weeks) birth rate of 12.6%. Of these, Early Preterm Birth (EPB—under 32 weeks, infants weighing under 1500 grams, or about three pounds.) is at 7.8%, the highest rate in the past 30 years of stats. As noted in the studies above, previous induced abortions’ have an inordinately increased association with “extreme” (<27 wk) and “early”(<32 wk) premature deliveries (compared to 32 – 37 week premature births.) Thus, it follows that abortion will also have an inordinately increased association with cerebral palsy and other disabilities linked to extreme prematurity.
American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Third try………..
Now then, it should be exceptionally easy for you to show us where it is that ANY abortion provider like Planned Parenthood actually tells women that the pills they sell cause breast cancer, and the abortions they sell cause preterm birth later. Go ahead. Show us all where……..
Alix, you mentioned that you’ve spent 5 years researching medical information, so I’m guessing that you have an analytical mind and can separate fact from opinion. I hope when you feel less angry you’ll take a look at the contraception and abortion issues with that same analytical approach. The things you mentioned in your post:
* force me to have children
* [force me] to be without protection in sex
* [force me] to be punished for having sex
* I am an awful person if I have sex
* slut-shamed because I was raped
* trying to take away my right to basic medical care
* trying to turn this nation into a theocracy
* force me to sit down and shut up
* their religion says I’m not worth just because I’m a woman
none of that is true. There might be some idiots out there that have spouted opinions to that effect, but that is not the position of the pro-life movement as a whole. I hope you’ll someday be able to look at the facts (pro-life legislation, etc) and see the truth.
“And if it were “god’s child,” then your god knew that I was going to get an abortion, so why would be even put me through it?”
“I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.” -Deuteronomy 30:19
Beth we are all children of God including you.
I am sorry you feel that I used the fact of our Loving Father as weapon against survivor. Howeve, I know that was not my intention. My intention was to comfort Alix. Knowing that a Just God loves her, should be a comforting thought.
Establishing her child as a child of God is not mean, it is only factual statement. No person/parent own’s another human being. We all have a natural right to freedom and liberty.
One rape victim to another, Alix you come across as really angry. Your abortion doesn’t seem to have helped with that. So sorry.
Overcrowded orphanages? What country do you live in??
And comparing a little girl or boy fetus to a tapeworm? Going out of your way to refer to human beings in the fetal stage as ‘it’? Gee, how did you start out? The tapeworm analogy makes you sound really ignorant of human development. Do you know what an ultrasound is?
Between the orphanage comment and the tapeworm one, you must be hiding your head under a rock. How can abortion defenders be so ignorant? Amazing!
“Now then, it should be exceptionally easy for you to show us where it is that ANY abortion provider like Planned Parenthood actually tells women that the pills they sell cause breast cancer, and the abortions they sell cause preterm birth later.”
Good job citing a study about PREmenopausal breast cancer, which represents a whopping 1.8% of all breast cancer cases. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html
Your time would be better spent advising people against drinking too much alcohol and encouraging them to eat healthy diets–factors that have way more effect on cancer risk. I know it’s not quite as sexy and fun when the topic isn’t about lady parts, but there ya go.
Um, Megan, you think women hit menopause at 35? The sources I find say the average age is around 51.
If you want me to believe in something, you better be able to prove it.
Sweetheart, abortion kills humans and harms many of their parents. Here’s the proof: herestheblood.com
Show it to your sex ed. class and then tell them you support killing innocent humans.
Sean,
Even if BC does cause cancer, (Read more, it decreases chance of many cancers. ANY hormonal drug can cause a slight increase in risk, however 10 years after ceasing drug use lowers that risk to right where it was before.) do you know what else causes cancer? Sunlight. Food. Cars. Pollution. Infections. Oh, not to mention your GENETICS cause cancer, too. Literally everything can cause cancer. Do you know why? Because they affect you. They affect your cells. Cancer is a mutation of cells. Are you concerned about stopping people from going outside? Or not using cars? Or eating organic, vegetarian diets? Or doing anything but locking themselves in a closet for their entire lives? No? Then sit down. Birth control slightly raises the risk for cancer. Hardly enough to notice. Few women will every get cancer cause by birth control. You are taking the numbers and exaggerating to make women be afraid. And that isn’t okay. It isn’t okay to use fear and lies to force women to stop using contraceptives. It is our right to use them or to not use them as we please.
Lrning: They are trying to do all of those things. They are trying to remove my access to birth control and abortion, that’s what the entire pro-life movement is for. This is what they stand for. They want to force me to have children if I get pregnant, against my will. That in itself is slavery, saying that I have no right to my own body and that the government can tell me what I can and cannot do once I become pregnant. The majority of prolifers want to get rid of all forms of contraception, and then the women who do have sex or who do get raped are punished. With children. They are trying to demonize women who have sex – many here already have to me! If you can’t see this, then I feel sorry for you, and for those like you.
John: So you are justifying my rape because you think that God thought it would be a good idea? He wanted me to live through extreme trauma of having a child I didn’t want that was caused from an extremely violent, degrading, act? He wanted me to eventually commit suicide because I could not and would not live my life in such pain?
You are justifying rape to a woman who nearly died because some man decided it would be fun to force them to sacrifice their body and their life so he could get sexual pleasure. You are using your religion to degrade a rape survivor. You are using your god to slut-shame me.
There is nothing worse than those ideas.
Alix, how does one prove Love, Beauty and Goodness? Aren’t they simply recognized? Does true love involve faith/trust?
There is no disintinction between God and Love/Beauty?Goodness. This is what God is, in the FULL. Just look at Jesus on the Cross – there is no person/action/event more beautiful, loving and good. He freely choose the Cross, out of obedience to His Father. He suffered on the Cross so that you wouldn’t have to. No person will ever love you more than He will. He gave you Life, He gave you your choice, He gave you your Wisdom and your Understanding, and He gave you two commandments: to love His Father and to love your neighbours as you would want them to love you.
Focus on Jesus and he will get you through your pain.
Sorry prolifers but don’t the post by Alix sound strangely familiar, like a blast from the past. Alix if what you are ranting about is really true then I truly apologize for what you have been through but I really question your authenticity. I won’t go around in circles with you, don’t have the time.
I just posted on a different thread that I saw several women at an event who all shared the negative consequences of their abortions. Some had their abortions as many as 15-30 years ago, some wept, all were visibly moved as they shared their stories, most had never shared their stories before. Since you claim to be an athiest you have a long difficult road ahead with all the hate, anger and bitternesss you seem to be holding inside. There is healing available these women I that shared their stories are in that process years post-abortion. If you ever decide you want to heal contact Carla on this blog, she can help you. Peace.
1) ”You’re a bunch or woman hating liars!”
2) ”You are because the points you make a totally FALSE!”
3) “You can’t prove any of your so called ‘facts'”
4) ”OK, even if you’re right, I don’t care because lots of stuff causes the cancer!”
5) ”The stuff I have no comeback to I will just continue to ignore.”
6) ”Deliberately misleading and lying to women about grave threats to their health, even if it’s breast cancer and preterm birth, is OK. They are my political allies.”
7) ”I don’t want to talk about this anymore. I hate all of you!”
Fourth try……. (this is directed specifically at Megan, since Alix is AOK with women being kept in the dark regarding preterm birth and breast cancer)
Now then, it should be exceptionally easy for you to show us where it is that ANY abortion provider like Planned Parenthood actually tells women that the pills they sell cause breast cancer, and the abortions they sell cause preterm birth later. Go ahead. Show us all where……..
“The majority of prolifers want to get rid of all forms of contraception”
Alix, can you share your source for this?
They are trying to demonize women who have sex – many here already have to me!
Can you quote a couple of comments where you were demonized?
Tyler, Again, if your god exists, and he allowed me to be raped, allowed me to be impregnated, and would still send me to hell, I do not see how that is a Just god. That is evil, to make a traumatized teen pregnant, knowing she would have an abortion, and then send them to hell when they already knew what she would do.
Mary Ann,
My abortion saved my life. I was committed that I would either kill myself or have an abortion. I got an abortion, because I would rather live so that I could make sure that other women could protect themselves, could say “no” without fear, and could have the support they need to come forward and get these men behind bars. I am angry. I am angry that people like those here would prefer my death, would prefer my torment, than for me to take control over my own body.
Over 114,000 children this year alone will not be adopted. 20% of all children in an orphanage will stay there for more than 5 years. Males will stay in an orphanage longer compared to females. They receive subpar education and living standards because we can’t afford to have so many kids without homes. It is overcrowded, and my heart goes to those children. Had I money and room and I were older, I would adopt or foster a hard-to-place child. They deserve an education, and love, and care.
I am not saying children are like tapeworms, you are misreading the analogy. I am saying that if it is in my body, no matter whether it is a fetus or a tapeworm or a a set of pots and pans or the statue of liberty, I have no obligation to let it stay there. None. It is my body, and I have to right to get it out.
Praxades,
And the prolife movement wants to enslave women, not let them have contraceptives, and when they do get pregnant, force them to have children against their will, and then blame them for it.
Also, sex ed classes aren’t about abortion. It’s about telling them real medical knowledge of sex, the reproductive system, and telling them how they can protect themselves.
Alix, the infinite mercy and compassion of God is not something intended to bring shame to anyone. God himself came to the world, taking the form of a slave, so that he could suffer and die for the expiation of our sins. Jesus’ life was not taken from him; he freely gave it to all of us. God does not will that any of us sin, but rather that we live in Communion with Jesus Christ.
Whose uterus is this, Alix?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jpq0Rh2m9Tg
For extra credit – you can ignore the question as to when it was you became female also.
Tyler: Uh, no, love is totally provable. It’s an emotion, it has particular brain activity dedicated to it, it is experienced by all people. Beauty is a subjective idea based on the emotion, feeling, or aesthetic condition of something that a single person finds welcoming, nice, or good. Some people find beauty in flowers, some don’t. Beauty is personal. I find beauty in science. Beauty to me is physics, math, medicine, engineering, technology. Goodness is similar to beauty. And no, love/beauty/goodness does not in anyway denote that god exists. This is not proof. And I have read the bible, prayed, gone to sermons, etc., even as an atheist. I have felt not a single thing. Until you can provide proof, then you might as well give up on trying to convince me, because it won’t work unless you provide proof.
Prolifer L
Some women regret their abortions, The majority do not. Of the millions upon millions upon millions of women who have had abortions, it is a tiny fraction who regret them. The rest either are apathetic, or extremely pleased. I am absolutely thrilled with my abortion. It saved my life, it kept me from enduring trauma for the rest of my life, and it gave me control over my body when I lost it because some jackhole raped me.
Me being an atheist does not mean I am full of anger or hate. I am angry right now because people here are trying to make me feel shame and are lobbying to take away my right to my own body.
Lrning:
“I am sorry Alix that your child died in your abortion. I am sorry that you would come here to post all of that in an effort to convince us that it has never bothered you. It is all too obvious that you are trying to justify what you have done. ” – trivializing my experience, telling me I’m doing nothing but justifying my abortion, demeaning my choice.
”One less woman in the world to have any opinion at all thanks to YOU. ” – demonizing, trivializing
”Alix is exactly the same kind of democrat that would have been been shouting 150 years ago that abolishing slavery was a War on White People.” Demonizing, rhetoric, jumping to conclusions, and false ones at that.
Sean,
Again trying to play off that just because half of fetuses will be female is ridiculous. I don’t care what gender or DNA it has. If it is INSIDE my body, then I can get it OUT. Keywords, Sean. If there is a Swedish meatball in my arm, I can remove it. If there is a kitten in my intestine, I can remove it. If there is a leech on my spine, I can remove it. If there is a fetus in my uterus, I can remove it. Why? Because it’s my body.
Sean, good stuff, thanks for taking the time to post it.
Alix, I’m sorry you were raped, and I’m sorry you got an abortion.
I just want to mention that I went to a great deal of trouble to include corroboration for the points I made in my “The Reproductive Life of Julia” slides. For you to accuse me of lying was based either on an incomplete reading of my post or an overwhelming desire to remain in denial.
For instance, you wrote, “Obama wouldn’t push sex ed on Kindergartners. Another outright lie.” Yet I provided a link to his vote in favor of sex ed for Kindergartners (and also to the text of the bill) as well as a link to the specific sex ed material he endorses.
You also deny abortion can cause psychological problems, yet I provided a link to a meta-analysis of 22 worldwide studies, published in British Journal of Medicine in September 2011, which found mothers who have abortions experience an 81% increased risk pf mental health problems [separate effects: increased risk for anxiety disorders 34%; for depression 37%; for alcohol use/abuse 110%; for marijuana use/abuse 220%; and for suicide behaviors 155%]. Read it here.
Thanks. I hope you’ll stick around.
Alix,
Hmm, I guess we have a different perspective on what constitutes demonizing. Okay.
Can you post your source for saying that the majority of pro-lifers want to get rid of all forms of contraception?
Can’t answer simple questions.. Continuously avoids the medical science. Says it doesn’t matter anyway once it’s clearly shown. Claims to be the victim of those that point things out to her. Continues to support those lying to and harming women. Still says she’s hear to defend and educate women.
It’s sad, really. The blinders.. Earth to Alix: other people – rational ones – here can see exactly what happened, and what the actual facts are.
Goodnight. I also am sorry you were raped, but a tragedy and crime in the past does not justify a single beheading, dismemberment, or execution. The place it takes place does not effect the outcome for the VICTIM.
Dear Alix and all : I will concede that some women do not (seem to) regret their abortions, but just because someone does not openly admit it, this does not mean they are happy about their decision. Who wants to confess that to you, someone who clearly does not (seem to) regret it? That would be tantamount to “shaming” you and other women. Also, how is not requiring me to pay for your contraception the same thing as forcing you to go without it? Stay out of my uterus, except take an interest in buying me stuff for it?! Finally, (true) feminism and pro-life-ness ;) are absolutely compatible. Feminism and pro-choice-ity are not.
Tyler:
You are a shining example, you have offered the “proof” through your patience, tenderness and kindness.
Alix:
I, too, see so much hurt and anger in you. That “proof” is in your words you have written. I do pray for your healing. I don’t know if this helps or hurts, but I mean it to be helpful….to let you know that you are not alone. Here is a woman whom was raped and aborted her baby–then learned that she was concieved in rape. There are other resources as well.
http://juda4praise.com/Testimonies9_Personal.htm
This one is personal stories of pregnant by rape “personal stories of rape survivors who became pregnant out of rape and they are either parenting the child, placed their child for adoption, regret aborting their child, or miscarried their child”
http://rebeccakiessling.com/PregnantByRape.html
Maybe this might help? http://afterabortion.com/faq.html
Working on a slow connection here.
Jill: “When Obama’s campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers “age appropriate” for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had “moved to clarify” in his Senate campaign that he “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois’ sex education standards with ‘medically accurate’ information . . . ‘Nobody’s suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,’ Obama said. ‘If they ask a teacher ‘where do babies come from,’ that providing information that the fact is that it’s not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that’s going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.’””
Interestingly enough, your slide was incorrect. Who could have thought? And for the record, when I was in kindergarten, I already knew what sex was because of my peers. And do you know what? I probably should have had a better education because for years after that I carried misconceptions that could have been dangerous. Luckily enough for me, I was analytic enough to do my own research. Sad to say, my friend was not, and died of AIDs that he got when he was hardly a teenager because we never got proper education. Sex ed starting young is a good idea. That’s not to say we are going to flash pictures of penises to preschoolers, but children want to know where babies come from, and it is beneficial for them to know.
Depression is not caused from abortion. Depression following abortion is often caused by not wanting the abortion, being coerced, or later being told they were wrong. Abortion is an emotionally stressful time for women. The unintended pregnancy itself is incredibly stressful, too. Women have to make the choice that’s right for them. Not what’s right for YOU, Jill, not what’s right for congress, not what’s right for their partner. When they are rushed to a decision, coerced, or told they were wrong, that causes depression.
Depression can also stem from hormones – you know, like how millions of women become depressed after child birth. You aren’t demonizing people who give birth, even though pregnancy and birth itself can cause depression.
I can testify, as can the thousand of women I have talked to, that abortion didn’t hurt us. In fact, a crapton of women say abortion was the best choice and helped them. I know that after my rape, I got back my life after I had my abortion. Legal abortion saved my life, and it has saved the lives of others. It has saved families and finances. But it can only help when a woman is free to choose, and makes her choice without coercion.
Sean:
You’re rational, yet you want to enslave me, force me to either commit suicide or have a rape baby? Sure. Sounds awesome. You’re totally right, how could I have been so stupid?
No. It’s my body, and it’s my rules.
LifeJoy:
http://www.thanksabortion.com/
I have met women who regret it. They are entirely open about it. You misjudge women so much.
How is pro-lie and feminism compatible? You can’t be a feminist if you tell women they ave no choice over their reproduction. You cannot be feminist is you force birth onto people. You cannot be feminist if you deny women the right to not be pregnant.
I am a feminist. I help women get the rights they deserve. I applaud women for making choices – whether it is abortion or birth. I help rape survivors through traumatic experiences, and I help women encountering unplanned pregnancies with the dignity they deserve. I tell them that I am there for them no matter what they choose. I will throw them a baby shower and hold their hand in labor and delivery, or I will drive them to the clinic and take care of them after their abortion. I will find a parent or couple or organization who will take their child if they want to give it for adoption. I am a feminist because I recognize a woman’s right to choose what is right for her, and will stand by her forever. Prolifers won’t. None of you would stand by me. None of you would have driven me to the clinic. No, you all would have told me I was bad, wrong, evil. You would have stopped talking to me, spread rumours, slut-shame me. That’s not feminist.
Finally, contraceptives are basic healthcare. Millions of women use them for things other than birth control. I took them when I was twelve because I have poly cystic ovarian syndrome and to help with acne. I still take them for the same reason, whether I am sexually active or not. And beside that, YOU aren’t paying for anything, insurance is.
Blessing: once again, I do not, and will never, regret my abortion. I had a party to celebrate the one year anniversary of my abortion. Why? Because I was celebrating my choice, and it was a choice that was right for me. I don’t need healing, I don’t need help. What I need is for people here to stop assuming that I am in pain, because I’m not. What’s painful is watching you all try to make me regret my abortion, because it’s disgusting and futile.
It is midnight, now, and I have to get up to take my brother to school in the morning.
Goodnight, and remember, no one should ever be forced to give birth against their will. We all have a right, male or female, to not be forced into anything, and that means carrying a fetus to term. If it is your body, then you have the right to do what you will. If it is my body, you don’t have a right to do what you will. It is my body, and my rules. Stop slut-shaming.
Dear Alix: coercion is sooo prevalent. Many women report, ironically, that they felt they had no other choice than to abort. Planned Parenthood tells them they can solve their problem for them when they are scared and in crisis, that they are unable to be good moms.
Alix,
Disagreeing about whether abortion should be legal or not is not slut-shaming.
Also, please post your sources where you got the idea that the majority of pro-lifers want to get rid of all contraception. You seem interested in facts and research, so if you can’t find sources to corroborate that opinion, I hope you’ll stop perpetuating that untruth.
Alix- with respect. You are NOT a femininst by any stretch of the definition.
http://www.cblpi.org/resources/speech.cfm?ID=16
http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/12/how-authentic-feminism-is-inconsistent-with-legal-abortion-2/
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/07/womens-rights-why-every-woman-should-oppose-abortion/
Finally, one more: http://feministsforlife.org/
A true feminist, nurtures and protects life as well as brings it forth. She values her own as much as she values those arround her and the one within her.
Alix, that Obama later tried to explain away to a newspaper what he *meant* by his vote for Kindergarten sex ed was different than his vote actually was should come as no surprise. I linked to his vote. I linked to the bill itself. I linked to which sex ed curriculum Obama said he endorsed (SIECUS), and I linked to the SIECUS material. Furthermore, I was actually down in Springfield lobbying against that particular bill, which is the reason I already knew Obama and Planned Parenthood wanted the SIECUS material taught to our kids (taught by PP with taxpayer funding). The battle against that bill and the SIECUS material is actually still being waged in Springfield, btw.
You don’t know Obama, Alix. But that’s another topic.
Alix,
Sweet dreams. But remember, “no one should be forced’ to not be born “against their will. We all have a right, male or female, to not be forced into anything, and that means” completing your term in the safety of your mother’s womb. “If it is your body, then you have the right to do what you will. If it is my body, you don’t have a right to do what you will.”
And if it is your child’s body or my child’s body, then neither of us have a right to do what we will. It is his or her body, and their rule is SURVIVAL.
Stop trying to worthless-shame them by comparing them to tapeworms or their criminal father.
Alix: “Stop slut-shaming.”
What damnable hypocrisy. Slut-shaming is simply free expression of opinion. In the very act of claiming the prerogative to destroy unborn human life on the grounds that it’s one’s own body that’s affected by pregnancy, you’re willing to assert that others have the obligation to shut up about the subject, somehow lacking the prerogative merely to speak.
What damnable hypocrisy.
Can a baby even survive at 22 weeks? I’m not sure how the “born alive” act would change anything. Most parents(as in ones who didn’t choose abortion) choose to forego invasive care at that age because they don’t want to put the child through needless suffering.
Can a baby even survive at 22 weeks?
Yes, it is possible.
I had a party to celebrate the one year anniversary of my abortion.
That’s interesting. Most people don’t have parties to commemorate such supposedly insignificant “common surgical procedures.” Back surgery anniversary parties… appendectomy anniversary parties…. It also makes me wonder if abortion is considered a “sacred” rite of passage to some feminists who think of themselves as goddesses. And abortion is SOOO not a big deal that the women who have had them purposely seek out pro-life sites – like moths to a flame, they just can’t stay away for some reason – and repeat over and over how much they DO. NOT. REGRET. THEIR. ABORTIONS. And how dare we shame them on this site.
Because, naturally, we went out on the internet and dragged them here.
Whoever was asking about proof of breadth cancer/combined pills. Since you are a man, am I to assume you don’t know all birth control comes with medical informstion disclosing side effects? Also, planned parenthood isn’t the only place to get an abortion. Your local hospital does it too. Will you protest them and demand no funding and shutting them down? Only 3% of the services at PP are abortions. The other 97% has to do with check ups, men’s health, etc.
I had two abortions, one miscarriage, and one birth. One abortion I had to have because my IUD failed and I was so violently ill that I would have had massive infection, a harmed baby, loss of fertility, or died. My pregnancy then was a result of rape by my ex.
Now I have a beautiful daughter.
Oh dear I pushed enter too soon. Now I have a beautiful daughter. She was not born pre-term.
Do I regret my abortion decisions? No. Do I see the unborn as babies? Yes. I wasn’t going to continue a pregnancy that endangered my health.
Epiphany: “Also, planned parenthood isn’t the only place to get an abortion. Your local hospital does it too. Will you protest them and demand no funding and shutting them down?”
One starts where the butchery is most egregious, and at the ideological center of gravity. The idea is to topple a religion of death, and the priesthood class of that religion is where one starts.
Hoping for Epiphany to live up to her name.
Alix
“I know a woman who was happy with all four of her abortions”
Pro choice or not ,do you think that is a good thing? Killing 4 babies and being happy with it?
I am post abortive and I see about 200 new people every year who are not “happy” and many were not coerced…I’d bet each and every one of us, in spite of the suffering, are very grateful we were not “happy’ with our abortions.
I am sorry you were raped, but that does not mean you can disregard the truth of abortion or the feelings of those of us who have suffered.
These are not lies , millions of women have found that out the hard way.
Your telling Carla she “chooses” to regret it is beyond ridiculous. It KILLS a baby..I saw my son…why would I be happy to see his little dead body? if it is a choice to choose to regret killing my kid I am happy that is my choice…I would never want to be the kind of person who can do that and be happy with it.
I recognize you felt you had to do that , especially with the trauma of rape, but that still does not make it ok…it just adds another trauma to what you already went through. I am sorry I can only imagine how hard it has been for you to have suffered such a horrible thing and have been raped and had an abortion.
But, that does not change the truth.
Wow, Mcgooga2. Clearly you don’t know us at all. And clearly you know nothing about biology. That life begins at conception is the most basic biological fact. Please find an embryology textbook that says differently.
Hi Alix.
“If it is your body, then you have the right to do what you will.”
Let’s take this line of thought to its logical conclusion. Consider the following thought experiment. In some parts of Africa, the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is quite rampant. Sometimes those parents who practice it on their children come over to the US and would like to have it done on their newborn daughters. Of course, this is a horrific and brutal act of mutilation, as I am sure many pro-choice feminists would agree. There should be no tolerance for FGM in our civilized society.
However, there is a compromise. Since it is her body and she has the right to do what she wills, as long as the mother wished, she could (hypothetically) have her unborn daughter’s genitals mutilated while the daughter was still INSIDE her mother. Though we probably don’t have the science behind doing this down yet, I’m sure we could figure it out. It would probably be easiest to do right before birth, the time at which the fetus gains rights. Thus, it is teh woman’s body and she can do what she wills with her body, there should be no moral qualms about mutilating a female fetus’s genital while it is still in teh womb.
Does that make sense? Do you support in utero FGM?
Alix,
I am so sorry you were raped.
I am not wrong about my own experience.
The rest of my story? I aborted at 10 weeks and later miscarried another child into my hand at 10 weeks. That baby had fingers, toes, legs, hands, arms, a tiny rump and a precious little face. I was HORRIFIED that I killed my first baby in my abortion!! I was told it was “just a bunch of cells!!” I saw with my own eyes the truth.
Beth,
Please cut and paste where I stated that all women regret their abortions.
You are not allowed to deny my right to grieve my daughter who died in my abortion. Her name is Aubrey. She would have been 21 years old last month.
This mother stands with her I Regret My Abortion sign and that is all I ever hear. “I DON’T REGRET MINE!!” What part of “I” do you not understand??
*That life begins at conception is the most basic biological fact. *
Not medically or legally. Conception starts the process that may lead to a life. It is not the formation of a life.
I love how the argument is that a baby is In a woman’s body ‘against her will’ like it crawled up inside her an took residence. By choosing to have sex, which has the primary function of conception (no one takes antiorgasm pills, right?), you have ‘chosen’ the possibility of creating a new human being. We all know sex makes babies. The baby didn’t invade your body, it’s not an entity to be eradicated. Yes, rape is awful and a woman at that point did not choose to create a baby then, but it’s still another unique human being. That child could be the exact thing to bring healing to the rape victim. Even if a person doesn’t believe in God, they are still worshipping something – self, choice, pleasure, career, plans, a pain/difficulty-free life. An abortion is a child sacrificed in the interest of other things. Do they teach the golden rule anymore? “do unto others, as you would have done to yourself”?
“Not medically or legally. ”
True, not legally (but who cares about that), but definitively medically. The following quotes are taken from embryollogy texts from teh Coming Home blog of Dr Gerard Nadal.
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
– Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th ed. 1993, p. 1
“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
– Human Embryology. 2nd edition. 1997, p. 17
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. 1996, pp. 8, 29.
“In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. … Fertilization takes place in the oviduct … resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point… This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
Essentials of Human Embryology 1998 1-17.
“[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm … unites with a female gamete or oocyte … to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. 1998, pg. 2-18.
“Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed… Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments… The zygote … is a unicellular embryo…”
Human Embryology & Teratology 1996 pg. 5-55.
“Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.”
-Scott Gilbert, Professor, Swarthmore College
Those who wish to be able to kill the unborn will usually admit the humanity of the unborn but then make a distinction between human being and human person. That may be what you are going for here.
*That life begins at conception is the most basic biological fact. *
Nikita said: Not medically or legally. Conception starts the process that may lead to a life. It is not the formation of a life.
So Nikita – when did your own “life” actually begin and on what basis do you make that claim?
HA HA HA!!!! This is a joke right?
People will not always make the choices we agree with, so let’s take choices away!
In Europe they have age appropriate sex ed and access to sexual health services including abortion. All things you would like to eliminate. However, they have lower STI rates, lower abortion rates, and lower teen pregnancy rates.
Sorry kids, abstinence only doesn’t work. In that case Julia would have sex, not use a condom and get an STI that leaves her sterile. Since the pill can help protect against some cancers, and she doesn’t use it since she is sterile, she gets cancer and dies. The end.
I think it’s interesting that the women who show up to defend the killing of their children were raped or in the midst of a dire health crisis. Coincidence?
These post abortive women are breaking my heart. The more they write, the more they reveal their sad, sad hearts.
Hi Kel,
Since we are ANTI CHOICE we of course force women to come here and argue with the “likes” of us!!! :)
*By choosing to have sex*
How does that square with the whole rape scenario? Nobody chose to have sex there — a potential baby was indeed placed inside the woman in uestion without her consent.
*This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. *
Right. The beginning. Not the existence of a human being. There are many circumstances under which it will not become a human child.
As an acorn is not a tree, a zygote is not a live human.
Courtnay, the arguments that one’s own child is a “parasite” or an “unjust aggressor” are certainly born from sad hearts. This is a sadness that only Jesus can heal.
To Nora, Bobby, and Chris: I’m going to speak calmly now, so that you may attempt to comprehend what I say.
Blastocysts, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, ARE indeed of the human variety. They sure as heck aren’t going to develop into wallabies or fish. Nobody is denying that all of the above are anything but organisms in various stages of human development. But they are not “persons” the way you and I are. They are potential persons. Until they leave the body of the person they are attached to, i.e. the woman who must carry them, they do not have bodily autonomy like existing, developed human beings. Pro-lifers seem concerned only with the autonomy and rights of the human in the fetal stages of development. They extend no care or empathy to what the live, human woman may endure as a result of pregnancy or childbirth. I don’t understand how one can be so stringent about protecting life, yet be so callous towards women’s lives. If you are pro-life, that means you want no abortions at all. Period. If that were to happen, not only would children suffer, but so would women. That means women would no longer be able to decide with her doctor to terminate in situations where there is a legitimate threat to her life or health. Outlawing abortion = dead women, injured women, devastated women; the ending of an already living person and the infliction of misery upon them. Why, if you are so ready to count a fetus as a person and insist they have the right to live, do you not extend that same care to women? Are they not alive, too? Do they not matter at all? I simply do not understand how one can claim to be a defender of life, but refuse to take into account the life of anything or anyone, but someone who doesn’t exist yet?
“Right. The beginning. Not the existence of a human being.”
Yes, the beginning of teh existence of a human being… what are you under the impression that it is the beginning of?
“There are many circumstances under which it will not become a human child.”
Notice here how you are changing what I am claiming. I am not interested in arguing that it is a “child.” I realize that the bread and butter of the pro-choice movement is arguing semantics, whether or not it is a “baby”, or if it is “pro choice” or “pro abortion”, dilation and extraction vs. partial birth abortion, etc. So I am making no claim about it being a child- rather, that the human being begins biological development during the process of fertilization and it is the same agent through out the zygote, blastocyst, embryonic, fetal, neonatal, baby, toddler, child, teen, etc. stages of life. In other words, it is a biological fact that each and every human being was once an embryo.
“As an acorn is not a tree, a zygote is not a live human.”
Here you are confusing accidents and substance of a being. True an acorn is not an oak tree, but they are both the same KIND of thing. Thus, teh analogy is not “an acorn is not an oak tree, thus a zygote is not a live human” but rather “an acorn is not an oak tree, thus a zygote is not a fetus.” The latter, of course, any pro-lifer would agree with. Again, acorn and oak describe the same kind of thing simply at different stages of development, but the kind of substance it is remains the same through out. Similarly, the embryo, fetus, teenager, and adult all remain teh same kind of thing through out its biological development.
Questions. Do you call:
An acorn a tree before it grows into one? Seriously, do you pick up an acorn, and go, “Oh look, I’m holding a tree!”?
A watermelon seed a watermelon before it grows into one? When you buy a watermelon at the store, would you be cool with it if it was just a seed? Same/same, right?
A caterpillar a butterfly before it turns into one? Conversely, when you see a butterfly, do you think, “Look at that pretty caterpillar!”?
Is a maggot a fly before it turns into one? Do you kill a maggot, and go, “I just killed a fly”?
An infant a senior citizen, before it ages into one? Would you give an infant a senior citizen discount? No! Because said infant wouldn’t be an old person.
So, I’m just curious which other beings you assign the wrong names to? Besides calling an embryo a person before it develops into one, of course.
*So, I’m just curious which other beings you assign the wrong names to? Besides calling an embryo a person before it develops into one, of course. *
Exactly.
Incidentally, never had an abortion, would prefer to see less of them. But am not “pro-life” because I consider the policies the movement espouses to be fundamentally counterproductive and harmful.
“Blastocysts, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses, ARE indeed of the human variety. They sure as heck aren’t going to develop into wallabies or fish.”
Tell that to Nikita.
“Nobody is denying that all of the above are anything but organisms in various stages of human development.”
Nikita is actually.
“But they are not “persons” the way you and I are. They are potential persons. Until they leave the body of the person they are attached to, i.e. the woman who must carry them, they do not have bodily autonomy like existing, developed human beings.”
I am not sure you have made a convincing case here. It seems as if you are saying that the criteria for personhood is leaving a body… it is difficult to see why one would place value on the fact that someone is not attached to a body. In other words, do we value human beings because they have left a body? Is that why it is morally wrong to kill a human being? Because, in light of the fact that it has left a body, it now has dignity and intrinsic moral worth?
“If you are pro-life, that means you want no abortions at all. Period. If that were to happen, not only would children suffer, but so would women. That means women would no longer be able to decide with her doctor to terminate in situations where there is a legitimate threat to her life or health.”
You are beginning to conflate several issues here now. Before you seemed to be basing your justification for abortion on the fact that a being was attached to a body. Now you seem to be appealing to the suffering that a lack of an abortion can cause. Suppose a couple has a wanted child and then teh husband abandons the mother, and the mother has no viable means to support teh child. Because now the child will cause her to suffer and teh child would suffer, would it be morally permissible to kill teh child? To say that she could just give the child up in a foster home would not do. I mean morally, because she will undergo great suffering and so will teh child, does she have a moral right to kill teh born child? If no, it is difficult to see how abortion can be morally permissible based on an argument from suffering.
“Why, if you are so ready to count a fetus as a person and insist they have the right to live, do you not extend that same care to women?”
We do. We are saying that it is never morally permissible to directly and willfully kill an innocent human being as a means or as an ends.
You also mention the “hard case” of life of the mother. Are you now only willing to defend abortion in the case that the mother’s life is in danger and agree that all other abortions are morally impermissible?
“I simply do not understand how one can claim to be a defender of life, but refuse to take into account the life of anything or anyone, but someone who doesn’t exist yet?”
How does the embryo not exist? You admitted above that it was a human being…
Mcooga2, in response to your 2012/05/08 at 9:41 am post, please see my 2012/05/08 at 9:35 am post to Nikita which explains the difference between accidents and substance of a being. This is the same error you are making.
In fact, let me specifically address the point “A caterpillar a butterfly before it turns into one? Conversely, when you see a butterfly, do you think, “Look at that pretty caterpillar!”?”
Let us call the caterpillar “John.” When John begins his life, his stage of development is that of a caterpillar, much like when human beings begin life outside teh womb, the term we use to describe them is “baby.” When John becomes a butterfly, yes, he is a butterfly and not a caterpillar. However, whether or not you kill John in the caterpillar stage or the butterfly stage, the fact remains that you have killed John. I’m not interested in whether or not one kills a caterpillar vs, killing a butterfly or whether one kills a zygote vs killing an adult. What I and other pro-lifers are concerned with is WHO you are killing, the same being through out its different developmental stages. If it is a caterpillar or a butterfly, it is the same animal agent through out. If you kill a human being in the zygote stage or the teenage stage, it is still the same being through out. Butterfly, caterpillar, zygote, fetus, baby, teenager, etc. are all accidental terms to describe a stage of development of a being that remains the same being through out. The substantial term, the term to describe the what-it-means-to be that thing is a human being. So again, we must be very careful about confusing accidental stages of a beings life with the kind of thing taht a being is intrinsically.
For me the argument isn’t when life begins or becomes human etc. The question is do you trust women to make their own decisions? Do you think women are stupid and need to be protected because if given choices they will make ones you don’t like?
The point of being pro-choice is this, there cannot be two sets of equal rights in one body. The woman is the one capable of thought and decision making, except in rare cases. She is the only person who should be able to decide CTT. Not you, not me, and certainly not politicians.
Nicaragua has passed the equivalent person hood amendment in their constitution which has outlawed abortion completely. This has had all sorts of unintended consequences for women.
http://global.christianpost.com/news/abortion-ban-in-nicaragua-needlessly-endangering-womens-lives-say-activists-60425/
A priest pointed out that the maternal death rate in Nicaragua was not in line with other countries that ban abortion like Poland and Ireland, but that ignores the fact Polish and Irish women are close to countries where reproductive health services are readily available.
Guttmacher has found that areas where abortion is illegal have higher abortion rates.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html
Thank you Alix for standing up to these absurd people and their ideas. I applaud you, even moreso because you took your tramatic experience and turned it into something positive by giving kids a realistic education about sex and the human body. These are two issues that are very dear to me. Don’t let these people beat you down.
Bobby:
I am not Nikita, I cannot answer for her posts, so I’m not going to.
No, I did not say it was a human being. Not in the sense that you mean it, anyway. I said the embryo, while technically in a stage of human development, does not exist as a PERSON yet. It may one day, but until it is born, it is not a person. Like you or me. A person is not the same as a human embryo. As long as the fetus’ life is dependent upon using an autonomous person’s body, they simply do not have the right to trump THAT person’s bodily autonomy rights. Given that fetuses do not have agendas, or any sense of rights, it should rightfully be left up to the person who is having to host them with their body.
And no, I am absolutely not saying that abortion is only morally permissible in extreme cases. I am not morally opposed to any reason a woman may have for getting an abortion. Because 1.) It’s none of my business. 2.) Her body does not belong to anyone but her. 3.) I do not equate a fetus to being the same as a live, born person, so if they are terminated, the reason is irrelevant to me.
The rest of your post is just bleh, so I’ll sum up with this:
What it comes down to for me, is personhood and bodily autonomy rights. The right to life. The right to one’s own body.
So what do we decide, when two bodies are occupying the same body? They cannot both have equal autonomy rights. One will inevitably wind up violating the other. So we are left eventually to decide which body gets the right to trump the other body’s rights. This is the crux of the entire pro-life vs. pro-choice movement. If to you, a fetus is equal to the woman, then how is it that you conclude that the fetus has more rights to its body than the person’s body it occupies? You can’t, if you believe they are truly the same kinds of beings. You do have to place one’s importance over the other.
I choose the woman.
You choose the fetus.
That is the essential difference here.
Mcooga2 said: But they are not “persons” the way you and I are. They are potential persons.
Aren’t you a human organism at some stage of development?
What makes you think I count you as a “person?”
If a bunch of people got together and declared you a non-person, would that make it “true?”
You’re claiming “potential persons” – but that’s a non-sensical distinction you can’t empirically prove. You’re showing you don’t know what “intrinsic” means. You’re committing a logical semantic fallacy, and also begging the question – “petitio principi”. Specifically, you introduce a category of human being that simply doesn’t exist to make your argument.
You appear to claim a body can exist without being a person, so clearly it’s possible someone could rape your body and your “person” would be unaffected. It would be good for a rapist to defend himself like that in court – not because I don’t think what the rapist did was horrible and deserving of punishment, but because it would force the legal system to legally acknowledge the intrinsic qualities of humanity that run counter to invalid semantic arguments.
You can prove your person is distinct from your human flesh by jumping through a wood chipper and on the other side convincing me that such a test didn’t change your person one bit.
After all, if you’re pro-abortion that’s precisely the logic you’re applying to the child, except they don’t get the option of “choice”.
You can cling to the word “fetus” all day long, and you think that will protect you from coming to the natural conclusion that an unborn baby is part of the human family, NO MATTER WHERE HER LOCATION.
All this silly talk of butterflies and acorns? Seriously? You want to compare the inalienable right to human life to a bug and a seed?
Are there ANY other stages of human life other than a fetus that you are willing to sacrifice?
Your own slut shaming has blinded you to the fact that millions of pro-life advocates do much to help the woman in a crisis pregnancy, before and after the birth. We don’t just scrape out your uterus and call it liberation.
One final note: I suppose none of you proaborts support any laws that charge someone with 2 counts of assault or murder when a pregant woman is hurt?
“So we are left eventually to decide which body gets the right to trump the other body’s rights. This is the crux of the entire pro-life vs. pro-choice movement. If to you, a fetus is equal to the woman, then how is it that you conclude that the fetus has more rights to its body than the person’s body it occupies? You can’t, if you believe they are truly the same kinds of beings.”
I do not claim that the fetus has more rights than the mother. Rather, what are the things that they both have to lose? In the case of the mother, it may very well be many things, which I will not try to list. However, the fetus always has its life to lose, and that is the main difference. We are comparing the rights that one individual might lose vs the LIFE that another individual might lose. If I walk into teh middle of the road and a car is coming towards me, the car may very well have the right to keep driving under normal circumstances. However, the person who walks into the middle of the road has much more to lose than the driver who must swerve the car or slam on the breaks. Certainly being pregnant is no where near as difficult and costly as slamming on brakes, but you see the analogy. One has much more to lose than the other, and that is the key difference. In fact, this is why a pro-lifer would have no problem with a pregnant woman taking a medication which may do a little harm to teh fetus but which would greatly help the mother. Because of teh proportionality of the little evil it will do to teh fetus vs the great good it would do to the mother, a woman may take certain medications, engage in certain activities, etc. during pregnancy because she may have more to gain than the fetus has to lose. But of course, there is no situation in which we have something that would be worse than directly and willfully killing someone, which is what the abortion advocate claims may be done. That is why teh pro-life movement can talk about loving both the fetus and the mother. We are happy to do everything we can to support the woman in a crisis pregnancy, but not actually directly and willfully killing an innocent human being.
Now if you wish to discuss what it is that makes the fetus into a person, I would be happy yo do that. But to respond to teh above by stating that you don’t believe that the fetus is a person is to abandon that argument about rights trumping other rights. It is so common for pro-choicers to go back and forth between “the fetus isn’t a person” and “bodily autonomy.” The pro-lifer responds to an argument about bodily rights, and the pro-choicer responds with “well I don’t believe the fetus is a person because of X,Y, and Z.” So the pro-lifer responds to arguments X, Y and Z, and then pro choicer responds with “well the woman has bodily autonomy, so it doesn’t matter if the fetus is a person or not.” This has the unfortunate side effect of never actually addressing anything the pro lifer claims, which I think is what we are starting to see here. It is difficult to go back and forth and continue to try and pin down exactly why you are pro-choice because there are many elements of bodily rights above as well as many claims about the personhood (or lack thereof) of the embryo. So it is a challenge to know what claims exactly to address because it seems that justification is always appealed to in order to justify abortion in order to avoid the other.
Oh, and Kris? If Alix had come to us after she had been raped, we would have done more for her than say “You know what will really solve this problem and heal you?? Killing your child!! Will that be cash or charge?”
There are women here and in CPCs who have lived thru sexual assault, myself included. There is no beat down here, only love and mercy WITHOUT HAVING TO PIT MAMA AGAINST BABY.
No matter. You will believe what your Planned Parenthood Princesses spoon feed you about the prolife movement. We don’t choose the “fetus” over the “woman.” We say no killing of the innocent. We say do not compund a tragedy with another. We say LIVE AND LET LIVE.
Wow, the semantic partridges have flushed!
When I was a kid hunting pheasants, partridge season coincided. But I never did shoot one. Unlike pheasants, they’d flush in coveys — and they’d fly away in a serpentine weave. It was just too exasperating to try to follow one as it carved a parabolic profile back and forth with others weaving in and out of its presentation to the eye.
Dittos.
Take four or five pro-choicers and try to carry on a conversation, and the incoherence is breathtaking. It’s a human, but not a person! It’s not a human! It’s not a life! It’s alive but not the right kind of life to care about. It’s like a maggot, y’know?
Seriously, some people just need to be slapped with a tuna. The one or two pro-choicers in a crowd who aren’t blithering dolts could make for intelligent conversation if their friends with the big floppy clown shoes would just go entertain the children for a while.
Mcooga2: Don’t you find it hypocritical that you look toward the state to provide protection for your “bodily sovereignty” while at the same time demand the execution of another human being on the same grounds?
In case you’re missing the point – I’ll explain.
When you demand the “legal right to abort” you appeal to “might makes right”, however if the roles were reversed (you were in the womb instead) you’d naturally appeal to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
In other words, you’d seek mercy which you are unwilling to give.
To expand on my last post:
Ideally, of course, pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike hope for the outcome of a healthy mother, and a healthy baby in all pregnancies. However, this often is not possible.
There are so many cases in which carrying a fetus to term may be cruel, either due to a devastating defect which will cause the neonate to suffer greatly after birth before dying, or has a condition which is incompatible with life, causing a woman to carry her dead fetus inside of her because she can’t have an abortion.
Likewise, there are many cases in which carrying a fetus to term will cause the mother to die or suffer. For example, a mother who becomes pregnant, then discovers she has cancer that requires immediate chemo, and has to consider termination so that she may live. Or a woman who is mentally ill, and the medications she needs will harm the fetus, so she is forced to choose between mental instability, or termination. Or a woman who must take life-sustaining medication that would harm her fetus, so she must terminate, or risk death.
There are thousands upon thousands of things that can go wrong in a pregnancy, in which a woman who may not wish to terminate would be forced to contemplate abortion.
Pro-lifers would have ALL of these options stripped from everyone. There seems to be the impression that most women who get abortions do it because they were promiscuous, irresponsible, don’t want stretch marks, etc. There are very legitimate reasons why abortions NEEDS to remain available. Not the least of which is the fact that outlawing abortions will not stop them from happening, but instead make them more dangerous. Outlawing abortions will not prevent unwanted pregnancies. It would not stop rape. It would not stop fatal fetal anomaly; or any of the other things pro-lifers object to. It will not stop anything. It will not help. In fact, it would be counter-productive. There is no way around abortion. It needs to be there. It doesn’t matter if we all agree with all the reasons people get them. They just need to be available, period. No amount of pro-life legislation would stop abortions. It is a futile cause.
@ Courtnay
Whaaa? I don’t have a problem with crisis pregnancy centers that
a) represent themselves as pro-life.
b)give medically accurate information.
The wonderful thing about organizations like Planned Parenthood is they help women take care of their sexual health, which lasts a life time, not just if and when a woman is pregnant.
Having just been pregnant, I call shenanigans on the idea anyone other than myself, with input from my husband and doctor, would have final say over what was best for me and my family.
If I had lost my pregnancy early I would have been sad. Would it have been the same as losing my two year old son? Not even close.
Choice is a two edged sword. If a woman is pregnant and loses a pregnancy she wants due to another person. I support charging that person with am unlawful abortion.
Typo in slide #8.
I want to comment about Alicx’s assertion that there are 113,000 children in orphanages living in subpar conditions. Where did this information come from? I have been a child welfare social worker for nearly ten years. At least in this country, orphanages are a thing of the past. Children who for some reason cannot live with their biological parents are placed with a relative (preferably) or someone who has a close relationship with them. The relative can receive monies for the child until he or she is eighteen through a program called kinship care. http://www.cwla.org/programs/kinship/factsheet.htm
If this is not feasible, group homes, such as the ones pictured here: http://www.sfsj.org/ are an option (yes they are run by the dreaded Catholic Church). These homes are in the community and every attempt is made to make them as home-like as possible. At my agency, the social workers are required to visit a child in placement at least once a month. If conditions are not acceptable, the child is removed. I am not saying the system is perfect, but there are safeguards in place.
Speaking of “demonization,” the media has done a good job of making all foster parents and the foster care system seem evil. Once again, it’s not perfect. Foster kids face some serious problems, especially when they age out of the system. I have seen some kids who have faced horrendous conditions, But I have yet to hear one say “I wish I would have been aborted.”
Alix, sure there can be complications when having wisdom teeth removed. But I’m not on a wisdom teeth website trying to justify their removal am I? Yet you’re here trying to justify the removal and death of your unborn baby. Says a lot.
Familiar with Rebecca Kiessling? She was conceived in rape. Her mom said if abortion had been legal she would be dead. Should she have died for her father’s crimes? I fail to see how your rape somehow justifies your child’s death. How a child is conceived does not affect their biology. They are biologically human and alive. That should be reason enough for you to protect him/her. Your child was innocent. And obviously the abortion did not heal you. You’re still a bitter raging woman. Congrats.
50% of all aborted babies ARE female. In fact females are being targeted for abortion by some ethnicities. But their bodies, their choice right? Its okay to target unborn females because all that matters is “bodily autonomy” for the mommy right? Forget about bodily rights for the baby.
I just had a baby boy 7 weeks ago. He is my second son. Neither of my sons were EVER part of my body. Thats just basic common sense. The fetus is NOT part of your body. The child may be the opposite sex of you, most likely has different blood type (my sons do) and while residing IN your body are not part OF your body. Do you understand spacial orientation? In does not mean of.
When I’m in my house that doesn’t mean I’m part of the house. Do you understand that? I think you do. But you don’t want to acknowledge that or your argument for prenatal death and dismemberment falls flat.
I also think it interesting, this hysterical shrieking over protecting yourself from sex. Can’t you see thats whats wrong with your whole view on sex? When my husband and I make love (have sex) I don’t feel this fear that I must be protected from his body. I don’t fear disease and even if we’re not planning on another child (like now) I don’t fear any child our love would create. Why would you want to have sex with someone you feel you need “protected” from? You’ve taken something beautiful and turned it into something dirty that warrants “protection”. Blech. And if thats slut-shaming then so be it. It needs to be said.
The study cited by Ms. Stanek, linking abortion to mental disorders, has been debunked. And according to the Cancer Institute:
A number of studies suggest that current use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) appears to slightly increase the risk of breast cancer, especially among younger women. However, the risk level goes back to normal 10 years or more after discontinuing oral contraceptive use.
Women who use oral contraceptives have reduced risks of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time oral contraceptives are used.
Oral contraceptive use is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer; however, this increased risk may be because sexually active women have a higher risk of becoming infected with human papillomavirus, which causes virtually all cervical cancers.
Women who take oral contraceptives have an increased risk of benign liver tumors, but the relationship between oral contraceptive use and malignant liver tumors is less clear.
OOH, and here we go ladies with the gown up language.
Have you noticed that when the proaborts get frustrated, they’re one heartbeat away from the F-bomb?
OOOOh. Pwtty scawy!!
Oh and the comment by Phillymiss just reminded me, these figures about all the babies not being adopted is nonsense. My sister and her husband are trying to adopt. First, adoptions in the us cost upwards of $25,000. Very very expensive to hire lawyers etc…
Foster care is hard to adopt from because a lot of kids in foster care are not available for adoption. Parental rights are often never terminated even though the kids are shuffled from home to home. I know this because my sister looked into it.
At my mom’s church a deacon and his wife had grown children but fostered a little girl. THey loved her and wanted to adopt her. The father was in jail and the mom was a druggie who didn’t care about the child. Yet right as the adoption was about to become final the parents decided to try to get custody. It was a mess. Some people are scared to foster and adopt because of situations like this. The system needs fixed.
But no matter if the system is broken or not, killing children should never be our solution.
Am I to understand that Julia’s abortion trumps the pedophile who faced no repercussions? Are you suggesting that molesters seek out victims based on whether or not they had sex ed? Right, because they never molest babies or even their own children.
Also, why is Julia buried anonymously in the cemetery again? I suppose women who chose not to have children or get married are opting for a life of solitude? Poor Julia married someone who obviously didn’t love her since he did not provide a proper burial, and erased her from memory upon her death. Are we to believe that she did not have friends, co workers, acquaintances, because of her whore ways?
The only thing sadder than the comic is the commentary that followed.
They Romney changes presented here as good are proven failures at protecting women and reducing abortion, see Nicaragua and states with abstinence only education
Sex ed, widely available sexual health services, including abortion lower, abortion rates among other social ills, see Europe.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html
What you want doesn’t work.
*After all, if you’re pro-abortion that’s precisely the logic you’re applying to the child, except they don’t get the option of “choice”.*
But here’s the thing — I’m pretty sure that no one here is “pro-abortion.” What we are in favor of is women’s rights, medical autonomy, and privacy, all guarantees under our Constitution.
Like many other pro-choice people, I wish there were fewer abortions. As a result, I support thhings that reduce the need for abortion, such as contraception, comprehensive sex education, education in general, and laws which protect women and children from rape and assault and other forms of coercion.
*Also, why is Julia buried anonymously in the cemetery again?*
Because, inherently, the “pro-life” movement is pretty misogynistic. They feel that Julia should be buried anonymously, like the whore they see her as.
Luanne, you and your ilk are the ONLY folk on this blog who EVER introduced the words “slut shaming” or “whorish” to the conversation.
It’s sad you see women that way. Wow, talk about a war on women.
But Alix is so right. Pro-lifers want a society in which abortion is criminalized. As such, women who have abortions will be jailed. Women who are raped or are the victims of incest will be forced to give birth. While this represents a divine pro-life utopia, where all women will be happy mommies regardless of their circumstances, the reality based community realizes the atrocity of this mind-set. And that’s why the country remains very divided on abortion with certain areas of the country being vehemently pro-choice. Guess those students at the University of Washington haven’t had their road to Damascus moment regarding abortion and it doesn’t look like they will anytime soon!
”Why would you want to have sex with someone you feel you need “protected” from? You’ve taken something beautiful and turned it into something dirty that warrants “protection”. Blech. And if thats slut-shaming then so be it. It needs to be said”
If there’s ever an anti-choice phrase that should be used in a fund raising letter for abortion rights, this is it! Women who use birth control are sluts! Thanks Sydney for underscoring what the pro-lifers really think about women and how they would love to take us back to the misogynistic dark ages. And Sydney, your fetuses were a part of your body until they were born. As such, they were your private bodily property. As such, the pro-lifers have no more right to a fetus, inside somebody else’s body, than they do to any other body part or organ.
*Should she have died for her father’s crimes? *
She wouldn’t have died. The potential for her would have died.
I just had a miscarriage over Christmas. I didn’t lose a child — I lost the potential of a child.
Note: if you want to believe that a potential child is a child, that’s fine. But I’m not required to accept your magical thinking.
Oh, and Nikita: not finished with you yet. Between you and myself, I am the only person in this conversation who’s not willing to kill any women. You are the TRUE misogynist (I know, I know–your favorite word, and you truly are one, after all!)
See everyone, this is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my 2012/05/08 at 9:35 post about semantics.
Notice that in Nikita’s 2012/05/08 at 10:56 am post, she quotes someone using the phrase “pro-abortion” and the rest of her post totally ignores the substance of what the pro-lifer claimed, and discusses teh use of teh term “pro-abortion” as well as the ramifications of being pro-choice. We in the pro-life movement simply cannot give pro-choicers these semantic openings because they will jump on them and rant about nothing, completely ignoring our substantive points in favor of discussing teh terms we used. If pro-choicers wanted to call abortion the “happy rainbows and puppies sunshine procedure,” fine, that is what i would refer to it as. But I feel that I must do everything in my power to keep them on issue because as we all know, teh pro-choice position is built on the solid and firm grounds of semantics. That is what they do best and once we realize that and simply succumb to their word plays, there will be nothing left for (most) pro-choicers to say, and they’ll be forced to have to grapple with the arguments intellectually.
Ohmygosh.
Some of these “arguments” are so ridiculous.
Hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. :(
Not true CC.
How many women went to jail for aborting in 1972??!!
Nikita, funny how you think we’re misogynistic. The majority of people who comment here are WOMEN and MOTHERS. But try to erect another straw man because you can’t successfully debate issues.
No no no. Do you not understand BASIC biology Nikita? Each of us can trace our lives back to CONCEPTION. My first son did not exist until around Feb. 12 2006. My second son did not exist until around July 4, 2012. These are not their birth dates. Its the dates that their father and I came together physically and conceived them. When my husband’s sperm penetrated my egg THEIR LIVES BEGAN. All doctors acknowledge this. This isn’t like a mystery to scientists. Not their “potential” lives. Their actual lives. Their actual physical presence on this earth began on those dates.
You know there are ethicists over in Europe arguing that newborns are “potential lives” too? And that we should have the right to kill them? I had many ultrasounds. My sons existed in my womb. They didn’t magically materialize in my vagina during childbirth. You’re acting like they did.
“These post abortive women are breaking my heart. The more they write, the more they reveal their sad, sad hearts.”
What is so apparent is that pro-life zealots cling to the delusion that women who defend their bodily rights are all “post abortive” which ties in to the other delusion that all women regret their abortions. Both delusions stem from the denial of the reality that there are women who don’t regret their abortions. Pro-lifers just can’t accept that there are women who violate the core tenets of the pro-life faith. So in order to “explain” the behavior of these “heretics,” excuses are made about post abortion trauma and the myth of women being coerced into or misinformed about abortions. When that fails, they fall back on the old patriarchal meme that defines sexually liberated women as sluts who should be shamed. But my favorite meme is that if only these women would accept Jesus which doesn’t exactly win friends and influence people!
It’s worth noting that many pro-choice women are lesbians who have never had sexual relations with a man, let alone an abortion!
Furthermore, are you familiar with that article (pro-lifers, help me out. I forget if it was on abortioneers or another site) where a pro-abort was saying she does NOT want abortion to be rare. That to say abortion should be rare is admitting there is something wrong with abortion.
You Alix, Megan, Nikita, CC are pro-abortion. You fight CPC’s that help women who want to have their babies. You fight basic safety regulations for abortion clinics. You fight any woman enjoying her pregnancy and loving her baby. You are pro-abortion.
On the same note, I am not anti-choice. I am a libertarian. I do not agree with breast implants but would never deny a woman her bodily autonomy to make herself look like a walking mammary gland if thats what she chooses for herself. But I do not think folks should be able to exercise rights that hurt others. Therefore I am against abortion and rape and child abuse etc…
I do love choice though. I love to choose my clothes, what car I will buy, where to send my kids to school, what to eat for breakfast. I am even against arranged marriage because I love choice so much.
*completely ignoring our substantive points in favor of discussing teh terms we used.*
You do whatever you want, Bobby. But these aren’t semantics — they’re the foundation of your arguments. And they’re highly flawed.
Carla: The acorn one’s a huge non-sequitur, but pro-choicers seem to think it some cunning trap for pro-lifers.
I suspect what we’re seeing half the time in these remarks is folks who think pro-lifers are idiots, and thus whatever happens to come into their own brains must be sheer genius. It’s the old “I’ll pick up any stick at hand to beat these pro-lifers with” attitude, and they end up picking up and swinging things like jello, sod, empty milk jugs, and packing peanuts. “Take that, you losers!” :-/
Julia wasn’t buried anonymously. She was buried with no legacy, no progeny, no trace of a meaningful life, and with no one to remember her after she was gone. Very sad.
Do not deny my right to grieve the daughter that died in my abortion!!
Do not deny any postabortive woman the right to grieve her dead child!
Do not deny the very real pain of aborting our children that so many of us have experienced.
Do not deny the depression, the nightmares, the suicidal thoughts and attempts that I have been through since my abortion.
Do not deny the heartache and pain of those that cannot conceive because of the physical trauma to their bodies that abortion wrought.
Do not deny the pain and sorrow of families that grieve their sisters, mothers and daughters that have DIED along with their children during their abortions!!
Do not deny the years and years of sorrow and regret and grief that we carry.
Do not deny the very real pain of coerced or forced abortions or those that were not given informed consent by calling them “myths.”
Shame on you, CC. Shame on you.
CC: “Both delusions stem from the denial of the reality that there are women who don’t regret their abortions.”
I think you know, CC, that many pro-lifers — like me — never talk about post-abortion regret. Our concern is precisely the far worse scenario — that many women have become some kind of creatures who do not regret killing their own unborn children.
Women who use birth control are sluts!
I’ve used birth control and I don’t think of myself as a slut, nor do I think of my sisters, who have also used birth control, as sluts, either. I also don’t sit around worrying about how many sexual partners people have, nor am I trying to stop anybody from having sex. Gimme a break without that nonsense.
The majority of people who comment here are WOMEN and MOTHERS. But try to erect another straw man because you can’t successfully debate issues.
So if we hate women, we not only hate ourselves, but our daughters, aunts, mothers, etc.? Really?
*You fight CPC’s that help women who want to have their babies. You fight basic safety regulations for abortion clinics. You fight any woman enjoying her pregnancy and loving her baby. You are pro-abortion. *
Malarkey.
You have no idea what I do, and apparently aren’t aware that there’s a fair amount of diversity in the pro-choice community.
Also, you know I’m pregnant? Obviously I don’t fight “any woman enjoying her pregnancy and loving her baby.” I wouldn’t even personally have an abortion. We ought to be able to find common ground.
Nikita: When I referred to the clown wing of the pro-choice circus, it was you I had in mind leading the charge with the slappin’ shoes. Honestly, based on your remarks above, you’d likely think a flawless syllogism “highly flawed” — inasmuch as you take your breathtaking illogic for withering critique.
“they’re the foundation of your arguments. And they’re highly flawed.”
I would be happy to address them if you can point out any flaws.
Just a reminder.
There is no swearing allowed.
Your comments will be deleted.
So, we’re not allowed personal attacks? Because a lot of the comments lobbed at me are pretty personal, and offensive.
Note: I’m not calling any of you idiots or clowns. Because I’m actually addressing your arguments.
So Nikita! Congrats on your….potential conference of….personhood.
Exactly what is that growing inside of you?
And why wouldn’t you ever have an abortion?
Carla asks cc:
How many women went to jail for aborting in 1972??!!
Zero is the answer, although we are unlikely to hear that from cc. As we are fully aware our resident trolls simply blurt out whatever comes to mind—facts and truth do not matter, and they are intolerant of those who speak the truth. One wonders why they waste their time.
In this instance cc embraces the war on women canard that her hero Obama is trying to advance for political purposes. Her hero Obama actually uses women, he demeans them in the Julia fiction, he hides behind their skirts, and if the time comes that women become a political liability he will dump them. If and when women wake up to this phony (and I think it is beginning to happen) he will lose in a landslide of historic proportions.
Courtnay-there is a police report in the state of California detailing what my ex did to me. So, yes, I suffered a horrible person doing unimaginable things to me.
I was within my right to do what I did. No, the fetus didn’t ask to be there, but neither did I. Oh, I guess it is the punishment I’m supposed to suffer.
Also my bc pills say nothing about breast cancer. Neither the pamphlet nor the FDA have that info about it. There is a risk of cervical cancer, however.
To the person who said she saw her 10 week old fetus:
How did that happen? No hospital or abortion clinic will let you see what is happening. I had a 14 week miscarriage. I had to undergo an abortion procedure to get the baby out. I asked for an ultrasound pic, which they had to take for my file. I saw nothing with my child in it, no extra tissue from my uterus, nothing.
To the creator of this Life of Julia thing:
I knew what sex was at age 5. I didn’t have sex until high school. We had inadequate sex ed. We were told all sex leads to STDs. Even though I live in a bible belt state, my boyfriend and I practiced safe sex…condoms and the pill. Later, just the pill. No stds, no pregnancy.
Oh and I never in a million years would be ok with any older male hitting on me.
As I said, my daughter was born almost to her due date.
Could you please provide unbiased, non-propaganda sources?
Can you post something relevant, and something that actually supports women? What about equal pay? What about making women equal to men so we aren’t always viewed in minority status? I could get behind that.
Epiphany, I am truly sorry about what you suffered. I am also sorry you saw your child as a punishment.
I support ALL women. Because social justice does, in fact, begin the womb. (Thanks, Bryan!)
What is growing inside me is a potential baby. As evidenced by the fact that a previous potential baby did not become an actual baby.
And why wouldn’t I have an abortion? I don’t need one. I have for my entire sexually active life been very careful about contraception, have been in long-term or marital relationships in an atmosphere of mutual support and respect, and have been in a financial position to be able to afford a child. Though I would certainly consider abortion in certain dire circumstances, such as the potential loss of my own life or fetal conditions incompatible with life.
“What is growing inside me is a potential baby. As evidenced by the fact that a previous potential baby did not become an actual baby.”
Nikita, I just want to make sure that you know that you continue to ignore the careful distinction I made above concerning accidents and substance of an agent, and how we are interested in defending the kind of thing that has the substance of a human being, and we are not at all interested in the stage of development.
So this potential baby (which is a human being and not a bat, right) gets to live ONLY if he or she (because the sex is determined, even when its a “potential”) is wanted, even though ALL potential babies are relying upon their potential moms to take REAL (not “potential”) care of them, such as good nutrition, rest, prenatal care, etc.
Does your real child know he or she was in some ambiguous no-man’s land while they were gestating? And luckily, they were wanted so they became real?
That word “potential” just SLAYS me. LOL! Oops, well, not really me…..
@Bobby: Given that I disagreed with it entirely, I don’t see any point in addressing it again.
I think that women should definitely be more informed about this so-called “routine” surgery they people are getting so often. I believe that if more women were properly educated about all of the consequences of abortion (infertility, breast cancer, depression, internal bleeding, infection) than not many of them would get the surgery. Imagine if women were as misinformed about any other types of surgeries? What if your doctor told you that having your kidney removed or your spine corrected was “routine” and “easy” with no risks? That would not be okay. But for most women and girls, abortion is something of a mysterious or miraculous procedure that is supposed to remove every consequence with little to no risks. The doctors just want to rush them through the process to get their money before their shock wears off. They use fear to their advantage. Abortion is a very risky procedure, and it makes ripples through your entire life.
“Given that I disagreed with it entirely, I don’t see any point in addressing it again. ”
But this is precisely the point. Simply claiming “I disagree” is not a compelling reason. If you want to simply disagree and leave it at that, fine, but do not claim that you have addressed our arguments as you do in 2012/05/08 at 11:29 am and hint at in 2012/05/08 at 11:17 am post. Also, I am extremely confused by your use of teh word “again.” Where do you even claim to have addressed the distinction the first time?
(*sigh*) Why is it that, whenever I’m taken away by my duties for any respectable period of time, a “troll swarm” (apparently numbering at least 15, given the “likes” for the troll posts) invades a thread before I can return to say “Don’t feed the trolls”? Troll swarms are speedy, nowadays… I’ll give them that.
Alix: “Having a vagina does not mean that I am a lesser person.”
The pro-choice mentality tells us that having a vagina does make one a lesser person, and that abortion “fixes” the pregnancy problem, thereby making a woman biologically more like a man.
*So this potential baby…gets to live ONLY if he or she…is wanted*
That’s a direct misstatement of my position. As I made pretty clear, it was not a matter of wanted, but a matter of the ability to care for one. I’ve always had that ability. However, in certain dire conditions, I would have considered abortion.
*Does your real child know he or she was in some ambiguous no-man’s land while they were gestating?*
I don’t have a real child. I have a potential child. And under certain dire conditions I may not ever have a real child.
However, thanks for using my reproductive status as a crutch for your argument. Makes me feel your sincere interest in women and potential children.
The debate around abortion is not interesting anymore. You know why? Because it’s about the medical rights that a woman has over her own body. You might not abort, if you could, but the sheer nerve of anyone to choose on behalf of another person and make that into a punitive law if some people do not agree is mysogynistic. And it makes it physically dangerous for anyone opposing your viewpoint. Which in the end it is: a viewpoint. Your choice would be to not do it – my choice might be to do it, or not, given my circumstances at that stage. I value my right to choose. And believe that i’m legally entitled to that choice. And that is what the pro-choice movement is about. Transparency about the options you have, not limiting the rights of the populace because you don’t like what they might choose.
Steven–clinics and hospitals require a counseling session on site and they also disclose of the risks of abortions.
They said I could suffer chronic infections, mood changes, infections, bleeding, fever, in very rare cases, loss of fertility or death. I was informed. No one told me that it is a risk-free, easy procedure. If you get a fever above 102, or see large clots, go to the ER ASAP.
I’m always floored by the men who speak out, when they have no clue. Men do not bear any burdens when it comes to pregnancy or birth. Yet they are the people holding up signs and standing on clinic sidewalks calling women cruel names.
I’m sorry I wanted a child the right way. I now have that. My boyfriend is well aware of my past pregnancies. He holds no judgment against me and he loves me very much. So, we have a daughter who is the product of a loving relationship.
Just because someone disagrees with the majority doesn’t mean they are a troll.
Part 1:
1) Knowing Obama- Obama pays for Population Control via the United Nationa Population Fund which is directly tied to China’s One Child Policy
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/on-the-ground-china-investigation-re-confirms-unfpa-complicit-in-coercive-o
2) Rape is an act of violence and control–It is NOT an sexual act. If one was truly educated on the healing of such, they would be aware of this. Leads one to belive Alix’s healing never happened. Rape is violent act. Suicide is a violent act. Abortion is a violent act. The violence of abortion only perpetuates the trauma and violence of the rape….and punishes the baby for a crime HE did not commit. Plus–the choice of abortion REMOVES the “evidence” (used while cringing, for lack of better word) of the crime. Rape is a violation of a woman, abortion is a violation of the unborn baby–they are both crimes against humanity. Since rape is illegal, shouldn’t abortion be? Or maybe we should legalize rape since abortion is legal. Alix your right to say “no” was volated by the rapist. The baby’s right to say “no” was violated by you. Cannot you not see the inherent crime in both acts?
3) Suicide is a choice Alix, while I am desperately sorry for your situation. Your choice of suicide or abortion tell me that you didn’t have support, love, healing and true “Choice”–it is never simply a choice of death or death.
4) Athiest claim- So what? There are plenty of ProLifers that are Secular, Athiest- so it is an extremely flawed claim to defend the abomination of abortion.—regardless of circumstances with angst about Religion.
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/reed.html
Oh my gosh. Are these people for real? I don’t believe Nikita is pregnant. And because I don’t believe it, she isn’t. She doesn’t believe her baby growing in her womb is a baby. Therefore its not. Thats how it works!!!!!
Nikita, have you had an ultrasound yet? You tell me that your fetus with a head, arms, legs and beating heart is not your child? What is wrong with you???
My one son is a pre-schooler. My other is an infant. Both are my children. When both are grown men they will still be my children. Each was my child when they grew in my womb and each will be my child when they are taller than me with facial hair. I’m sorry Nikita that you can’t feel the same about your own child. “potential child”. So if you lose this wanted pregnancy you won’t mourn right? no need to mourn only a “potential” child.
Part 2:
5) “Abortion is my RIGHT” — No, it is not. You do not have the “right” to murder someone–but you can choose to. Abortion is murder. Murder is not right. That is why we have 38 states with Fetal Homocide Laws–that is if you murder a pregnant women you are charged with TWO murders. Just because abortion is currently legal, does NOT make it right.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
6) Pregnancy is consequence of sex. Period. Use Natural Family Planning–it eliminates ALL controversy and is FREE!!! Don’t ask us to pay for your BC, abortions and the like and then turn around and ask us to stay out of your Uterus and bedroom. You can’t have it both ways. How about this? We pay for none of it and you can have all of the freedom and choice you want? Abortion is NOT health/medical care–because it ENDS a life. Stopping a heart attack saves a life. Lowering blood pressure saves a life. Treating cancer saves a life.
Offering BC/abortions ends lives.
7) As a matter of fact BC causes early abortion. Fact. Neutral unbiased source: 1) Thickens vaginal mucous to prevent sperm 2) Prevents ovulation, usually 3) After CONCEPTION is prevents the baby from IMPLANTING, causing an early abortion.
http://vimeo.com/12090300
Did PP tell you this? Did your DR? Do you feel as though your Gov’t is HONEST with you? Have a woman’s best interest at heart? The answer is NO to all.
8) Alix–what is this with “force” with you? I shared that information, with the precursor that I wasn’t sure if it was helpful or not–but that was my intention. I am NOT trying to make you feel anything. You are responsible for your own feelings, my dear. Those sites offered solace to women who had been raped and had an abortion. Your perspective on my intention–screams volumes about your of trust in fellow women and in fellow humans. The manner in which you are severely defensive and cannot accept a tender gesture (from many on here) only validates the case of post abortive and rape trauma.
9) “Orpanages” ?? 40,000 babies are given up for adoption/year. 115,000 are eligible for adoption. There are 600,000 families WAITING to adopt!!! The math is simple 600,000 families wanting 160,000 babies!!!!!!! Imagine if we took all the money to abort, offer BC and applied it to life sustaining systems????? We would effectiely FIX the adoption system. Sources: US Dept. of Health and Human Services. CDC. 2008 And US Department of of Health and Human SErvices, Administration for Children and Families, 2010, July 29 (will provide links upon request)
10) Alix you want science and technology and hard facts? Technology in 4D sonograms shows you the truth. Here is a Mathematician marveling at the miracle of life:
He says: ” “Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with marvel: How do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us?”
And he says: ” The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go — the complexity of these mathematical models is beyond human comprehension.”
http://www.ted.com/talks/alexander_tsiaras_conception_to_birth_visualized.html#.TsKzeXrIOpU.facebook
He effectively admits that even with all his science and facts–Life is too organized and complex to not have a someone orchaestrating–maybe your proof for God?
Nikita, both of my children are “potential” adults. You say the fetus is only a “potential” child. Your semantics don’t change the point of the argument. The point remains that the unborn human is alive and a human being. And as such does not deserve to have his/her arms and legs ripped off.
What common ground can a I find with you? What common ground can I find with any pro-abort? You think dismembering growing children is okay. I do not. No common ground.
For the wave of new-comers (both sincere contributors and trolls): I ask your pardon if many of us are less than warmly enthusiastic about (and/or thoughtfully moved by) your present arguments. It’s nothing personal; it’s simply that we’ve heard these arguments (and refuted them) tirelessly, over and over, for years… and the prospect of resurrecting those (often necessarily long and detailed) arguments against a new, agitated and unreceptive audience is not usually one to infuse enthusiasm (save, perhaps, in Saints or in masochists).
In the interests of time, here are only a few of the main “abortion-tolerant” arguments we’ve addressed already:
bodily autonomy of the mother trumps the child’s right to life
non-personhood of the unborn child until birth, viability, detectable brain activity, etc.
“my body, my choice” (and other logic-free “bumper-stickers”)
“no uterus, no opinion” (see previous entry)
“if you don’t like abortion, don’t get one” (see previous entry)
“better an abortion than a life with pain/poverty/suffering/etc.”
“I don’t regret my abortion, so it must have been right”
“the right to abortion is a key fight against misogynistic, patriarchal, etc., etc.”
Do you see, now, what I mean? It proves the Biblical injunction: “There is nothing new under the sun,”, in a sense. (I say that with full awareness of the fact that a Biblical reference may cause reflexive anger; that effect was not intended.) The more civil and open-minded you seem, the more likely that the more patient members of the board will try to engage you in dialogue… but if you seem to be here only to shout slogans and high-five each other, then I’d not expect much in the way of debate/engagement, if I were you.
Incidentally, NC wrote:
Just because someone disagrees with the majority doesn’t mean they are a troll.
(*sigh*) Yes, I’m well aware of that (and that comment has been offered interminably); I do not indicate “trolls” simply by dissent from the board’s foundational theme… but, rather, by a marked disinclination to engage with logic, and an embrace of mere rhetoric and slogan-crying instead. There are many “regulars” on this site who are abortion-tolerant (to one degree or another) and who are not trolls; there are also regular trolls. It’s really not the case that “disagree = troll”, and it’s rather rash of you to assume that we’re using such a wrong standard.
Finally, Part 3:
11) Jen–
Your population information on Europe is so wrong. Please, I beg you to learn the truth. China’s population will suffer from too few women very shortly. India aborts mostly girls destroying thier population. France, Russia and Japan are on the verge of Extinct–can you comprehend that? They perform so many abortions–that there are not enough Native people being created to sustain those cultures. This is hard core truth. Willl provide any links or information you need. A simple search on your own will show you the truth.
Think I covered it all. Alix–Why did I spend so much time responding to you? Because I care and the information you have is hurting you and leading you further and further away from life. Most everyone on here has been loving and supportive and at the very least diplomatic–so I dare say that your perception on ProLifers has been proven wrong.
Hi Epiphany,
You doubt my miscarriage experience as well?? Wow.
It happened like this. I was told by my dr. my baby’s heart had stopped beating. I was told that my baby had died. I was told I would pass a plum sized clot. I refused a D & C. I left the hospital. (btw if a child has already passed away, removal of that child is NOT considered an abortion)
I went into labor and delivered my 10 week old baby into my hand while on the toilet at home.
Shall I get my husband on here to back up my story??? He was there. Sheesh.
Not so far fetched. Chemical abortions are done at home. Women have seen their dead children.
You also might want to Google fetal development at 14 weeks.
Paladin,
Sorry. :)
The swarm.
Nikita:
You’re being what’s called “tendentious.” Look it up.
“What is growing inside me is a potential baby.”
And you are, right now, a once-was-fetus.
In other words, Nikita, by privileging a particular point of reference, we can semantically warp the discussion. Referring to what a thing IS by quickly redirecting attention to what it was or will be is evasion, not constructive engagement on the issues.
“Given that I disagreed with it entirely, I don’t see any point in addressing it again.”
Mutatis mutandis. There’s no point discussing anything, since we simply disagree.
As I said, Nikita, you seem to think your illogic passes for withering critique. This is specifically why you wear the clown shoes. And I’m not being insulting — I’m trying to be carefully descriptive. I’m not referring to your appearance to eyes. I’m referring to your appearance to minds.
“I don’t have a real child. I have a potential child.”
:::sigh:::
Fine.
Pro-lifers believe that potential children should be welcome in life (that is, as actual children when their gestation is completed) and protected in law.
No argument necessary, apparently. That was easy.
Samantha: I understand. To pro-choicers like you, it’s all about you. The unborn don’t count for jack. That’s where we differ. I think most pro-lifers will always oppose those for whom the value of the unborn is subordinated to the arbitrary whim of those who are slated to be their mothers, but who abandon maternal instinct and embrace the ethos of a convenient death of others on the altar of the regnant self. The unborn sacrifice their lives for their mothers in a complete reversal of the nature of motherhood. There can be no “right” for this “wrong.” And there can be no apology from pro-lifers for defending the value of the unborn against the tide of hate that is the pro-choice movement, demagoguing its way into the history books alongside the slave traders of yesteryear. Best of luck with your legacy.
Epiphany and Nikita
Why do you feel that the preborn don’t have the same rights that you do?
What gives you the right to support abortion? What gives you the right to end the lives of the preborn?
i find it such a shame that there are so many women out there happy to give up the RIGHT to CHOOSE what happens to their body. If you don’t think that abortion is right, then don’t have one, but don’t push you propaganda and your ethics on my body. If abortion were made illegal, there would be far worse atrocities in our world than dead fetuses “in a soiled utility room.” This narrative portrays a slippery slope, and I’m sure that it would be just as easy to come up with a story that tells of one pro-life’rs path from one bad decision to another.
(*Professor Paladin walks to the podium*)
Vell, now… ve see dat dis is a shplendid example uf da shtereo-teepeecal “troll”, und vun who cannot read ze previous comments, either, ja?
[Paladin]
In the interests of time, here are only a few of the main “abortion-tolerant” arguments we’ve addressed already:
bodily autonomy of the mother trumps the child’s right to life
non-personhood of the unborn child until birth, viability, detectable brain activity, etc.
“my body, my choice” (and other logic-free “bumper-stickers”)
“no uterus, no opinion” (see previous entry)
“if you don’t like abortion, don’t get one” (see previous entry)
“better an abortion than a life with pain/poverty/suffering/etc.”
“I don’t regret my abortion, so it must have been right”
“the right to abortion is a key fight against misogynistic, patriarchal, etc., etc.”
[sarah2]
i find it such a shame that there are so many women out there happy to give up the RIGHT to CHOOSE what happens to their body. If you don’t think that abortion is right, then don’t have one, but don’t push you propaganda and your ethics on my body.
Zuch a fine example uf textbook trolldom should be revarded mit a nice round uf applause, ja? Danke schoen, und ve see you in class tomorrow, ja? Guten abend!
Sarah2, i find it equally disheartening that so many men give up their RIGHT to CHOOSE. If you don’t like rape, don’t commit one but don’t try to take away a man’s bodily autonomy. He has a right to control his penis how he sees fit.
You really don’t see how absurd you sound do you or that your little diatribe could be used to defend other atrocities as well.
I fail to see how anything could be worse than leaving a newborn to gasp and die alone in a soiled utility room. I think any and all child abuse is awful. The solution is not to condone the murder of children before they can be abused (which is abuse in itself) but the solution is to END ABUSE.
Thats like saying you’ll end rape by killing all women. And saying if those women lived, worse things could happen.
Samantha
Abortion is not a viewpoint, it is a death sentence for the preborn.
If you read carefully to all of the personal stories of women who have had an abortions and defend the choice to abort there is one thing you don’t read and it is the words of the preborn. On this thread we don’t get to read the words of the preborn. What words would they wiite? Would they plead for their mothers not to abort them? Would they ask to be born? Would they remind their Mothers that they are not forcing them to pregnant, but that they are journeying towards birth? Would they ask the Politicians to protect them? Would they claim that birth is their only self-defense against a Mother intent on aborting them?
Let’s give the preborn the same right to self-defense that their Mother’s enjoy.
Dear all men in this forum, get out! Honestly, stop talking like you know anything that goes on in a woman’s mind of body in regard to sex and abortion. All you have to do is participate for a few minutes and then you can peace out whenever you want. I’m not saying any of you would do that, but how can you tell us what to do when you have no idea?
And now to everyone who claims this information as factual, please go back to school and/or stop voting. There may be facts to back up certain aspects, but all this is, is a slippery slope at the very least. And if any of you went to school, you’ll understand that it is illogical in its very nature.
If anybody wants to really be blown away, compare the STD, teen pregnancy, preterm birth, and breast cancer rates in places like DC, Detroit, and other places where the social liberals get to kids early – to those in Utah, Wyoming, and North Dakota.
You get a VERY clear view of what exactly it is that works, and what does not.
Guttmacher will never tell you.
Brianna, when I speak on the issue of abortion I don’t sepak as a man; rather, I speak as person who once was a preborn human being.
Get used to hearing my voice because it tries to represent the millions who don’t get to speak.
(*facepalm*)
Briana (if you’re truly a distinct individual, and not simply one of many sock-puppets): are you trying to be amusing, here? I have an increasingly difficult time thinking that anyone could, after reading the last 10 posts, write the “bumper-sticker slogans” you’ve written, and not be trying to write satire.
[Paladin]
In the interests of time, here are only a few of the main “abortion-tolerant” arguments we’ve addressed already:
bodily autonomy of the mother trumps the child’s right to life
non-personhood of the unborn child until birth, viability, detectable brain activity, etc.
“my body, my choice” (and other logic-free “bumper-stickers”)
“no uterus, no opinion” (see previous entry)
“if you don’t like abortion, don’t get one” (see previous entry)
“better an abortion than a life with pain/poverty/suffering/etc.”
“I don’t regret my abortion, so it must have been right”
“the right to abortion is a key fight against misogynistic, patriarchal, etc., etc.”
…and in the interests of charity, I’ll pass over your illogical (and ironic) comments about “illogic” in near-silence.
OOOOOh, we got a man hater!
Briana, I am not black but I can look at slvery and know it was wrong.
I am not Jewish, but I can look at the Holocaust and know it was wrong.
I am not of Armenian descent, but I know their genocide was wrong.
You see where I’m going??
Men don’t have to be women to know that burning a preborn baby alive or rippings its limbs off is wrong. That’s just being human. Maybe that’s something you’re lacking….?
You’re right, it’s a slippery slope. And you’ve just slipped off into the bottom. Enjoy it down there.
Dear Briana,
This is an open forum on a prolife blog. Ahem. We welcome ALL genders.
I am pretty sure you were happy with the 9 all male Supreme Court justices that handed down Roe V Wade and Doe V Bolton though. amiright?
Prolife men,
STAY!! Stay and fight the good fight for women and their children! Stay and continue posting because there are men reading this blog that had no say. Their children were killed even though they begged her not to do it. They wanted to do the right thing and MAN UP and take care of that baby and be there for the mom. There are post abortive men who need healing!!
Women deserve better than abortion.
Didn’t have time to read this whole thread but I just want to say that it is a good reminder of just how weak the prochoice position is. Seriously, with the early seventies called, they want their slogans back.
*Nikita, both of my children are “potential” adults.*
They are actual living, breathing humans with agency and capacity. However, had you miscarried or aborted them, they would be neither.
*The point remains that the unborn human is alive and a human being. And as such does not deserve to have his/her arms and legs ripped off. *
That’s your point. I don’t agree.
*What common ground can I find with any pro-abort?*
Would you like me to describe you as “pro-forced-birth?” Because I also have weasel words available to me. I simply choose not to use them in the interest of discussing your actual argument.
*You think dismembering growing children is okay. I do not. No common ground.*
No, I do not. I think sometimes it is warranted. Sometimes it is the best outcome. Sometimes it is not my business, government’s or yours. However, as I made pretty clear, I do not favor abortion. I in fact wish it occurred less often.
*Women deserve better than abortion. *
Women deserve better than to lose their inherent rights merely because they may be pregnant.
Moderators,
Is there any way to check to see if “sarah2 = Briana”? Their grammar, word-choices (e.g. illogical references to “slippery slope”), syntax, etc., made me wonder…
“No, I do not. I think sometimes it is warranted. Sometimes it is the best outcome.”
Well, there you go. Proaborts, the more you visit and post, the better I feel.
Carla, I love the “Ahem”!!!
Carla, having experienced something rather similar myself, I’m sorry you had to experience that. It’s physically and emotionally difficult.
Briana: Human life is a human issue, not a female issue. If you need to go all gender about it, though, we guys could point out that your gender has killed millions of us guys — and you think we should be silent? But that would just become a more stupid conversation as you defended killing guys on the grounds that you were equal opportunity about it, killing as many female fetuses, and so forth and stupid so on.
Men have a franchise in the conversation. Basically, every fetus is the creation of a man and a woman. The idea that half of the participants in that act of creation have no franchise in a conversation about its fate, is fascist in the “pejorative epithet” sense of the word (its literal/historical use has almost disappeared from living memory…).
Drop the naive cliche stuff you pick up in the margins. You’re not in Kansas.
Since you chose to reply to one of my questions (but conveniently ignored my commentary about the pedophile) explain something else for me. Are you, using your own logic here, suggesting that women with POS or other fertility issues, are guilty of not leaving behind a legacy due to their infertility? Is a woman’s worth directly connected to her ability to procreate?
As a woman and mother, I find it insulting to suggest that my legacy is only tied into motherhood, and without my children, I am somehow less than. There are dozens of childless women who have touched my life, and their legacy, as you call it, can and will live through people like myself.
Would a woman, who was never molested, and never had an abortion, still be remembered if her children preceded her in death? Do childless males get to enjoy the same fate of being without a legacy? Lastly, I didn’t realize that men were so callous as to immediately discard all memories of their previous marriage upon death.
Carla – agreed!
Briana apparently doesn’t want to acknowledge that men are part of the process of pro-creation. I know of only one instance where a man wasn’t involved, but it took a direct act of God to bring about that pregnancy! And Mary said yes – let it be.
Briana also looks like she needs some serious healing.
Curious – is it Brian A. or Briana…
This will be my last comment as I am not interested in Internet wars. That was fun when I was 13, but I’m all set with it now.
I don’t care about what’s already been discussed. I have had to defend my position on this a million times and I’ll keep doing it. To all pro-lifers: pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion. Personally, I don’t see myself able to do it; however, I’m able to see things from other people’s perspectives and understand that it may be the right decision for them. And whatever consequences may come, they will have to bear. It’s their choice.
This blog post is just terrible. Mitt Romney’s plan is going to stop gym teachers from molesting students? That is what is implied. Education and knowledge is power. The more education we have, the better decisions we can make. Learn about birth control, how it works and the risks. Same for condoms. All abstinence is, is a challenge for kids. Not to mention there is a happy middle between “kids don’t have sex, but if you do, be prepared.”
Abortion is an option that should be there for those who feel it is the best decision for them. I understand the sensitivity of this issue, but you have to open your minds. And don’t tell me to open mine – I see your perspective and I understand it. As I’ve said, I don’t agree with it. But I’m speaking up for women by allowing them the option to manage their own sexual health.
“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity”
Hippocratic Oath, Declaration of Geneva
Following the Nazi Doctors Trial at Nuremberg
Briana, you came here, we didn’t invite you.
We are speaking for those who have no voice. All they want is a shot. And you call abortion “managing sexual health.”
BWAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAA
Nikita, what rights do women lose if the preborn are protected by the Constitution? Please provide a list if you can.
Carla-
I’m surprised a doctor let you complete a miscarriage at home. I was under the impression you were at a hospital or clinic. My apologies. I am sorry you had to see what you did. I am also aware what a 14 week baby looks like. After all, I had my gender u/s at 15 weeks with my daughter. With my miscarriage, I could not look at anything to do with pregnancy for a long time. It was a scary experience, and it was recommended to me to have a D&C.
To whoever asked:
Abortion is not murder. I am not saying it is a good thing, but it is necessary. I have the right to get an abortion. There are laws saying I can, and the Constitution promises my right to privacy. Abortion is not murdering an infant. I have protected rights. My pregnancies would too, for instance, if my intent was having a child, and someone committed a crime against me resulting in harm to my baby.
Why should I be further victimized? Should rape victims have to give birth to children that are the result of a violent crime? Try putting yourselves in someone else’s shoes.
You do realize spontaneous abortion, threatened abortion, and inevitable abortions are terms for miscarriages, right?
“Abortion is an option that should be there for those who feel it is the best decision for them…. I see your perspective and I understand it.”
This is CLEARLY not the case. If you actually do see the pro-life perspective, then you would know why your line “Abortion is an option that should be there for those who feel it is the best decision for them” would be found uncompelling by any pro-lifer. It isn’t just that “we disagree” with such a statement- it is that such a statement is question-begging. It doesn’t even BEGIN to address the main claim taht the pro-lifer makes which is that the unborn are intrinsically valuable human beings with the same dignity and moral worth as you or me. So let us think about why the two claims I quoted above are simply in contradiction with each other.
Pro lifer: The unborn are intrinsically valuable human beings with the same dignity and moral worth as you or me and thus should not be killed.
Pro choicer: But what that argument fails to take into account is that abortion is an option that should be there for those who feel it is the best decision for them.
Now seriously, does the pro choicer at ALL respond to the claim of the pro-lifer? This can be a response for any claim.
Pro lifer: Toddlers are intrinsically valuable human beings with the same dignity and moral worth as you or me and thus should not be killed.
Pro choicer: But what that argument fails to take into account is that killing a toddler is an option that should be there for those who feel it is the best decision for them.
Compelling? Not so much. Now of course, the reply from the pro choicer will be “but I don’t believe that a fetus has teh same moral worth than a toddler.” Ah. So that is the real issue then, isn’t it? That is what this boils down to- the value or lack thereof of the fetus. It has NOTHING to do with making decisions because our CLAIM (which could very well be wrong) is that there are certain decisions that no one should be allowed to make, like killing a 2 year old.
The point is that this very clearly illustrates that you do not at ALL understand our position because the arguments made in your post do not at all even begin to address teh main claim of teh pro-lifer. So how can a position be understood when one is not even able to respond to said position?
*what rights do women lose if the preborn are protected by the Constitution?*
Numerous rights, but most notably their right to physical autonomy and their right to the privileged counsel of their medical providers.
Good lord, reading all these comments was exhausting. Alix, you are a strong and dedicated woman to keep up your fight this long! I would’ve given up in the face of all this blatant ignorance long ago. I’m so sorry about your history, I wish that had never happened to you. I’m so glad, though, that abortion was an option for you so you did not have to suffer through a pregnancy under those circumstances. You are a very brave woman. I thought your points were thorough, well researched, articulate, and evident of wisdom far beyond your years. Thank you for sticking up for the rights of women against those who would use the bible and their god to confine womens’ rights to nothing but home ec classes and child rearing. Speaking from experience, I’ve had two abortions and don’t for a single minute regret either of them. I am happily married with two wonderful children who would not be here had I carried to term my previous pregnancies. I haven’t bothered to visit any of the sites posted as “evidence” because I saw from just a glance that almost every single one was an anti-choice propaganda site and I have no interest in filling my mind with ignorant and poorly worded ideals. Scientifically, the clump of undeveloped tissue that is removed from the uterus during an abortion is not a person. Abortion is a choice that each woman gets to make when she gets pregnant, why don’t anti-choicers stop debating and fighting for the rights of fetal tissue and start advocating for the rights of children in the foster care system? Why don’t you open an orphanage and start some sort of fund to pay for the medical expenses of women who choose to place their fetuses up for adoption rather than abort them? Why don’t you start teaching safe sex practices in schools rather than preach about abstinence?
for those of you who had the patience to stand up against the religious tyranny on this ridiculous article, I applaud you and your courage in sharing your stories. We can only continue to hope that someday religion will be taken out of the government and we can truly be free from the intermingling of church and state.
Epip: in an abortion, a human heart is stopped. A human brain ceases functioning. The baby, if it is developed enough, will try to escape the abortionist’s tools.
How is this NOT murder?
Wait, I’ll answer for you: the baby is inconvenient, and besides, they are only “potentials.” Brilliant reasoning, you.
Blessing,
Tax payers do not pay for abortions. Also, I pay for my own birth control. So yes, stay out of my uterus and out of my bedroom.
Can someone post any information that isn’t from a .org site?
Blessing, thanks for your earlier compliment and kind words. They are appreciated.
I think this is really scary: Lauren’s vote in Novemeber counts as much as mine.
Paladin,
Checked. Sorry. Briana is Briana.
Epiphany,
I am very sorry that you went through that as well.
My body, my choice right? Good golly Miss Molly I can miscarry my child wherever I would feel the most comfortable and nobody is going to tell me what I can or cannot do!! Sorry. Couldn’t resist. :) I was given the “choice” to go home or have a D & C. Women still have that choice I believe.
To those that have expressed their sympathy to me…thank you. That is very kind and I appreciate it. However, I still cherish the time I spent staring at my baby and holding him(Jamie)and at the same time was horrified that I was lied to by omission about my abortion! ”Bunch of cells???!!” my arse!! Seeing my child brought the denial I was in over my abortion come crumbling down and I sought healing not long after that.
All is well. God is good.
Briana: It’s a shame those abolitionists couldn’t open their minds.
*why don’t anti-choicers stop debating and fighting for the rights of fetal tissue and start advocating for the rights of children in the foster care system? *
I’ve always wondered why they’re so opposed to, among other things, public education, sex education, access to contraception, and the morning-after pill. Not to mention all those social supports which enable women in some cases to be secure, at least in the short term, in their ability to support a child. All of which reduce the demand for abortion. Seems like if they really wanted that, rather than create legal restrictions for women, they’d concentrate more of their efforts there.
Courtnay, if that was directed at me: what i think is scary is that come November my uterus and rights to bodily autonomy are at risk.
“What gives you the right to support abortion? What gives you the right to end the lives of the preborn?”
We have the right to support or not support whatever we want. We have the right to an abortion via the US Supreme Court and state legislatures. And given that the Catholic conservative SCOTUS block says that Roe is “stare decisis,” things won’t be changing, on a national level, any time soon.
*even though ALL potential babies are relying upon their potential moms to take REAL (not “potential”) care of them, such as good nutrition, rest, prenatal care, etc. *
So, assuming a “pro-life” position, you would also expect society to have some kind of oversight regarding pregnant women’s care of their potential children? What, specifically, would you do to ensure that they get “good nutrition, rest, prenatal care, etc.”?
“WHEREAS the child, by reason of his or her physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”
United Nations Declaration of The Rights of the Child
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Nikita: “I’ve always wondered why they’re so opposed to, among other things, ”
Oh yes, “they’re” such fascinating creatures. Generalizing is a great way to simplify, so as to fit in your mind, the diversity of people who happen to be pro-life.
I’m not surprised that you’re so much in a state of wonder.
Courtnay,
Where did I say “potential” in regards to the unborn? I didn’t. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I don’t have abortion parties, and I don’t refer to unborn as “a clump of cells” or anything else.
I guess in the pro-life thought, I have to pay for the consequences of what happened against my will. Well, I did, and I decided not to continue my pregnancy. I was 4 weeks pregnant. Was I sad? Yes. Was that the best decision for everyone involved? Yes, I think so. My child wouldn’t grow up with me being sad, trying to protect them from their rapist sperm donor, and I wouldn’t have to live with lifelong sadness and a reminder of the person who hurt me. This person doesn’t care about kids, but was the first to call me a murderer. He also said I needed to be humiliated and pay for past mistakes, and it was my fault it happened to me.
So please, keep defending the person who committed horrific and violent acts. Also if you read my posts, I had an IUD failure. I was trying to protect myself. I was trying to prevent pregnancy. I couldn’t prevent what happened to me. But please, keep making me the bad person.
Nikita, if I had miscarried my sons they would have been (formerly) living humans. What is it about breathing that confers worth?
You don’t understand even basic biology do you. I majored in biology in college and while I’m no genius scientist I happen to remember that species reproduce after their own kind. Once conception has taken place reproduction has occurred. Humans reproduce other humans, not tadpoles or intestinal worms. While studying genetics in college (fascinating class) we did touch on embryology. The embryo is a living member of its species. Its not “potential” anything. It already IS whatever its parents are. An unborn puppy is still a canine like its parents. An unborn baby is still a human like its parents. Btw, this was taught to me by a professor who had his M.D. and his Ph.D. and was working on the human genome project in SC with other scientists. And he looked like Cary Grant. Swoon.
Epiphany:
“Why should I be further victimized? Should rape victims have to give birth to children that are the result of a violent crime? Try putting yourselves in someone else’s shoes.”
I have not followed this whole thread, so I am unsure if you are actually referring to yourself or not, and if so I really hope that you do not take my words as insulting or accusatory because they are not meant in that way at all. I simply want to expand the focus from only the mother to the other life that has the potential to be directly impacted by rape, because I find it interesting that you ask us pro-lifers to put ourselves into “someone else’s shoes”. I would actually ask you, and any other pro-choicer out there, to do the same, by putting yourselves into the shoes of someone who is alive today because they were conceived when their mother was raped. What must it be like to constantly hear and read and know that many people around you believe that the circumstances of your conception make it not only morally permissible for you to be aborted, but also that your birth and life have subsequently victimized your biological mother? I suggest you look up Rebecca Kiessling for an understanding of what some of these children go through. Again, I am not trying to trivialize your experiences or the experiences of anyone who has been raped, I can only imagine the horror and I really do believe that women who have aborted in these circumstances are the least culpable for their acts (if indeed any woman in this current social climate can really be considered culpable, something I am not convinced of), considering the trauma they have gone through. Nevertheless, when focusing on discussions of abortion being ok in cases of rape because a child of rape would victimize the mother – these words can and do damage those children who find themselves in the circumstance of being a “child of rape”. Would you walk up to one of them and tell them that things that they could not control had the potential to victimize and torture their own mother?
As a matter of fact BC causes early abortion. Fact. Neutral unbiased source: 1) Thickens vaginal mucous to prevent sperm 2) Prevents ovulation, usually 3) After CONCEPTION is prevents the baby from IMPLANTING, causing an early abortion.http://vimeo.com/12090300
A video produced by Christians claiming that birth control pills cause abortions is “neutral” and “unbiased.” Really? Try sourcing from the CDC or the NIH and you might have some credibility. But once again you expose your anti-contraceptive agenda. And while you ask if Planned Parenthood informs its patients of this (and why would they as it’s totally bogus) you don’t seem as concerned about private ob/gyns who also prescribe birth control pills.
What gives you the right to support abortion?
The same right that you have to protest it.
What gives you the right to end the lives of the preborn?
The law as stipulated by the Supreme Court (“stare decisis” according to Roberts and Alito – both conservative Catholics) and state legislatures.
No, Nikita. That’s on YOU. You are your baby’s mother, born or unborn, wanted or not. Your baby needs you. You can make all your prenatal appointments and take your vitamins, and you can also mainline heroin everyday. There’s absolutely a difference, because you are growing your child. A mom may feel ambivalence, but don’t think for a second that that child to doing EVERYTHING he can (ie, you will let him, out of your willingness to forego bodily autonomy) to get ready for life outside of you. He wants to live.
I promise you, once you have your real baby, you will look at him or her and think, this baby is no different than the one that was growing inside the woman who couldn’t be bothered. The only difference rests upon what a mom is willing to do.
Do you love your potential? Why? (because you wanted this child, see I can answer for you). Don’t children have the right to protection (if not love) merely because they are here in the world?
I have had 3 live births and a miscarriage, and these children, Emmy, Blaise and Payton were exactly who they were inside of me. And if they had been conceived in less than stellar circumstances, they would still be my Emmy, Blaise and Payton. You sound as if pregnancy and motherhood were something to be conquered. So sorry you see only special, wanted kids ans desrving of love, respect and protection.
Numerous rights, but most notably their right to physical autonomy and their right to the privileged counsel of their medical providers.
Nikita this is not true for two reasons: First, there are no such rights. Second, even if there were such specific rights women would still have them even when the preborn are granted Constitutional rights: women will not lose their physical autonomy nor their right to “the privileged counsel of their medical providers.” Please explain how women would lose the right to physcial autonomy and the right to the privileged counsel of their medical providers. Pregnancy does not impinge upon either of these two “rights” – pregnant women are still autonomous and are able to consult their medical providers.
This thread gives me much hope!!
If these “arguments” are the best they’ve got well I say, “KEEP IT UP PROABORTS!!”
Don’t mind us. Nothing to see here. Move along. We will keep working to ensure that the right to life includes preborn human beings.
PS
Epiphany,
MN citizens pay for abortions with their taxes. Yes. Indeed they do. http://washingtonindependent.com/108030/minnesota-anti-abortion-bills-move-forward-could-prompt-supreme-court-challenge
Courtnay wrote:
I think this is really scary: Lauren’s vote in Novemeber counts as much as mine.
:) Well… and not meaning to be impolite to Lauren, but: use the math trick of thinking of it as “your vote completely neutralises Lauren’s”, and you might feel a bit better.
Oh, and Epip? Never for a second would I defend the man who did that to you. I am a survivor myself. What I was doing was defending YOUR CHILD, no matter how little she was.
Carla, I’ll ask you to forgive me in advance… I’m going to feed a troll, consciously and willfully! :)
CC wrote:
A video produced by Christians claiming that birth control pills cause abortions is “neutral” and “unbiased.” Really? Try sourcing from the CDC or the NIH and you might have some credibility.
All right…
“[e]ven if ovulation occurs occasionally, the changes which occur secondary to chronic exposure to the progestin portion of OCs make both fertilization and implantation unlikely”
…and:
“Through continued OC use, the endometrium becomes a hostile environment to implantation and further embryonic growth–due to glandular atrophy and stromal decidualization.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7026108
for those of you who had the patience to stand up against the religious tyranny on this ridiculous article, I applaud you and your courage in sharing your stories. We can only continue to hope that someday religion will be taken out of the government and we can truly be free from the intermingling of church and state.
Um, not all prolifers are religious. Thare are a fair amount of prolife atheists and agnostics. One of the strongest voices for life in the movement is Nat Hentoff, who describes himself as a “stiff-necked Jewish atheist.”
Carla,
You are free to m/c wherever you want. My situation was different, I guess.
…in regards to this cartoon, this is directed at the author.
As I said, I had two abortions, one miscarriage and one daughter. I will have you know that I am a good mother. I won’t be dying or buried alone. My family doesn’t hate me. I am also an Honors student at college. I make amazing grades, and I am a full time mom, full time student and a part time manager. I disprove your cartoon. My early knowledge of sex did not tell me it was ok for any adult to look at me in an inappropriate way. My life did not fall apart. I did not just make rash decisions. In fact, I want more children. I am not an exception. The cartoon is way out of left field and far fetched.
I’m sorry, I meant “there are a fair amount . . .”
Nikita, do some research before commenting here. The pro-lifers on this site come from a host of different backgrounds and have a host of different views. Some are Christians, some are atheists, some support gay rights, some do not. Some are vegan, some are meat-eaters, some are liberals, some are conservative. Some are black, some are white and all shades in between.
I personally do not support sex ed because it is pornographic and normally funded by the likes of PP. Carol Everett, a former abortion clinic owner admitted their goal was to get girls hooked on sex and hopefully getting pregnant (birth control fails. My first son is living proof). And then when these teen girls got pregnant they’d come running in for their abortion. Cha-ching!$$$$
I don’t support welfare. Read Star Parker’s books to know why. It enslaves people. It doesn’t help. I wouldn’t mind if it was a helping hand and then people got off of it. But too often people become entrapped and it leads to more abortions (Star Parker had several).
Morning after pill. It works by preventing implantation. Why would expect people who believe life begins at conception to support something that kills the newly conceived person? Are you really that dense or do you just comment before thinking?
I am a libertarian. I believe the government should not tell us what to do with our bodies. GASP. I know, right? I support bodily autonomy! I do not however support the right to do WHATEVER we want with our bodies when what we want to do injures or kills another human being. Therefore, I support the right of a person to get completely blitzed on drugs and booze. I do not support the right of that person to then get behind the wheel of his Mustang and blaze down the freeway at a 100 mph. Do you get what I’m saying here?
Epiphany: Think of the film Inception. It looks as if a brutal fellow successfully planted, in your mind, the idea that a particular innocent child should be sacrificed to buy you a “better” future. And you came to see the idea as your own. Interesting. Inception really works.
But I’d guess that you were already pro-choice before all that — that is, the inherent value of the unborn child was not paramount in your thinking. How could it have been? Your calculus was concerned with things of far lesser importance — such as your happiness.
Yes, our happiness — for a lifetime, even — is infinitely less important than a human life. No one should have to die for our happiness. That’s macabre.
But of course I just committed another act of rhetorical “inception” — by suggesting that a life of misery is worth saving a human life, the idea that a life of misery is the inevitable entailment of such deference is planted. But of course it’s not true.
Making decisions where human life hangs in the balance in the “heat of the moment” is almost always going to result in someone dying. It takes hindsight by people who’ve taken the road less traveled to attest to how life rarely turns out as dismal as those in crises seem certain it will be. And likewise, many who anticipate various joys from their decisions experience myriad woes they could not have anticipated.
Our wills and fates do so contrary run, that our devices still are overthrown; Ourthoughts are ours, their ends none of our own.
“If anybody wants to really be blown away, compare the STD, teen pregnancy, preterm birth, and breast cancer rates in places like DC, Detroit, and other places where the social liberals get to kids early – to those in Utah, Wyoming, and North Dakota.
You get a VERY clear view of what exactly it is that works, and what does not”
Really?
AIDS is still, to a great extent, a disease of big city America and the states with the highest HIV rates are the ones with the biggest, most cosmopolitan cities — California, New York, Florida, Texas, Massachusetts and Illinois.
But three of the most prevalent non-AIDS STDs do seem to hit Red states disproportionately when it comes to infection rates, according to 2006 U.S. health data compiled by Avert, an international AIDS organization.
Gonorrhea: Seven out of the top ten states (Mississippi, S. Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Missouri) are red.
Chlamydia: Six out of the top ten states (Alaska, Mississippi,S. Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee) are red.
Syphilis: Five out of the top ten states (Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Tennessee) are red
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0109/STDs_higher_in_Red_States.html
And BTW, the state with the highest number of teen pregnancies is Mississippi – a good, Christian, bible, red state. What’s up with that!
“WHEREAS the child, by reason of his or her physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”
United Nations Declaration of The Rights of the Child
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
CC, read the insert of the pill packaging. It says it works primarily by inhibiting ovulation but also works by preventing implantation. Technically that isn’t an abortion as an abortion happens once implantation has already been achieved. But since life begins at conception it is still murder to kill the child before implantation can be achieved.
DC IS NUMBER ONE, OR AT LEAST TOP FIVE, IN EVERY CATEGORY. THEY HAVE HAD ALL THE SEX EDUCATION, FREE CONDOMS, AND CANCER CAUSING STEROIDS AN EXTREME LIBERAL COULD EVER DREAM OF.
IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU BROKE DOWN THE LARGER STATE NUMBERS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. hmm, Philly vs. Amish Country anyone??
LOL.
Paladin,
I will let it go. Just this once. :)
So, assuming a “pro-life” position, you would also expect society to have some kind of oversight regarding pregnant women’s care of their potential children? What, specifically, would you do to ensure that they get “good nutrition, rest, prenatal care, etc.”?
The solutions currently in existence are hospitals, certifed doctors educated in one of the most affluent countries in the world, private insurance, pregnancy help centres, welfare, employment, lower personal income taxes, employment benefits, cheap food due to a free market economy that rewards creative business solutions, change Presidents so that the Keystone Pipeline can be developed to provide cheaper gas which affects the price of everything, and personal respponsibility.
The list was not exhaustive.
Epiphany, a friend of my husbands was date raped. She conceived. She had her daughter. That girl is 11 years old now. She kept and raised her daughter conceived in rape. She loves her. And even if she didn’t that girl should not have had to die because her father was a scumbag.
What happened to you was horrible. But in no way was it fair to hand down a death sentence to your child because of what her father did. Did your rapist die? No? Then why should the child?
@ Blessing
I don’t think I addressed anything about Europe’s population. I was discussing the fact that despite liberal abortion laws, age appropriate sex education, and widely available birth control, Europe has lower rates of abortion, STI’s, and teen pregnancy. Even if you wanted more Europeans (and I am guessing we are talking about white Europeans not Europeans of African and Asian descent) going about it through teen pregnancy seems a poor idea.
Since Guttmacher’s information is used as a source by prolife people as well, I’d call it as close to apolitical as you can get,
http://www.guttmacher.org/datacenter/profiles/US.jsp
Population declines are not the issue here. Sex selective abortion is not the issue here (Though in South Korea for example, abortion is illegal. Sex selective abortion was still common.) though the excellent book Unnatural Selection goes into that in detail if you are interested.
The only question I am interested in here, and one that has yet to be answered, is this; if the changes proposed go through, will it lower abortion rates and improve women’s health?
Abstinence only education is a failure. Making abortion illegal is a failure, It has been done and it didn’t work. I have to see someone come up with where these policies have worked.
http://www.moappp.org/Documents/articles/2006/SantelliAbstinenceonlyEducationReviewPaper.pdf
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Teen-Sex-Ed.html
Come up with something new, or let women make their own decisions.
@Tyler: what do you do about women who don’t do any of these things?
Abortion is a choice that each woman gets to make when she gets pregnant, why don’t anti-choicers stop debating and fighting for the rights of fetal tissue and start advocating for the rights of children in the foster care system? Why don’t you open an orphanage and start some sort of fund to pay for the medical expenses of women who choose to place their fetuses up for adoption rather than abort them?
Um, I mentioned that I am a child welfare social worker so I do these things EVERY DAY. There are a few social workers here. We went into this field because we care about children, not for the pay.
CPCs DO help women who want to place their children for adoption, but people like yourself are trying to close them down.
Courtnay, if that was directed at me: what i think is scary is that come November my uterus and rights to bodily autonomy are at risk.
Lauren, how exactly is your bodily autonomy at risk come November?
1960: ”The pill will eliminate the need for abortions.”
1973: ” Abortion on demand will lower the incidence of poverty, one parent households, and child abuse.”
Total failure, all four counts. Although it did help triple our breast cancer rate and double our preterm birth rate. Total failure is just fine by political ideologues.
Rasqual,
I made the best decision at the time. I still believe it was the best decision I could have made. Continuing that pregnancy would have horrible consequences all around.
I was pro-choice long before I was ever pregnant. Why? It isn’t fair to tell you what you can do with your body. No man in Washington is going to make that decision for me either.
The large cities mentioned in previous posts have higher rates disease and mortality because of poverty and lack of access to medical care.
Or does sex ed and condom use also cause heart disease?
It’s not about WHOSE rights are more important. It’s about WHICH rights are more important.
Where two freedoms are at odds, we decide which supercedes the other. If you have an argument with your neighbor, the two of you or the police or courts do not decide an a solution based on who they like more or who should have more rights (like who is older, prettier, bigger, smarter) but by whose more fundamental freedoms are being impeded by less basic ones.
A person’s right to live supersedes another person’s right to not be pregnant.
Nikita: what do you do about women who don’t do any of these things?
Please tell me what US woman has none of these things I mentioned.
Some more to add to the list: Churches, family members, friends, bank loans, saving accounts, credit cards, women’s shelters, adoptiong agencies…etc….
Sydney,
To my knowledge, my ex is alive. I don’t really know, I haven’t talked to him in a few years. But one day it will all come back on him.
I applaud your friend. She made the decision she felt was best for everyone involved.
Regarding Men.
Haven’t I heard the “femminist” war cry time and again in this forum? Me thinks that when women fight for “equal rights” i.e. YOU pay child support but cannot visit or You have no say, its my body (Tyler so eloquently wrote on this a while back–I wonder if he would repost????)–the feminist movement has PUSHED men away. Then they turn around and claim foolish things like..’no uterus, no opinion’. Make up your minds!!
A man has every right to fight for his baby. You will be seeing more of this in the courts; mark my words; they will NOT be silenced for much longer. If you have a “right” to murder the baby, then they have a “Right” to save the baby.
Tylerr? Raquel? is absolutly dead on-it is a HUMAN RIGHTS issue, not a gender issue. I really truly feel sorry for the women whom have been lost into the abyss of thinking murdering yourown baby is acceptable.
Well, I certainly hope people here are also against war, and the death penalty. Those are legalized terminations.
There are plenty of women who pay child support and get very limited or no visits.
Sorry, no, no male can tell me I have to have a baby. I am not an incubator. If they want a kid that bad, they can find someone else or go adopt one that needs a home.
It’s astonishing how brainwashed the politically hacked can get. People get STD’s because……………………………….of their income and their health insurance situation.
What a magical little world of nonsense they live in.. Remember those three monkeys hiding their eyes and ears? Now if only they would cover their mouths and stop supporting theories that have been failing miserably for 50 years!
No amount of failure, no amount of dead bodies, no amount of pain and suffering will EVER be sufficient to dissuade the politically brainwashed from their appointed nonsense. And this is over 1/3 of the country now.
*Please tell me what US woman has none of these things I mentioned.*
That’s beside the point. There are women who don’t properly care for their pregnancies. What do you do about them? Point them to resources and hope they use them? Or compel them in some way to use them? After all, a woman can effectively end the life of her potential child by not facilitating its growth.
“@Tyler: what do you do about women who don’t do any of these things?”
The state steps in, of course, and makes them. If a fetus is a legal person, then it is entitled to the same level of protection that social services and family courts provide born children whose parents are derelict in their responsibilities. Such a configuration, of course, would require an even greater expansion of various local, state, and federal bureaucracies, which is why I’ve always found so-called small government conservatism and the pro-life movement to be such strange bedfellows–the success of the personhood/pro-life agenda would implicate a vastly larger and more expensive-to-run government. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from interacting with self-described pro-life activists, it is that they are much more comfortable discussing abortion as an abstract moral issue than contemplating the practical upshot of their political goals. Tyler’s response to your question demonstrates this perfectly: a non-answer in the form of a cut-and-paste list of things he probably took from some two-bit Republican congressional candidate’s platform. These people are completely disarmed when asked to consider the real-life implications of deeming fetuses to have legal rights.
Epiphany wrote:
I made the best decision at the time. I still believe it was the best decision I could have made.
All right; can you explain WHY, without appealing to emotion (which anyone from either side of the issue could do)?
Continuing that pregnancy would have horrible consequences all around.
Can you list them? I’m quite serious; such a claim really does need clarity, to say nothing of evidence. If you list them, then we can talk about their moral gradient.
I was pro-choice long before I was ever pregnant. Why? It isn’t fair to tell you what you can do with your body. No man in Washington is going to make that decision for me either.
Well… does it not follow that you have no right to kill your unborn child, using your own standard (i.e. no one has the right to rip you limb-from-limb, or to order you to throw your body into a pit of alligators; so you should not have the right to rip your daughter’s body limb from limb, or remove her from the only place where she naturally belongs at that age, etc.)?
*I have had 3 live births and a miscarriage*
And yet you only named three of them. Curious, for someone who ardently believes that life begins at conception.
I’ve named the fetuses that my mother miscarried. Are you going to be pro-life now, Nikita? What follows concerning the morality of abortion?
*Where two freedoms are at odds, we decide which supercedes the other. *
Right. Which is the crux of the pro-choice argument. The freedom of the potential is far less than the freedom of the actual, and in cases where they are in conflict the actual prevails.
Another practical question: How do those of you who believe that life begins at conception or fertilization want to see it enforced, particularly given the difficulty in determining when that occurs?
*Are you going to be pro-life now, Nikita?*
Where do you get that idea?
“Right. Which is the crux of the pro-choice argument. The freedom of the potential is far less than the freedom of the actual, and in cases where they are in conflict the actual prevails.”
Once again, answering a response to a bodily autonomy argument by claiming that the unborn is not a person. And then when the arguments are made for the personhood of the unborn, the response is an appeal to bodily autonomy. This is, as I mentioned above, so often how it is. Rarely do we see our actual arguments addressed. Rather, the pro choicer simply shifts back and forth between claiming bodily autonomy and when those arguments are refuted, claiming the non-persnhood of the unborn. Repeat. This strategy allows a continued defense of abortion without having to address a single claim.
@ Sean
Why yes! Poverty and access to medical care do influence disease and mortality rates, and not just for STDs. The reason that doesn’t make sense is…?
http://www.uniteforsight.org/global-health-university/urban-rural-health
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/287/1/108.full.pdf
Nikita wrote:
The freedom of the potential is far less than the freedom of the actual, and in cases where they are in conflict the actual prevails.
All other things being equal, this is true. Now, all you need to do is prove that the unborn child is a “potential person”, and not an “actual person”, and your case will be air-tight. (E.g. it’s already true for an unfertilised human ovum, which is truly and obviously a “potential [but not actual] person”.) Care to try?
Another practical question: How do those of you who believe that life begins at conception or fertilization want to see it enforced, particularly given the difficulty in determining when that occurs?
I suspect that most of us would want it enforced in the same way that we’d like laws concerning other imperfectly-discernible situations enforced: as well as possible. It is not always possible to discern when a death is the result of murder (e.g. possible accident, possible self-defense, etc.), or when an act of intercourse is a rape (e.g. if accounts conflict, and there is no other data, etc.), but this does not stop us from enforcing such laws to the extent that we can, yes? Certainly, abortionists would be prosecuted for murder; and if there is compelling evidence to suggest that anyone else (including the mother, in some circumstances) was knowingly, willfully and freely complicit in that killing, then they could be prosecuted, as well (to whatever extent was necessary). Does that clarify?
*Rarely do we see our actual arguments addressed. *
Disagreement is addressing your argument. I don’t find it compelling. Therefore I don’t find any arguments predicated on it compelling.
That’s beside the point. There are women who don’t properly care for their pregnancies. What do you do about them? Point them to resources and hope they use them? Or compel them in some way to use them? After all, a woman can effectively end the life of her potential child by not facilitating its growth.
Nikita, I am not sure what you would like me to say to this post. It appears to me that you are simply asserting that some women will do illegal acts, that certain will commit crimes. I know this. But how does the criminal behavior of a few women justify making abortion legal?
*Now, all you need to do is prove that the unborn child is a “potential person”, and not an “actual person”, and your case will be air-tight. *
No, I don’t. It’s a matter of belief, like the believe that life begins at conception.
I have yet to get much response to any of the logical issues that I find with that position, incidentally. For example, how does one enforce that belief? How does it apply to the many women who will miscarry regardless of their beliefs or actions once sperm meets egg within their body?
The daughter I aborted at 10 weeks is named Aubrey.
The baby I miscarried at 10 weeks is named Jamie.
The baby I miscarried at 9 weeks is named Lee.
All four of my other children have names too!! I know!!
So…………..that makes a difference to you how exactly Nikita?
*But how does the criminal behavior of a few women justify making abortion legal? *
You have yet to answer the question — what are the legal implications of women who don’t care for their pregnancies to whatever standard the pro-life movement deems necessary?
Having an abortion was the best thing for all concerned? What about your child you killed? I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the best thing for her.
*I suspect that most of us would want it enforced in the same way that we’d like laws concerning other imperfectly-discernible situations enforced: as well as possible. *
So you would support an expansion of state responsibility and power to enforce the belief that a zygote is the same as a 42 ear-old woman?
*So…………..that makes a difference to you how exactly Nikita?*
It only makes a difference in that it indicates an inconsistency in your argument. You believe life is from conception, but you don’t name a potential child that was miscarried. One names actual children.
I apologise for beating a dead equine, but: Epiphany wrote:
I applaud your friend. She made the decision she felt was best for everyone involved. (emphasis added)
(*sigh*) This is perhaps the deepest and most pervasive problem with western culture, today; we have become utterly conditioned to make even our most profound moral, tactical, life-and-death decisions based on “feelings“. May I respectfully submit that “feelings/emotions” are not up to that task, and are not designed for it at all?
“Following one’s heart” is only “good” when one’s heart is headed in the correct direction; and we determine that by consulting our heads (i.e. sane reason); so… although this may seem like heresy (trčs ironic!) to sentimental, secular post-moderns… in reality, it’s never warranted to “follow our hearts” at all. The purpose of emotions is to give us energy to cling to the good, and to fight/flee from evil; just as the purpose of petrol is to give energy to an automobile. And just as a 20-liter can of petrol would not do very well as a driver of a vehicle, our “hearts” do not do well “driving” our lives… and certainly not our morality. What, do you think that rapists and murderers are not moved by strong/fierce emotions? That doesn’t make their actions right, does it? This is simple common sense!
Nikita, that life begins at conception is NOT a “belief” or an “opinion.” Look at any college embryology text book. Scientists are in agreement that life begins at conception. What we disagree on is whether you get to exercise your political might on this baby. Clearly, there is a time for you to kill children.
We say there is never that time.
Oh, and PS–I could care less about your sex life, your reproductive health, your uterus, your bodily autonomy. I don’t care if you sleep with the entire Swedish government. But once that child has been created, someon has got to stand up for him. It breaks my heart that he or she cannot count on his mother to do that for him.
Joan: The state steps in, of course, and makes them. If a fetus is a legal person, then it is entitled to the same level of protection that social services and family courts provide born children whose parents are derelict in their responsibilities. Such a configuration, of course, would require an even greater expansion of various local, state, and federal bureaucracies, which is why I’ve always found so-called small government conservatism and the pro-life movement to be such strange bedfellows–the success of the personhood/pro-life agenda would implicate a vastly larger and more expensive-to-run government. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from interacting with self-described pro-life activists, it is that they are much more comfortable discussing abortion as an abstract moral issue than contemplating the practical upshot of their political goals. Tyler’s response to your question demonstrates this perfectly: a non-answer in the form of a cut-and-paste list of things he probably took from some two-bit Republican congressional candidate’s platform. These people are completely disarmed when asked to consider the real-life implications of deeming fetuses to have legal rights.
I have no problem with the State jumping into help people and to protect people from crime. In fact, like you I expect the State to do that at certain times. Joan, as you know, supporting smaller government doesn’t mean that conservatives are for NO government at all.
Now can you please tell me why Democrats, who are supposed to be more compassionate than Republicans, support the abortion/destruction of future tax payers instead of demanding that all Mothers get the help they need to carry their babies to term?
Paladin,
Abortion at 4wk, due to IUD failure. It could have caused embedding of the IUD into another part of my body, requiring surgery, risking me and my baby had IUD not been removed. I was also at 75% miscarriage risk, due to my miscarriage that had happened only 3 months prior, so I had a weak uterus. Also, I have a seizure disorder and I had blood pressure issues. Also, I was so ill that I was bedridden. I’m talking that I would faint or have a seizure just walking to my bathroom in my one bedroom apartment. I literally couldn’t eat or drink anything. I had extreme motion sickness that turning over too fast in bed hurt me. Not to mention, that same day I found out I was pregnant, my ex threw me to the floor and choked me.
Best choice because: dealing with the above circumstances would have greatly endangered two lives. Especially since my ex was an abuser and a rapist, what do you think would have happened the rest of the pregnancy?
“Disagreement is addressing your argument.”
I am going to continue to reply because I would like all those reading to know what an extremely high price one must pay intellectually in order to continue to hold a pro-choice view.
I am claiming the following above. Suppose someone hold to position X. They support their position X based on two independent sets of reasons or arguments, namely arguments A and B. A person comes along and says why argument A is flawed. The believer in position X then replies “well, the problem is that your critique of my position A is based on a denial of position B, which I affirm.” Fair enough. So the person then says why argument B is flawed, to which the person who holds to position X replies “well, the problem is that your critique of my position B is based on a denial of position A, which I affirm.” This is clearly circular and does not allow person A any rational justification whatsoever for holding to position X.
Of course, to give names to these values, X is the pro choice position, A is bodily autonomy argument and B is a persnhood argument. We simply do not see the critiques of these arguments being addressed. When one is critiqued, the other is appealed to. There is simply NO intellectual foundation that we have seen lately on this thread for teh pro-choice position.
Nikita,
I named all of my children. Yeah. I just typed out some names for you.
Some women choose not to name their children that have died in their miscarriages.
How does that change anything in regards to the humanity of a preborn human being to you?
Oh Courtnay, the baby would have had such a great life, with a manipulative rapist sperm donor parent and the other who suffered PTSD and didn’t want a reminder of what happened. Ok.
Interesting that Alix uses a threat of suicide as her crutch for for killing her child basically saying, “If I had not been allowed to kill my child, I would have killed myself.” This is a cry of someone is hurt and emotionally unstable. If you were suicidal Alex, you needed help, not an abortion. Abortion did not unrape you or change your suicidal state of mind.
More people would understand if you had killed your rapist to deal with the trama that he alone inflicted.
Do you support people killing their rapists?
Nikita wrote, in reply to my comment:
So you would support an expansion of state responsibility and power to enforce the belief that a zygote is the same as a 42 ear-old woman?
Forgive me, but: your use of the phrase “the same” (above) seems to be a careless (and/or snide) way to suggest (and thereafter to ridicule) the idea that we believe an unborn child at the zygote stage to be absolutely identical, in every way, to a woman who’s lived outside the womb for 42 years… and that’s not at all necessary. No, they are not “the same” in the unqualified way you suggest; nor are a 42-year-old woman and a teen-aged boy (both of whom you’d presumably grant a “right to life”); nor are a 42-year-old woman and a baby girl of a different ethnicity (both of whom you’d presumably grant a “right to life”). But yes, they are utterly identical in possessing an intrinsic right to life (and the right not to be targeted for death).
Does that clarify?
Nikita: You have yet to answer the question — what are the legal implications of women who don’t care for their pregnancies to whatever standard the pro-life movement deems necessary?
This is first that time that you asked this question. The answer is simple, and common sense, the legal implications are the same faced by a parent of newborn: the Mother must provide the same level of care.
* Scientists are in agreement that life begins at conception. *
They are not in agreement that that life has all the quality and capacity of that enjoyed by actual living, breathing, autonomous humans, and is therefore accorded the same rights and protections. and the consistent refusal of the pro-life movement to address this fundamental biological fact undermines the whole position.
*Clearly, there is a time for you to kill children.*
This is the last time I will ask you, politely, to stop lying about my position. I have never killed children, and for that matter I have never done anything to stop the the development of potential children. In other words, false.
Epiphany, there’s such a thing as adoption. And yes, I’m an adoptive mom.
So wait,you killed your baby to do her a favor?
I know two couples right now in my little town, Epip, who would have taken your child in a heartbeat. Your rapist deserved punishment, and you deserved justice. But in the end it was your baby who paid the ultimate price.
How, besides you having received a really sucky deal, does this make ANY sense? All it did was make you a mom of a dead child.
Speaking of dead equines, thanks for the discussion, everyone. I have work to do, so I will see you later.
Nikita–newborn babies are not autonomous. Heck, my teenager isn’t autonomous!! Do I have the right to stop taking care of them because they’re cramping my style?
Oh, and the preborn do breathe, they just breathe differently. Different doesn’t mean not-human.
Nikita: They are not in agreement that that life has all the quality and capacity of that enjoyed by actual living, breathing, autonomous humans, and is therefore accorded the same rights and protections. and the consistent refusal of the pro-life movement to address this fundamental biological fact undermines the whole position.
Nikita, keep going with this line of argument. I need your assistance to show how foolish it is for pro-lifers to support the use of hormonal contraceptives based on a lack of scientific consensus regarding its abortive abilities. This line of reasoning simply turns pro-lifers into science-deniers like yourself. Keep going Nikita.
Do pro-lifers not care about the mother at all?
“They are not in agreement that that life has all the quality and capacity of that enjoyed by actual living, breathing, autonomous humans, and is therefore accorded the same rights and protections.”
This is a philosophical claim, not a biological one. That is the main problem. Most pro-choicers are not at all able to articulate their own reasons for being pro-choice well (I would argue because being pro-choice for many is a ground assumption and everything else must follow from that as opposed to arriving at the pro-choice position logically), and they end up confusing the biological fact that the embryo is a human being (no biological controversy there) with the philosophical claim that the embryo is a person (which admittedly is the controversial claim). So I am happy to see that we are moving closer to seeing an actual argument in favor of abortion. It seems that abortion is morally permissible because in order to be considered the kind of being which should be protected under the law, one must be breathing and autonomous- taht these are necessary (but possibly not sufficient) conditions. Is this correct?
“and the consistent refusal of the pro-life movement to address this fundamental biological fact undermines the whole position.”
No, again, first of all, it is a philosophical debate that you have (rightly) brought up, not a biological one. But more to the point, we are very well aware of all the personhood criterias out there- it’s just that this is the first time I am actually seeing it being used to attempt to justify why abortion is morally permissible from you. I am happy to discuss persnhood criteria and what it is that makes persons valuable. So you will find no refusal here… unlike, say, one who refuses to address whether or not there is a difference between the stages of an agents development and teh agent itself…
Hm. Well Courtnay, no one in 2008 wanted my kid bad enough, apparently. I was not going to unwillingly go through a pregnancy that was dangerous to both parties involved.
CC-
It is obvious you DIDN’t watch the video. The Dr. has no affiliation. He DOUBTED it himself and researched it on his own. He contacted pharmaceuitical companies to complain—what video did you watch??????
Some things are true whether you believe them or not. Open up your BC and look at the disclosure for Pharmacists and Dr.–the truth will NOT be denied.
Jen—
You wrote: “Europe’s liberal abortion laws” and Population have nothing to do with each other??
Are you serious? Will give you the bene of the doubt and assume you didn’t really read what you wrote–abortion rates have nothing to do with population????
Europe is dying because of the abortion laws!
I can’t even debate with you if you can’t get that simple concept.
Do pro-lifers not care about the mother at all?
Epiphany look up the following: Sisters for Life, Rachel’s Vineyard, HeartBeat International, BirthRight.
Go to an abortion mill and pray alongside pro-lifers and find out if they care about the Mother.
Go watch the man build the crib for the single expecting mother.
Go see the ladies who fold all the linens and baby clothes to be handed out to the young family who decided not to get an abortion.
Once you have done this, you will have the answer to your question. You can then tell all of your pro-choice friends that pro-lifers really do love the Mother too.
Epiphany wrote, in reply to my comment:
Abortion at 4wk, due to IUD failure.
(*sigh*) I don’t suppose you’d have a positive emotional reaction if I said that, had you never chosen to have an IUD implanted, you would never have been in that particular medical dilemma in the first place? I do not say that to shame you (most likely, you were never told that it was unwise), but to highlight a piece of the puzzle, as it were.
It could have caused embedding of the IUD into another part of my body, requiring surgery, risking me and my baby had IUD not been removed.
This is quite ironic, actually… since there is an extent to which your case might not have been an abortion at all! Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the IUD had been implanted without your consent, and that this situation had subsequently arisen; in cases where the following criteria are fulfilled:
1) the intended action (e.g. saving your life) is good, or at least morally neutral
2) the evil effect (e.g. the death of the child) is not intended
3) the evil effect is not the direct cause of the good effect (e.g. targeting the child for death would not save you; rather, removing the device would save you)
4) there is sufficiently grave reason for permitting the evil effect (e.g. there is moral certainty that you would die if the action were not performed)
…then it would have been morally permissible to remove the IUD, even if it had the (unintended) effect of killing the child. But given your story, I’m not at all sure that these conditions were met. More on that, below.
I was also at 75% miscarriage risk, due to my miscarriage that had happened only 3 months prior, so I had a weak uterus.
(?) I’m not quite sure how this is relevant; “my child might have died, anyway, so it’s best to make certain by killing her”? Perhaps you meant something else?
Also, I have a seizure disorder and I had blood pressure issues. Also, I was so ill that I was bedridden. I’m talking that I would faint or have a seizure just walking to my bathroom in my one bedroom apartment. I literally couldn’t eat or drink anything. I had extreme motion sickness that turning over too fast in bed hurt me.
I understand. As I referenced, above: if these circumstances (and I can’t really judge their severity, since I am not a medical specialist, nor was I on the scene at the time) truly resulted in a moral certainty that your death would have resulted from continued retention of the IUD, and if there were no way to remove the IUD without resulting in the death of the child, then your situation would have been morally licit, and it would not have been a direct, willed abortion at all.
Not to mention, that same day I found out I was pregnant, my ex threw me to the floor and choked me.
I’m very sorry to hear that. Surely you know that his actions were criminal and coercive? I don’t mean to sound insensitive, and I don’t mean to suggest that [in such circumstances] a coerced woman might not be morally non-culpable for such a coerced abortion, but: had the situation involved a 3-year-old daughter (where your husband strangled you because you would not kill your daughter), do you not see that you would never have been justified in killing your daughter, simply to placate your murderous husband? (As an aside: you might wish to Google “The Un-Choice”; it describes how most abortions are the result of some form of coercion–and sometimes violently so.)
Best choice because: dealing with the above circumstances would have greatly endangered two lives.
See above. The threat of violence was not a moral justification (flight, police intervention, etc., would have been the best courses of action, if they were available)… and there’s no real sense in speaking of “endangering the unborn child” (who was the “second of the two lives”, I assume?), when the alternative was her execution!
Especially since my ex was an abuser and a rapist, what do you think would have happened the rest of the pregnancy
I have no idea… nor do I judge you for remaining with him (you may well have been physically and/or psychologically incapable of leaving); but I stress again that this was no justification for targeting your child for death (if that was, in fact, the case; see qualifiers about your medical condition, above). If anything, it seems that your ex-husband has a great deal of culpability for your child’s death!
But what baffles me beyond anything else is this: why do you persist in being “pro-choice”? That (illogical and immoral) position has nothing, whatever, to do with anything you’ve discussed, since any pro-life person could encounter an insoluble medical dilemma (e.g. unresolvable ectopic pregnancy, etc.) or an abusive person who insists that your child (whether born or unborn) die. I can’t fathom why you would still be “pro-choice”… especially since that position does nothing for you at all, regarding your tragic situation! Why do you persist in dehumanising any and all unborn children, whether they are in such harsh circumstances or not?
Tyler, I would love to take your word for it. However, all I have seen by anyone here was that I was wrong, and it didn’t matter that pregnancy emdangers my life.
Briana said: To all pro-lifers: pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion.
The cannula sucks – I’m sure your distinction is lost upon the shredded children.
Briana said: Personally, I don’t see myself able to do it; however, I’m able to see things from other people’s perspectives and understand that it may be the right decision for them. And whatever consequences may come, they will have to bear. It’s their choice.
It’s nice you can be so nonchalant about what for many has been a horribly painful experience. Are you seriously that uncaring?
Jen–
There is one glaringly obvious fact that is not accounted for in either of those sites. The people whom are practicing abstinence…..*drum roll please………. are NOT going to be 1) Pregnant 2) Facing abortion 3) have STD’s . It is hard to count a stat when the very population that is being studied doesn’t fit into the criteria.
Also, since the sexual revolution and R v W–we have NOT Had any abstinence only programs, it has always been coupled with free condoms, sex ed, abortions, etc. Do an abstinence only program witout all the other BS then come and show me legit stats.
LifeJoy–
Your case: ‘whose more fundamental freedoms are being impeded by less basic ones”.”
PROVES a prolife case. The fundamental right to LIVE (Life, liberty…) trumps ALL others. Common sense tells you that if you are NOT alive than you cannot have any rights to protect.
@Blessing
In Mississippi sex education has not been required, and abstinence only is the state standard. Their teen pregnancy rate is quite spectacular. There are countries where abstinence only is the gold standard, Nicaragua for one.
Stroll on over to Guttmacher, I’ve posted numerous links.
Here is an article on European population decline. It taint abortion driving the population decline. You might have heard they are having a little economic trouble there? It is mainly economic with other factors. Considering their low abortion rate, and demograohic decline in countries that do not have as liberal access to abortion, I stand by my statement. Abortion isn’t their issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=all
Europe isn’t dying, it is changing. Just not to your liking.
Dear Blessing – So glad you agree that I did a good job stating the pro-life case. =)
@ Blessing
You are missing the point. The two studies I posted were for Sean’s benefit. He was skeptical that poverty and medical access in urban areas effected disease rates. That is what those were about. Did you read them?
If someone had abstinence only education didn’t come into the studies at all.
Wasn’t done … Sorry … Meant to continue …
Blessing, Bobby Bambino, Tyler, Courtnay, Carla, Sean, and others: Thank you. I have started coming here to learn how to make a strong argument for life, and you are good teachers!
Epiphany: “Sorry, no, no male can tell me I have to have a baby. I am not an incubator.”
In other words, you have men issues. I can understand that, and sympathize, but you’re letting bad stuff shape your world view to the point where, twisted and warped, you justify the death of innocents as a better alternative to dealing with the issues.
I’m not your analyst, and I’m not trying to judge personal matters I’m unacquainted with. But it’s an extraordinary thing to consider unborn children expendable for an imagined greater good, and it’s an utterly romantic epistemology that assert certitude about that future in order to justify killing one’s unborn child.
Nikita: “What do you do about them? Point them to resources and hope they use them?”
Well…yeah. And if you’re their neighbor, care enough to help out.
The pro-choice ethos seems to be that of Ebenezer Scrooge, who pays his taxes to support the bureaucracy that keeps the poorhouses in operation, but won’t get involved personally.
I’m always amazed at how few people’s imaginations rise above the Scrooge level of just assuming that if there’s a solution, it’s the government. And, mind you, the federal government.
“The freedom of the potential is far less than the freedom of the actual, and in cases where they are in conflict the actual prevails.”
No, Nikita, pro-lifers believe that what the fetus actually is — not what it potentially is — deserves to be welcome in life and protected in law. You can play the semantic games all you want, of avoiding talking about what it is by pretending to that it can’t be spoken of until it is something you consider “else” — but it’s a hoop dance that just makes you look stupid. And you’re not stupid. So why try to persuade others otherwise?
“what are the legal implications of women who don’t care for their pregnancies to whatever standard the pro-life movement deems necessary?”
Huh? Are you implying that as of right now, the pro-choice movement doesn’t give a fig about such things? What are the legal implications NOW? Why would they be substantively different in the future? It’s not like there’s no case law on this.
“They are not in agreement that that life has all the quality and capacity of that enjoyed by actual living, breathing, autonomous humans, and is therefore accorded the same rights and protections. and the consistent refusal of the pro-life movement to address this fundamental biological fact undermines the whole position.”
Again, huh? You just cited something that’s not a “biological” fact at all, but a moral judgment. Do you think that when biologists make moral judgments those magically become moral judgments? Does this mean that if a pipefitter decides to carry her child to term, that plumbing is somehow implicated?
joan: What were things like pre-Roe? What you’re describing is a fantasy concocted for histrionic demagoguery.
I know Nikita is gone but scientists DO know when human life begins. Good grief, this isn’t a mystery. My college bio textbook (sorry, not going to locate it and drag it out of storage but it was grey with a green spine and flower on the front) stated that life begins at conception. It probably talked about the earth not being flat too, Nikita. Who’d have thunk it?
We have science and technology these days Nikita. They are learning a lot about the early days of human life.
I did a quick search on the 297 comments – and there seems to be 2 sort-of pro-Romney statements in the bunch.
I’m thinking that folks might not be as hopeful that a Romney presidency will do much for the pro-life side than the board author is selling.
Whatever you say Ex-GOP. All I know is a Romney presidency would be better than an Obama one. But then again almost anything would be.
“joan: What were things like pre-Roe? What you’re describing is a fantasy concocted for histrionic demagoguery.”
What does it matter what things were like pre-Roe? The pre-Roe era is not comparable to the pro-life utopia being held up as the ideal here and elsewhere. There was no such thing as “personhood” for fetuses. In the states where abortion was illegal, it was illegal in the same way that abusing animals is illegal: as a prohibition against a particular conduct, not as an affirmative expression of someone’s right not to be harmed. Nothing I’ve read from this site or other pro-life sources indicates to me that the movement’s ultimate goal is simply to turn back the clock to 1972 and leave it at that. In fact, I’m guessing that would be seen as barely an improvement over the current situation when the pro-life movement realizes that (A) most of the country’s population is concentrated in states where abortion would remain legal, and (B) even the residents of the few states where abortion would be banned could easily travel to the states where it isn’t in order to avail themselves of those services. So the “fantasy” I’ve “concocted” would necessarily become a reality after “personhood” at the constitutional level is realized.
Psst, joan? You haven’t really made an argument. Look at your paragraph, joan. You use phrases like “nothing I’ve read from [sites]” and “I’m guessing that…” SUBSTANTIVELY as if they amounted to facts, a bizarre logical cantilever you then stand on to say “would necessarily become a reality.”
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that is?
And anyway, “personhood at the constitutional level” isn’t what all pro-lifers are after. I have no problem with urban dystopias plowing their civilizations into the ground if they wish. Just see to it that other states are free to be as sovereign as they wish, so there are places for people to flee.
Argh. “Do you think that when biologists make moral judgments those magically become moral judgments?”
“become biological judgments” was my intention.
JDC – and point number 2 – I’ve yet to hear a single person (not even one) excited about Romney. Any support I’ve ever heard is along the lines of what you posted “he’s simply not Obama…”.
To me, there is no debate about when life begins. However, abortion is legal. The Supreme Court decided that there is a right to privacy, and Roe v. Wade will stand. They absolutely do not have to revisit it. I’m sure pro-life conservatives were making decisions. I hope you all remember that.
Er… allow me to re-sculpt your comment into a gentle parody, Epiphany, and you might then see the problem(s) with your position:
[circa 1857]
To me, there is no debate about whether the black is a person. However, slavery is legal. The Supreme Court decided that there is a right to slavery, and Dred Scott v. Sanford will stand. They absolutely do not have to revisit it. I’m sure pro-abolitionist conservatives were making decisions. I hope you all remember that.
Count your days as an aborter, Epip. We are LEGION.
Life rocks. Love wins.
Come on over to our side! As I’ve mentioned before, we’re a lot more fun (not to mention attractive) AND we got cookies!
If these “arguments” are the best they’ve got well I say, “KEEP IT UP PROABORTS!!”
That was great, Carla. I was thinking the exact same thing!
I’ll add on to one of Carla’s comment…
My son, Paul, was aborted between 20-22 weeks over forty years ago in a motel bathroom.
Alix, I’m so sorry that you were raped and you felt that was your best choice for YOUR life and not your child. My nephew was conceived in rape. My sister-in-law was single. Almost miscarried him twice and was bed-ridden for many months. He was also a preemie. She would always say to her proabort colleagues, why should I punish the baby–it’s not the baby’s fault. As I stated in a previous comment, sadly, she passed away. He is now an outstanding citizen of his community; graduated from college with a degree in Computer Engineer; a successful businessman and is now going for his Masters in Business at one of top schools in the U.S. I am so proud of him and his mother would be, too.
Projecting the pro-life movement as a talibanesque bogeyman doesn’t make the idea any less factually accurate. No objective observers of the political system actually think the pro-life movement is trying to banish women to a religious dark age, and “banning” contraception REALLY isn’t a meaningful issue for pro-lifers when it comes to public policy. We’re not trying to ban it contraception or tell women where and how (and with whom) to have sex. I’ll eat my hat if someone can find a specific piece of legislation sponsored by a major pro-life group (a pro-family group doesn’t count. I’m talking a specifically single-issue pro-life group opposed to abortion) to actually ban a contraceptive which isn’t also an abortificient.
The religious line of talk from some pro-lifers can undermine our own position, because the pro-life argument can be made very very well from an entirely secular standpoint. To wit.
“ Scientifically, the clump of undeveloped tissue that is removed from the uterus during an abortion is not a person. Abortion is a choice that each woman gets to make when she gets pregnant, why don’t anti-choicers stop debating and fighting for the rights of fetal tissue and start advocating for the rights of children in the foster care system? Why don’t you open an orphanage and start some sort of fund to pay for the medical expenses of women who choose to place their fetuses up for adoption rather than abort them?”
That “clump of undeveloped tissue” had a heartbeat by 24 days, before the mother knew she was pregnant. It had brain waves by 8 weeks. That’s not propaganda. The majority of abortions happen after this point.
There are a great many groups and individuals working to better the condition of children after they are born. While most pro-lifers would agree that the foster care system ought to be improved, we believe that a child has to first survive a pregnancy in order to suffer through an imperfect foster system. By all means, improve foster care, but perhaps pro-choicers could consider that meaningful reform rarely happens until an issue becomes a crisis. And abortion rather takes the stress off the foster care system. Bottom line, no one else stands up for the unborn, so pro-lifers have to.
CC–
I aplogize, I thought I sent the clip of the video from about 35 minutes on. It is the unbiased neutral source. I cannot find the clip. But the video from the 35 minutes on explains how he called the big pharma out and they mocked him. Trust me it isn’t about Religion.
LifeJoy:
I apologize to you as well, I missed something there and thought you were arguing ProAbort. I am delighted to know you are practicing with us. Me too! I will always be able to learn more from these guys! It is kind hard to “aruge’ when one is armed with information from so many perspectives (medical, scientific, political, social, international, etc. and of course Religion! :) )
Ex-GOP:
Unfortunately, Romney is the lesser of two evils. Pretty crappy we are stuck with making such a choice.
Jen–
You are wrong–Japan, Russia and France are going extinct. It is relevant, because continuing as we are here in the US–we are right behind them. You cannot logically expect us to abort 3,5000 babies-future citizens and really expect the population to NOT decline and minimize the gene pool.
http: //www.killinggirlsmovie.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG2IZEzUmA0
Are you aware of the Total Fertility Rates and Replacement Rates? Please check them out, do your own research-anything I sent you, you’ll write off as biased anyway.
Maybe I did miss something, the ProChoicers have a hard time staying on one topic once one of their arguements are debunked–the don’t concede and move right into someting else… and this forum is pretty intense right now.
I’d like to close out my comments with thanking everyone for being pretty mature and diplomatic. Dialogue like this will change hearts and minds. I must say that there is a WEALTH of information on here that is hard core truth….BUT the people delivering the messages are the real truth–guiding, nudging, teaching with compassion, PATIENCE, PATIENCE, PATIENCE did I say Patience? All I can do, and I encourage you too, at this point is to allow the information and leadership to set in, and pray that seeds have been planted.
Oh! BTW–I donate to a local CPC, volunteer to help the at risk moms, counsel scared teens on Yahoo, do peaceful prayer vigils, I drive a ProLife Race Car and I pray and keep sharing facts and love. I love the mom’s too-they need our love as well.
I have also lost a baby in a “missed abortion” at 12 weeks. The sonogram showed her to be 6 weeks in size…. It is when the baby passes via miscarriage but the body holds onto him and does not pass it naturally. . The Dr. told me that sometimes we want a” baby so bad that our minds convince our bodies to keep holding on”. I needed a D & C. Her name is ***Rain*** and she would be 10. Now I must go and attend to my two POTENTIAL adults that I adore!
I never said anywhere I would have abortions in the future. What do you think it would take for the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade?
Slavery and abortion are not the same. Different comparison please.
“why don’t anti-choicers stop debating and fighting for the rights of fetal tissue…”
Lauren,
I’m sure Carla, above who described holding her 10 week pre-born human child after miscarrying, just LOVES your equating the two. Oh, right, it’s only your child when you want him or her. Dummy me.
This is one 20-something yr old, agnostic, pro-life feminist (and pro-contraception) who would of weighed in on the discussion had I not been working 14 of these last 24 hrs imbetween 2 jobs caring for seniors and the moderately-severely developmentally disabled. Also in my free time, I care for 2 cats I’ve adopted from a shelter and a less-than-ideal situation, distribute care packages to the indigent homeless, and help connect individuals with resources in their community (including government assistance programs). Now, any other stereotypes of pro-lifers I need to bust before I go back to work tonight?
Sigh. You are missing the point.
Populations are declining in some countries, and it doesn’t matter if abortion is legal there or not.
If it made a difference, Poland which restricts abortion heavily wouldn’t have a lower fertility rate than Sweden, which does not. (2010 figures last I could find)
The reason I brought up Europe in the first place is that European countries with abortion access, birth control access, and age appropriate sex ed have lower abortion rates than we do.
That is what you want, right? Fewer abortions?
Countries with the most draconian restrictions on abortion still have high abortion rates and in this case shocking maternal death rates. Here is a link again for a country that has gone as far as possible to ban abortion. It’s not pretty.
http://global.christianpost.com/news/abortion-ban-in-nicaragua-needlessly-endangering-womens-lives-say-activists-60425/
Other than Blessing saying abstinence only education hasn’t been tried when it actually has,
http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=1340&nodeID=1
I haven’t seen any argument or facts put forth that abstinence only eduction reduces abortion, as insinuated in the morality play above, or that shows countries that outlaw abortion have successfully eliminated it and without detriment to women’s health.
http://www.guttmacher.org/
More information on evidence that areas where abortion is illegal have a higher abortion rate, and the connection between contraception and lower abortion rates.
Long-Term Worldwide Decline in Abortions Has Stalled
Epiphany, how are you missing the connection between abortion and slavery? Both are moral issues that large segments of the population felt is wrong. Both were decided by the Supreme court. Slavery used to be legal. Now it is not. The same will happen with abortion.
You admit there is no denying when life begins. Then defend destroying innocent life because its legal and was decided by the supreme court. We are merely pointing out that slavery which we all find abhorrent was once legal too. One day future generations will look back on folks like you and wonder how you could be so blind. Just like we look back on the white slave owners and wonder WHAT were they thinking? How did they justify such evil? They’ll think the same of you Epiphany.
Secular Pro-Lifer Roll Call:
X, reporting for duty.
(my friends can call me “x” or “X”. Everyone else: xalisae – lowercase “x”)
Release the Kraken.
x or xalisae??? :)
Hans,
You were in “x” territory a long time ago, buddy.
But “Miss Jackson” will work, too. If you’re nasty. XD
So you only care about pro-life moms if you are pro-life?
x,
O.K! :)
Awesome.
Hans,
I just told my fiance what you said when I showed up on the thread. He laughed his head off. That shows how well he knows me. :P
TL;DR post to respond to trolls, incoming.
I have just waded through all of these comments and I am exhausted. I am also disheartened by the number of comments (from both sides) that are derogatory in tone or language, or are just flat out rude and succumb to name-calling. I urge everyone (from both sides) to be careful not to fight so hard to win the battle that you loose the soul in the process. Both the exercise of free-will (“choice” if you will) and the fundamental right to life of every human person are goods and deserve to be protected. Please, do not become so blinded by your desire to protect one of these goods that you loose sight of the person in front of you (who is also good!). Thank you to those of you who were able to discuss ideas without slipping into any kind of attack on people. Mercy and compassion in all things!
My students know how the body works, how pregnancy works, how birth works,
That’s surprising, considering the way the the words “potential child” have been showing up in this thread. You’ve been sure to let them know that once the spermatozoon and ovum unite, a new ACTUAL, currently-living offspring has been created, right? You also let them know that “offspring” is synonymous with the word “child” or “children”, correct?
They want to force me to have children if I get pregnant, against my will. That in itself is slavery, saying that I have no right to my own body and that the government can tell me what I can and cannot do once I become pregnant. The majority of prolifers want to get rid of all forms of contraception, and then the women who do have sex or who do get raped are punished. With children. They are trying to demonize women who have sex – many here already have to me! If you can’t see this, then I feel sorry for you, and for those like you.
No one would be forcing you to have children but a rapist. If you’re pregnant, you already have at least one child. This is regardless of what you will. I will that I rather have a million dollars. “Will” in one hand, spit in the other, and see which one gets full first, as my daddy would always say (I’m paraphrasing, of course). You have plenty of rights to YOUR OWN body. Abortion kills a body that doesn’t belong to you. That’s not exercising a right over YOUR OWN body. Also, it wouldn’t be slavery to outlaw abortion, any more than establishing Child Protective Services has instituted legal slavery of parents of post-natal children. I haven’t seen anyone try to “demonize you”. Also, I’m very supportive of contraceptive measures. The pill combined with barrier methods is a rather successful combination. I just don’t think anyone who DOES conceive should kill the resulting child.
You can’t be a feminist if you tell women they ave no choice over their reproduction. You cannot be feminist is you force birth onto people. You cannot be feminist if you deny women the right to not be pregnant
Feminists For Life does a pretty good job of being a Pro-Life feminist organization. You might want to take it up with them if you disagree. I don’t think Pro-Lifers want to take away women’s choices over their reproduction, or I wouldn’t be one. Women should be able to have children or prevent their reproduction as they see fit. We just shouldn’t be allowed to kill our children once they’re here, and that includes from the time they are here, living in this world, and gestating. Nobody “forces” birth except rapists (the people who do the inseminating against someone’s will). Birth is a natural process that happens on its own, no force involved. There is not such a thing as a “right not to be pregnant”, just like there is not a “right” for me to be a millionaire.
None of you would stand by me. None of you would have driven me to the clinic. No, you all would have told me I was bad, wrong, evil. You would have stopped talking to me, spread rumours, slut-shame me. That’s not feminist.
I wouldn’t have driven you to the clinic. No way. I wouldn’t have helped you kill your child. I wouldn’t have told you that you were bad, wrong, or evil. I would’ve told you that your child had every bit the right to live that you have. I wouldn’t have stopped talking to you. I talk to women who have had abortions all the time. I wouldn’t have spread rumours (where do you get that, anyway?), and I wouldn’t have “slut-shame”d you, either.
If it is your body, then you have the right to do what you will. If it is my body, you don’t have a right to do what you will. It is my body, and my rules. Stop slut-shaming.
If it’s YOUR body, then YOU have the right to do what you will. YOUR body. The bodies killed by abortion are those of OUR CHILDREN. Those are THEIR bodies. NOT. OURS.
Oh, and the preborn do breathe, they just breathe differently. Different doesn’t mean not-human.
Actually during the time a normal abortion is done, the embryo is NOT breathing. It doesn’t even have lungs yet, sometimes doesn’t even have a heartbeat yet.
It is pretty sad when people think that they have a right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Abortion is not murder by law, so that argument is out. The fact that an embryo or fetus feels pain during an abortion has already been debunked. So that argument is out. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, that is for her to decide and no one else. I am prolife for myself and don’t think I could ever personally have an abortion.
I was raped last year and started having the symptoms of being pregnant. Thank God, I wasn’t, but while I was thinking about abortion, I decided that I didn’t think I could do it and that was my choice. If someone else chooses differently, that is their choice and I am glad they have that choice. They are the ones that have to live with their decision, but I will support their right to make that choice. It is really too bad that prolifers cannot understand that what they believe is not what everyone else believes. I am prochoice, but no pro-abortion. I would love if no one felt that they had to make that decision, but at the same time, it is not my decision to make.
God willing that Obama will be President for another 4 years because I would hate for Romney to have any control in this country for more reasons than just abortion. Romney is such a flip flopper that even he doesn’t know where he truly stands on the issues. People that say that they don’t care who is President as long as it is not Obama are idiots and it is scary that such idiots are able to vote.
G: “It is pretty sad when people think that they have a right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their bodies.”
Well, that’s pretty much the pro-life view. It IS sad when the unborn are “told” with skull-crushing forceps that they don’t have a horse in the race when it comes to their own bodies.
Pro-life believes that the unborn are entitled to life, and that those who destroy such lives are wrong. Pro-choice has created war between mother and child. Pro-life calls for peace. Pro-choice is about the self. Pro-life is intrinsically a call for preserving the most intimate community that exists.
Basically, the reason pro-lifers are strident, is because those who consider death of the unborn on the altar of the self a fine and dandy thing, are zealous about it. Zeal on behalf of death is naturally going to be opposed by those who love life. The more zealous pro-choicers are, the more committed pro-lifers will be. This is simple, people: life opposes death.
The only way out of this war is to stop the killing.
Epiphany, who were you addressing in your most recent post? Also, please give an example of such a statement made in this thread.
Hans and X–everyone here at work thinks I’m crazy. Because the Kraken comment just about sent me OVER THE CLIFF OF DELIRIUM. L.O.L!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
X, where were you yesterday?? We needed you!
Epip, I would have helped you. I absolutely would have. I would have put you in touch with a good therapist. I would have found someone to help you through your pregnancy, financially as well as morally. I would help you get ready for your baby, and should you decide to keep that baby or adopt her out, we would’ve handled that together too. Every prolife woman on this board would go above and beyond to keep you from compounding your tragedy through abortion. After your baby’s boirth, I would absolutely be your friend and give you the support you needed and deserved, and I would have helped you recognize your own strength in that having an unplanned baby is not the worst thing in the world; though killing her for a crime she did not commit would be. You would be my hero.
But what I would never do is drive you to the clinic under the presumption that an abortion was going to heal you and make it all better. Never.
Epiphany wrote, in reply to my comment:
What do you think it would take for the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade?
A return to sanity for all involved, perhaps…
Slavery and abortion are not the same. Different comparison please.
My dear lady, the very point of an analogy is to connect two similar, but not identical, things! Of course, slavery and abortion are not absolutely identical in every logical way; but they are more than similar enough to make the point in question, yes? (Honestly: how would anyone ever use comparisons or metaphors, or even think reasonably about anything on earth, if the only possible “comparisons” were between identical items? You might look up the fallacy of “univocation”, when you get a moment.) To wit:
You specifically supported your abortion-tolerant position with an appeal to the current legality of abortion in 2012, and to the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in its favour (and has not overturned it, and you do not expect it to be overturned) in 1973. Re: slavery (which has a legion of details in common with abortion, the most important of which is the principle of dehumanising a human person in order to abuse, manipulate or kill him/her while attempting to keep a clear conscience about the matter), I highlighted the fact that it was quite legal in the latter half of the 1800’s in the USA, and the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in its favour (and never overturned it, and pro-slavery people never expected it to be overturned) in 1857.
(I note also that both SCOTUS decisions were 7-2, which always struck me as uncanny.)
If you, after this description (and any other needed research on the topic) cannot see the relevance and fittingness of the comparison, madam, then I honestly don’t know what to tell you.
(I actually had to look at prior comments, after repeated references to “Hans and X comment”… and I almost choked on my breakfast! :) Too funny… )
I have a new job that sucks, it takes all my time and is exhausting. It’s only temporary though, so I’ll be back soon. :P
“no one should be forced to carry a ‘fetus’ to term.” i don’t think someone else should be forced to lose their life because someone else doesn’t want their life to change. Governments all over the world deny their citizens of basic needs for life and life itself for their own gain and we have a fit about that, all because we can SEE the people who are suffering. We can’t see a developing child in the womb, so we decide to classify it as non-human and think ourselves not guilty of the same atrocity that dictators have done. When a child is growing in the womb, you ARE A MOTHER. Not a mother-to-be or a mother if you choose. What if someone was allowed to make the same choice about you? You took the job someone else wanted causing their dreams to crash and burn, changing their life, causing them undue stress and difficulty. Do they have the right to kill you? ‘no one should be forced to lose a job opportunity because of someone else’?
To all of the women that have shared their pain of rape I want to tell you how truly sorry I am for what you went through. So very sorry. I cannot imagine anything more horrifying.
I am grateful you have done more than survive. You have endured.
Epiphany,
I would have done for you what I did with the young girl I walked with. She was raped, became pregnant and chose life for her daughter. She reached out for all of the help and support I could offer her. 3 months ago her little girl was placed in a loving family. And she is thrilled to watch her daughter grow in an open adoption.
Love wins.
Jen says:
I haven’t seen any argument or facts put forth that abstinence only educ[a]tion reduces abortion
I’m certainly not going to claim that “abstinence only” education reduces abortion. However, abstinence is 100% successful in reducing abortion. And if we want people to choose abstinence, they should be educated about it. My children receive comprehensive sex-ed at school. It is woefully inadequate in educating about abstinence. People need to know more than just the facts that abstinence is 100% successful in preventing STI’s and pregnancy. They need to know HOW to be abstinent. It’s not (please pardon the graphic language) lying in bed naked with your boyfriend and saying “No” to the final penetration. It’s not choosing oral instead of vaginal sex. (Hello! Oral/head/neck cancers from HPV!)
I have no idea what “abstinence-only” education looks like in a school setting. But if it’s as inadequate in teaching about abstinence as comprehensive sex-ed is, then I’m not surprised at it’s failure to lead to abstinence. My children will continue to get abstinence-based comprehensive sex-ed at school and we do our own thorough abstinence-only education at home.
Jen–
Yes, I want fewer abortions–it is a start. I want abortion ABOLISHED. A newspaper article? Seriously. Come on! Not exactly a legit source. My focus was on abortion = population decline. I will take the detour for you.
You are attempting to prove that ILLEGAL abortions = Maternal Deaths. I will prove that LEGAL abortions = maternal deaths, infertility
I did read it. I also found this.
Peer reviewed article from Association of Reproductive Health Officials.
http://www.arhp.org/publications-and-resources/contraception-journal/march-2011
Again, You are wrong. Especially about Europe. I know you won’t read the document, here is a direct quote:
“Statistics released in September of 2010 by the United Nations place the United States 50th in the world for maternal mortality — with maternal mortality ratios higher than almost all European countries, as well as several countries in Asia and the Middle East.1, 2
The article DOES say that in underdevloped countries that maternal death rates are from unsafe abortions and obstructed labor, there is no breakdown of each. It still doesn’t prove your case–in a poorer nation the solution is NOT to keep abortion legal but to take care of the ISSUES that cause women to want to have abortions–help take care of the women and babies. Help them find meaningful, supportive work, teach them about healthy pregnancies. Help them improve the medical care system, etc. etc. Education is POWER, empower the women don’t disempower them with abortions!
Furthermore your article says:
“The total abortion ban in Nicaragua: Women’s lives and health endangered, medical professionals criminalized,” which blamed the law for creating a culture of fear when it comes to pregnancy by creating “criminal sanctions against doctors and nurses who treat a pregnant woman or girl for illnesses such as cancer, malaria, HIV/AIDS or cardiac emergencies where such treatment is contraindicated in pregnancy and may cause injury to or death of the embryo or fetus,”
The Dr’s fear is absurd. Here is why: If the Dr. is treating a mom for any number of life threatening illnesses while she is pregnant and the baby dies as a result of that–IT IS NOT AN ABORTION!!!!!!!!!! It is the same as the flawed argument here in the US with etopic pregnancies–if a surgery is performed to save the mom’s life and the baby can’t be saved–IT IS NOT AN ABORTION!!! It is in unintended consequence of a life saving action–and if you want to be really picky about it–it boils down to INTENTION. As long as the Dr does whatever he can to save baby and mom–then its NOT AN ABORTION!! So your entire case just fell apart into soggy wet cardboard. ;) An Abortion would be INTENTIONALLY giving something to the BABY or Doing something directly to the BABY to directly cause harm or death. Read that carefully…
That said: Here in the US we have an excellent network of Fetal Surgery Centers so does Canada..there are many, many treatments available for both mom and baby to save both their lives. I’d like to believe that many Prochoicers are simply not aware of this and once enlightened defend life at all costs. Point in case: an unborn baby with a heart condition that can be treated with meds. Mom will ingest the meds to treat baby. Saves baby’s life, doesn’t harm mom.
Are you ready to finish my case in point for abortion = population decline? It DIRECTLY ties in to your tangent–I will grant that. So I learned something new and I am happy we went on this tangent. It ties in because…
1) Maternal Mortality rates are still HIGH were abortion laws are LIBERAL. Russia is an excellent case study because it has the HIGHEST abortion rates in the world.
Here is a 2003 stat–the number is probably much higher now.
Russian authorities are admitting that some abortions have adverse consequences for a woman’s health. “Artificial termination of pregnancy after week 12 is fraught with grave consequences for a woman’s health,” says a Health Ministry official. “Abortions account for 30% of maternal mortality in Russia
2) ”Vladimir Kulakov, the deputy director of the Russian Women’s Health Center says that of some 38 million women of childbearing age, about 6 million are infertile, and medical authorities consider abortions a major cause of infertility. ” WHat better place to Study the effects of abortion than the worlds highest abortion rate?
So now we have:
abortion minimizes population,
mother’s dying from abortions minimize population (2 fold: they die and they no longer can have babies)
The mom’s that survive are INFERTILE! minimizes population.
Are you ready to conceed your case yet?
Jen, I am really not trying to be a jerk–just show you that the information you have is seriously flawed.
I’ll grant that Nicarauga is a good case study, Add Russia, China in and Ireland–which has no abortions either then you might have a good well rounded study.
Jen-
“The Russian government’s conservative projections warn that by 2050, the country’s population will shrink by 30 percent from 143.6 million to 101.3 million; its worst case scenario predicts that the population could drop to 77.2 million, a reduction of nearly 50 percent. For a country facing a dramatic demographic decline and an increasingly unhealthy adult population, Russia can ill afford to under-invest in its human capital, especially in the treatment and care of its infants and children. An increasingly unhealthy and constantly shrinking population in Russia represents a formidable economic and security challenge deserving of decisive action backed by substantial resources, including from the international community. ”
http://www.orphandoctor.com/adoption/offline/russiahealthcrisis.html
Jen-
Finally, here is Maternal Mortality Ratio of:
1) Russia (highest abortion rate)
2) US
3) Ireland (abortion is illegal)
4) Nicaragua (abortion is illegal)
From 2008, latest figures available.
Russia: 39
US: 24
Ireland: 3
Nicaragua: 100
I will not draw any conclusions. It does BEG to question WHY–the two nations with abortion being illegal have such differences in maternal mortality. I would posit that it has more to do with economics than it does with abortion. Further evidence that making abortion illegal does NOT save moms.
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/nicaragua_statistics.html
Here is UNICEF’s definition:
“Maternal mortality ratio – Annual number of deaths of women from pregnancy-related causes per 100,000 live births. This ‘reported’ column shows country reported figures that are not adjusted for underreporting and misclassification.”
Carla,
I would never choose to continue a pregnancy that resulted in compromising my health or that was the result of rape. I made the best decision for everyone involved. I know people here disagree, but that doesn’t matter.
To me, viability is where rights begin for the fetus. OR if the woman wants to continue her pregnancy and harm is brought against her or her unborn child.
Regarding abstinence only education: we have that here, and when teaching about sex, kids are told that 100% of the time they will catch an STD, because sleeping with even one person is like sleeping with all their sexual partners too. Funny, it doesn’t work. Where I live we have a very high teenage pregnancy rate.
Also, I want my kid to be taught sex ed. It is important to know about possible issues that could arise, as well as that abstaining prevents pregnancy, but it doesn’t always happen.
If you guys want abstinence only and Jesus in your schools, send your kid to private school or homeschool them.
Nikita: “Right. The beginning. Not the existence of a human being.”
So…you fail to understand the definition not only of “zygote” but also of “beginning.” If something or someone has begun, it/he/she is already in existence.
“As an acorn is not a tree, a zygote is not a live human.”
An acorn most certainly is an oak tree in an early stage of its development. It’s not the image that immediately comes to mind when someone mentions the term “oak tree,” but, botanically speaking, that’s exactly what it is.
Blessing,
If you want abortion abolished, does that mean a woman cannot even get a D&C or other surgical procedure if her baby dies inside of her? What about incomplete abortions (failed m/c)? Or what if pregnancy due to an issue such as extremely elevated blood pressure will result in death of mother and baby? Should she just have to die because she had sex, and now she has a complication that is life threatening?
To the personal who cruelly concluded that had I not had the IUD, none of that would have happened:
Hi, my name is Epiphany, and I chose the most effective birth control on the market. It has a .2% fail rate. Meaning, rare. I felt confident I would not have a pregnancy while on this device. So, after suffering a very violent miscarriage that lasted a week before I went to the hospital and went into labor, I decided that could not happen to me again.
Also, during this time, my ex began sexually assaulting me and forcing himself upon me. An IUD was my best option. I had no family, no help, and I feared my ex. So, anyone would understand why this would be the best option.
However, with the snide remark, and an underhanded “it’s your fault”, it seems that I was just asking for that to happen. Perhaps I should have merely not used birth control. Perhaps I should have used something less effect and paid my consequences of being female, and having a man brutalize me. Oh and if I get pregnant, I have to have the baby, even if it would directly interfere with my health. If I don’t, I’m as bad as my rapist.
And to the person who addressed Nikita about when she has her “real baby”…my daughter is 6 months old. When I hold her, I never think of my abortions. I do think of my miscarriage. The next thing I think is that I am relieved that I am blessed, and that things worked out the way they did, because now I have a beautiful baby and a wonderful man in my life. I do not sit there and guilt myself over my past.
Epiphany-
I am sincerely doubting your intelligence right now. Either that or you have allowed your emotions to run away with you and are asking questions that are downright foolish.
You wrote:
“If you want abortion abolished, does that mean a woman cannot even get a D&C or other surgical procedure if her baby dies inside of her? What about incomplete abortions (failed m/c)?”
I am hoping that you MEANT To ask–that in the event these happens, is the woman not supposed to have surgery to remove an already deceased baby? No, of course not. The surgery is NOT ending the baby’s life. Wanting abortion abolished means wanting the murder of the unborn stopped.
If the baby passes naturally, that is, if it is a miscarriage then the baby is DEAD already. There is not an abortion! An abortion is the intentional destruction of the living being. Murder. A failed miscarriage’s proper term is “missed abortion”. I have already shared my experience with it. Again, the baby is already DEAD–performing a surgery to remove the baby is not an abortion. In many cases, the baby can be passed naturally witout any surgery.
You wrote:
“Or what if pregnancy due to an issue such as extremely elevated blood pressure will result in death of mother and baby? Should she just have to die because she had sex, and now she has a complication that is life threatening? ”
Are you serious? Let see, there are a choice of solutions to that scenario: 1) Complete Bed rest 2) Adjusted diet 3) Medication 4) Exercise 5) Fluids 6) Emergency C-section.
What many fail to realize is that the BP can be controlled by diet much of the time. Any decent Midwife will tell you that. Your Dr. won’t because he wants you to have full faith in him. Your midwife wants you to have faith in your body and being a woman…to take responsiblity for your pregnancy. My BP was borderline, I took lots of water, monitored my BP and adjusted my diet and I STILL delivered at home without any meds. Whooo Whooo!!!!!
I repeat what I said in my previous post. “If the Dr. is treating a mom for any number of life threatening illnesses while she is pregnant and the baby dies as a result of that–IT IS NOT AN ABORTION!!!!!!!!!! It is the same as the flawed argument here in the US with etopic pregnancies–if a surgery is performed to save the mom’s life and the baby can’t be saved–IT IS NOT AN ABORTION!!! It is in unintended consequence of a life saving action–and if you want to be really picky about it–it boils down to INTENTION. As long as the Dr does whatever he can to save baby and mom–then its NOT AN ABORTION!! So your entire case just fell apart into soggy wet cardboard. An Abortion would be INTENTIONALLY giving something to the BABY or Doing something directly to the BABY to directly cause harm or death. Read that carefully… If an emergency measure is taken to save the mom and the baby passes and he cannot be saved-it is NOT an abortion!
Now that you understand it–are you ProLIfe?
Epiphany,
What does viability have to do with it? How does viability make someone a person who a week before was not a person? Years ago viability was at 28 weeks. Now its at 24 though there have been cases of babies born at 20 weeks who have survived. So some fetuses are people at 20 weeks and some aren’t till 28 weeks? Is that what you’re arguing? My friend from high school lost her son when he was born at 27 weeks. Thats past the accepted point of viability yet her otherwise healthy son did not survive. Would you tell her she only lost a “potential” child?
Viability and the feelings of the mother are arbitrary and should have no bearing on the worth of human beings.
Epip: just so we’re clear: HOW a child is conceived should never have any bearing on the worth of a child. Never, never, never. My Emmy (concieved in a loving marriage) = to any child conceived in rape.
Life TOTALLY SUCKS sometimes. Anyone of us can tell a story here, starting with me being assaulted by a grown man while I was riding my bike home from the library when I was 9 years old.
We don’t kill our children because of its suckiness.
Epip: Are you okay with showing a video of an abortion in health class?
I am awestruck once again by the tenacity and perseverance of the pro-lifers here who continue to faithfully support life and tirelessly play verbal whack-a-mole with the pro aborts. Many new anti-lifers here responding to this post – probably were looking for “Julia – The Obama version”. No new or effective arguments though. Many thanks to the talented pro-life regular commenters here professing solid logic and factual truth. Logic is something that is consistently lacking in the anti-life rationalizations. There is not one anti-life argument that can be logically defended. Not one of the pro aborts here have defended with facts or logically explained why attaining any of their arbitrary developmental milestones actually prove personhood. There is no argument made or proof offered to back up their “potential person”, “life/personhood begins at birth” claims. They just assume all they say is true. Why is one stage of our development any more important than any other? Pro-aborts just don’t think life is precious in all its stages. In a world that has witnessed the blessed life of Mother Teresa and benefitted from her self-sacrificing ministry, the law of averages says we must also have hard hearted, bitter, angry women like CC promoting the extermination of the pre born. Sad. Alix, unless you are ready and willing to follow, for the rest of their lives, the 1,000’s of post abortive women you claim to know, your assertion that they will never feel any regret is illegitimate. You cannot guarantee that you will never feel regret during the next 70-80 years of your own life.
I have only seen the most radical pro abort, who understands the self-induced trap the bodily autonomy argument presents, defend bodily autonomy in all cases and choices. Alix, would you really accept a woman’s bodily autonomy to commit suicide, self-mutilate, become addicted to drugs, drive blind drunk? Would you sit idly by and watch your mother, sister, daughter or best friend inject heroin into her veins? Here is a pregnancy related autonomy example: Would you permit a pregnant woman, intending to carry her baby to term, in order to ease her nausea, take as much thalidomide as possible and consequently give birth to a baby with deformities? A radical anti-lifer claims to support all of these destructive choices, as irrational as that support is. I suspect you only support bodily autonomy for abortion.
Alix, it sounds like you never once considered giving birth to or keeping your rape conceived baby. It appears you gave that life absolutely no value. I was rape conceived and I am here to give witness to the fact that I do have value as do ALL the lives conceived through rape and incest. We are exhibit #1 in the lineup of pro-abort “unwanted lives”. We are also used as bargaining chips by the marginally pro-life when pro-life laws with “exceptions” are proposed. Fortunately, my mother thought beyond herself and decided not to end my life. I do not celebrate the rape that conceived me, but I do celebrate the woman that saved me. I also am grateful for the culture of life that supported her through law. Evil happens – but out of evil comes goodness and healing. I grieve for her experience and trauma. Alix, I grieve for your experience and trauma, too. I also grieve for your baby.
On a comical note, there was an anti-life challenge in a previous post asking if the government will be required to monitor the health and diets of pregnant women. This actually sounds like what Michelle Obama’s current agenda is for non-pregnant citizens. Instead of this being a challenge to pro-lifers, it turns out that this governmental diet management of the US population is already being mandated in many of our public schools.
I find it amazing that you pro aborts have the nerve to poke your heads above ground during this week when we are reminded that ground fetal remains are being placed into pills for human consumption. Thanks, anti-lifers, for promoting the culture of death which lead to this unthinkably gruesome practice.
Epiphany wrote:
To the personal who cruelly concluded that had I not had the IUD, none of that would have happened:
First of all: if you wish to address me, you’re welcome to address me by name; the vague descriptor you used did little more than enrich your presentation with unneeded drama.
Second: would you be so kind as to read my comment again, with a bit more care? I took great pains to insert many qualifiers, most of which you ignored completely in your retort. For example:
[Paladin]
(*sigh*) I don’t suppose you’d have a positive emotional reaction if I said that, had you never chosen to have an IUD implanted, you would never have been in that particular MEDICAL dilemma in the first place?
…and also:
I do not say that to shame you (most likely, you were never told that it was unwise), but to highlight a piece of the puzzle, as it were.
When you claim that I said “none OF THAT would have happened”, don’t you see how you’re sweeping every last bit of your story into the idea (i.e. suggesting that my position is “no IUD’s, and you’ll never have to worry about illness, abusive boyfriends, etc.!”), and that this is simply silly (and somewhat irresponsible)?
Hi, my name is Epiphany, and I chose the most effective birth control on the market.
Pleased to meet you, I’m sure. You’ve not been on the board for very long, Epiphany, so you may not have known that I was suggesting periodic abstinence (i.e. NFP) as an alternative. It isn’t “on the market”, true (it’s free, save for the minimal cost of a good thermometer, and perhaps some note-paper on which to keep records), but it really does avoid the IED-specific problems you faced. This is not as urgent an issue as your abortion-tolerant position, mind you.
It has a .2% fail rate. Meaning, rare. I felt confident I would not have a pregnancy while on this device.
Your figure of 0.2% is generous, to say the least; most studies I’ve seen suggest a 1-3% failure rate in the first year, with increased failure rate as time goes on. But just to highlight the issue: if an optional food only had a 0.2% chance (or 1-3% chance) of causing you a painful and violent death, would you still choose to eat it? I would hope not.
So, after suffering a very violent miscarriage that lasted a week before I went to the hospital and went into labor, I decided that could not happen to me again.
I’ll address this, below.
Also, during this time, my ex began sexually assaulting me and forcing himself upon me.
Again, I’m very sorry that you endured that. His action was vile and gravely evil.
An IUD was my best option.
I can guess your answer, but I want you to put words on this idea, so I’ll ask you clearly: an IUD was your best option for WHAT? What was your goal? Please be clear and explicit.
I had no family, no help, and I feared my ex. So, anyone would understand why this would be the best option.
See above: your best option for WHAT?
However, with the snide remark, and an underhanded “it’s your fault”,
Friend, you were apparently too upset to read my comment with any sort of care, if you missed my repeated references to “not blaming you”, “not thinking that you were morally culpable”, and the like. Do read it again, and then see if this accusation of yours is quite fair, eh? My comment was not snide, and I suggested nothing of the sort.
Perhaps I should have merely not used birth control.
Epiphany, even in the midst of your pain, I have to say this clearly: you’re clearly saying that your baby should die rather than put you through pain. That’s my primary concern, here. Nothing excuses your rapist for what he did; but his guilt does not translate into you agreeing to kill your child. (The issue of artificial birth-control is a separate and less urgent issue, which I’ll leave aside for the moment.)
Oh and if I get pregnant, I have to have the baby, even if it would directly interfere with my health.
If you get pregnant, you already “have” the baby, Epiphany; the only question is whether or not you will allow her to live, or whether you will sentence her to death. She’s already there.
If I don’t, I’m as bad as my rapist.
The two crimes simply do not compare, at all; rape is a grave evil, and murder is a grave evil. One does not necessitate the other, and comparing them serves no good purpose, in this instance.
I do not sit there and guilt myself over my past.
That is not now, nor has it ever been, the point. We’re trying to get you to see two things:
1) that abortion is a very grave evil, and that you should not support it.
2) that healing is available for you, regarding the damage which (whether felt, unfelt, acknowledged, denied, etc.) it did to you… but that healing cannot begin until you recognise clearly what it is, and what you have done.
We want you to grieve and recognise the evil of your abortion, NOT(!) because we want you in pain… but because we want you healed, better, and embracing the good. We also want to protect your future children, because we love all life (father, mother, baby). Is that so very difficult to believe?
Alix I am truly impressed with your maturity and honesty regarding this debate. Clearly you are coming at this with true information and real life knowledge of these circumstances. I stand with Lauren in applauding your courage and honesty.
In Europe children are taught sex education from Kingeraten through high school, the information changing as they grow. Birth control is free or extremely low cost. The consequence? Teengers on average delay their first sexual experience by several years LONGER than America. Far from sex education making them curious it satisfied their curiousity.
Their teen pregnancy rate and abortion rate are dramatically lower than America . Providing sex eduation and free birth control causes abortion the same way free fire extinguishers cause fires.
In every state where Abstince only education is taught has seen a RISE in teen pregnancy and STD rates. Yup you read that right RISE.
Since we know absolutgely that providing sex education and free birth control will signifigantly reduce abortion rates why are prolifers against it?
Because it has nothing to do with reducting abortion rates. It about keeping women in check, denying them choices and rights.
Until a prolifer opens their home to all the abandoned and unwanted children their ‘rro life’ policies have created their are nothing but raging hypocrites.
Deuteronomy 15:11
For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’
Cameron, pro-lifers do open their homes to foster children etc (there is not such thing as an “unwanted’ child. SOMEBODY wants that child even if the mother doesn’t). But even if we didn’t open our homes and wallets to the poor children, how does it then follow that abortion does not kill a living, developing human being?
So if you were concerned about homeless people I could say “Unless you open your home to EVERY SINGLE homeless person in the US you’re just a hypocrite!”
nothing you wrote made sense. You didn’t address any issues you just erected straw men. Did you know we’ve already cited many studies on this site that debunk your sex ed theories?
Anyone who thinks a surgical procedure resulting in an abortion is ok, is pro-choice. Congrats.
To address many:
No I’m not pro-life. Nothing can sway me that way.
Seeing as I’m in an abstinence only state, and health class is no longer mandatory, an abortion video would never be seen. Would I want it shown in school? No, and I wouldn’t want a video of sex or birth shown either.
To the person with BP issues…you had luck on your side. Not everyone is as fortunate.
To clarify my earlier point: say the woman used in my example goes to several doctors, and she has taken all the necessary steps, and the pregnancy will kill her, should she be allowed to abort? Why or why not?
Viability=rights. When the baby is born, it has rights. Viability, I understand, is between 20-22 weeks.
I never called unborn babies “potential” anything. Why is that being directed at me?
I would not do anything different ever.
Paladin wrote:
“…but it really does avoid the IED-specific problems you faced.”
Paladin, I don’t think she wants her uterus blown up…LOL! :D
Sorry, it’s late and I’m pretty sure I’m to the point of being slap-happy :P
First trimester abortions are not crimes.
Oh and I used an IUD to protect myself from pregnancy. Since I was not consenting to what was happening, how does natural planning work in that instance? Obviously abstaining was not an option either.
I understand why you disagree with my decision. But I will disagree that it is murder. Murder, is after all, illegal. Abortion, to a point, is not.
“I would not do anything different ever.”
Then you’re far inferior to any baby, whether born or soon-to-be-born, because they are in a constant state of growth and learning, and will do many things differently - always.
I learn new things daily. It doesn’t change my stance on being pro-choice. Does that mean I want to have another abortion in the future? I certainly don’t. However, I am ok with women having the choice to have one, legally and safely.
What would over turn Roe v. Wade? What grounds? I’m really interested at what people think, because all I saw on here is “sanity” or something. That is not going to work.
Since Roe v. Wade was decided by conjuring up a “right to privacy” it was doomed to failure, when “sanity” does eventually prevail.
Last I checked, an abusive husband can’t claim a “right to privacy”. The shaky ground is not on our side.
Medscape – Eclampsia
Overview
“Preeclampsia is mild in 75% of cases and severe in 25% of them.
Management of Preeclampsia
The optimal management of a woman with preeclampsia depends on gestational age and disease severity. Because delivery is the only cure for preeclampsia, clinicians must try to minimize maternal risk while maximizing fetal maturity. The primary objective is the safety of the mother and then the delivery of a healthy newborn. Obstetric consultation should be sought early to coordinate transfer to an obstetric floor, as appropriate.[48]
Patients with mild preeclampsia are often induced after 37 weeks’ gestation. Before this, the immature fetus is treated with expectant management with corticosteroids to accelerate lung maturity in preparation for early delivery.
In patients with severe preeclampsia, induction of delivery should be considered after 34 weeks’ gestation. In these cases, the severity of disease must be weighed against the risks of infant prematurity. In the emergency setting, control of BP and seizures should be priorities. In general, the further the pregnancy is from term, the greater the impetus to manage the patient medically.
Care in Mild Preeclampsia
Before 37 weeks, expectant management is appropriate. In most cases, patients should be hospitalized and monitored carefully for the development of worsening preeclampsia or complications of preeclampsia.
A pregnancy complicated by mild preeclampsia at or beyond 37 weeks should be delivered. Although the pregnancy outcome is similar in these women as it is in women with a normotensive pregnancy, the risk of placental abruption and progression to severe disease is slightly increased.Thus, regardless of cervical status, induction of labor should be recommended. Cesarean section may be performed based on standard obstetric criteria.
Care in Severe Preeclampsia
When severe preeclampsia is diagnosed after 34 weeks’ gestation, delivery is most appropriate. The mode of delivery should depend on the severity of the disease and the likelihood of a successful induction. Whenever possible, however, vaginal delivery should be attempted and cesarean section should be reserved for routine obstetric indications.
Women with severe preeclampsia who have nonreassuring fetal status, ruptured membranes, labor, or maternal distress should be delivered regardless of gestational age. If a woman with severe preeclampsia is at 32 weeks’ gestation or more and has received a course of steroid, she should be delivered as well.
If a patient presents with severe preeclampsia before 34 weeks’ gestation but appears to be stable, and if the fetal condition is reassuring, expectant management may be considered, provided that the patient meets the strict criteria set by Sibai et al (see Laboratory values for preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome).[52] This type of management should be considered only in a tertiary center. In addition, because delivery is always appropriate for the mother, some authorities consider delivery as the definitive treatment regardless of gestational age. However, delivery may not be optimal for a fetus that is extremely premature. Therefore, in a carefully chosen population, expectant management may benefit the fetus without greatly compromising maternal health”
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1476919
So to answer your question, Epiphany, expectant waiting, medical management of blood pressure and symptoms in a hospital environment and early/emergency delivery are standard practices of care.
Rachael C. wrote:
[Paladin]
“…but it really does avoid the IED-specific problems you faced.”
[Rachael]
Paladin, I don’t think she wants her uterus blown up…LOL!
(*laugh*) Okay, so that was a particularly unfortunate typo…! Vivid image, that…
Epiphany wrote:
No I’m not pro-life. Nothing can sway me that way.
I don’t see why you’d mention your own abusive past, then; how does “I was forced into an abortion because I was in fear of my life, and I wouldn’t have had one otherwise” justify your view of “any woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason at all, until birth”? The two are utterly disconnected! You might as well go from “I helped beat my daughter due to my ex-husband torturing me until I mentally broke” to justify a subsequent position of “anyone should be free to beat his/her daughter with a tire-iron for any reason at all”!
To clarify my earlier point: say the woman used in my example goes to several doctors, and she has taken all the necessary steps, and the pregnancy will kill her, should she be allowed to abort? Why or why not?
I explained that, above. If the baby is targetted for death, then it’s a direct, willed abortion (morally speaking), and it is gravely evil. If the baby’s death is the unintended (i.e. you’d save him/her, if you could) and unavoidable (no other options exist) side-effect of some other comparably grave effort to enact a good (e.g. saving the mother’s life, etc.), then it is not a direct, willed abortion (i.e. not an abortion at all, morally speaking, though it may still fit the medical definition), and no blame results from that.
Viability=rights.
Can you explain your reasoning for this? We’ve heard this claim interminably (as I mentioned, far above), but I’ve yet to see a logically coherent defense of it.
When the baby is born, it has rights.
That’s true. And the same baby has rights BEFORE birth, as well.
Viability, I understand, is between 20-22 weeks.
Sometimes… depending on available technology, etc. (It’s a curious standard: the very same 22-week-old baby who would be “viable” at the Mayo Clinic [due to their fine facilities and staff] would be “non-viable” at a small community hospital… and therefore would be both “worthy of life” and “not worthy of life” at the very same time, in your mind, depending on what part of the state you happened to visit while going into labour!)
But before we go too far: are you using BIRTH as the standard, or are you using VIABILITY? They are not at all the same thing; do you have this issue quite clear, in your mind?
I never called unborn babies “potential” anything. Why is that being directed at me?
It was directed at other members of the “wave of abortion-tolerant visitors” who arrived when you did, I think. But what IS your view of the pre-born baby who is not yet “viable” (by your standard)? Since they have no rights in your eyes, do you still call them “babies” and “persons”?
I would not do anything different ever.
That is utterly illogical, Epiphany; that’s the action of a donkey digging in its heels, not the action of a reasonable human being who’s searching for truth. Please do reconsider that. You’re here anyway, are you not? Mightn’t you just as well consider our points, since you’re listening to them anyway?
Epiphany wrote:
First trimester abortions are not crimes.
We must distinguish between moral crimes and legal crimes. Rape, for example, is a moral crime in any case; but it was not a legal crime in Nazi Germany (if directed against Jews), nor was it a crime in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq (if done by a government team, for interrogation/intimidation purposes). Beating a black man to death is a moral crime in any case; but it was not a legal crime in the USA in the 1800’s… and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that fact, in 1857 (by the same ratio of votes [7 to 2] which legalise abortion!). Morality and legality are not the same thing. They SHOULD be (in the sense that legal systems should always follow the moral law), but I’m afraid that’s not always (or even often) the case.
Oh and I used an IUD to protect myself from pregnancy.
You’re putting me in the very uncomfortable (and potentially unpopular) position of critiquing what you did while you were still with your abusive ex-husband… but… so be it. I can predict what you might say: that I’m shamelessly shaming you, judging you, saying that everything was “your fault”, and that I have a great deal of gall to pass judgment on you when you were in such desperation, fear for your life, mentally traumatised, psychologically cowed, etc., that I couldn’t possibly understand what you went through, and so on. I grant you that I do not know exactly what you endured, and I do not necessarily assign moral blame to you for what you did (you might well be free of blame altogether, given the lack of freedom that your abuse entailed. Please do remember that I said so, when replying to this, eh? I bolded it for you, so that it’d be more difficult to miss.) That being said:
If you were ever in a situation like that again, I think you already know what you should do: seek a rape crisis centre, find a shelter for battered women, go to the police (who could then refer you to the above places), file a police report [if possible], go to Catholic Charities and beg for protection/shelter/help to get away from the area/etc., and any other thing which gets you out of the situation. None of those would require contraception… and quite frankly, madam, I suspect that you’re quite all right with contraception in ANY case, yes? My wife, for example, has her own history of sexual abuse (and she’s given me permission to speak of that, so long as I don’t identify her or the offender), but she’d rather die than submit to contraception of any stripe. It’s simply not true that “abuse = contraception is necessary”; that’s a view which you happen to hold, above and beyond the agony of your torture at the hands of your abuser.
Again: unless clear evidence to the contrary comes through, I’ll assume that you were NOT culpable (i.e blame-worthy) for your choices in your situation: you were ignorant of (i.e. you simply didn’t know) the moral law, and you were not in any position to make free and informed choices about much of anything. I say merely that those choices were bad ones (i.e. mistakes)… just as I’d say that someone’s sum in a ledger is bad (i.e. a mistake) if they say that 2 + 2 = 5. There’s a clear difference between “this action is wrong” and “you were guilty of sin for doing so”; no one can sin without sufficient freedom of the wrongness of the act, sufficient freedom to act, and freely choosing the act anyway. Is that quite clear? I say all of this to help stop you from repeating the bad choices… not to “shame” you for past “choices” (if you could even call them that) which may well have entailed no blame for you at all!
Since I was not consenting to what was happening, how does natural planning work in that instance?
It doesn’t. I was referring to NOW, to a situation when you might feel free to choose contraception. I was urging you against it, now that you’re free to choose.
Obviously abstaining was not an option either.
I know. Again: I speak to the “now”, not to the “then”.
I understand why you disagree with my decision. But I will disagree that it is murder. Murder, is after all, illegal. Abortion, to a point, is not.
See above. Epiphany, a murder is a murder, whether the state recognises that fact or NOT! The murder of Jews by Hitler’s regime was still murder, despite the fact that it was perfectly “legal” (in the eyes of the Nazi government); you simply cannot use “what happens to be on the law-books” as a guide for deciding “what’s morally right, and what’s morally evil”; it must be the other way around (i.e. civil laws must follow moral laws)! Or do you think that Jew-murder in Nazi Germany, and black slave torture/rape/murder in 1800’s USA, was perfectly all right, since they were not “illegal”?
Lauren: “Scientifically, the clump of undeveloped tissue that is removed from the uterus during an abortion is not a person.”
Scientifically, Lauren, a new human being’s life begins at fertilization. That’s not a religious stance; it’s a scientific fact, as you would have seen had you actually read this thread like you said you did.
Anyway, go run away now like we all expect you to. Give up in the face of blatant fact.
Cameron: “In every state where Abstince only education is taught has seen a RISE in teen pregnancy and STD rates. Yup you read that right RISE.”
In the nations of Africa where an abstinence-FIRST approach is used, there has been a drop in the transmission rates of HIV. Yes, a DROP.
Paladin,
My reproductive choices are not your business. I’m not uneducated. I’m aware of NFP and all methods available to me. As I stated, I have a baby now.
When I am no longer on my phone, I will gladly define “murder” and “abortion” for you. Webster’s dictionary I’m sure has cut and dry definitions.
Are pro-life people anti-war? Anti-death penalty? Anti-self defense? Think of it this way: someone is directly endangering your life. Do you have the right to defend yourself?
Slavery and abortion are nowhere near comparison. Neither is Nazi Germany nor any other regime that commits genocide.
A reduction of AIDS in some places in Africa does not mean a reduction of pregnancy.
No one forced me into an abortion. I made that choice. Make no mistake about that.
Epiphany wrote, in reply to my comment:
My reproductive choices are not your business.
My dear lady, you broadcast your choices on a public forum! It’s rather bizarre of you to turn about now, and insist that they now be private! And for the umteenth time: your “reproductive choices” are the “business” of every sane and morally coherent person, whenever they involve the death of another human being (as your choice did).
I’m not uneducated.
I never said that you were, in general. But you’ve certainly shown (forgive me) remarkable ignorance in this particular matter… not only with regard to moral principles (you seem to have embraced a sort of moral relativism: “my truth for me, your truth for you”), but also with regard to NFP (see below) and even rudimentary logic.
I’m aware of NFP and all methods available to me.
Forgive me, friend, but your comments show that you haven’t the foggiest idea about how NFP works, about its effectiveness, etc. (When used conservatively, i.e. intercourse only in Phase II and abstaining until the 5th day after peak day, the effectiveness rate is over 99.99% [less than 1 “surprise pregnancy” for every 10,000 woman/years], which far surpasses all methods [including your preferred IUD method] short of hysterectomy and/or testicular removal.)
As I stated, I have a baby now.
And may God bless him/her. But I’d gently add that you “have” two babies… one alive, one dead.
When I am no longer on my phone, I will gladly define “murder” and “abortion” for you. Webster’s dictionary I’m sure has cut and dry definitions.
(*sigh*)
When pro-lifers refer to “abortion being wrong”, that is a short-hand way of referring to “direct, willed, procured abortion” (i.e. an intentional killing of a child). The medical definition of “abortion” also includes obviously different cases, such as spontaneous abortion (i.e. miscarriage)… so when pro-lifers say that “miscarriage isn’t an abortion”, they mean that it isn’t “the” type of abortion against which we fight. Does that clarify, a bit? I’m afraid a simplistic referral to Webster’s Dictionary (fine though it is) simply won’t settle the matter in the way you wish.
Also: “murder” is universally recognised as “the unjust killing of any human person”. How, exactly, would this help your case? Miscarriage does not fit that definition, nor does the “double-effect” death of a child in the midst of an insoluble medical dilemma (see the four principles I highlighted, above). Only a free choice to target a child for death would fit the definition of “murder”, in the (abortion) case we discuss, here.
Are pro-life people anti-war?
Sometimes; sometimes not. (I am, in all cases where the war is unjust.) There is no reason why any given pro-lifer should be, or should not be, since a just war does not involve the intention to kill anyone; it involves the intention to defend what is right/just, with recourse to deadly force only if necessary, and where the death of the enemy is neither willed nor freely chosen for its own sake. It is true that some wars are unjust, and that some soldiers (even in just wars) commit murder (i.e. target other persons for death, without just cause, and/or for its own sake); but that simply doesn’t compare with abortion, at all.
Anti-death penalty?
Again: sometimes, and sometimes not. (I am, in virtually all circumstances.) The death penalty, when applied justly, is the JUST killing of someone for the sake of protecting society, others, etc., in cases where there is no other feasible way to do so. I do not deny that the death penalty is used unjustly in many occasions; but it simply makes no sense for you to draw a parallel between that, and an abortion which deliberately targets an undeniably innocent baby for death.
Anti-self defense?
Not usually (though some absolute pacifists might be). Why should they be?
Think of it this way: someone is directly endangering your life. Do you have the right to defend yourself?
Of course… and I even have the right to use deadly force to stop the aggressor, if that is the only means available to me. I am not, however, free to DESIRE the death of the attacker for its own sake (e.g. for reasons of hatred, vengeance, anger, etc.); the death of the attacker should always be the UNINTENDED side-effect of defending oneself.
Slavery and abortion are nowhere near comparison. Neither is Nazi Germany nor any other regime that commits genocide.
Saying so does not make it so, milady. I already described the parallels (which are far more than adequate for your purposes), and I’ve no desire to type it all in, again. It’s simply childish to point to differences between two analogous things (do look up “analogous” and “analogy” in your Webster’s dictionary, when you get a moment), and then insist that those differences (no matter how small) excuse you from any effort to address the issue.
No one forced me into an abortion. I made that choice. Make no mistake about that.
Well… I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Even now, your reply has the tenour of (forgive me) a sort of temper-tantrum, rather than a cool and reasoned description of a choice involving morality; and since your own description of your story strove to portray you as a victim of abuse, violence and coercion (why mention the strangulation attack of your ex-husband when you mentioned your pregnancy to him, otherwise?), it’s rather strange to hear you try to insist that your choice was free and fully-informed.
But to answer your comment, I’ll say this: the extent to which you did make a free, informed choice to kill your child (and frankly, I don’t believe for a moment that you did) is the extent to which you are guilty of the murder of your child. Forgive the harsh-sounding phrase, but: there it is. You wanted a clear answer, yes?
Lol I know about NFP, thanks though.
So can ANYONE give me a reason why Roe v Wade would be overturned?
“Epiphany: Slavery and abortion are nowhere near comparison. Neither is Nazi Germany nor any other regime that commits genocide.
Paladin: Saying so does not make it so, milady. I already described the parallels (which are far more than adequate for your purposes), and I’ve no desire to type it all in, again. It’s simply childish to point to differences between two analogous things (do look up “analogous” and “analogy” in your Webster’s dictionary, when you get a moment), and then insist that those differences (no matter how small) excuse you from any effort to address the issue.”
Isn’t this amazing, Paladin? This is the second time I’ve seen Epiphany not at all respond in any substantive way to the analogy. Of course, this is nothing against Epiphany- many pro-choicers don’t even make an attempt to respond to the analogy. It is just so baffling to me. Now check this out- I am going to make an analogy with another controversial topic that is often analogized to make a point, that of teh opposition of gay marriage being like opposition to interracial marriage. So the pro-SSM proponent will say that being against gay marriage is like being against interracial marriage. Now, would an adequate response be “They are nowhere near comparison.” and then leave it at that? Of course not! That is an extremely inadequate response. One has to say WHY they are not analogous. So an adequate response would be that in the case of SSM we have situation X but in teh case of interracial marriage we do not have X and this difference is morally relevant or whatever.
So one way to begin would be to point out that slavery and abortion are comparable only if the unborn are human persons like you or me. But then you can say “but I disagree that they are human persons like you or me because a human person has characteristics X, Y, and Z which the unborn do not.” So this would effectively stifle teh comparison and bring the issue to the nature or essence of the unborn.
I’m still waiting on an answer to a question I have asked 5 times.
I get it. You all think I’m wrong. I’m ok with that. I’m ok with you all being pro-choice. What I am not ok with is the pro-life movement trying to lord everyone else. And I’ve considered the points I’ve read. Still pro-choice.
*not being pro-choice. Sorry.
What’s the question, Epiphany? Is it “can ANYONE give me a reason why Roe v Wade would be overturned?” Do you mean why I think the supreme court will finally overturn it? I don’t think it will anytime soon. Does that answer your question?
Yes, why would it be overturned? No answers? Right, because there is not a medical, secular, non-biased answer.
The pro-life movement wants pro-choice people to feel like pieces of garbage, and to force people to give birth. All I’ve heard here is that I am wrong. On what grounds? Up to viability my baby will not survive without me. My health and situation is very important. It is also important that my children are born at an appropriate time. Which is why I havey daughter.
To all the adoptive moms…you all are doing a good thing.
I will say I’m not a barnyard animal whose sole purpose in life is to breed. No woman is. I’m also not an incubator.
Genocide and murder are both illegal. Abortion is not. Please re-read those two statements.
I’m not pro-abortion. I don’t recommend everyone to get one. I would never tell a person what to do regarding their pregnancy.
I’m also not an evil person. People can disagree.
Regarding my ex not having a right to privacy concerning his abuse: he committed several crimes. I didn’t.
“Yes, why would it be overturned? No answers? Right, because there is not a medical, secular, non-biased answer. ”
Oh, why SHOULD it be overturned? Are you actually asking for a complete and total defense of the pro-life position? I don’t have time to write one right now, but I would be more than happy to. I don’t know what you mean by a non-biased answer… if you are asking for my opinion about why a certain thing should be a certain way but you don’t want it to be biased… I just don’t know what that means…
Bobby and Paladin–when I was working on my doctorate, I wrote a semester thesis on the analgous (yes, I did) rhetoric used in both abolitionist/pro-slavery and pro-life/pro-abortion rhetoric. It was a huge project, as I recall (remember when research wasn’t done with the computer…you actually had to go to the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature??), and we had to present our projects to our fellow seminar classmates.
I’ll never forget how terrified I was to do this, knowing that the academy was VERY liberal and even my professor, who knew about my research, gave me an out, telling me I could pass on the presentation if I wanted to. We were supposed to present for about 15 minutes with 15 minute q & A session. I was in the hot seat for over an hour and a half, explaining the relationship between slavery and abortion, not just in language, but how they worked semiotically, blah blah blah. There was one angry woman who had had an abortion who just kept saying, “I don’t get it. I don’t get it.” And so I would start over and tell her, slaveowner=abotive mother, slave=unborn baby, etc. etc. I think I even used a whiteboard to draw a diagram.
What made her especially angry was she was African American, and definitely saw the parallels between herself, the abortive mom, and a slaveowner. (This was at Ole Miss; I’m not kidding around, LOL!) But she refused to see the syllogism, REFUSED, because,well, that would make her a monster. So she just denied any kind of comparison so she could psychically get through my paper.
I help my own, though. And the paper, the research, the analogy–they all hold up.
I meant to say HELD my own.
Courtnay, you’re brave. I don’t even think I would write an essay against abortion at my very liberal university, let alone do a presentation. Of course, the opportunity never really came up, but I know I never would have taken it.
One reason Roe v. Wade could be overturned is that it is bad law, improperly decided. A future Supreme Court could rule the decision unconstitutional. A future court could restore the right to life as our primary, fundamental right, ahead of all other Consitiutional rights. This is not just the opinion of conservative, pro life bloggers. A quick search found this compliation of opinions from a liberal, pro choice perspective – some pretty heavy hitters here including a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2011/01/honest-pro-choicers-admit-roe-v-wade-was-horrible-decision
Part of the reason why your question might not be getting the responses you’d like, Epiphany, is because it’s rather loaded and unfocused, to the point of being (forgive the pun) rather pointless. If you’d asked, “Can you tell me why Roe v. Wade SHOULD be overturned, I’m sure you’d have gotten plenty of responses; but since your question of “would” can only be answered by pretending to see the future, predicting the decisions (and the political/personal bias which could saturate them, along with the daily moods, life circumstances, etc.) of the justices (whoever they might be… which would be another open question in your question!), there’s really not much point in attempting an answer. What good would it be? Why would anyone hazard a wild guess as to what a yet-unknown justice might possibly rule (with or without holding to the Constitution, as Roe v. Wade made clear), based on whatever-their-mind-set-happened-to-be, on an issue within a political climate which might be worlds apart from what we have now, in an unknown number of years in the future? Have some sense!
Lol I know about NFP, thanks though.
I wish I could believe that, milady.
The pro-life movement wants pro-choice people to feel like pieces of garbage,
This is arrant, provable nonsense.
and to force people to give birth.
Rubbish. We wish only that already-alive children not be torn limb-from-limb, or murdered in other ways.
All I’ve heard here is that I am wrong.
About somethings, certainly. Not about everything.
On what grounds?
(*heavy sigh*) Read the above comments which you’ve skimmed and/or skipped.
Up to viability my baby will not survive without me.
And up to (approximately) age 13 (or far older, in some cases), that same child will also not survive without you. What, you suppose your new-born would survive on its own, in the wild, without you?
My health and situation is very important.
It is. The health and situation of your child (born or unborn) is equally important.
It is also important that my children are born at an appropriate time.
“Appropriate” is a very subjective term, but… all right. All other things being equal, I agree. I merely suggest that the “cure” for an “inopportune birth” should never be the murder of the child… right?
Which is why I havey daughter.
You have a daughter, and you have a child who died in the abortion, Epiphany.
To all the adoptive moms…you all are doing a good thing.
Just so.
I will say I’m not a barnyard animal whose sole purpose in life is to breed. No woman is. I’m also not an incubator.
I’m glad you know that. I’m assuming, by the way, that you’re not trying to insult pro-life women by suggesting that their desire not to murder their unborn children turns them into some sort of sub-human “barnyard animal” or “incubator”, right?
Genocide and murder are both illegal. Abortion is not. Please re-read those two statements.
I assure you, I did. Now: turn, and turn about; fair is fair. Read what *I* said about the complete irrelevancy of what is currently “legal”, with regard to what is “moral”.
I’m not pro-abortion.
You are abortion-tolerant, and you are pro-LEGAL-abortion (which is what we usually mean by the term… though some go further, and promote abortion shamelessly).
I don’t recommend everyone to get one.
That’s very generous of you. But you think that it should be legal to kill one’s child, for any reason at all, before birth. Correct?
I would never tell a person what to do regarding their pregnancy.
That sounds very handsome. But: would you also presume never to tell an abusive parent to stop beating her child.. or would you never presume to tell a rapist husband to stop assaulting his wife, all on the basis (not of fear for your own safety, but) of “live and let live”? I would hope not… but your principle by which you allow abortion would seem to allow for these, as well (so long as we can get enough votes, or overthrow the government sufficiently, to make them legal)…
I’m also not an evil person.
We do not presume to say that you “are evil”, in general. We definitely presume to say that abortion is an evil act… and that, to the extent you freely, knowingly and willfully chose the abortion of your child, you committed an evil act for which you are guilty.
People can disagree.
They can. You can, for example, disagree with my statement that 2 + 2 = 4, and insist that the sum is 5. You would, however, be wrong, and provably so.
Regarding my ex not having a right to privacy concerning his abuse: he committed several crimes. I didn’t.
Pardon me, but: whoever said that your ex-husband had a “right to privacy” for his crimes? (And do read the difference between “legal” and “moral”, again; you seem hopelessly muddled, on the issue.)
Epiphany, this (long) article contains information on where the Roe decision is weak and on what basis it may be reversed in the future.
http://liveaction.org/blog/the-case-against-roe-v-wade-and-planned-parenthood-v-casey/
Happy reading!
JDC–thanks. Before I did the presentation, I remember going to the ladies’ room, and standing there in the stall just sweating and shaking. I really wanted to be spared. But I thought to myself, You will never forgive yourself if you wuss out on this. Go out there and take responsibility for your ideas.
And I guess I’ve never really stopped! :) What I see most at this site from the proabortion side (ie, they also called it PROSLAVERY, not PROCHOICE, even if you were one of those folks who said Well, I could never own a slave but I can’t make that same distinction for another rice planter) is incredible bitterness, sadness, and frustration with their womanhood. I see this with many of our older militant feminists who have sharp axes to grind with the world and the way it works. But what I do not see is any original argument, any substantive sign that their positions have evolved, become better reasoned or articulated. Meanwhile, we have the 4D ultrasound, other kinds of women who no longer see pregnancy as a parasitical disease, and a true heart for pure justice and mercy. \
I bet that if I mad to make that presentation now in 2012 instead of 1995, I would have a couple sisters in that classroom who would have held my hand in the hot seat.
Rachael C-
Thank you! I was much to exhausted to provide any more evidence.
Ya know what really gets me? We spend all of this time, patiently explaining things and even when faced with an undeniable truth–the ProChoicers REFUSE to concede, apologize or say anything remotely showing respect that they did, in fact, learn something.
Lrning:
I was vaguely aware of weaknesses in R v W. Thank you so much for that link. I have learned tons more and feel better prepared for next time. I don’t have a problem being vulnerable and admitting that I was ignorant when it came to this case; I am grateful for the opportunity to learn and continue expanding my knowledge on this Human Rights issue–no stone unturned to help the babies and mamas.
Epip:
Regarding your question about R V Wade. In addition to Lrnings link I would add that NORMA MCCORVEY. The “Roe” in Roe V Wade has admitted she was duped into filing the case, she NEVER had an abortion and has completely regretted her participation in the case. Whew! I learned something else new–she filed to Overturn R V W!!!!
Here is her truth: http://roenomore.org/
When you take into account:
all the facts that these folks have shared with you,
the weakness of R V W,
the complete turn around of Jane Doe,
the fact that abortionists quit on a daily basis and choose to save lives,
the fact that clinics close daily because of shoddy practices,
that PP workers are quitting at alarming rates (Abby Johnson, Catherine Adair, Sue Thayer to name a few)
the fact that people are speaking out about “hardship” cases still being wrong
the fact that 36 States have Fetal Homicide Laws
the fact that Post-Abortive recovery services are readily availble
–it BEGs to question how much longer do really think abortion will be legal?
More importantly, it forces you to really question your position in the face of all of these compelling cases, truths and arguments. It MUST have you questioning how much truth you really have. I mean look at the people on here–how much time they’ve spent etc. Do they really strike you as people who don’t care? Do they really strike you as people whom are trying to “oppress” and “control women”? I know you can honestly answer that no.
BTW- If you would muster one, I’d really be grateful for some expression of appreciation from you, maybe you did learn something? Maybe something is swirling around in your mind as a doubt? Something? Anything? I would find it hard to believe that with all the time, love, energy and patiene these people have spent with you…you come up empty. I have more faith in you and in humanity for that. Remember we are all still people on here–this is not just a computer game to hide behind.
Courtnay,
Summary: you’re my hero! :) Keep up the good fight!
Paladin,
I’m afraid I said last night that an abusive husband (not specifically Epiphany’s) could not claim a “right to privacy”. Nor could any criminal / wrongdoer. I was too weary to give a thorough critique of Roe v. Wade.
Courtnay,
How I envy your classmates! :)
(Some of them must have thought a Kraken had been let loose. [An inside joke to obsessive site readrs.] )
Great, now I count as an obsessive site reader! :)
Thanks, Hal, Pal and Jdc–wish X had been there! Can you imagine if we got to tag team????
Hans,
Ah. :) Well… apparently, I was too weary to scroll back to read it, so… my fault!
As I’ve said numerous times, nothing can make me pro-life. Nothing. So, you all have explained many things. Does it make me consider taking your position? No.
There are things that exist out there, like this slide show, for instance, that upset me greatly. Of course it appeals to pro-life people. You all think pro-choice people get abortions regularly, that it is like Disneyland to us, or that we are evil people.
This slideshow disgusts me. I find it quite dishonest, out of left field, and every slide is far fetched.
-how many of you knew what sex was at 5? How many were molested by the gym teacher? Even better, who had an abortion at
13?
-who has a venereal disease and is unable to make good grades?
-who marries a “nice person”, only to die sad and alone?
-do you know of anyone who has has breast cancer from abortion?
Did I learn anything? Not really. No, nothing said made me second guess anything. Nothing said changes my position on my past. Wait! Maybe I learned that pro-life folks think a woman should be forced into giving birth, and really don’t care much for the position of pro-choice women.
Oh and that people, probably male, are really condescending and cruel here. Which is typical. However, no man (or woman) can tell me what I can and can’t do with my body. People also assume that I don’t understand how reproduction or birth control work. I didn’t realize I had past sexual partners on this board that would have any earthly clue what I do.
I think the pro-life movement thinks that the SC will overturn Roe v Wade, and that this is some wonderful idea. I think you only think of saving a life, but you don’t think of the bigger picture.
I think pro-life people, if they care about rights, should fo after something that has failed many times–the equal rights amendment for women. That is something that can change lives. Hey, more pay for women may result in fewer abortions even. But of course, men need to get on board, but they would much rather scream about abortion. Men, frankly, don’t experience pregnancy, birth, abortion, miscarriages, anything of the sort in comparison. They are bystanders. While these things can certainly have an impact on their life, it is nothing compared to what the female goes through.
Peeps, I rest my case. See my comment from yesterday at 8:02pm. There is indeed nothing new under the sun (or the mind and hearts) of the proabortion-mongers.
P.S. The nail in the coffin for me, so to speak? That the men here are “cruel and condescending….” This from a mother who thinks killing her child was her special act of love and mercy.
Go look at the pictures Jill has posted in the swing state article, Epip. Tell me what those pictures are.
No wait, don’t. I really could care less what you think.
Courtnay, I realize you don’t understand my position. You wouldn’t, and I hope you never have to.
I don’t need to look at aborted fetal parts to know what abortion is/does.
I made the best decision. I will stand by that, always. You are free to disagree with me.
Of course, if I disagree with you, you don’t care what I think. Pro-life ideology at its finest. :-)
Courtnay:
Reading her post actually hurt. :( I agree with you. Resting my case here too, all that is left is Prayer, Faith, Meditation–Patience. I am not sure what to “leave it to” for Athiests (help?-chance?) but not trying to leave you out. Personally, I will pray to God for seeds to root.
Afterall, I can’t comprehend how one can spend so much time on here JUST to argue.
Now that I think about it, I think what hurts is the fact that there is an EMPTINESS *there* a complete lack of any kind of authenticity towards another human. Having a hard time explaining it…it is as if we were all stranded in a waiting room together for HOURS chatting–and when we all finally part ways–there is is some kind of connection, bond amongst the people. That is completely lacking here with her. Emptiness. I guess that *lack* that is apparent in the real world with adults only reflects the very same mentality towards the unborn. :(
Thanks Everyone! I am honored to be a part of these AMAZING people. I look foward to meeting you all some day–I have a HUG waiting for each of you!
Epiphany,
One thing I’ve learned, especially from participating in boards such as these, is that the typed words do not always match the thoughts and feelings of the one typing… especially in those who are post-abortive. You protest, in the most strident language, that “nothing we’ve said made any difference”, etc. And yet… here you are, still posting, and still reacting. We’ve planted seeds in your clouded mind and wounded heart, Epiphany… whether you like (or admit) that fact, or not. Now, given your increased indignation and defensiveness, it’s starting to look as if our initial job is done, and our new “phase” is to intensify our prayer for you… which I suspect many people on this board will do.
We refute your arguments because THEY are wrong, Epiphany… not because YOU (as a person) are. In fact, it’s very likely that we care for you more than you care for yourself, right now. Believe it or not, as you like… but we wish the best for you, and for your children, and for all in your life. We simply know, as an iron-clad fact, that you and your children (and others) deserve better than the poison of abortion. If you ever do get to the point where the shell of denial cracks or shatters, do not be afraid to come back here; several people (Carla, in particular, but she is far from alone) have both the experience and the caring heart (and the grace from God) to help. Do remember that, will you? God bless and keep you, Epiphany; may your screen name become a reality for you, someday soon.
Blessing: it may help, when grieving Epiphany’s apparent lack of “soul” (for lack of a better word), to remember that she’s post-abortive, ignorant of the implications of that, and unrepentant. As such, she’s almost certainly throwing up a sort of impersonal “shell” (easy to do, in the anonymity of a blog comment) which makes her seem more soul-less than she actually is. The sort of thing which often goes through the mind of someone in her position goes something like this:
1) I have procured an abortion.
2) People tell me that abortion is evil, and that my child was killed in that abortion.
3) Only evil people would choose evil things, especially such evil things as child-killing.
4) I am a good person, not an evil person.
5) Therefore, they must be wrong.
Of course, there’s a great deal of trouble with #3 (which is too vague of be of any use) and #4 (utterly based on opinion/emotion), at very least… but a post-abortive person usually has a vested interest in avoiding any and all things which could possibly bring the guilt of their child’s death upon them. This is what’s apparently driving her (and CC, and joan, both of whom seem to have far more practise in this type of deflection-charade), at least for now… though (and I hope it’s not merely my imagination) I think I detect a good deal more openness in Epiphany than in our habitual trolls. God grant that the soil of her soul be watered and broken to receive the truth Who will set her free…
Just trying to get you people to understand. I get your positions. I will reiterate: NOTHING can make me pro-life. It won’t happen. Logically, the pro-life movement won’t do away with abortion because there are way to many “what ifs”.
I’m also pissed off at the propaganda links and the slideshow of far fetched ideas. I’m mad that I’m attacked as being wrong. I never stated once that any of you are bad/wrong/make evil decisions because of your ideologies.
If you don’t like abortion, don’t get one. Don’t support charities that help poor women get them.
If you knew me in real life, I would never disclose that I had an abortion. You would see me, my daughter, and my boyfriend. You would know that I am pro-choice. You would know I support women’s rights, and I respect decisions of other women, even if I disagree with them.
That is the big difference between myself as a pro-choice person, and you guys as pro-life people. You think everyone else is wrong, and you don’t get it.
I’m sure you all would have been very supportive if my opinions matched yours.
I support women’s rights. Primarily, the right to be born. My daughter was all the convincing I ever needed to be Pro-Life. That stands regardless of the POS her rapist dad turned out to be. If she had been carried by different woman who had designs on ending her life via abortion, I’d fight tooth-and-nail for her right to be born. That’s why I’m here. That’s why I do what I do.
There’s no difference-none-between your living “wanted” daughter and the child who was killed in your abortion. None. If you refuse to acknowledge that, nobody can make you. I hope you are able to find peace though, when and if you ever come to understand that.
As I’ve said numerous times, nothing can make me pro-life. Nothing.
My, my. How unfortunate it is for the other side that the generally accepted terms are “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. Everyone knows that most people do not care at all about 99.99% of the choices someone would make.
But not being pro-life “oh, no way, no how!” concedes that you’re perfectly fine with someone dying that a great many people would not.
Epiphany: “That is the big difference between myself as a pro-choice person, and you guys as pro-life people. You think everyone else is wrong…”
I don’t get this kind of thinking. It happens all the time, but that doesn’t make it any easier to understand. For example, “you guys are divisive!” — as spoken by someone . . . from the other side of the divide. In other words, “if you would just agree with me, there’d be no problem.” Well yeah — mutatis mutandis.
You guys think everyone else is wrong. That’s so wrong!
Where’s the eye-rolling emoticon around here?
rasqual:
9_9
I knew that was coming.
Paladin-
You are right and I probably lost sight of that. Thanks for gently reminding me!
You would know I support women’s rights, and I respect decisions of other women, even if I disagree with them.
Nice to know you’d still respect me if I’d ever choose to burn down your house and steal your car, Epiphany.
Women (and men) have to earn my respect. But that’s just me.
Epip:
Found something tonight and thought of you and your questioning BC and cancer. Here is the WHO link, classifying it as a Class 1 Carcinogen and a cause of breast cancer. THink about it this way–IF this information was fully disclosed do you really think women would still use it as often? And, how much money do you think big pharma would lose if women stopped using it?
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/Table4.pdf (the actual table)
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php (the WHO index page–I sorted by cancer site)
Is the WHO spreading propaganda too? I think since they are really into population control (I believe) it should be a rock solid source without any bias.
Wasn’t it you who, wanted non ”.org” links
Courtnay,
Did you call me Hal? I think we’re both offended! :)
d’oh!
I have to giggle a little, didn’t we just all talk about this false sense of bodily Autonomy? It is as if Divine Intervention is gently chiding those of us who think otherwise–like a parent gently correcting a child…
Archbishop Prendergast dissects ‘my body, my choice’ slogan at March for Life Mass
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-prendergast-dissects-my-body-my-choice-slogan-at-march-for-life
Lauren, could you define a “person” for me?
There really is no end to this argument. One side views the other side as a bunch of baby killers. The other side views their opponents as judgmental woman-haters. Both believe the other side is being illogical, and both are accusing each other’s references and statistics of being falsified. How can there be a legitimate discussion in these circumstances? Everybody’s already made up their mind that their side of the discussion is correct anyways. Want to make a real difference in these people’s lives? Pass some laws and elect some leaders, then stand back and watch the losing side squirm.
Agreed, Tandema. That’s basically my thought on the matter.
Nice: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/youve-met-julia-the-moocher-now-meet-emily/
I’m still trying to understand why abortuaries can get away with not honoring a woman’s right to know that breast cancer has been linked to abortion because of the soft celled breast tissues created and not hardened by the abortion. When a women brings a child to full term, the body releases a hormone that hardens the tissues making them nearly cancer retardant. But when there is a healthy pregnancy terminated the natural hormone treatments that protect the vulnerable tissues. Why was no one pointing this out during the whole SGK debacle, and why are women not demanding that so-called women’s organizations and services disclose this simple blatant, proven scientific fact, whose censorship is causing breast cancer in women? Anyone? Thank you.