Jivin J's Life Links 5-13-09, Part II

web grab.jpgby JivinJ

  • The Local reports that Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare has ruled that doctors can't deny a woman the ability to know the gender of her child when the only reason she wants to know the gender is to have a sex-selection abortion if the child is a girl:
    [A] woman, who already had two daughters, requested an amniocentesis in order to allay concerns about possible chromosome abnormalities. At the same time, she also asked to know the foetus's gender....

    Doctors at Mälaren Hospital expressed concern and asked Sweden's National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) to draw up guidelines on how to handle requests in the future in which they "feel pressured to examine the foetus's gender" without having a medically compelling reason to do so.

    The board has now responded that such requests and thus abortions can not be refused and that it is not possible to deny a woman an abortion up to the 18th week of pregnancy, even if the foetus's gender is the basis for the request.

  • Mark Shea has a nice response to Amnesty International's whimperings about lower donations:
    ... [Could that] have something to do with the fact that you are no longer about helping political prisoners subjected to torture and death, and have instead dedicated yourselves to expanding the abortion license worldwide?

    When you mutate into another garden-variety promoter of the culture of death, it rather stands to reason that people who think you should be doing what you were founded to do and not the exact bleedin' opposite will find other places to send their money. Somehow your appeal letter neglects to mention this salient fact.

    I look forward to the death of your organization soon, and its replacement by apostolates willing to actually do the Lord's work rather than pay homage to Lefty pieties.

  • Wesley Smith notes that fetal farming experiments are still occurring in animals:
    If and when an artificial womb is created, and if and when scientists figure out how to clone human beings and gestate them beyond the first few days of development - the apparent current state of the technology - the pressure will be on to permit this research to proceed.

    And the arguments in its favor will be the same as those made today about ESCR and early human cloning research: A developed embryo or fetus isn't a "person"; the embryo/fetus will never be born so what does it matter; the embryo/fetus' value isn't as important as Uncle Charlie whose Parkinson's we can cure," etc.

  • The Birmingham Mail reports that a UK doctor has been on paid leave for 4 1/2 years at a cost of 600k pounds to taxpayers. She was suspended after allegedly taking her daughter to Spain for 31-week abortion:
    Dr. Adlakha, of Somerset Road, Edgbaston, and her daughter Shilpa Abrol, were charged with conspiracy to commit child destruction abroad after the GP allegedly arranged for the then 18-year-old to have an illegal late abortion in Barcelona at 31 weeks into her pregnancy, although the legal limit is 22 in Spain.


  • Comments:

    well in 15 years when Sweden is in the same position as China, with no wives for their men, don't be complaining.

    On Amnesty International: Sock it to 'em, Mark Shea!

    Posted by: angel at May 13, 2009 4:29 PM


    I think it's stupid to terminate a pregnancy based on gender, but it would be totally unrealistic and unenforcable to make it illegal to get an Amnio for the purpose of finding out the gender. I don't think it's that common in the West either.If they want to choose the gender so bad there are a variety of pre-conception and pre-implantion methods available(most people who do this are actually seeking girls). Getting pregnant only to have an abortion at 20 weeks if it's the wrong gender makes no sense. I think many of those who want to legislate this are just against it for the purpose it was intented(to screen for birth defects like Down Syndrome).

    Posted by: Kate at May 13, 2009 4:46 PM


    Hahahaha. Suuure, Kate. This would make me giggle at the irony of those who promote abortion on the grounds of "women's rights" when female babies are slaughtered by the thousands for a male heir...if it didn't involve the whole "baby slaughter" thing.

    Posted by: xalisae at May 13, 2009 5:52 PM



    Why is terminating a pregnancy because the baby is the "wrong" sex any less acceptable than terminating it because the baby is arriving at the "wrong" time.

    Abortion advocates and feminists can't have their cake and eat it too.

    Have these people never heard the following words of wisdom..."be very careful what you wish for, you just might get it".

    Posted by: Mary at May 13, 2009 6:04 PM


    xalisae
    In some countries(like China and India) girls are frequently aborted for their gender. That's not the case in the U.S.. People who are that obsessed with havinng a certain gender can use PGD or Microsort. There isn't even preference for boys. 75% of people using Microsort want girls.

    Posted by: Kate at May 13, 2009 6:14 PM


    Hi xalisae,

    Its good to see you back.

    One can't envy the position feminists are finding themselves in with sex selection abortion.
    It seems like their Frankenstein's Monster has taken on a life of its own and is out of their control, doing what they never anticipated.

    Posted by: Mary at May 13, 2009 6:14 PM


    Kate,

    In a 1982 Nursing Journal the late Dr.Robert Mendohlson, "medical heretic" and author of a book by that name, stated that 4 out of 5 fetuses aborted for being the "wrong" sex in the US were female. I personally knew an OB/Gyn who was asked for an amnio to determine the baby's sex. If the baby was female, the mother planned to "get rid of it". Thankfully for the little girl that was born the physician, who was PC, refused.
    Even back then if women wanted to know, there were doctors who who enable them to get the info. They were, after all, doing nothing illegal.

    Nowadays women routinely know through ultrasound their baby's gender. What's to stop a woman from aborting a baby of the "wrong" sex"? women don't have to give their reasons or sign any sworn statements.

    The fact is we have NO clue as to the number of sex selection abortions that may well be going on in this country and have already taken place.

    We can stop flattering ourselves that we are any more "enlightened" than China or India.

    Posted by: Mary at May 13, 2009 6:21 PM


    That study says nothing about how common sex selection abortions are. The vast majority of abortions are done economic or health reasons. The gender balance has not changed since 1973. Certainly it is legal, but it is still very uncommon. Also, that study was done way before gender selection technologies(and we do know girls are prefered there). There is no reason to believe girls are being aborted for their gender. I've said I think it's totally stupid to have an abortion for gender, but it is totally unenforcable without outlawing amnios. I would definitely terminate in the case of Down Syndrome, and I think every woman should have that choice, but neither I or anyone I know would terminate for gender.

    Posted by: Kate at May 13, 2009 6:32 PM


    Ultimately, abortion comes down to this: whether or not you believe a fetus has rights over and above the right of the woman. It isn't about life, or choice, or at what stage the fetus suddenly becomes "human." Regardless of the fetus's humanity, regardless of whether or not the fetus is alive, a woman has the right to her own bodily integrity.

    THAT is why Amnesty is involved.

    Posted by: Human Abstract at May 13, 2009 6:42 PM


    abortion comes down to this: whether or not you believe a fetus has rights over and above the right of the woman

    Over and above? That implies that the fetus already has rights equal to the woman. If so, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we? The fetus would have the choice of life or death. It wouldn't be subject to execution for crimes committed by its father. It would have respect for it's "bodily integrity".

    What you're really saying is that the fetus has no human rights whatsoever, or else the rights of the mother supercede them.

    Posted by: Fed Up at May 13, 2009 7:20 PM


    Kate 6:32PM

    You're contradicting yourself. First you say the study does not indicate how common sex selection abortions are, then you say they are uncommon. You know this for a fact, how?
    Abortion advocates and feminists may feel squeamish about sex selection abortions but they turned this Frankenstein monster loose and it is out of their control.
    Why is a baby being aborted for "economic" reasons more acceptable than a baby being aborted for "gender" reasons? What if a female baby is being aborted because the parents can only afford on child and want a male? Is that economic or gender?

    Sorry, but one can't have their cake and eat it too.
    As I said, be very careful what you wish for...

    Posted by: Mary at May 13, 2009 7:41 PM



    sorry about the double post!!

    Posted by: Mary at May 13, 2009 7:42 PM


    Kate,

    In fact an Indian doctor pointed out years ago how sex selection abortion in his country was good economics.
    This way a woman did not "have" to give birth to many "Undesirable females" before she had the much coveted male child.

    So, sex selection abortion can make good economic sense after all.

    Posted by: Mary at May 13, 2009 7:54 PM


    We know it is uncommon because statistic after statistic shows economic reasons are behind most abortions, there is no gender imbalance in the U.S., and there is no male preference for those seeking gender selection. I never said aborting a fetus for economic reasons wasn't as bad. I said that amniocentesis was meant to screen for defects such as down syndrome. That is what most women use it for. I think it is stupid to use it to abort a fetus of the wrong gender as gender is not a defect. We are talking about somewhat risky amnios and second trimester abortions. Going through all that to avoid having a boy or girl is stupid IMO! It is unrealistic to prevent people from gender selection abortions wihout banning amnios altogether though.

    Posted by: Kate at May 13, 2009 8:03 PM


    Mary,
    That Indian doctor knows nothing about American society. Most women want girls here. Why are 75% of microsort seeking couples wanting girls? The vast majority of people having amnios do not want a child with trisomy 18 or 21! 90% of Down Syndrome fetuses are aborted. There is zero evidence that a significant amount of girls are being aborted because of gender.

    Posted by: Kate at May 13, 2009 8:09 PM


    Well now, Kate, if you could cite your sources we just might take you a little bit seriously.

    Posted by: carder at May 13, 2009 9:17 PM


    Sad that a Downs Syndrome baby would be aborted. I would NEVER even consider it. Not if that was the hand God gave me.

    Posted by: heather at May 13, 2009 9:22 PM


    I heard ladies the other day in a mommy group talking about a new test that the medical community is trying to come up with for the diagnosis of austism. They were saying that if it came back they would abort because those kids are boardline retarded. I think my jaw dropped to the ground considering my son is in the middle of the austism spectrum.

    Posted by: AK Krystal at May 13, 2009 9:29 PM


    We kill unborn babies because they have downs, because they are the wrong sex, because it's "not convenient" for the mother..... or any other heinous reason. We are no better than Nazi Germany. Hitler would be proud.

    As for the 31 week abortion that is almost a full term baby! How do they find doctors who will even do these things?

    Posted by: Joanne at May 13, 2009 9:49 PM


    Hitler brutally murdered six million Jews, bombed civilians, and tortured prisoners. A woman who decides she can't raise a down syndrome child is comparable how? Is she calling for the starvation and gassing of an entire race of people while using the most violent tacticts to support her mission?

    Posted by: Kate at May 13, 2009 10:35 PM


    Yes Kate.
    Except I think they use poison in a saline solution instead of gas or else they tear them apart in bloody pieces using a forceps and vaccuum instead of starving them. Unless the baby is late term, after twenty weekes, rthen they like to deliver them to the shoulders and slide a scissors up the spine to the base of the skull and puncture the head and open the scissors before pulling it out to make a gaing hole they use to suck the babies brains out before they deliver the baby. Nothing wrong with that huh? The women's rights come first and the baby never had any rights cause you sucked his brains out before you deliver him. You pro-aborts are sicker then Hitler ever dreamed to be cause you do it to your own children.

    Posted by: truthseeker at May 13, 2009 10:52 PM


    A few key points:

    1). When people compare abortion to the Holocaust, they aren't calling women Nazis- they're comparing abortion providers and large, wealthy groups such as Planned Parenthood.

    2). Gender-selective abortion was a concern in Sweden not because of Swedish culture, but because so many immigrants in Sweden come from cultures where boys are favored. This carries into the new nation.

    3). Making abortion illegal is making equality possible. It is impossible to support equality and abortion at the same time. A child, baby, toddler, or fetus all have equal moral standing to his or her mother. Sorry if that bothers people. It doesn't bother lots of us, though.

    Posted by: Vannah at May 13, 2009 10:55 PM


    1). When people compare abortion to the Holocaust, they aren't calling women Nazis- they're comparing abortion providers and large, wealthy groups such as Planned Parenthood.

    Posted by: Vannah at May 13, 2009 10:55 PM

    Yes, that was the point I was making.

    Posted by: Joanne at May 13, 2009 11:12 PM


    Okay, I was hoping that I wasn't misreading you. I was ninety-nine percent sure that I wasn't, so thanks. :).

    Do you think that it would be foolish idea to work towards a museum dedicated to remembering the children who died in abortions and also children who died at the hands of abuse or genocide or other attrocities? I was thinking about it today. I would love to see a museum...with all of these children's names. With everything that says, "You might never have heard about my story had I been permitted to live to my full bloom, but I was here. I was here."

    Does anyone think that that's even remotely a good idea? Or is it just me?

    Posted by: Vannah at May 13, 2009 11:19 PM


    That sounds like an excellent idea, Vannah. At the very least, a statue in a park or something. They deserve SOMETHING...at least a little more than they were given.

    It really irks me when pro-choicers say that we believe that feti should be given rights ABOVE a woman's. Really, I am personally insulted as a woman who has carried two children to term. My children's rights were never ABOVE my own, carrying them did not lessen or diminish my self in ANY WAY, and it really angers me that they insist on saying that it did. It is the fact that my children only had the right to live because I happened to think so at the time that bothers me. There was/is no one standing over me with a loaded gun threatening to pull the trigger, and if there was, it would be illegal. Because I had "the right to choose", and they happened to be my children, a similar situation was legal for me? WHY?

    Thank you for the welcome back, btw. Things have settled down since hubby came back from Iraq, and we're starting to get back into a routine...Just in time to pack up and move again. Haha.

    Posted by: xalisae at May 14, 2009 12:47 AM


    No other circumstance is similar to pregnancy, as in no other circumstance is one human literally living off another. If you're saying that the fetus must remain inside the mother, regardless of the mother's wishes, you are ignoring the mother's rights to her own body in favor of the fetus, thus, prioritizing the fetus over the mother.

    I acknowledge that the fetus is alive; I realize that it is a member of the human species. I do not, however, acknowledge that anyone has any more right to my body than myself.

    Posted by: Human Abstract at May 14, 2009 1:19 AM


    Kate 8:03PM

    A woman does not have to give her reasons for aborting, may call it "economic" and does not have to sign any sworn statement.
    The fact is we have no way of knowing how many abortions are for sex selection.

    Kate 8:09PM

    The Indian doctor was referring to his country of India, not the United States. He was pointing out that sex selection abortion is good economics. Also routine ultrasound is determining the sex of the baby, not amnio. This means more women can elect to abort a child of the "wrong" sex.

    Posted by: Mary at May 14, 2009 4:20 AM


    I have to agree with Liz from Nebraska when she often says that we are turning into Nazi Germany.

    Posted by: heather at May 14, 2009 6:32 AM


    AK Krystal, that's a sad post. Look at how we really are starting to resemble Nazi Germany. Seems to me that we are looking for perfection.

    Posted by: heather at May 14, 2009 6:57 AM


    Vannah,
    Please see the National Memorial for the Unborn.
    It is in Chattanooga, TN

    http://www.memorialfortheunborn.org

    There are also walls online to write babies names and thousands of memorial statues across the country. My three are named on one with their dates.
    :)

    Here is a list of quite a few
    click on resources then unborn memorials
    http://www.abortionrecoveryinternational.org

    Posted by: Carla at May 14, 2009 7:04 AM


    A few points to remember:

    1. The Nazi party started by killing the ill and mentally challanged. They did not go straight to Jews to kill. 'Who cares if these retarded citizens are killed'. Hitler called them 'non essential eaters'. You see, this is the slippery slope, you start with one set of criteria and easily move on from there. Why not kill grandma in a nursing home? Why not kill all people with Downs? ALL LIFE IS PRECIOUS!! and no one has the right to kill.

    2. Please those of you would kill your own child with Downs, meet someone with Downs first. Spend some real time with them. They are real people just like you and me. How you can play God and kill them is just SICK.

    God want all children to live and you should too. Check this video about our changing world:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU

    Posted by: Take Notice at May 14, 2009 7:14 AM


    Xalisae,
    So nice to see you back here! Good luck with the move!

    Posted by: Carla at May 14, 2009 8:01 AM


    "No other circumstance is similar to pregnancy, as in no other circumstance is one human literally living off another."

    Not true...My kids are 6 and 15 months. My son refused any and all bottles/formula/milk for a long while, and would ONLY nurse. I would've rather weaned him and given him a bottle to make it easier to live my life in the manner I chose. He was "literally living off" of me and would accept no alternative. Should I have been allowed to stop feeding him because I didn't want to, and toss him on the lawn to die? If that's not legal, why should abortion be? (not that I'm advocating making that degree of infanticide legal, although that's probably the way you'd take it if you had to grant laws consistency)

    Posted by: xalisae at May 14, 2009 8:01 AM


    Thanks, Carla. We're going to need it. Hubby is going to California to start his schooling for I.T., and I'll be heading back to Arkansas to finish my Gen. Ed. associates. At least this time we'll still be in the same country, on the same hemisphere of the globe. >_

    Posted by: xalisae at May 14, 2009 8:11 AM


    Wow, Xalisae! The same country is good! :)

    Posted by: Carla at May 14, 2009 8:30 AM


    Human Abstract, 1:19am

    Just out of curiousity, would you say a woman can decide at 7, 8, or 9 months to simply "terminate" her pregnancy? At 7 months the baby will likely survive with appropriate care. Is it her right to say the baby is to die?
    Does she have the right to demand her doctor induce early labor or perform a c-section? Is it the doctor's right to refuse to do so??

    Posted by: Mary at May 14, 2009 8:36 AM


    I have had four children "live off me" for 9 months each. They made the sweetest Mother's Day cards on Sunday.

    I am grateful HA that your mother allowed you to "live off her" for 9 months too!

    Posted by: Carla at May 14, 2009 8:39 AM


    Carla,

    They will continue to "live off you" until they are past their teens!

    Posted by: Mary at May 14, 2009 9:13 AM


    Take notice, thanks for the video. Interesting.

    Posted by: heather at May 14, 2009 9:20 AM


    It is a bit sickening to see pregnancy being reduced to a sort of parasite/host analogy. No matter what you believe about the origins of life, you cannot avoid the fact that our biological purpose is to reproduce. Pregnancy is supposed to happen - it's designed to happen exactly the way it does. Human beings are supposed to "feed off" (kind of a disrespectful way to portray the feminine gift of child-bearing, wouldn't you say?) their mother in the womb in the early stages of life. They continue to depend on their parents for survival throughout infancy and childhood. Humans are dependent on one another for sruvival through all stages of life, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly. This is natural and healthy - why is this presented as a conflict of rights when applied to pregnancy? When a born child is hurt or killed by an adult, usually the more helpless and dependent the baby was, the greater the outrage against the criminal. So why is dependency then used as a justification for killing an unborn child? It's no wonder abortion has become so distorted and full of empty rhetoric and doublespeak euphemisms - you have to great pretty creative to sound credible when you argue that our most basic purpose should be tampered with in such a violent manner.

    Posted by: Janette at May 14, 2009 9:59 AM


    "When a born child is hurt or killed by an adult, usually the more helpless and dependent the baby was, the greater the outrage against the criminal. So why is dependency then used as a justification for killing an unborn child?"

    Good question. Perhaps we all need to take a look at ourselves. Are we doing all we can to support the people in our own lives, physically, emotionally and spiritually?

    Posted by: Janet at May 14, 2009 10:30 AM


    H.A. said, "I acknowledge that the fetus is alive; I realize that it is a member of the human species. I do not, however, acknowledge that anyone has any more right to my body than myself."

    Children in my church must learn and memorize the Heidelberg Catechism, first published in A.D. 1563. Here is question and answer 1, which I cite from memory:

    What is your only comfort in life and death? That I, with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me, that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation; wherefore, by His Holy Spirit He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto Him."

    Posted by: Jon at May 14, 2009 11:42 AM


    HA:

    You are being deliberately obtuse.

    If we are evaluating the right to life of mother and child, they are equal. That is why almost all pro-lifers agree that abortion should be an option when the mother's life is in danger.

    But more than 99% of the time, we are not comparing equal rights. We are comparing the right of the child to life with some other right of the mother, such as bodily integrity. We judge the right to life of the fetal human being to be greater than the right of his or her mother to comfort. You could at least be honest enough to admit that we are not saying the fetus has more rights. We are comparing the right to bodily integrity of the two individuals, and seeing that violation of the child's right to bodily integrity leads to his or her death, and violation of the mother's right to bodily integrity leads to her discomfort. Therefore, greater harm would be done by removing the child than by inconveniencing the mother. (Not to mention that she usually consented to the act that led to her pregnancy, which also violated her bodily integrity.)

    Oh, look, now you can claim that I am against a woman's fundamental right to screw whomever, wherever, whenever! That's always fun for you, right?

    Posted by: YCW at May 14, 2009 4:39 PM


    Posted by: Jon at May 14, 2009 11:42 AM

    "What is your only comfort in life and death?"

    "That I, with body and soul, both in life and death, am not my own but belong unto my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; who with His precious blood has fully satisfied for all my sins and delivered me from all the power of the devil; and so preserves me, that without the will of my heavenly Father, not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things must be subservient to my salvation; wherefore, by His Holy Spirit He also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and ready henceforth to live unto Him."

    -------------------------------------------------------

    Jon,

    I have to confess I have never been too keen on 'rote' confessions or prayers, but that declaration is full of power.

    In the 'law' of man there is something called an 'affirmative defense'. (Google it or wikipedia it.)

    For the one who believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth, that 'profession' that you cited is not only an 'affirmative defense' but a proactive offense, as in 'offense' in football, not as in 'offend'.

    It is as much about expanding one's territory as it protecting one's turf.

    Thanks for sharing.

    yor bro ken

    Posted by: kbhvac at May 14, 2009 6:02 PM


    Xalisae, I’m fairly certain that your son would have taken a wet nurse if offered. Thus, he had other opportunities for nourishment.

    Mary, yes, I believe it is the mother’s right to do so. I don’t personally agree with it, but it is her right. In an ideal world, no, the doctor would not have the right to say no, but I recognize that abortion is not recognized as a medical procedure, but rather has been politicized, and thus cannot be treated as simply a medical procedure.

    Janette, saying that pregnancy is “supposed to happen” is analogous to saying that promiscuous sex is “supposed to happen.” After all, humans are not biologically programmed for monogamy. Would you advocate the latter as passionately as the former? They are both biologically programmed, biological drives. Why is one “supposed to happen” and the other something to be argued against? Pregnancy is nothing more than a physiological process that can happen after sex: there’s no “gift” to it, no mystique. Humans are never as dependent on another human as with pregnancy. It is a conflict of rights, fundamentally: to say that the fetus’s right to bodily integrity trumps the woman’s right to control her own body is to say that the fetus has more rights than the woman, nothing more and nothing less. If you’re comfortable with saying that, fine: but you and I will never see eye to eye.

    Jon, I’m not Christian; your post is essentially irrelevant to me.

    YCW, the woman consented to having sex in most cases. Consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy; the two are not one and the same. I would view forcing a woman to abdicate her rights to her own body as far more grievous an offense than terminating the pregnancy. You are taking away her right to make her own choices. The fetus is dependent upon her, and while unfortunate, the woman does not have to consent to it, and if she does, she may remove that consent at any time.

    Posted by: Human Abstract at May 14, 2009 6:16 PM


    HA,

    So the mother does have a right to dispose of her viable third trimester baby? In the ideal world the doctor would not have the right to say no? Should the doctor leave the viable infant to die? I thought you folks were pro-choice and advocated freedom of conscience, or is that only the right of the woman who wants to kill a viable baby?

    Inducing early term labor and c-sections are definitely medical procedures, nothing political. Does the doctor have a right to refuse to perform a procedure that has no medical justification other than the deliberate destruction of a human life?

    Posted by: Mary at May 14, 2009 6:27 PM


    I'm sorry that you find abortion to be a right; I suppose that we must disagree and, tragically, since I plan on opposing abortion until it is no longer accepted but fought by all people as a human rights violation, I must say that we women aren't stupid; consenting to sex- it's not as though we say, "Whoa! I'm pregnant! I don't understand how this works." Women can't do what they wish with their bodies if it destorys other humans; you are giving women a "right" that no one else has since neither children nor men can do that. Essentially, that makes abortion what it really is: a privilege that, oddly enough, comes because of lack of rights.

    You may view placing women under the same umbrella of the law as everyone else a heinous, repulsive thing, but not all of us do. And women must be equal, not above. Pregnancy is not a violation of anyone's rights- though, ideally, it must always be planned. I have nothing against women's rights- I proudly support them, but this is no right.

    Posted by: Vannah at May 14, 2009 6:31 PM


    Mary, I find both pro-life and pro-choice to be politically charged phrases that are absolutely unnecessary. Pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Doctors are charged to perform medical procedures: abortion is a medical procedure.

    Vannah, I say again, consenting to sex is not consenting to pregnancy. Its very simple. A man may kill another man who is attacking him; its called self defense. Same with a child. A woman may terminate a pregnancy just the same., particularly as pregnancy is a circumstance unique to the female sex. A woman is human: she is not necessarily a mother, a wife, a breeder. She is human, and has the right to control her own body, and thus shouldn’t have to abdicate her rights to a fetus, a man, anyone. Men shouldn’t have to either. Over half of pregnancies in the US are not planned; that is reality, and while I agree, it is far from ideal, it is the truth.

    Posted by: Human Abstract at May 14, 2009 6:47 PM


    Wow, Human, talk about selfish. It's a good thing not everyone thinks this way, or we'd be extinct in 100 years.

    Posted by: Janet at May 14, 2009 7:12 PM


    HA,

    You didn't answer my questions. Also, doctors are not charged to perform UNNECESSARY medical procedures. Your doctor has every right to refuse to perform a procedure on you that he/she regards as unethical or medically unnecessary.

    I have no problem with "anti-abortion". Its the PC people that do not want to be called "pro-abortion". I wonder why??

    Posted by: Mary at May 14, 2009 7:24 PM


    Posted by: Human Abstract at May 14, 2009 6:16 PM:

    "Janette, saying that pregnancy is “supposed to happen” is analogous to saying that promiscuous sex is “supposed to happen.” After all, humans are not biologically programmed for monogamy. Would you advocate the latter as passionately as the former? They are both biologically programmed, biological drives. Why is one “supposed to happen” and the other something to be argued against? Pregnancy is nothing more than a physiological process that can happen after sex: there’s no “gift” to it, no mystique. Humans are never as dependent on another human as with pregnancy. It is a conflict of rights, fundamentally: to say that the fetus’s right to bodily integrity trumps the woman’s right to control her own body is to say that the fetus has more rights than the woman, nothing more and nothing less. If you’re comfortable with saying that, fine: but you and I will never see eye to eye."

    Pregnancy is supposed to happen so the human race can continue. That is the most basic and most imperative biological purpose of humans. Promiscuous sex can happen if people chose to place their desires above their health and well-being, but it is not crucial to humanity's survival. In fact, responsible and mature people realize that monogamy encourages a stable and innovative society. To answer your questions, since pregnancy is how people are made it is worthy of being argued for. Since promiscuous sex spreads disease and creates instability, it something to be argued against. Yes, our high sex drives are biologically programmed, but our high intelligence allows us to choose proper judgement in how we use our sex drives - hence, monogamy.

    I personally view pregnancy as a gift. That is just a matter or opinion. I find the natural bond between mother and child to be a beautiful thing. Perhaps I'm just a sentimental sap, or maybe I just think my son is really awesome.

    Both the woman and her baby have rights. If we have to approach this as a conflict of rights, the right of the baby not to be violently killed trumps the "right" of the woman not to be pregnant. Are we so spoiled and delusional that we're willing to knowingly kill a human for coming into being as a result of sexual reproduction, a natural and understood consequence? This is not an invasion of the body snatchers scenario where a woman must fight off an attacker, like your self-defense analogy. This is our life cycle.

    Posted by: Janette at May 14, 2009 9:03 PM


    You're not a sap, Janette; it's a gift to be able to view the world as a place of beauty. We need more people who can do that, too. :D.

    Infants aren't parasites; if they entered of their own volition into her body in the attempt of humiliating her, then the law would reflect that. But, it's pretty natural for a baby to grow in the womb. Mother's privileges in this sense cannot trumph the child's rights.

    Posted by: Vannah at May 14, 2009 9:14 PM


    Um. A wet nurse? Seriously, HA?

    Posted by: Carla at May 14, 2009 9:27 PM


    Janette @ 9:03PM,

    Thank you. Beautifully said.

    Posted by: Janet at May 15, 2009 10:03 AM


    I would definitely terminate in the case of Down Syndrome, and I think every woman should have that choice, but neither I or anyone I know would terminate for gender.

    I thank God that my MIL did not choose to terminate my beautiful 17 year old sister in law... who has Down's Syndrome. What on EARTH would possess you to say you would terminate for that? Do you know ANYTHING about these children? The joy they bring? The unconditional love? The amazing gift they are to a family?

    And the whole autism thing, just as ridiculous. My elder son has autistic spectrum disorder and he is the light of my life... my steady rock. I cannot imagine my life without any of my children, but there is a special bond between the two of us that would make my life a far poorer place if it did not exist. Everyone who knows him talks about what a gift and blessing he is. The youngest of my four girls also has ASD and she is a hilarious little spitfire who wraps everyone around her little finger.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at May 15, 2009 11:20 AM


    Kate, did you read my comment and view the resources I provided or listen to the other commentor's personal experience raising children with autism. Would you say your perspectives of raising children with special needs has changed at all?

    Posted by: Rachael C. at May 15, 2009 11:38 PM