Jivin J's Life Links 12-7-09

web grab.jpgby JivinJ

  • The Wall Street Journal has an article that calls abortion the "top threat" to health care reform legislation.
  • The Los Angeles Times reviews "South Dakota: A Woman's Right to Choose," a "dramumentary" film which follows the story of 2 pregnant teenagers in SD:
  • Isacson said his movie's purpose is to edify, inform and not take sides, but some may view "South Dakota," intentionally or not, as subtly weighted against abortion. The film's emotional highlight, after all, is the rescue of 14-year-old Barb by her boyfriend from an abortion clinic exam room and its grossly insensitive nurses....

    Included in the article is the thought from one pro-choice professor who thinks the film is "pro-life" because it includes images of an unborn child at 22 weeks.

  • Creative Minority Report posts on a MI abortion clinic attempting to pass killing unborn children off as "sacred work" via video. The videos have now been removed from their web site and YouTube.
  • Wesley Smith discusses how Rom Houben's faulty diagnosis hasn't changed the minds of bio-ethicists in favor of removing nutrition and hydration from patients with cognitive impairments:
  • In any case, why the sour response to a good news story? It is hard to shake the feeling that the emotional crosscurrents stirred by Terri Schiavo have been stirred again.

    rom houben 2.jpg

    Time reported that Schiavo-type "legal fights are likely to become more common as classifications of brain-injury severity are revised." According to ABC, Schiavo's family "felt both heartbreak and vindication" about the story.

    Predictably, activists on both sides have weighed in. Much-quoted bioethicist Art Caplan, who strongly backed Michael Schiavo quest to end his wife's life, sniffed after viewing a video of Houben that it all looked like "Ouija Board stuff" to him. The Huffington Post's resident bio-ethicist, Jacob Appel, argued that people in Houben's condition should be considered for euthanasia: "Rather than offering a compelling reason to keep such patients alive," Appel wrote, "the horrors of enduring such a petrified existence may offer a compelling reason to let them die."

  • Abortionist Leroy Carhart admits to CBS News that a good deal of the late-term abortions he performs are for the mother's mental health:
  • Carhart says half the abortions he performs between the 22nd and 28th week are due to fetal health issues. The other half are for the mother's mental health. After the 28th week, 90% of the abortions he performs are for fetal health.

    Women like Sue, an unmarried 28-year-old mother of 3, come from around the country. She's somewhere between 21 and 23 weeks pregnant. She's aborting because she put her last baby up for adoption and had a nervous breakdown. She waited so long because she didn't have the money.

    Also note Carhart's response to the question of whether he's going to hell:

    "Is Dr. Carhart going to hell?" Axelrod asked.

    "I don't know," anti-abortion rights activist Larry Donlan said. "It does not look good."

  • In NY City, a woman has
    been arrested
    after allegedly tricking her husband's pregnant mistress into taking drugs to cause an abortion. The child was born 2 months premature:

    Police say Kisha Jones of Brooklyn used a doctor's prescription pad to order the medication, then phoned the victim pretending to be from her obstetrician's office and told her to pick up the drug at the pharmacy and take it.

    The woman fell for the trick, took the drug and went into labor, authorities said. The baby was born 2 months early, but survived.

    Jones then tried again, according to prosecutors.

    They say that, posing as the baby's mother, she sent a man to the hospital with 2 bottles of tainted liquid, saying it was breast milk, and instructed nurses to feed it to the baby.

    Hospital staff grew suspicious and called police.

    [Photo of Rom Houben and his mother, Fina, via Global BC]


  • Comments:

    Also note Carhart's response to the question of whether he's going to hell:

    "Is Dr. Carhart going to hell?" Axelrod asked.

    "I don't know," Carhart said. "It does not look good."

    If you check the article, this was incorrectly typed. When you check the video, Dr. Carhart doesn't say this, Larry Donlan does, they inaccurately attributed the quote to Dr. Carhart. They have corrected the post, and you should too.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/04/eveningnews/main5895841.shtml

    "Is Dr. Carhart going to hell?" Axelrod asked.

    "I don't know," anti-abortion rights activist Larry Donlan said. "It does not look good."

    Posted by: John Smith at December 7, 2009 4:42 PM


    The article clear states that question was posed to someone opposed to abortion rights, who then responded "It doesn't look good"-- not Dr. Carhart.

    "
    "I don't know," anti-abortion rights activist Larry Donlan said. "It does not look good." "

    Posted by: Sara at December 7, 2009 4:44 PM


    I'm not at all comfortable with anyone saying, "He's definitely going to Hell." Regardless of whether or not he's a bigot, we can't judge that. We don't know anything about Heaven or Hell or anything other than what we have now, and none of us know what happens after you die, much less how to decide what may or may not happen.

    Posted by: Vannah at December 7, 2009 5:05 PM


    Vannah...I know what happens when you die. God didn't want us to be ignorant concerning death and our souls, therefore He gave us His Word, the Bible. If you say you don't know what happens then you are ignorant by your own choice. And thats your right as a human being created by God with free will.

    The story about the movie "South Dakota" is especially telling..how can Gloria Allred call the fetus a "parasite" when she birthed a daughter herself? How can any woman who has had a baby use such awful terms? I am unemployed right now and my husband works and pays for all the food etc....I guess I am a parasite too, huh? Good thing my husband doesn't have the "right to choose" to "abort" me!

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 7, 2009 5:59 PM


    I pray that Dr. Carhart will have a change of heart and stop doing abortions.

    "Dear Jesus, please help those who perform abortions and those who assist them to truly see the evil they are doing. Please help them to repent, to quit performing abortions, and to be reconciled with you."

    "Most of all, Dear Jesus, please help them to trust in your forgiveness and mercy and to learn how to forgive themselves."

    " Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I love you very much. Please send an angel, O Lord, to stay the hand of the executioner/abortionist as once you stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac. Amen."
    (rosarynmore.com)

    Posted by: Janet at December 7, 2009 6:13 PM


    Sydney,

    well said.thanks. I didn't know about Gloria Allred. Is South Dakaota a recent movie? I wonder Gloria is related to the big aborionist Edward Allred.

    Posted by: Jasper at December 7, 2009 6:15 PM


    Amen, Janet.

    Although I don't pray to Mary or Joseph, I wholeheartedly agree with the remainder of your prayer.

    Posted by: army_wife at December 7, 2009 8:16 PM


    "Bio-ethicist?" Is that what Joseph Mengele called himself?
    These a-holes would kill my nephew and my mother-in-law.
    Unfortunately, this administration is full of "bio-ethicists." And they will be the ones deciding what qualifies as "cost effective" medical treatment.

    Posted by: fishydude at December 7, 2009 9:49 PM


    army_wife,
    You know, I thought that one sentence didn't quite fit with the rest of the prayer but didn't want to cut it out since I didn't write the prayer myself. As written, the prayer asks our Lord to send an angel, so technically the prayer isn't addressing Mary or Joseph, but I understand where you are coming from. I think it is a nice prayer too.

    As an aside, when Catholics pray "to Mary" we are requesting her intercession to ask/pray to her Son, Our Lord. It's a bit confusing to non-Catholic Christians. Sorry if I'm babbling.

    Posted by: Janet at December 7, 2009 10:36 PM


    When will you pro-life hucksters just announce your ideology as the anti-woman sham it is? All your rhetoric amounts to shaming women who have non-procreative sex, including married ladies (check the stats on middle-aged women who, out of concern for the kids they have, decide to abort). This argument is so futile. then advocate for better adoption services, pre and postnatal care, food justice, housing reform--anything USEFUL to the health of a growing child. But if you don't want to take on the burden of advocating for this full range of reproductive justice issues, claim your argument for what it is: a highly politicized attempt to punish female sexuality.

    Posted by: Megan at December 7, 2009 10:42 PM


    Megan,

    Specifically, which argument is futile?
    Anti-woman? Hardly. Check the archives to the right.

    Please, have all the sex you want. Just don't kill your baby if you become pregnant. The baby doesn't deserve to suffer such a fate.

    Posted by: Janet at December 7, 2009 10:49 PM


    Megan, have you ever noticed how many pro-lifers posting here ARE women?

    Posted by: Lori Pieper at December 7, 2009 11:51 PM


    Megan, get real. If you can't afford another child, put the baby up for adoption. Your costs will be covered and the child will not be killed because of a mom's finances or emotional state.

    There are also safe haven laws that will allow you to legally "abandon" your baby to a hospital, fire station or other safe place.

    Also, your argument of "if you really care you'd do this instead" falls flat here. MOST of us here do one or more of the things you mention here. As a pediatric RN, I care deeply about the welfare of the children in our community and volunteer, along with others at the hospital I work in, many, many hours every year to make the community a better place for all children.

    Posted by: Elisabeth at December 8, 2009 12:22 AM


    Megan,

    "full range of reproductive justice issues."

    By this, of course, you mean "Orgasm without consequences."

    There certainly is no justice to the human being killed in its mother's womb. To quote a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate,

    "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." -Mother Theresa of Calcutta.

    Tell me Megan, do you honestly believe that orgasm without responsibility and consequence are part of, "a... female sexuality"? Does the option of killing an unborn child factor into the allure of female sexuality? Really?

    As a husband and father I must tell you that this post of yours plays right into the worst impulses of men... orgasm without responsibility or consequences. Leaving the woman high and dry. If I impregnate a woman, and she reserves the right to kill the baby, then most certainly as the other parent I ought to reserve the equally devastating right to walk away should she decide to keep it. Abdication of parental responsibility ought not be a unilateral phenomenon. Fair is fair.

    Yet, this doesn't wash with any sane or reasonable person, for all of the obvious reasons. As a husband and father I have NOT opted out of the responsibilities that come with three children ages 10,9,and 6; the oldest of whom has autism. Real Men accept the responsibilities and consequences of their behaviors. We have a right to demand that the other half of the equation does the same.

    What you militantly describe as, "a highly politicized attempt to punish female sexuality," is nothing of the sort. Authentic sexuality embraces the very real possibility that a new life may result from the embrace between a MAN and a WOMAN. Such a sexuality is animated by authentic love, which flows outward and is life-giving and sustaining both for one's lover as well as the new life created.

    The thing you are advocating is love collapsing in on itself, which by definition is narcissism. It is self-indulgence. It has had the effect of giving men an escape hatch and allowing them to live a perpetual adolescence.

    And then women grouse that real men are so hard to find.

    Look inside your soul. The answer is right there.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 8, 2009 4:23 AM


    Megan,
    I edited your comment. There is no swearing allowed on this site.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 8, 2009 8:16 AM


    Megan -- believe me, I don't sit around worrying about other women, married or unmarried, having sex. None of us gets up in the morning and says, "gee, I don't have anything better to do, I think I'll punish female sexuality." Have as much sex as you want to. Just don't kill anyone.

    BTW, I'm a social worker and in the near future I would like to take in foster children, so pull-eeze stop the "prolifers don't care about children after they're born" stuff, it's getting tired.

    Posted by: Phillymiss at December 8, 2009 10:18 AM


    Gerard,
    Thank you for your fantastic posts! Your wit and wisdom are much appreciated!

    Posted by: Jeanne Gawdun at December 8, 2009 10:20 AM


    Thanks Jeanne. I'm awestruck by the brilliance here on these threads from so many. Seems to be a great watering hole here in the desert.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 8, 2009 10:31 AM


    1. Pro-life rhetoric punishes female sexuality, whether you intend for it to or not. Such is the nature of discourse.

    2. If you believe in the welfare of children, then advocate for POLICY CHANGE. It's great to see what you're doing in your communities, but you're clearly taking your views on abortion to the next level. Do the same for child welfare.

    3. For the record, Mother Theresa was a sham. Read some Christopher Hitchens. The woman accepted cash from some terrible regimes, including Haiti's very own Duvalier. Also, when she broke her hip, did she opt to get treated in one of her "clinics?" Nah, took a plane straight to California. Where did all that money go? America loves Mother Theresa because belief in her assuages our white liberal guilt.

    Posted by: Megan at December 8, 2009 10:40 AM


    Hi Megan,

    A few notes on your post.

    I'm a Biologist. There is no such thing as a "proto" (fill in the blank for species). In our species a new organism exists in the first of what will be many very different stages of development. The new organism is a whole and complete human animal in form and function for each developmental stage being experienced. A female toddler is a very different organism in form and function than a sexually active and sexually mature woman. You either take a parsimonious view of life and arbitrarily define whole groups of humans out of the family based upon whim, or recognize that personhood is intrinsic to being.

    Next, the only safe sex is mutually monogamy with a spouse. I'm a medical microbiologist, so if you want the CDC data on this, let me know. The "safe sex" you describe was abandoned by the hedonists in the early 90's and replaced by 'safeR sex" as they understood that there is no safe sex to be had outside of marriage.

    Your statement here is interesting:

    "I don't necessarily agree with a law that treats men and women differentially--requiring men to pay child support if they do not want to have a child. I could see alternatives to this policy, like having some kind of sliding scale fee, a waver of parental rights, etc. A mechanism like this is in place to ensure child welfare."

    If you are a mother, then you know that a waver of parental rights only makes sense when we evolve children who don't need both a mother AND a father. You know that children need BOTH as both bring very different skill sets to the table.

    What you are advancing is a social structure that protects hedonism and brutally savages children, born and pre-born in the service of that hedonist agenda. You're better than that.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 8, 2009 10:51 AM


    Apology accepted, Megan.

    Adoption and abortion. Hmmm. Adoption is life giving. Yes, there can be stretch marks and morning sickness and exhaustion but you are allowing a child, YOUR child to live and grow while hoping and praying for the right family for her. In most cases you get to choose the family, meet them and get to know them. Giving birth and then signing away your parental rights cannot be easy. Open adoption is available. You get pictures! You get to meet and hold your child and watch them grow!!

    "A constant visible reminder of sexual transgression?" Puhleeze. Where I taught middle school being a young pregnant teen mom was a badge of honor. Pregnant with an African American child? EVEN BETTER!

    Living with the fact that I had my own child killed in my abortion is what I have to carry. I will regret it until the day I die.

    I wish I had known what I do now about abortion and adoption. Things could have been so different for me and my daughter.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 8, 2009 10:53 AM


    Megan,

    I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a rational discussion with someone who calls Mother Teresa a "sham". If you knew anything about her besides what Christopher Hitchens says you would understand the amazing good she and her Sisters of Charity are doing throughout the WORLD. Malcom Muggeridge, a BBC reporter went to India to do a documentary on her in 1970 and said the experience changed his life forever. He wrote of his experience with Mother Teresa in a short book called "Something for God".

    What issue do you have "white liberal guilt" over? You make it sound in your comments like liberals have all the right answers. "Policy Change" at the government level isn't as effective as you'd like to think it is. Look at the starving people in Africa who never receive food shipments or medical aid because corrupt governments keep it for themselves or sell it to the highest bidder. Do they care about their own people? No. I would argue that individuals are much more effective at bringing about change in their communities (and as Mother Teresa demonstrated) even around the world. Whoever she accepted money from, it was done out of love so the poor could benefit. She was a totally selfless human being and will be called a Saint someday. If only all of us could be like her!

    Posted by: Janet at December 8, 2009 11:12 AM


    Megan, I think that most of us know that adoption is not easy. That's why most birth mothers are referred to counseling after placing their children. And there is such a thing as open adoption, when the birth mother can have some contact with the adoptive family if she wants.

    As for policy change -- I'm all for it, but you have to remember that people make some very questionable choices. As I mentioned before, in my line of work it's not unusual to see women who have four, five, or even six children before the age of thirty, and none of the fathers are around. This is in a city where contraception is readily available, rree or on a sliding fee scale. I kind of get tired of hearing about how evil "the system" is when people just make poor decisions that make their situation even worse. I believe in helping those who need help, but there are many people out there who just abuse the system. When are people going to take responsibility for their actions?

    Posted by: Phillymiss at December 8, 2009 11:16 AM


    Megan,

    Mother Theresa was a sham? Okay, I'll indulge you. If you venture out a little and read for yourself, instead of allowing polemicists like Hitchens predigest your dinner for you, you would know that Mother Theresa's clinics do not perform hip replacement surgery. You would also come to realize that she was the head of a world-wide order of nuns who made lots of money for the care of the poor by meeting with politicians and donors around the world. To have refused treatment would have been criminal neglect of her obligations.

    You keep saying that pro-life rhetoric punishes female sexuality. I disagree. Your hedonism makes women nothing more than a McDonald's drive thru where little boys get their happy meals and leave their wrappers strewn all over the place.

    Further, your hedonism sets mother against child, which is perhaps one of the most grotesque distortions of the natural order for women. Here's a quote from Gloria Steinem:

    "By abortion the Mother does not learn to love, but kills her own child to solve her problems. And, by abortion, that father is told that he does not have to take any responsibilty at all for the child he has brought into the world. The father is likely to put other women to the same trouble. So abortion leads to more abortion."

    Just kidding. It was Mother Theresa.

    As for needing policy changes, can you guess what political genius said this:

    "Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person."

    Right! Mother Theresa!

    Hedonism trivializes greatness and complicates the obvious.

    Man has sex with woman, man helps raise baby. Where do we need policy changes there? Should a woman be having sex with a man that she would NOT want as a husband and a father? If the answer is yes, then she's a hedonist.

    As for liberal white guilt needing to be assuaged, I agree with you. They are the folks who brought us 50 million abortions, HIV/AIDS, STD's in the scores of millions, a 50% divorce rate, rampant illegitimacy, and the embrace of gay marriage.

    You're right. You have a lot to atone for. But stop the drive-by's here shooting the messengers. We're trying to show people a healthy alternative to hedonism.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 8, 2009 11:50 AM


    Dear Gerard Nadal,
    I wanted to introduce myself. My name is Carla I am a post abortive mom and a moderator here. I have enjoyed your comments and am so glad you are here!!
    Keep it up!

    One thing I wanted to mention. I know men who wanted that child to live. They wanted their son or daughter to live, to love and raise. They did not get that chance nor opportunity to do so. She went ahead and had that abortion. Listening to them tell their stories has been for me one of the hardest things!! Heartbreaking.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 8, 2009 12:18 PM


    It's funny that anti-choicers claim that having an abortion results in lifelong guilt and depression, but being pregnant for nine months, going through labor and deliver, and then leaving the hospital empty-handed is no big deal. In fact, while few women report emotional problems after abortion, adoption is highly traumatic for many birth mothers.

    Also, it seems antis want to turn back the clock and coerce unmarried women into giving up their babies.

    Posted by: Ashley Herzog at December 8, 2009 12:34 PM


    When you go through labor and delivery you have a beautiful child to show for the pain!! Nobody here denies the pain of delivery. Nor do we deny the pain of adoption. Giving birth and then placing your child up for adoption must be completely heart breaking. Which is why there is counseling available.

    But GUESS WHAT??? In both cases the child lives!!

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 8, 2009 12:39 PM


    Dear Carla,

    Thank you for your kind words and warm welcome. They're much appreciated, as is your sharing about being a post abortive mom. You're doing great work here in maintaining a civil forum for people to discuss things that are not always easy, charged as they are with deep passions.

    I've known a few dads along the way who experienced the same. It is heartbreaking, especially as so may women abort precisely because they lacked this warm embrace by their lover and father of the baby And here these women had it...

    God's continued blessings on you, and all post abortive moms and dads. :-)

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 8, 2009 12:40 PM


    Ashley,
    Might I suggest you do your homework??

    Guilt and shame and depression after an abortion are just some of the risks. As are physical complications, nightmares, suicidal thoughts and attempts, drug abuse and addiction, trouble bonding with subsequent children....OH and death! Women die from abortions. Google Laura Hope Smith. A child always has to die in an abortion or it wouldn't be an abortion now would it?

    The amazing thing about abortion recovery is that there is help and healing! My abortion was almost 20 years ago and the shame is gone. I walk in the truth of what I have done. I own it and long to help other post abortive women and men find the healing that I have found. The regret is the consequence of having an abortion.

    Oh, and how many is few???!!!

    Please cite some sources for your assertion that Pregnancy Care Centers "coerce" young mothers into adoption. Funny how your side speaks about coercion when the abortion clinic workers tell you it is "just a bunch of cells." They know the truth. Just who is coercing whom, Ashley? Actually those in the abortion industry flat out LIE to women, like they lied to me. But we could call it coercion, I suppose.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 8, 2009 12:50 PM


    Thank you, Gerard.
    Fighting the good fight with you!!

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 8, 2009 12:51 PM


    Ashley,

    If you insist on calling us anti-choicers, I'll have to call you an anti-lifer. So why not grow up dear and use a little civility, agreeing to use the terms by which people self-identify? I'm pro-life and you're pro-choice. Then, instead of being antis, we can both be pros. Fair enough?

    The civility would give you the added advantage of covering your youthful lapses in knowledge and judgment. As I said on another thread, people cut you slack because you are young and many of us are old enough to be your parents. As I also said, that kind of consideration should not be taken advantage of, lest people take off those kid gloves you have been benefitting from.

    Please stop it with the snotty undergrad pugnacity. My students know not to try it with me. Good thing too. They actually grow up. Your link to christian baby snatchers was a new low. Do you have something substantive to discuss?

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 8, 2009 12:53 PM


    Ashley, no one denies that placing a child for adoption is painful for the birth mother. That's why most reputable agencies offer and pre and post-adoption cocunseling. Many states also have open adoption, when the birthmother can have contact with the adoptive family (exchange pictures, etc.)

    As for forced adoptions, this happened all too frequently, when young single women were pressured to "give up" their children to "acceptable" (married) parents. This of course, was wrong and thankfully it is a thing of the past.

    Posted by: Phillymiss at December 8, 2009 1:58 PM


    Megan, I am personally offended by your coments, as I am a baby whom almost didn't sirvive. When I was born in 1979, I waid One pound, and five ounce, and I was eleven inches long, and Yes, My mother did decide to pull the plug on me, because she believed in what you course! She believed in something called diginity! If You feel Abortion is the way to go, You have a free will, but You're the one who will have to live with that disision. You need to take to heart what Carla, is telling you, instead of spouting of Obamaism. Concitter if you will Sycloria Williams. Here is her story in her own words. After you read, Let us know wheather or not these abortionists really carred for her wellfare!
    Florida Catholic | A botched abortion in mother’s own words
    list of 9 items
    • HOME
    • YOUR DIOCESE
    • VIEWS
    • OPINION
    • CNS NEWS BRIEFS
    • PAPAL NEWS
    • CLASSIFIEDS
    • MULTIMEDIA
    • WEB SPECIALS
    list end
    list of 9 items
    • PRAYER REQUESTS
    • ABOUT US
    • CONTACT US
    • ADVERTISE
    • SUBSCRIBE
    • FAQ
    • LINKS
    • SEARCH
    • DONATE
    list end
    December 8, 2009

    RELATED:
    Laid to rest: Baby Shanice
    | DOCUMENT:
    State of Florida Emergency Order

    A botched abortion in mother’s own words

    The mother of a baby ‘born alive’ and hidden on the roof of a Hialeah clinic tells her side of the story.

    DANIEL SOÑÉ | FLORIDA CATHOLIC CORRESPONDENT

    Posted: 02.06.09 | Last Update: 03.05.09

    DANIEL SOÑÉ | FC
    During an interview at her attorney’s office Jan. 28, Sycloria Williams reflects upon her experience at a Dade County abortion clinic. “They never said
    anything to me that would make me think it was a baby. They never said anything like baby, fetus. Nothing.”

    Recent Developments

    Abortion clinic owner arrested

    Posted: 03.05.09

    More than two years after a botched abortion at A GYN. of Hialeah, the State Attorney’s Office has charged the clinic’s owner, Belkis Gonzalez, with the
    unlicensed practice of medicine and tampering with evidence, second- and third-degree felonies respectively.

    Gonzalez was arrested March 3 and released...
    CONTINUED

    MIAMI | On the morning of July 20, 2006, Sycloria Williams, age 18, went for an abortion – a late-term abortion that she says went terribly wrong.

    Now 21, the Hollywood resident has filed a civil lawsuit accusing the clinic staff of delivering her child alive and killing the newborn girl by stuffing
    her into a biohazard bag.

    Williams spoke exclusively to the Florida Catholic Jan. 28. She said she is sharing her experience of what happened inside A GYN. of Hialeah Inc. because
    people “need to know.”

    A slight woman with dark, almond-shaped eyes, black hair and a bright smile, Williams said her friends call her “Slim” because of her build and propensity
    to stay that way. Her favorite food is coconut shrimp.

    Williams named her dead daughter Shanice Denise Osbourne, after her then-boyfriend, who accompanied her to the abortion clinic. “Shane looked over me,”
    she said.

    The baby’s biological father had left after she told him she was pregnant. “He just stopped calling, coming around,” Williams said. “He just disappeared,
    you know.”

    Originally, aborting the baby was not part of the plan. “We were reluctant at first, but as time passed it became more and more of an option,” Williams
    said.

    She had had a prior pregnancy at 17 that had ended in a miscarriage. She said she was unaware of how far along she was because she was not showing. “My
    belly still looked pretty flat.”

    ABORTION: DAY ONE

    According to Williams and the allegations in the lawsuit, she found the clinic in the Yellow Pages. On July 17, 2006, she went to Miramar Woman Center Inc.
    and was told the procedure would cost $1,200 – $400 more than she expected, because a sonogram had determined that the pregnancy was 23 weeks along, requiring
    a more complicated late-term abortion.

    Williams said that day she signed consent forms and was given some medications, all without meeting her doctor, Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique.

    She met him two days later, July 19, at A Woman’s Care Inc. in North Miami. Williams said Renelique gave her a brief, undetailed description of the procedure.


    “He said that it was a two-day procedure, to take my medicines, and come back the next day. He just said it like one, two, three,” Williams said.

    She said she asked questions about the abortion and felt Renelique’s answers were to her satisfaction.

    “I asked a lot of questions. I asked like how long it would take, who would be my doctor, how often have they done this, about the equipment, and what they
    do with the baby,” she said.

    “They said they freeze the body,” she added. “They freeze it,” she repeated in a whisper, lowering her head and eyes.

    After their meeting, according to Williams, Renelique inserted laminaria sticks, thin rods of dried kelp that absorb moisture and slowly dilate the cervix.
    According to the lawsuit, he also gave her a prescription for Cytotec, a brand of the drug misoprostol, to induce labor.

    “He just to told me to come back the next day and that he would be there,” Williams said.

    Shortly after leaving, Williams said she received a call from Natali Vergara, the daughter of clinic owner Belkis Gonzalez, telling her to go to their Hialeah
    clinic, A GYN., instead of the North Miami one to complete the procedure.

    ABORTION: DAY TWO

    On the way to the clinic the next morning, her boyfriend at the time, Shane, “didn’t want to go through with it,” Williams recalled. She just wanted to
    put it all behind her. “I was thinking ‘Come on. I want to get this done!’” she said.

    When she arrived at the Hialeah clinic, she remembers having to knock on the glass doors because they were locked. “They weren’t open yet.”

    The receptionist, a woman identified as Rosemary Chaneton in the lawsuit, let her in. Williams remembered that the clinic had white walls, tiled flooring
    and inset fluorescent lights.

    She said Chaneton gave her two white pills to take. “She didn’t know what the pills were but said she would ask. She said they would make me feel sick,”
    Williams said. According to the lawsuit, the white pills were another dose of Cytotec, to induce labor.

    She took the pills and waited in her car. “I wanted to wait in the car because I was feeling a little sick already and Shane was there.”

    She waited in the car for Renelique to arrive. About 45 minutes after taking the two white pills, Williams said she felt sick with nausea and felt the baby
    dropping “… like something was pushing it down.”

    She went inside the clinic and exchanged her white T-shirt, blue jeans and flip-flops for a white hospital gown with little blue dots and “the back out.”
    She was then taken to a patient waiting room in the back. Shane was prohibited from entering. The waiting room had eight reclining chairs, with the same
    white walls, inset lights and tiled floor.

    “The chairs looked comfortable,” Williams said. She sat in the one closest to the door of the waiting room.

    “I was alone in that room for about three hours with Rosemary (the receptionist) and other people checking up on me every couple minutes,” Williams said.


    As the Cytotec continued to work, Williams felt sicker and sicker. “I was nauseated and I had a temperature,” she said.

    Although she was relatively calm, she was worried that Renelique had not arrived. “‘Where is the doctor?’ I was thinking.”

    Williams remembers feeling worse as her labor intensified. She was curled up in a ball with the receptionist by her side. “I was supposed to be asleep for
    all of this. I wasn’t supposed to see anything. Just wake up and it will all be over,” Williams said.

    LIVE BIRTH CAUSES PANIC

    What happened next haunts her to this day, Williams said. “It was like everything inside was coming out at once.”

    Williams recalls grabbing the armrests of her chair and elevating herself to a squatting position, heels at the edges of her seat. The receptionist and
    staff kept telling her to sit down and close her legs, but she couldn’t comply. “There was just no stopping it,” she said.

    Williams said she delivered her baby, Shanice, onto the recliner almost immediately after squatting. First amniotic fluid spilled out, then the baby dropped
    onto the cushion.

    “When I saw that happen, I jumped off the chair and turned away, facing the wall,” Williams said.

    Shanice’s body slid on the blood and amniotic fluids into the rear corner of the recliner because she was still attached to Williams by the umbilical cord.
    “When I jumped off I pulled her like into the back of the chair because she was still attached,” she said.

    According to Williams and the lawsuit, the receptionist and the staff began screaming and rushing, trying to figure out what to do. Williams said she stood
    against the wall, glancing in horror at her newborn baby. “She wasn’t moving much. Twitching, gasping for air. She wasn’t crying though, just hissing.
    Hissing sounds only.”

    The sight of a fully formed baby was a complete surprise to Williams.

    “I thought it would be a blob thing, but bigger, not a baby,” she said. “She looked like a Water Baby. Like those dolls you fill up with water. She was
    really little, like this,” she said, holding her hands about 12 inches apart.

    (Water Babies are sold in stores such as Toys ”R” Us. A product description on the Toys ”R” Us online store reads, “Water Babies are water-filled dolls
    that replicate the warmth, weight and feel of a real baby.”)

    According to the lawsuit and Williams’ recollection, Gonzalez, the clinic’s owner, who has no health care licensing, came into the waiting room, cut the
    umbilical cord, and scooped Shanice’s body into a red biohazard bag, sealed it and tossed it into a trash can.

    Williams said she was in shock. “It felt like a dream,” she said.

    She recalls begging God for help and trying to listen to the staff. They only gave her Motrin for her pain because Renelique had not yet arrived. “Everyone
    was panicking,” Williams said.

    According to the lawsuit, the doctor arrived about 60 minutes after Williams delivered Shanice. No one called an ambulance. The lawsuit also states that
    Renelique gave Williams a shot to put her to sleep: “She awoke after the procedure and was sent home still in complete shock.”

    She said while Shane was driving her home, she told him, “I don’t think that baby was dead.” Answering almost as if he did not hear correctly, Shane asked,
    “What do you mean? Are you sure?”

    He asked several more questions which Williams said frustrated her because she was preoccupied with what happened to her at the clinic. “I was just focused
    on trying to deal with it. I was scared,” she said.

    POLICE FIND BODY

    The next day, Hialeah homicide detectives, tipped off by an anonymous caller, arrived at her residence. “Oh, I know why you’re here,” she said she told
    them. She said she spent four hours that night at the police station, and returned the following morning to file more reports and make more statements
    to investigators.

    According to the lawsuit, Hialeah police investigators executed a search warrant at the clinic on July 22, 2006. They found medical records but could not
    locate the baby’s remains. Six days later, another anonymous caller told police the baby’s body had been hidden on the roof. Police responded but found
    nothing. After a third tip and another search warrant, the police found the baby’s decomposing body in a cardboard box in a closet at the clinic. DNA linked
    the remains to Williams.

    Williams said in the immediate aftermath of the abortion, she did not have much time to digest what had happened. “I was very busy with everything.”

    She does recall the most startling part: Her 23-week-old pregnancy looked like an actual baby.

    “They never said anything to me that would make me think it was a baby. They never said anything like baby, fetus. Nothing. They only said things like ‘termination’
    and ‘pregnancy’ and ‘termination of pregnancy,’” she said. “They cheated me because they didn’t tell me everything and the doctor wasn’t there.”

    She said the staff’s reaction to the live birth made her feel disrespected. “They tried to make it look like this was my fault. Like I asked for this. …
    They wouldn’t admit to me the whole time something went wrong,” she said. “I feel like they treated me like nothing, like a nobody.”

    She said she has not sought professional counseling. “They’ll listen because that’s their job, but they won’t care. They won’t understand,” Williams said.


    She said she and other post-abortive women need love, support and family. She also has changed her mind about abortion.

    “No one should lose their life if you get pregnant,” she said. “If I got pregnant again I would have the baby.”

    Her advice to women in unplanned or crisis pregnancies is to make abortion their last option, if at all. “I would tell them not to do it. I’ll say whatever
    to make them have second thoughts so they don’t do it,” she said. “There is help out there.”

    ABOUT THE CASE

    Sycloria Williams is being represented by the Thomas More Society, with Miami attorney Tom Pennekamp handling the case. She is suing for wrongful death,
    medical negligence and personal injury. The lawsuit alleges that Belkis Gonzalez and 12 other defendants – who jointly own or work for a conglomerate of
    four south Florida abortion clinics – engaged in an unlicensed and unauthorized medical practice, botched abortions, evasive tactics, falsified medical
    records and killing, hiding and disposing of a baby who was born alive.

    Williams finally buried her daughter
    , Shanice Denise Osbourne, last November at Our Lady Queen of Heaven Cemetery in Fort Lauderdale. The Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner had held onto the
    body for nearly two years, concluding that the child was born alive, but would have died anyway due to extreme prematurity. The state attorney’s office
    says the matter is still “under investigation.”

    The Florida Catholic tried unsuccessfully to contact the clinic owner and others named in the lawsuit. Pennekamp said he has not been able to find all the
    defendants in order to serve them with copies of the lawsuit.

    A GYN. of Hialeah Inc., where the abortion took place, has closed down, but the court filing alleges it has been replaced by a new clinic a few miles away
    that “shares the name of the previously mentioned corporation, only lacking a period after GYN.” A Miramar Woman Center Inc. and A Woman’s Care Inc. in
    North Miami remain open.

    Belkis Gonzalez and Siomara Senises, both defendants in this lawsuit as co-owners of A GYN. in Hialeah, were arrested for the unlicensed practice of medicine
    in connection with a 2004 case in another Miramar clinic co-owned by the pair, according to newspaper articles and public records obtained by Williams’
    attorney. That clinic was shut down in 2005. Two doctors who performed abortions at that clinic were found to be unlicensed; one was found guilty of practicing
    “abortion medicine” without a license and the other fled to Trinidad and has arrest warrants pending in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Gonzalez pleaded
    “no contest” in that case and was adjudicated “guilty” and sentenced to five years probation Dec. 20, 2007. Under the terms of her probation agreement,
    she is not allowed to directly or indirectly own, operate, conduct, manage or be employed or associated with any health care clinic, business or establishment.


    On Feb. 16, 2007, the Florida Department of Health filed an order of “emergency restriction” against Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique’s medical license
    because of the events that occurred at the Hialeah abortion clinic in July 2006. He is accused of medical malpractice and falsifying medical records and
    is awaiting “a formal restriction or discipline of the license” by the department.

    At a hearing Feb. 6, 2009, the Florida Department of Health revoked Dr. Pierre Jean–Jacque Renelique’s medical license — meaning he will not be able to
    practice medicine in Florida — because of the events that occurred at the Hialeah abortion clinic in July 2006. He was found to have violated Florida statutes
    by committing medical malpractice, delegating responsibility to unlicensed personnel and failing to keep an accurate medical record.

    Editor’s Note: The name of the cemetery where Shanice Denise Osbourne is buried was incorrectly reported when this article was originally posted and was
    corrected on 02.13.09.

     
    Return to the Archdiocese of Miami Front Page


     
    Search

    ShareThis
    Advertisement
    i
    list of 25 items
    Miami Archdiocese Current Front Page
    Religious Gift Shops: Closer Than You Think
    Black Catholics counted
    Teaching Stewardship
    St. Theresa students groove to a Hispanic beat
    Students pledge time with Jesus in Blessed Sacrament
    Teaching Stewardship
    Holy Rosary Parish: ‘Five decades of blessings’
    ‘Angels’ celebrate St. Mary School
    Bishop–elect Isern described as prayerful, spiritual
    Feedback on new bishop: ‘Colorado? Wow’
    St. Philip Neri Parish: ‘Heartbroken’
    Seminarian’s mural honors Mary
    St. Luke Parish: Tears and smiles
    St. Cecilia ‘is alive’ at St. John the Apostle
    Santa Cecilia ‘está viva’ en St. John
    St. Joseph Haitian Mission: ‘We’ll make them feel at home’
    OLPH: Goodbye old friends, hello new ones
    St. George Parish: ‘I give you permission to cry’
    Update: Miami Archdiocese proceeds with parish mergers
    Archbishop Favalora’s Column
    Good For You Miami
    News Briefs
    School News
    Miami Archdiocese Previous Front Page
    list end
    list of 21 items
    Sunday’s Reflection: Video Commentary
    Web Special | ‘70 years’
    Faith Around The State | Web Log
    So Many Benefits From Healing Ministry
    Wanted: Stocked food pantries
    A Gift Of Immigration Reform
    Climate change and the poor
    Text Some Love
    Vatican interns
    An 'Enormous Disappointment'
    Human trafficking must end
    No More Deaths In The Desert
    Request Made In Private
    8-year conflict takes its toll
    Act of unity, profession of faith
    Immigrants: Valuable contributors to society
    Ready for the Senate
    Florida bishops take action on critical health care reform request
    College seminary immerses men in formation from freshman year forward
    Respect Life volunteers of the year announced
    Respect Life Conference stirs the ‘catholic heart’
    list end
     
    Diocese of Orlando |
    Diocese of Palm Beach |
    Diocese of Venice
    Archdiocese of Miami  
    Advertisement
    i
    Copyright © 2007 – 2009 (except stories and photos by CNS) | All Rights Reserved | The Florida Catholic, Inc. | 50 E. Robinson Street | Orlando, FL 32801
    | (407) 373-0075
    Privacy Policy
    Most Popular Services
    Email
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Save
    MySpace
    Digg
    Text
    Live
    Delicious
    Stumbleupon
    Reddit
    G Bookmarks
    LinkedIn
    Bebo
    Buzz Up!
    Blogger
    #
    #

    Powered by ShareThis
    Sign In:    

    Posted by: RJ Sandefur at December 8, 2009 2:06 PM


    Gerard,

    I'm not usually one for ad hominem attacks, but a PhD doesn't necessarily lead to enlightenment. Your infantilizing tone implies that young women are incapable of making sound reproductive health decisions, as if we are all a roving band of cavalier sluts. This discourse of false consciousness is ridiculous. If only we would "grow up," "become more compassionate," "learn to respect family values," "see the sonogram of the baby and realize how really really HUMAN it is!" then we'd understand the perils of abortion.

    Women have been having abortions since time immemorial. This group also includes MARRIED women. How feasible is it for a middle-aged mother, comfortably middle class, to give up a child for adoption should she face an unwanted pregnancy? But class standing and marital status shouldn't matter. Again, an acorn isn't yet a tree, and a fetus isn't yet a child, PhD in Biology or not.

    All medical procedures have complications. I had an abortion last year, since I'm in no position to care for a child, and I would have felt personally responsible for bringing an unwanted child into the world. I could not have emotionally handled an adoption. I opted to end the pregnancy and have not looked back. I sometimes wonder what it would have been like to give birth, but am ultimately confident that I made the right decision. As for the fetus--well, it never had the opportunity to see the world, so I don't consider it a great loss. I would like to have children when I am fully prepared to do so--meaning being emotionally, physically and financially prepared. My partner agrees.

    Posted by: Megan at December 8, 2009 2:13 PM


    Megan,
    I was going to ask you if you were post abortive but thought that wouldn't be taken in the right way.
    I knew from your writing that you were trying to defend your own choice. I knew. I know.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 8, 2009 2:23 PM


    Megan,

    I'm sorry for you and your baby, and pray that you find the grace to grow from the experience.

    I agree that having a Ph.D. doesn't necessarily bring enlightenment. Far too many are pro-choice. But faith seeking understanding does allow a Ph.D. to see realities that those without faith miss, while right there in plain sight. Such realities are those that I have mentioned and by which I stand.

    As for bands of roving sluts, let's just say that while my generation started the sexual revolution, this generation of students makes us look like rank amateurs.

    Regarding your insistence that an acorn is not an oak, Robert P. George of Princeton University and Patrick Lee of Franciscan University answer this pro-choice argument in the following link. It's well worth the read:

    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/acorns-and-embryos

    As for the rest of your argument, I do not take anything that you have said to be an ad hominem and refrain from further comment considering that you are post abortive, lest with all good intention I inadvertently say something to unduly burden you.

    God Bless.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 8, 2009 2:47 PM


    How feasible is it for a middle-aged mother, comfortably middle class, to give up a child for adoption should she face an unwanted pregnancy?

    Why wouldn't this be feasible? Because someone is afraid of being embarrassed or losing class status? Most women who choose adoption are in their late twenties, early thirties, or even older.

    I could not have emotionally handled an adoption.

    But you can handle your child -- whoops, fetus --being destroyed and thrown out with the medical waste???

    Posted by: Phillymiss at December 8, 2009 2:53 PM


    Megan, I too am very sorry for you, your baby and what you went through.

    It's not true that we pro-lifers condemn women for having abortions. Anything but. Mostly we are just desperate to prevent women from having to go through the pain of realizing that they really did consent to the murder of their child. For some women it is a lifetime of pain. The emotional trauma of releasing a child for adoption is nothing compared to this pain.

    You're obviously still in the denial phase. No one makes as many irrational statements as you do unless they are in deep and desperate denial. Someday you will wake up and I pray it's sooner rather than later. And remember there is healing to be had, and there are people who will help.

    God bless you.

    Posted by: Lori Pieper at December 8, 2009 3:24 PM


    Hi Megan.

    "Again, an acorn isn't yet a tree, and a fetus isn't yet a child, "

    It should be noted that this is a philosophical objection, not biological. The objection confuses the accidents of a being with the substance of a being. In other words, an acorn and an oak tree are of the same KIND, and a fetus and child are of the same kind, namely human beings. We don't kill human beings simply because they are human, not because of what stage of development they are. In fact, saying the fetus is not a child is like saying a toddler is not an adult or a newborn is not a teenager. We certainly agree, but the question is "what is it in it's essence, in it's nature?" Biologically the fetus is a human being, as is the child, teenager, and adult. The only difference is size, level of development, degree of dependency, and environment in which the fetus lives, none of which constitutes any sort justification for killing the fetus but not, say, a teenager. God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 8, 2009 3:28 PM


    I find it exceedingly insulting to be told that I'm in denial of my procedure. I researched it extensively and--get this--asked to look at the sonogram pictures. Was I in awe of what my body could help produce? Absolutely. Was I still confident in my decision to abort? Yes. Quite frankly, I'm relieved that a) I am no longer sick every day, draining my bank account for doctor's visits and money for the exorbitant amounts of food I was eating b) I did not bring an unwanted child into the world who I would have grieved for every day had I given it up for adoption.

    I don't typically get this personal on a blog, but honestly, please stop regarding all "post abortive" women as somehow numbed to reality. You're undermining our ability to make the decisions we feel are best for us. And as magnanimous as the gesture might be, save your prayers for someone else. Thanks.

    Posted by: Megan at December 8, 2009 7:34 PM


    Well Megan, post abortive women fall into two catagories. They are either in incredible denial about the implications of killing their children and thus lash out at anyone who dares mention that what they did was wrong, or they accpet that what they did was wrong, seek forgiveness, and try to warn others to keep them from making the same mistake.

    It often takes years from someone to come out of the denial stage and realize the true horror of what she's done. Some never make the realization, and spend their lives calling for the destruction of other innocent children.

    I hope for your sake, and the sake of any women you may encounter, you realize that your child was a human being whose life had value independent of anything you thought of it.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 8, 2009 7:50 PM


    Oh, how I love this absolutism. We're all murderers, we're all in denial. You know, it was once thought that a mother and fetus existed as an inseparable dyad--that is, the fetus was considered part of the mother's body. I don't know what changed--certainly not the biomechanics of pregnancy. A baby didn't simply walk into my uterus and decide to bunk with me for nine months. The embryo was a direct part of my body, feeding off my physical resources. My body, my prerogative. I value taking personal responsibility for one's actions, and I expressed this value by choosing abortion. If I couldn't provide the baby with a good life, then I didn't feel anybody else should have had to, either.

    Posted by: Megan at December 8, 2009 8:17 PM


    Megan,AN ATHEIST knows nothing of the heart of Mother Teresa! I wouldn't trust Christopher Hitchens lies about her anymore than I would trust Richard Dawkins lies about her!

    Read Carla's abortion story. Open your eyes to the TRUTH.

    And Ashley, same advice for you: Read Carla's story.

    oh also, Megan, read some information on fetal development because you really need to educate yourself. View some 3D or 4D ultrasound pictures.


    My two nieces know their mom is having a BABY, not a "fetus". We have BABY showers, not fetus showers.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 8, 2009 8:18 PM


    I'm an MPH student and have seen plenty of fetal development pictures. I get it. And baby showers are held for women who welcome their pregnancies.

    Posted by: Megan at December 8, 2009 8:20 PM


    Actually, the idea that every woman either regrets her abortion or is in denial is complete garbage.

    I had an abortion this year at 8 weeks, and I have never regretted it. Not that day, not anytime after, and not now. I did research on what an 8 weeks embryo looks like and was underwhelmed. I felt no emotional connection to something that looked like a tadpole. The only time I was distressed was during the four week hoop-jump my state put me through trying to get the abortion, with all its restrictions and inconveniences. I was flooded with relief after the procedure, and my words to the nurse were "I'm glad that's over!"

    10 months later, I'm happier and healthier than ever. I have a wonderful new man who wants to marry me. And we want babies when the time is right.

    I have no regrets, and I'm so glad I wasn't saddled to a life of poverty and single motherhood and/or a relationship with a man who did not want my child or me.

    Posted by: Liz at December 8, 2009 8:29 PM


    No Megan, the fetus is not part of your body. It resides within your body, but it has its own seperate, unique body. You weren't removing an ingrown toenail. You killed another living human.

    You really skirt the issue by framing it as an either or situation in which you could either provide your child with a "good life" or kill it. The reality is that your child could have been given a "good life" either by you or someone else. Just because adoption would be harder on you than killing your child doesn't mean that it is an invalid option.

    You didn't simply erase your child from existence. For all your concern, you failed to deliver even a bare minimum amount of human decency to your child.

    Let me be clear. That child was not a part of your body. It was not an impacted tooth. It was a human being that was as alive as you are. Now it is dead because of your actions.

    You claim that because of its reliance upon you, you had the right to kill your child. Apart from completely failed logic, this statement shows you to be a very cold individual. Instead of protecting another vulnerable human, you used its vulnerability to justify homicide.

    The fact that you have awareness of the humanity of your child, yet still defend your decision to kill it is chilling.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 8, 2009 8:30 PM


    "The embryo was a direct part of my body, feeding off my physical resources."

    Your baby has unique DNA. It is not "part" your body. If it's a boy, it will have the body parts of a boy. Your body is naturally equipped to nourish the new life growing inside. It is not a parasite, if that is what you're getting at.

    Obviously your Masters of Public Health Program is pro-choice. It's a shame you don't get a chance to hear the logic behind the pro-life position.

    Posted by: Janet at December 8, 2009 8:33 PM


    Liz, again we see the specious "either or" logic that so permeates pro-abortion rhetoric.

    It was not either kill your child or be "saddled to a life of poverty and single motherhood and/or a relationship with a man who did not want my child or me."

    You had other options. You choose abortion and tell yourself that misery was the only other option instead of realistically evaluating the situation. Despite your claims, it is very obvious that you are in denial about the entire situation.

    I hope that you come to realize the reality of what happened and find healing.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 8, 2009 8:35 PM


    Actually, the idea that every woman either regrets her abortion or is in denial is complete garbage.

    I had an abortion this year at 8 weeks, and I have never regretted it. Not that day, not anytime after, and not now. I did research on what an 8 weeks embryo looks like and was underwhelmed. I felt no emotional connection to something that looked like a tadpole. The only time I was distressed was during the four week hoop-jump my state put me through trying to get the abortion, with all its restrictions and inconveniences. I was flooded with relief after the procedure, and my words to the nurse were "I'm glad that's over!" In fact, the only emotion I really remember was overwhelming, total relief that the ordeal was over.

    10 months later, I'm happier and healthier than ever. I have a wonderful new man who wants to marry me. And we want babies when the time is right.

    I have no regrets, and I'm so glad I wasn't saddled to a life of poverty and single motherhood and/or a relationship with a man who did not want my child or me, and that I have the chance to have WANTED children.

    Posted by: Liz at December 8, 2009 8:36 PM


    Liz, you assume that you'll have the chance to have wanted children. That is not a given.

    Abortion can lead to uterine scarring which reduces fertility and leads to a higher incidence of premature birth. One study found that as many as 40% of women develop the scarring refered to as Asherman's syndrome following a D&C.

    Even without a prior abortion, fertility is not a given. I got pregnant with my first child the very first time I ever had sex without using birth control. It was three years before I had another pregnancy that led to a live birth. I'm young and healthy.

    Of course I hope for your sake that you are not saddled with infertility, but you should know that a healthy pregnancy is never a gaurantee.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 8, 2009 8:41 PM


    An MPH program isn't "pro" or "anti" choice. There are plenty of pro-life individuals in my program. I don't feel unduly influenced by anybody here.

    I love being browbeaten with this whole false consciousness argument. I'm sorry if you've encountered post abortive women who regret their decisions. But there are many more of us who don't, and are relieved knowing we didn't bring a child into the world and leave its well-being up to chance.

    I'm evil, I'm cold, I'm going straight to hell. Praise Jaysus.

    Posted by: Megan at December 8, 2009 8:43 PM


    Keep telling yourself that. I'm not in denial, and I don't need healing, since I've never regretted my abortion. In fact, after the abortion, I broke up with my borderline abusive boyfriend, went back to school, graduated, found a great guy, and am so much happier now. Abortion was absolutely the best choice for me at the time. What's so great about being a single mother with no college degree? I'm sure you've seen the statistics on how children from those homes come out.

    I had an abortion and I'm glad I did.

    Posted by: Liz at December 8, 2009 8:44 PM


    Megan, no one condemned you to hell. You're building a strawman to avoid the issues.

    Again, you are using a very specious argument to defend your actions. It was not either have an abortion or "bring a child into the world and leave its well-being up to chance."

    Regardless of if you raised your child on your own or provided it with an adoptive family, you would have input into the outcome.

    You also had input into the outcome of your child's life when you decided to have an abortion, you ended it.

    Liz, the thing about denial is that you don't recognize that you're in it. The fact that both you and Megan continue to frame your decisions in such black and white, either or, terms in which abortion seems the "obvious" responsible decisions shows that you are not completely evaluating your decision.

    Abortion was not the only solution to the problem of poverty,or an abusive boyfriend, or nausea, or getting an education ect. ect. Yet you frame the situation as though it were. At the very least that shows that you are ignorant of other options available to pregnant women, though I suspect it is more willful than that.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 8, 2009 8:54 PM


    A post abortive woman stays in denial on average of 7-9 years after her abortion.

    Liz and Megan you bought the lies of the abortion industry. So did I.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 8, 2009 9:01 PM


    Liz,
    When will you tell your new boyfriend? Before you get married? How do you suppose he will he react?

    Posted by: Janet at December 8, 2009 9:01 PM


    I don't see how I'm viewing the situation in black and white.

    Reasons for having the child:

    1. None

    Reasons for aborting:

    1. No desire to be a mother at this point in my life
    2. Plan on adopting children when I have the resources to do so; no desire to have any of my own
    3.Physical difficulty in carrying a pregnancy to term: anemia, family history of postpartum depression, weight gain
    4. Do not have the finances to support a child, would end up maxing out student loans to care for it (and receive proper prenatal treatment)
    5. Partner has student loans he can barely pay for, just got a job and is just starting to save up some money
    6. Huge and unfair burden on my parents and sister, as well as my partner's family
    7. An unwanted pregnancy=less healthy pregnancy=less healthy child.

    Posted by: Megan at December 8, 2009 9:13 PM


    Megan, wow, I'm honestly flabbergasted by the size of your blind spot.

    First of all, it is painfully obvious that no consideration of the child came into play, despite your protestations of your wish for it to have a good life.

    You completely ignore adoption as an option for that child, despite your apparant knowledge of adoption as evidenced by your desire to later adopt.

    Nothing on your list justifies killing your child. There were many options to solve each item on your list that didn't require the death of your child. You refusal to acknowledge this is most certainly denial.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 8, 2009 9:17 PM


    My boyfriend already knows and is supportive. Has known since early in the relationship.

    But I'm sure you think abortion ruins women and no one will want me now, which is 100% untrue. I'm happy. Keep spouting your psychobabble about how depression over aborting an embryo the size of a kidney bean--conceived at the wrong time with the wrong man--will come back to haunt me. I know it will not.

    Posted by: Liz at December 8, 2009 9:23 PM


    Liz, how does the size of a human relate in any way to its value?

    The fact that you feel the need to dehumanize your child is evidence that you can not face the reality of your actions.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 8, 2009 9:25 PM


    Pregnancy made me very sick. I would have had to leave school, thus losing my funding (i.e., source of income) had I gone through with the pregnancy. I didn't want to bring a kid into that kind of situation.

    Posted by: Megan at December 8, 2009 9:26 PM


    Megan, I'm sorry that pregnancy made you sick. There are a variety of ways to control severe morning sickness, called Hyperemesis Gravidarum.

    If it became a true disability, your school would be required to allow you to go on a medical leave. You would also be eligible for SSI.

    There were options, if you'd cared to investigate.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 8, 2009 9:29 PM


    Frankly, whether you regret abortion or not, that doesn't make it suddenly better. If you don't regret it, you don't regret it.

    That doesn't make abortion any less of a violation of human rights.

    And, frankly, Liz, I try to keep my cool but when you said, "What's so great about being a single mother with no college degree?" I know several women who would slap you if they could see you, including my own mother. You have no idea how it feels for these women to hear people like you who think of them as trash. For the record, most people think very little of people such as yourself. While you think highly of yourself you're pretty much alone.

    God, I need to walk away before I continue on...I know that I'll feel bad about this later but someone really ought to put your empty little head back on your shoulders...

    Posted by: Vannah at December 8, 2009 9:32 PM


    I'm quite sure that in 7 years, when I'm happily married and raising WANTED children, I won't look back and say "I wish I'd dropped out of college and had that out of wedlock baby with my abusive boyfriend! Or put that baby up for adoption and felt horrible for the rest of my life knowing I have a child out in the world being raised by someone else!"

    Nope. I am happy with my decision.

    Posted by: Liz at December 8, 2009 9:35 PM


    No. You'll just say my child would be 7 this year.

    Glad you are so happy. I am sorry that you are in denial. I wish that you were like all the other girls after their abortions who were crying and moaning for their child. They knew what they had done, knew it was wrong and it was sooner rather than later.

    How long do you think you will keep coming here to tell us how happy you are?

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 8, 2009 9:39 PM


    other Liz: your "tadpole" had a heart beat.

    Many post abortive women are in denial after their abortions, just read the heartbreaking stories at Silent No More.


    There are organizations that would have helped you during your pregnancy and helped you get away from your abusive relationship. You wouldn't have to stay with him.

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 8, 2009 9:40 PM


    Because you people are delusional liars. Some women might regret their abortions, but I don't, and neither do the other women I know. The woman who was in the waiting room with me at the clinic was the mother of a 2-year-old daughter and shared my experience; she felt nothing but relief that she was finally getting the abortion so she could get on with life and continue providing for her child.

    You have no right to psychoanalyze me and tell me I feel things that I DO NOT feel.

    I am happy to share my abortion experience with other women so they can rest assured they will most likely be fine afterwards.

    Posted by: Liz at December 8, 2009 9:43 PM


    "If it became a true disability."

    I'm glad I'm only considered a holding vessel for a child. That's the issue: an UNBORN child (one that has not seen sunlight, breathed oxygen, even become truly sentient) is privileged over MY health. That's fantastic, really wonderful. Such ideology must really make for happy mothers and healthy pregnancies.

    If you'd care to research the effects of pro-natalist ideology in action, check out how Romanian women (and their children) fared under a Communist regime that severely limited access to contraception and abortion. Definitely sound public policy, no?

    Posted by: Megan at December 8, 2009 9:45 PM


    Or put that baby up for adoption and felt horrible for the rest of my life knowing I have a child out in the world being raised by someone else!" Posted by: Liz at December 8, 2009 9:35 PM

    That has got to be one of the most selfish comments I've ever read on this blog.

    Posted by: Fed Up at December 8, 2009 9:52 PM


    "I'm quite sure that in 7 years, when I'm happily married and raising WANTED children, I won't look back and say "I wish I'd dropped out of college and had that out of wedlock baby with my abusive boyfriend! Or put that baby up for adoption and felt horrible for the rest of my life knowing I have a child out in the world being raised by someone else!"

    Nope. I am happy with my decision."

    I'm not going to weigh in on the happiness of your decision; afterall, plenty of murderers and rapists do not regret their heinous actions (I think they call those kinds of people psychopaths...but I digress.)

    My beef with what you have just spewed out on your keyboard is that you believe there is ANYTHING on the pro-choice side of the argument that supports abortion OTHER than bodily domain.

    Let us take your two arguments and parse them a little.

    First of all, you argue that you were justified in your abortion because, supposedly, you would otherwise be "forced" out of college. This argument fails as a defense for abortion because it fails in application to analagous situations. Would it also be justifiable to kill your child for this same reason if your child was 14 months old instead of 14 weeks? Of course not. Clearly then, the consequences that you avoided had no bearing on the justification.

    Your other argument is as easily dispatched. You claim that killing your child was justified because you would otherwise regret adopting the child to another family. Again, expand this argument to a 14 month old instead of your 14 week old fetus. Is it morally justifiable to kill your infant child rather than not want the child or else live with the regret of adoption? Of course not.

    Try this thought experiment out if you are having problems.

    Imagine that a man has broken into your house and has specifically and clearly attempted to kill you. You chose to defend yourself, however, and killed the man with, I don't know, a kitchen knife. Now, in scenario A, the man was a complete stranger and you had no malicious intent in your defense. In scenario B, the man was your mortal enemy and you specifically enjoyed killing this man. In either case, you are morally justified in your defense.

    Now, would it be correct to say "I am morally justified in killing this man because I hated him" ? Obviously, no. It may be true, and it may even be the REAL reason you killed the man, but it is not a morally justified reason, which can be clearly shown by applying it to analogous scenarios (such as shooting the mailman.)

    The point of the experiment is to showcase the concept of general principles. In our example, it is morally justifiable to defend yourself with lethal force, regardless of incidental motivations and not because of them.

    In simple terms, it is not okay to kill your child strictly for personal gain. Additionally, it is not okay to neglect your child of food, water, and shelter for personal gain. So the purely selfish motivation behind your abortion cannot defend your action.

    Normally, I view ignorance in this matter as a function of misinformation and/or a lazy mind, and cannot blame any person for that really. However, in your case, you had every motivation to shed your ignorance and to gather proper information, so clearly, your actions stem from stupidty, depravity, or, most likely, both.

    Of course, I'll give you the one point; you ARE probably real satisfied with your "well thought out" decision. Everyone else has got it wrong by giving you too much credit to understand or regret an evil decision.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 8, 2009 9:58 PM


    The embryo was 8 weeks, not 14. It looked like this:

    http://medpediamedia.com/u/Lifesize8weekfetus.jpg/Lifesize8weekfetus_large.jpg

    You assume I think a bean-sized embryo is equivalent to a 14-week-old baby, with equal rights to the person carrying it, in this case me. I do not. Nor did I ever think of it as a "baby." I saw it for what it was.

    Nice to know you think the 1/3 of American women who have had abortions are murderers and psychopaths, though. Sorry, still don't regret it.

    Posted by: Liz at December 8, 2009 10:09 PM


    "I'm glad I'm only considered a holding vessel for a child. That's the issue: an UNBORN child (one that has not seen sunlight, breathed oxygen, even become truly sentient) is privileged over MY health. "

    Sight and sentience are now prerequisites for protection against killing? Better tell all those blind kids and 5 month old infants to watch out!

    The issue is not whether or not your health is placed over or under the health of your child. The issue is whether or not the greatest life can be preserved. Abortion is rarely the best option. Most abortions boil down to the selfish decision to not want to be pregnant. Its akin to a parent not wanting to get up to feed his/her infant because of the strain on his/her sore knees.

    I say, call it what it is. Don't dress it up as something fancy. It would make discussion much more efficient if we could just cut through the crap.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 8, 2009 10:10 PM


    Liz: "You assume I think a bean-sized embryo is equivalent to a 14-week-old baby, with equal rights to the person carrying it, in this case me. I do not. Nor did I ever think of it as a "baby." I saw it for what it was."

    You have failed to see my point entirely. The very point is that you do not see it as the same, yet you argue in defense of your abortion from motivations that do not stack up UNLESS you assume that the fetus is not the same. Your desire to "not drop out of school," as specious as that claim was in the first place, is completely irrelevant.

    But tell me, in what way exactly does an 8 week old embryo differ from an 8 month old infant? I don't mean the obvious, "it is bigger." I know the physical differences. I mean to understand the qualitative difference that bestows rights.


    "Nice to know you think the 1/3 of American women who have had abortions are murderers and psychopaths, though. Sorry, still don't regret it."

    Posted by: Oliver at December 8, 2009 10:20 PM


    "Nice to know you think the 1/3 of American women who have had abortions are murderers and psychopaths, though. Sorry, still don't regret it."

    Oh by the way, yes they are murderers, and no, they are only PROBABLY psychopaths, if they do not regret their abortions. I can see how that complex idea confused you.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 8, 2009 10:24 PM


    "If you'd care to research the effects of pro-natalist ideology in action, check out how Romanian women (and their children) fared under a Communist regime that severely limited access to contraception and abortion. Definitely sound public policy, no?"

    Megan,

    Pro-natalist sounds the same as pro-lifer to me. You've provided evidence that your MPH courses are in fact teaching you how to be a pro-choicer.

    Have you learned anything positive about the pro-life position lately?

    Posted by: Janet at December 8, 2009 10:28 PM


    Megan,

    While I had promised myself not to post further out of respect for your post abortive status, I feel compelled to respond to a few issues you raise.

    First, if my Ph.D. in Molecular and Medical Microbiology (which included a hefty amount of developmental biology) did not guarantee the accuracy of my insights, or "enlightenment" as you correctly put it, I fail to see where your Bachelor Degree and smattering of MPH courses has somehow left you more competent to ascertain the human identity (or not) and status of the child whose life you chose to terminate. Of course, I really get how this is so. It's called pride and arrogance.

    Then there is your first reason for having had the abortion.

    "1. No desire to be a mother at this point in my life"

    The truth is that you ARE a mother at this point in your life. You became one the day you became pregnant. Tragically, you are the mother of a dead child instead of a living child.

    Your family history of weight gain? In three pregnancies and their subsequent C-sections, my wife lost her youthful figure. Having worked at becoming an honorable man, I see her new figure as having an indescribable beauty: the sacrifice she made to bring the three most beautiful children God ever made into this world. If that was the "price" we had to pay for our children, let me assure you, it was a mere pittance.

    School. We had all three of our children while I was in grad school. I worked ten hours a week teaching for my fellowship, thirty hours a week in my lab, and twenty hours a week doing private tutoring. I kept current on my assignments by reading with my babies sound asleep on my lap in the rocking chair. I won't lie. The stress was murder on my body, and it took a few years to get back into health after graduation.

    "5. Partner has student loans he can barely pay for, just got a job and is just starting to save up some money"

    I know men Megan. Counseling was my first career. Any man that would be content to see his baby die in order to "save up some money" is going to break your heart down the road. That's the perpetual adolescence I was describing further up on this thread. Real men protect their babies. Little boys get their jollies then head for the tall grass when the EPT shows positive.

    Resources. We had saved a bundle to buy a home. Then, after years of misdiagnosis, our son was diagnosed at age five with autism. On his fifth birthday his age equivalence in speech was 2.1 years, which is to say, nonexistent. His IQ tests came back very low average/borderline retarded.

    In addition to the resources from our Board of Education, we spent nearly $90K on extra therapies and teachers for him. I passed on several lucrative job offers because I would be working 12 hour days and not be around him to help. Six years later, after holding him back in kindergarden, he is in fourth grade (home schooled with his sisters), a straight A student, with the worst of the autism behind him. It was arduous work, seven days a week, but with God's grace and our participation I believe the worst is behind him. We still have a long way to go.

    All that and I'm 49 years old. I'm still teaching (part-time) and getting ready to resume full time work. To say the least, I am most unmoved by young graduate student tales of not being able to achieve because of a baby. In fifteen years of teaching, I have found the older married students with children to be the most motivated, least problematic (not given to whining over 1/4 point on a test), highest achieving of any. Most faculty will tell you the same.

    There's always taking a few years off from school until baby can go to pre-K, or going to school part-time, even in MPH programs. I know because I saw it in Columbia University's MPH program when I went to school there for post-baccalaureate premed/prescience and worked for a psychologist in the psychiatric epidemiology program.

    Should you at some point develop a conscience surrounding this tragic event in your life, know that with God there is always forgiveness, and several groups who minister to post abortive women. You swallowed the lies. I wish you well. My last word to you on this topic.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 8, 2009 10:32 PM


    You're terrified of women who don't regret their abortions because we prove you don't care about women or their well-being.

    Pro-lifers frame women as victims who were exploited by the abortion industry and are traumatized by their decisions. This allows pro-lifers to look like they actually care about women. It makes them seem compassionate. In fact, embryo worshippers are not compassionate. They do not value women's lives. Remember when "pro-lifers" thought that Italian 9-year-old rape victim should be forced to give birth--even though it could kill her? Forcing a small child to have her rapist's baby is NOT compassionate.

    Therefore, the existence of women who don't regret their abortions, forces you to admit that if you had your way, we would have been forced to stay pregnant against our will.

    Posted by: Liz at December 8, 2009 10:39 PM


    Lets see: lashing out calling those against abortion delusional liars.......

    Come back in 7 years and see if you still do not regret your abortion. When you have a "wanted" child and you feel your child kick? Or perhaps hiccup? Or see your child waving on the ultrasound? Will that bring back what could have been?

    Adoption isn't all bad! I have two cousins because of adoption. My aunt placed a baby for adoption and she was reunited with that baby 20 years ago, so I have an additional cousin.

    One of my cousins is married and he and his wife are looking into adoption. He was adopted by that same aunt who placed a baby for adoption when she was in her late teens.


    Melissa and Sara Gilbert, child actresses, were both adopted.

    http://www.adoptionopen.com/famousadoptions.html

    Imagine what the world would have been without Charles Dickens or Edgar Allan Poe?


    The problem with Planned Parenthood is that they present ONE choice only and that choice always ends with the death of a baby.

    Pro Lifers offer financial assistance, support during the whole pregnancy, free baby items, almost anything the woman needs. My local right to life group even had volunteers who were with a mother who had chosen life, when she was in labor and delivery. She is happy to have been embraced by the local pro life community, since the father has not been helpful. She has a beautiful son (I've seen a picture, they posted it during 40 days for Life).


    50 MILLION abortions!

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 8, 2009 10:41 PM


    In other words, it explodes your argument that you're protecting women from exploitation and depression--because we don't feel depressed or exploited.

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/church-excommunicates-mother-of-9yearold-rape-victim-ndash-but-not-accused-rapist-14218389.html

    Posted by: Liz at December 8, 2009 10:42 PM


    Whoa dudes, it EXPLODES our argument! You know, cuz the entire crux of defending preborn children from wanton destruction lies in whether or not all or even most women are aware of their actions. /s

    Our argument is simple. Human life, regardless of physical or mental development or lack thereof, is to be protected against unjustified destruction. (Re. mentally handicapped, coma victims with firm recovery chances, elderly, pre-sentient infants, etc.) Abortion for the sake of convenience (i.e. not wanting to gain weight, not wanting to be "responsible" for a human entering the world, not wanting to live with regret from adoption, etc.) is unjustified destruction. Preventing the real and likely death of the mother is a justified reason for the destruction.

    (Here the side splits a little, with some arguing that rape and incest also count, but of course for no descernable reason.)

    Personally, I make the case that having an abortion is neglect of the highest order. You deprived your child of food, water and shelter, for no other reason than an insignificant personal gain. This is akin to kicking your 4 month old out in the freezing cold because you are sick of all the annoying crying. (You have sensitive ears you know!)

    I also make the case that pregnancy itself is a dangerous accident, so to speak. Assuming that the mother is not responsible for becoming pregnant, which I am willing to concede for the sake of argumentation, neither the mother or child is at fault and both lives are in danger. The ethical path is to preserve the most life. The simple option is to maintain the pregnancy another 7 months and to have a C-section at around 33 weeks. That way the obligation to hold the pregnancy is kept to a minimum and the threat to the mother negligble.

    But I guess, that doesn't really matter, because some people don't regret immoral actions out of stupidity or either depravity. Shucks! Everything is blown wide open now!

    Posted by: Oliver at December 8, 2009 10:55 PM


    I'm not really sure whose comments I'm most incensed with, but alas, let me begin.

    1. The difference between a 14-week-old baby and a fetus is simple: a child is not a physical part of its mother's body, dependent on the mother as it may be. Fetus + mother=dyad. Child + mother=separate. I don't see anything else truly analogous to this situation.

    2. Pro-natalism is an extreme form of pro-life ideology inherently tied to the process of nation building. Romanian women suffered incredibly under the Ceauşescu regime. Women in countries that ban abortions also suffer from the consequences of illegal, botched abortions. Abortion rates aren't lowered with anti-abortion policy; abortion just goes underground and becomes much more dangerous to women.

    3. Gerard, I wasn't attempting to trivialize your education, so please spare me the condescension. It amuses me to know that we can both claim Columbia as an alma mater, though I guess they don't confer degrees in Patriarchy anymore. I'm heartened that you're such a righteous individual--truly. I'm sure your kids will grow up to be intolerable. I don't want to play "hierarchy of difficulties and oppressions." Kudos to your perseverance, Junior Achiever. It's unfortunate that some women just can't, or don't want, to deal with the difficulties of a pregnancy. We aren't justified in claiming the same moral high ground as you and your wife do. Too bad abortion is legal under federal law and women have been getting them--many qualm-free--since women realized they could regulate their fertility. But I guess all the post abortive women in history were all ignorant, operating under some kind of false consciousness, stupid, slutty, immoral, etc etc etc. I'd take your arguments more to heart if they were completely secular, Professor Gerard. Praise.

    I'm glad you "know" men. Are we returning to the discourse of biological determinism? Men aren't inherently douchebags; they're socialized that way. Reducing a woman's reproductive capacity will only exacerbate that issue. Also, please don't speak of women as if they lack sex drives. Women have sex for pleasure just as much as men do. God, I can only imagine your relationship's bitter bitter bed death.

    Posted by: Megan at December 8, 2009 11:17 PM


    "The difference between a 14-week-old baby and a fetus is simple: a child is not a physical part of its mother's body, dependent on the mother as it may be. Fetus + mother=dyad. Child + mother=separate. I don't see anything else truly analogous to this situation."

    First of all, not to parse your words too critically, but a fetus is NOT a part of its mother's body. It is attached to its mother's body. There is a large difference.

    Secondly, and more importantly, you still have failed to provide a meaning behind this separation. The question is not "what obvious characteristic distinguishes an infant from a preborn?" Otherwise, you could answer "its bigger," or another asinine response. The question is "what is the qualitative difference between the known, obvious states of a fetus and that of a preborn?"

    Consider conjoined twins for your analogy. Should either twin obtain independent rights?

    The rest of your post is drivel. Who cares what school you attended?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 8, 2009 11:34 PM


    Megan, Liz and Ashley...why did it have to be YOU VS YOUR BABY? Why did the ONLY way you could avoid poverty, the ONLY way you could continue school, the ONLY way you could move on with your life have to be killing your child? See, I love women and I love children. I don't think it has to be a war of mothers against their unborn children. It sounds corny but really, WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH?

    Gosh, I have soooo many friends who have had abortions. Most still profess to be staunchly pro-choice like you all. They will defend abortion till they are blue in the face and insist over and over that they are HAPPY they aborted. They pretty much sound like you. But then at ODD moments they will cry for their babies or voice regret..or just little things, like while out shopping they will see a baby that looks like them and say "I wonder if my baby would have had red hair too?" Strange to say things like that if you are HAPPY with your abortion and have NO REGRETS.

    My one friend had an abortion at 19 because her parents threatened and insisted and wore her down till she gave in. She promptly became a drunk. She would get drunk and scream at her mom "You made me have an abortion!" but when she was sober she would say "I really was too young. Its good I had the abortion." Her mother had to drive all over the county hunting for her drunk daughter in bars and this girl was arrested multiple times for DUI and public intox etc..

    She got pregnant again a few years later. Funny how she bought the pill month after month but never used it. And then she was SHOCKED when she learned she'd conceived again! Her parents once again started saying "Schedule the date and GET RID OF IT." Her co-workers said the same thing. No one supported her. I talked to her and encouraged her to give life to her baby. I told her she would never regret it. She chose life for her baby and I don't say it like "Woohoo, look at ME and how wonderful I am." but she did tell me that it was because of our conversation that she decided to give life to her child. And she had her baby girl. Today her mom who made her have the first abortion and wanted to her to abort this granddaughter is HORRIFIED that she ever wanted this baby aborted. In fact the mother said that to me with tears streaming down her face when I visited my friend in the hospital hours after the baby's birth. My friend sat nursing her daughter and said "I can't believe we almost threw her away!" That will always stay with me.

    Later that year she and the father married and she had a beautiful wedding that I was overjoyed to attend. And she gave up drinking, FINALLY. And now she and the husband have a nice little home, and she is back in school working hard to better herself. Having an abortion stunted her emotional maturity and growth. Having her daughter made her finally grow up. She got her priorities straight and ya know what? She and her baby girl are just fine. Abortion doesn't solve poverty. Abortion doesn't finish school for you. And having a baby doesn't mean you can't do those things. Thats such a cop out.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 8, 2009 11:37 PM


    I looked a the picture of the 8-week baby. I expected it to be a bad representation- but nope. arms, legs, hands and feet are clearly visible. That's just a teeny, tiny and amazing little human.

    I don't see how looking at those little arms and legs would make you feel BETTER about your decision to kill your child. If you see it for what it is, whose arms and legs are those? They belong to a person.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at December 9, 2009 5:52 AM


    Hi Liz.

    "I'm quite sure that in 7 years, when I'm happily married and raising WANTED children, I won't look back and say "I wish I'd dropped out of college and had that out of wedlock baby with my abusive boyfriend! Or put that baby up for adoption and felt horrible for the rest of my life knowing I have a child out in the world being raised by someone else!" Nope. I am happy with my decision."

    Why couldn't you have given birth to the baby and seen if you could raise it while going to school, and if not, THEN killed it?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 6:50 AM


    Morally speaking, that is. Not legally.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 6:55 AM


    Megan, cut the faux feminist bs.

    I told you that disability options exist to help pregnant women, and you've turned it into some sort of crusade against "pro-natalist" conquistadors.

    You're not making any sense at all at this point. The reason I brought up the disability is because you were trying to spin your pregnancy as a hopeless situation sure to destroy your life. I was merely pointing out that programs and laws exist to prevent that from happening. How you got from there to your hysterical screams of MY BODY MY BODY MY BOOOOOOOOOOOOOODY!!!!!!!!! is really anyone's guess. Calm down.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 9, 2009 9:15 AM


    "Why couldn't you have given birth to the baby and seen if you could raise it while going to school, and if not, THEN killed it?"

    Get it through your head. I don't consider a tiny embryo inside my own womb equivalent to a child out of the womb. And I'm never going to.

    Posted by: Liz at December 9, 2009 9:26 AM


    Liz said "Get it through your head. I don't consider a tiny embryo inside my own womb equivalent to a child out of the womb. And I'm never going to. "

    Why?

    Posted by: Lauren at December 9, 2009 9:31 AM


    Liz,

    "I don't consider a tiny embryo inside my own womb equivalent to a child out of the womb. And I'm never going to. "

    What's a good reason to believe that an embryo does not have the same moral status as a newborn?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 9:34 AM


    "I don't consider a tiny embryo inside my own womb equivalent to a child out of the womb"

    Also Liz, this answer exposes the real issue, as opposed to the question begging argument you gave above about how an abortion is needed when one is in school. As you seem to be admitting, you would not be justified in killing a 2 year old in order to finish school. Our claim is that the embryo is morally equivalent to a 2 year old, and that is the issue that needs to be addressed. If the embryo does not have the moral status of a 2 year, then there is no need to justify abortion with arguments about finishing school because you're not killing a human person. If the unborn is not human, no justification for abortion is necessary. But, if the unborn is human, no justification for abortion is adequate.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 9:42 AM


    "What's a good reason to believe that an embryo does not have the same moral status as a newborn?"

    Let's say a fire breaks out at a gynecologist's office, where there are frozen embryos in the freezer to be used for in-vitro. The firefighters have gotten everyone else out, and now they have a choice between saving the freezer full of frozen embryos...or a patient and her newborn infant. Who do you save? If frozen embryos are actually precious little babies, shouldn't you save 100 embryos instead of two people?

    Stumps the pro-lifers every time. Yes, I'm sure you'd let the mother and child die--living, breathing people who can feel pain and feel terror, who have real lives and families. All to save the precious, precious embryos who are equal people.

    So pick one. And it's a forced choice--not "I'd try to save them both." It's one or the other.

    Posted by: Liz at December 9, 2009 9:42 AM


    Liz, doesn't stump me at all. I would save the mother and newborn and here's why--because they are conscious and I wouldn't want them to feel pain and burn alive, NOT because their lives are worth more than the embryos. If there was a newborn to be saved or a 20 year old unconscious woman I would save the newborn first, not because his life is worth more than the 20 year olds. But because I would not want a conscious baby to feel the pain of burning alive.

    After I had saved the mother and newborn I WOULD try to go back and save the embryos, even at the risk of my own life, so there. The embryos lives are just as valuable as my own.

    Your question is not as clever as you think it is.

    Posted by: Sydney M at December 9, 2009 9:53 AM


    "Let's say a fire breaks out at a gynecologist's office, where there are frozen embryos in the freezer to be used for in-vitro. The firefighters have gotten everyone else out, and now they have a choice between saving the freezer full of frozen embryos...or a patient and her newborn infant. Who do you save? If frozen embryos are actually precious little babies, shouldn't you save 100 embryos instead of two people? Stumps the pro-lifers every time."

    Actually, no, this has been answered many times. Either choice is morally acceptable. First of all, it must be noted that this is a work of supererogation. In other words, you are doing a saving above and beyond the call of duty. And either work is a GOOD. We are also in a situation where one choice MUST be made. Someone will die, others will live, and our choice does not in any way affect how we understand the participants moral worth. Suppose the same situation is given, except we can save either a 2 year old or 100 90-year olds. Either choice would be acceptable. One would most likely choose the 2 year old because the two year old has his whole life ahead of him and has a higher chance of survival. But does that somehow imply that the 100 90 year olds are less human or less worthy of life? Of course not. So one would most likely save the newborn.

    But you would certainly not be unjustified in saving the 100 embryos. For suppose you save the 100 embryos and they all end up being implanted, born, and growing up. Suppose further that on their 20th birthday, all 100 [former] embryos throw you a party to celebrate the fact that you saved them from the fire. Would they be unjustified? Of course not! For it is a biological FACT that you saved THEM. Those 20 year olds throwing you a party are the same biological organism that you saved those 20 years ago in the fire.

    So either choice is morally acceptable. It is fallacious to assume that one determines one's morality through situations in which you are forced to make a choice between two goods.


    "Yes, I'm sure you'd let the mother and child die--living, breathing people who can feel pain and feel terror, who have real lives and families. All to save the precious, precious embryos who are equal people. So pick one. And it's a forced choice--not "I'd try to save them both." It's one or the other."

    Yes, I said I'd save the mother and child. What follows from that? As I mentioned above, one would probably want to save those who have the best chance of survival and who would feel the least amount of pain. How does a forced scenario like this translate into careful moral thinking? I would also choose to save my own 2 year old rather than 10 50 year olds. Does that somehow translate into "I don't REALLY think a 50 year old has the moral worth of a two year old?" But I would never chastise anyone who choose the 50 year olds rather than my child.

    So again, we must look at what the embryo is and how we determine one's moral status.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 9:55 AM


    Liz,

    Your perception is understandable. When we were expecting our first child, right up until the delivery, we went on with the normal rhythms of our lives. Regina went to work, I went to work and grad school. Three days after we went to the hospital, the baby who had been with us for nine months was with us still, but now in a very visible and audible way.

    Joseph was the same organism, same person as he was in utero, but unveiled he became a very different reality and entity to me.

    The tiny embryo in your womb is not at all equivalent to a neonate or infant insofar as form and function go. But then neither was the infant or toddler Liz equivalent in form and function to the adult Liz posting here.

    She has, however, been the same person throughout the continuum of development, entitled to her continued development, free from molestation. Her intrinsic human identity and dignity remain a constant.

    The law may entitle you to your own choice vis abortion. The law, however, does not have the power to change the immutable reality of the individual's unique and constant identity through every phase of the life cycle. Nor does the law establish that individual's human dignity, nor take it away. That much is God-given.

    The law simply gives the mother the power to kill that individual, despite its constant identity and intrinsic dignity. Therein lies the great tragedy of Roe v. Wade.

    As for happily raising children in seven years, I hope that you can. I hope that you are able to conceive, unlike so many post abortive women. When you do, and if through those subsequent pregnancies you come to an appreciation of what it is that you have done, I hope that you'll turn to your post abortive sisters in healing ministries such as Rachel's Vineyard. They'll be waiting patiently and lovingly.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 9, 2009 9:57 AM


    And guess what Liz? Fetuses are not unconscious. They are aware. Watch the Silent Scream. The baby could sense an intrusion into her little home. My son on ultrasound was sucking his thumb (thats his favorite comfort activity to this day), he was yawning etc...he wasn't some plastic baby doll. He was a living human being that could feel pain.

    Posted by: Sydney M at December 9, 2009 9:58 AM


    Sydney,

    "Your question is not as clever as you think it is."

    BTW, this argument was originally put forth by Ronald Bailey and then recycled by Ellen Goodman, and then became all the rage among popular pro-choice arguments. I find it analogous to the "what should her punishment be?" objection put forth by, I believe, Anna Quindlen.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 10:01 AM


    Liz,

    How about this one.

    A woman is about to abort her baby in room A.

    In room B is a woman who is joyfully expecting her first child.

    I can only save one. Which one should I choose?

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 9, 2009 10:09 AM


    I can only save one. Which one should I choose?

    It's not your place to "save" either. That's the mothers' decision.

    But I guess you can "save" the wanted one.

    I'm laughing at people trying to argue that embryos are people while admitting they wouldn't save them.

    Posted by: Liz at December 9, 2009 10:13 AM


    And for the record, I think saving a bunch of frozen embryos over a mother and child is not only "unjustified," but evil--and I know sane people agree with me.

    Posted by: Liz at December 9, 2009 10:16 AM


    What were you, Liz when you were an embryo?

    When did you magically become a human being??

    Please provide scientific evidence to back up your claims that an embryo is not a person.

    I do not blame you in the least for spouting here. You are repeating the same ol lies that have been spread for almost 50 years. That abortion helps women. Well, except for the female babies.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 10:17 AM


    Liz,

    No cop outs. The same requirements apply. If I must choose who gets saved, so do you.

    Choose and explain your choice.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 9, 2009 10:18 AM


    When I was an embryo, I was an embryo.

    And the "what if your mother aborted you?" card is not going to work on me.

    Posted by: Liz at December 9, 2009 10:19 AM


    Oh and Liz?

    What would you tell a friend that is suffering and struggling after her abortion? She cannot "get over it" or "get on with life" because she KNOWS deep down what she has done to her growing child?

    Just what do you think happens 9 months after conception? Never mind. Only wanted children are allowed to grow and be delivered and magically become human babies.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 10:20 AM


    Sorry. You can go to all of the other PC blogs to celebrate your abortion. I will not be linking to them here.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 10:24 AM


    Okay, I choose the wanted embryo to "save" (even though it isn't anyone else's place). Why? Because the mother should get to decide whether she wants to stay pregnant.

    And before you pull the "well then you can kill a 2 year old if you feel like it!!" card, remember I don't consider embryos people with rights. Neither do our laws and the vast majority of the American people--which is why in Colorado, voters rejected the personhood amendment, giving rights to embryos, 75 percent to 25 percent.

    Posted by: Liz at December 9, 2009 10:25 AM


    " And for the record, I think saving a bunch of frozen embryos over a mother and child is not only "unjustified," but evil--and I know sane people agree with me. "

    What's a good reasons to believe this?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 10:26 AM


    Bobby beat me to the solution. Kudos to him!

    The bottom line Liz is that it is impossible to evaluate life based strictly on numbers. I find it intriguing that progressives tend to find quantity of life such a significant factor.

    NPR posed this question on one of its programs.

    Suppose there is a train track with a junction splitting in two directions. One the north split, there are 5 workers positioned on the track. On the south split, there is only one worker. A runaway train is headed currently towards the north split, and you are the only one aware. You don't have time to yell out, or notify anyone in any way. You only have time to throw the junction switch to send the train down the south split killing the one man. Do you do it?

    Think carefully for a second...

    Now, imagine the exact same scenario except that there is only the north split, and the one worker from the south split is on a bridge overlooking the track. You also happen to be standing right behind this worker. If you push him off of the bridge, it will stop the accident. Do you push him to save the other five?


    What NPR found in its limited sample was that 80% of people would choose to throw the switch, but that 80% would choose NOT to push the worker, despite the exact same benefits.

    Why is that? Because people make moral decisions in this "gotcha" kind of scenarios from the gut and not strictly from reasoning. The bigger question is why would anyone throw the switch in the first place? What exactly about those five workers is more important than the one? Maybe the five workers are all convicted rapists on the chain gang and the one worker is a widowed engineer with 2 young children and a record of charitable deeds. Heck, maybe the 5 chaingang dudes are already on death row!

    (Then again, you are willing to kill someone to uphold your figure, so I doubt these ethical scenarios mean anything to you.)

    The assuption that your "gotcha" scenario relies upon is that numbers hold import in making these sorts of decisions.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 9, 2009 10:27 AM


    "Why? Because the mother should get to decide whether she wants to stay pregnant. And before you pull the "well then you can kill a 2 year old if you feel like it!!" card, remember I don't consider embryos people with rights."

    OK, fine, but then do you understand why "Because the mother should get to decide whether she wants to stay pregnant." isn't a justification then? It ASSUMES the embryo is not a person with rights, which should be the justification.

    So your reason above should be stated as "Why? Because I don't consider embryos people with rights." At least this is a legitimate place to begin a discussion.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 10:29 AM


    Wow Liz, those vaginas are magical aren't they? They somehow transform a blob into a baby upon delivery. Don't know how it happens if the mother has a C-section.

    No one said they wouldn't save the embryos. I said I would try and go back and save them even AT RISK OF MY OWN LIFE. I did say I would save the conscious mother and newborn first because I wouldn't want them to be burned alive. Also, I would not want them to die of smoke inhalation. The embryos would be safer longer.

    As a mom I think you are insulting. You are saying my son was not a human being when I carried him and that is an insult. So I was lovingly stroking my belly that only held a blob? So I whispered to a FETUS with NO WORTH? Pulease. He was my son from the moment he was conceived. He was a person.

    Posted by: Sydney M at December 9, 2009 10:30 AM


    Liz: "I'm laughing at people trying to argue that embryos are people while admitting they wouldn't save them."

    Who is saying that he or she would not save the embryos? If you want to test that, why didn't you ask "Would you run into a burning building to save 100 embryos?"

    I would.

    Imagine a fire breaks out in a hospital. You can only save a 20 year old nurse, or 3 NICU newborns, each with only a 20% chance of surviving the ordeal. Who do you save Liz?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 9, 2009 10:31 AM


    Excellent counter analogies, Oliver. This very clearly demonstrates the fallacy in trying to determine morality from scenarios. I like the term "gotcha scenario" term... is that an Oliver original?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 10:33 AM


    Liz,

    Why don't we just cut through the crap and get to the bottom line. Why do you view embryos different from newborns? What quality is sufficient to draw a distinction?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 9, 2009 10:34 AM


    "What would you tell a friend that is suffering and struggling after her abortion? She cannot "get over it" or "get on with life"

    Then she can go to counseling.

    You're pretending that all women feel exactly the same way after an abortion. I know someone who needed counseling after getting in a very scary car accident. I know others who have been in accidents just as bad, who didn't feel traumatized.

    The only emotion I felt after the abortion was relief.

    By the way, why are you trying to bully me into feeling guilty? Is that what you do to all "post abortive" women? Force them to feel traumatized?

    Posted by: Liz at December 9, 2009 10:36 AM


    Hey Liz, its 1865 and I'm a white slave owner. I don't consider black people to be people with rights. Neither does the law.

    CAUSE THE LAW IS ALWAYS MORALLY RIGHT, huh?

    Just because YOU don't consider someone to be a person with rights doesn't make it so. Just because a hundred sixty years ago certain people didn't consider others to be people with rights didn't make it so. Your evaluation of another human being changes nothing of their worth.

    Laws change...constantly. If pedophilia is someday legalized does that make it okay for a man to rape a 9 year old? Whether something is legal or not is a dumb reason to make a decision.

    Posted by: Sydney M at December 9, 2009 10:36 AM


    Bobby,

    Actually, to be fair, its a Lauren original. ;)

    Posted by: Oliver at December 9, 2009 10:36 AM


    I'm getting off this site for the day. I will continue to share my story and not be ashamed, and I will support pregnant women in whatever choice they make--INCLUDING abortion. Just to be clear, I'm glad I had mine last January, and I'm happier and healthier than ever. I will spread the truth that abortion doesn't ruin your life.

    Posted by: Liz at December 9, 2009 10:47 AM


    Liz,

    Some notable Supreme Court Decisions. How many of the following do you embrace?

    Dred Scott
    Plessy v. Ferguson
    Buck v Bell
    Korematsu v. United States

    Why or why not?

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 9, 2009 10:54 AM


    Liz: "I'm getting off this site for the day."

    I wonder why? Could it be that all of your bull got thrown up in your face?

    Pfft.

    Another pathetic, uninformed, pro-choicer gone. She probably has never even had an abortion, and was just using it as a tool for her argument.

    Oh and don't try to fit my disdain into some Mysogonistic fantasy. I just hate stupid people who pretend to be anything else.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 9, 2009 10:56 AM


    Liz,
    Project much?

    I am post abortive. Please do your homework. One of the first feelings after an abortion is relief. I felt that same relief. Denial can be masked by Increased drinking, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts and attempts, nightmares, Physical risks of an abortion can include infertility issues, sexual dysfunction, premature birth with subsequent pregnancies due to incompetent cervix....those are just some of the possible joys that abortion brings. It's textbook my dear.

    What do I do with all post abortive women I meet? Most of them fall into my arms sobbing and telling me that I am the only one they have ever told. I am a Rachel's Vineyard facilitator. I share with them the hope and healing that I have found after my daughter died in an abortion clinic in 1990. I am the WI Team Leader for Operation Outcry. You keep talking and telling your story. So will I.

    I will say this once. So, listen up. If you EVER feel that abortion has hurt you in any way I will do whatever it takes to help you. Whatever that looks like, whatever that means to you. I will be here. I will listen. You will be safe. I can't bear to imagine a woman struggling alone like I did for all of those years.

    Goodbye, Liz.

    National Helpline for Abortion Recovery
    1-866-482-LIFE

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 11:14 AM


    "I'd take your arguments more to heart if they were completely secular, Professor Gerard. "

    Megan,
    Check this out:
    http://secularprolife.org/

    I have to laugh when women complain about "patriarchal" societies. Half of the population is male so unless you want to be unhappy all your life, learn to deal with men and appreciate them instead of knocking them.
    If you want what's best for your own mental well-being, leave that MPH program before it's too late.

    Posted by: Janet at December 9, 2009 1:21 PM


    Megan, Liz,

    I WAS YOU. Had two abortion in my early twenties, and went on with my life, never looking back. Married at 32, had my first born child at the age of 34, second born child at age 37, then...

    I hit the wall of realization.

    Having my flesh and blood children in front of me hit me like a ton of bricks. If I could spare you the wailing in despair to the point of vomiting, I would, but I do not have that power. All I have is my story.

    Now, at 41, with two living boys ages 7 and 4, I have finally decided that I am ready, after much research and practicing my pro-life debating skills, will be doing my FIRST sidewalk counseling outside an abortion clinic in Austin, TX this weekend. I am nervous about it but thankful that God worked in my life to let me come to the realization of the horror of abortion in my own time. Would that it had come sooner, but all is done in His time.

    I will pray for you both, even though you feel you don't need it. I know what it's like to try and defend your actions by so militantly defending abortion as the best thing since sliced bread. The sooner you stop lying to yourself and others, the sooner you can get on with growing up.

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 9, 2009 1:35 PM


    Hey PajamaMama, nice to "see" you again!

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 1:51 PM


    Praying for you Pajama Mama!! So glad to hear you are heading out to help other women from making the same devastating choice that you and I did.

    God bless you!!

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 1:59 PM


    Thanks, y'all...who knows, I might just clam up and pray silently for the one hour I'll be there, but hey, it will be a start. Conveying my feelings and facts about abortion in writing is, admittedly, much easier and WAY different than doing it in person.

    Little. Steps. Make. Grand. Journies.

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 9, 2009 2:05 PM


    You can do it, Michelle. Go for it! We'll be praying for you.

    Posted by: Lori Pieper at December 9, 2009 2:17 PM


    I've e-mailed this post to several pro-choice bloggers because I think it is very revealing.

    You have two women telling you we don't regret our abortions. You have spent the last 18 hours hectoring, bullying, and telling us we're brainwashed and in denial. I'm sure this is what you do to other "post-abortive" women. Years after the abortion they're depressed or hurt by something else, and you will not relent until they agree to blame the abortion. It's brainwashing, really.

    I've also read about women who suddenly regret their abortions after they join a fundamentalist church. It's easy to suddenly claim abortion ruined your life years after the fact, when it's politically advantageous for your new church.

    I have no doubt many pro-lifers prey on vulnerable women who have had abortions (often years ago) and exploit them as cases of "abortion regret."


    Posted by: Liz at December 9, 2009 2:59 PM


    If you come here spewing the joys of your happy abortion we as prolifers want to engage in adult discourse over it. It is why we are here.

    If you come here for help and hope and healing after abortion I can absolutely point you in the right direction!

    Sorry. There is no "suddenly" during the years and years following an abortion.

    Brainwashing?? Riiiiiiiight.

    I thought you were leaving, Liz. Best get while the gettin is good. Before you are brainwashed I mean.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 3:14 PM


    Liz, I would ask you "why so angry?"...but I already know why, so I don't need to ask you. I will say, however, that you're not doing your cause any good by your snarky responses. In fact, Every Single Reason that you've given here for killing your unborn child and not regretting it I can easily refute and prove WRONG, as can many others here in even more conscise language. In other words, if you think your logic is your own, or that you're coming up with some angle we haven't all thought of and disposed of before, you should think again. You're the epitome of a know-it-all teenager who swears their parents know NOTHING and who thinks she INVENTED the world. I know you better than you know yourself. That may seems insulting to you, but it's true.

    In that vein, let me tell you that I had a blog a year or two ago that, for a time, served as a personal sounding board for me. I don't think it was ever commented on but a few times, and I haven't made an entry since March of 2008. However, I leave it out there in cyberspace, on the outside chance that a young woman searching for info or just a different perspective on the issue might stumble upon it and glean something useful from my thoughts put to "paper".

    Anyway, I wrote a blog entry back in February of 2007 about your exact, (and very "original" I might add) question to me;

    "So you're saying you wish you'd had those two kids in your early 20s? Because your life would have taken a completely different direction if you had, don't you think? Your two sons--the ones you ACTUALLY HAVE, not some embryos you aborted years ago--probably never would have been born."

    Here is my answer to you;

    REGRET DOES NOT MEAN DWELLING ON TRAGEDY

    Many women AND men may be afraid to admit that they regret a past abortion for fear of implying that they don't love their present children or their present spouse.

    Some spouses may take it this way. It's easy to see why. Had you not aborted your child, it may be unlikely that you would have met your spouse or had the children that you currently have. It's important that you gauge your spouse's personality and determine whether it is wise to express these feelings. If you do decide to go ahead and talk about this issue, it is useful to craft your words to make it perfectly clear that your feelings are not about rejecting your current family; what it IS about is examining one's life.

    Make it clear that, only through the love and wonder that your loved ones have brought to your life have you discovered what a gift you rejected in the past by turning to abortion. You are grateful that God has seen fit to give you a wonderful spouse and children in spite of your past rejection of that gift.

    You can regret the past and still embrace the present, if you just trust in God. Regret doesn't necessarily have to mean dwelling on tragedy...just learning from it is enough.

    "An unexamined life is not worth living."
    - Socrates

    http://prolifepajamamama.blogspot.com/2007/02/many-women-and-men-may-be-afraid-to.html

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 9, 2009 3:29 PM


    Very well said, Michelle.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 3:33 PM


    Oh, and Liz,

    It's not wise to walk into a church and complain when they preach the word of God to you.

    Likewise, your coming to a pro-life website and pulling the old "bait and complain" is just a little transparent. Where I come from, we call people like you "trolls".

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 9, 2009 3:35 PM


    Liz--my father died when I was 3. My mom then remarried my step-dad when I was 8. They have now been married longer than my parents were. My step-dad also lost his first wife. Both my mom and step-dad wish that their spouses had not died. Does that mean that they don't love each other and don't value their current marriage? Not at all.

    What a thoughtless comment to make Liz and not very bright. Its a comment that shows a lack of life experience, wisdom and maturity. I don't know your age but the comment is very childish with a simple understanding of life and the human heart. To say that you wish someone had not died means that the people currently in your life are worthless to you? Not at all. Michelle's boys know their mother loves them and she never said she wished they were not here. She never said that.

    If I found out my mom had aborted my sibling I would feel less loved, less secure. I would wonder if my mother ever thought of getting rid of me. I would worry that I could lose her love and she may want to rid herself of me too, should I become a burden.

    Posted by: Sydney M at December 9, 2009 3:47 PM


    And, Liz, I was not and still have not been a member of a church since well back into my childhood. I was never exposed to any pro-life rhetoric. There were no protesters outside the abortion mill where I had my babies killed.

    My epiphany came from within myself, and was initially purely based in science. My first instinct when I began to feel increased pangs of guilt was to search on the internet about fetal development, my main purpose being to find out, once and for all, how big my baby was at 12-14 weeks gestation when I had him or her killed. I DID ask the abortion center director minutes before my first abortion, but she refused to honor my honest and IMPORTANT question by actually answering it, instead responding with a wave of her hand "it's just a blob of cells". Mind you, this was in 1989, before anyone had the internet at their fingertips to just "Google" anything that struck their fancy in the moment.

    The God part came later; a natural progression, I guess. So instead of saying that religion pushed me toward regretting my abortion, I would actually say the opposite. Regretting my abortions made me realize that the only relief lies in the love of Christ.

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 9, 2009 3:50 PM


    If my mother had had an abortion, I wouldn't exist today to bemoan my lack of existence. There is no great lost to killing a fetus. Killing. I said it, alright? Have come to terms with it. Wasn't a child, won't ever be a child, case closed.

    Posted by: Megan at December 9, 2009 5:29 PM


    "If my mother had had an abortion, I wouldn't exist today to bemoan my lack of existence. "

    Megan,
    Yes, but think of how the lives of others would be different with out your loving presence in their lives (See the movie - It's a wonderful Life").

    Posted by: Janet at December 9, 2009 5:34 PM


    My daughter has a name. She is mine. She died in an abortion when she was 10 weeks along in utero. I left her torn and mangled body there in the abortion clinic for someone to piece together.

    Her name is Aubrey.

    You will respect the others here that have come to terms with the killing of their own children and grieve that loss.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 5:41 PM


    Megan :"Wasn't a child, won't ever be a child, case closed. "

    You might want to look up your definition of child. An embyro is an offspring, thus your child.

    I like how neither you nor Liz have answered the difficult questions.

    For example, Liz says...

    "You have spent the last 18 hours hectoring, bullying, and telling us we're brainwashed and in denial."

    I thought you presented examples that exploded our argument, or that we could never properly answer? If this is so, why do you completely ignore the reasoned posts directed your way? The others here are much more forgiving than I am. To me, you are just pathetic. You have a developed mind for a purpose, and yet you cowardly abuse rhetoric instead of utilizing reason.

    What exactly compels you to come to a pro-life site and spew meaningless talking points in place of engaging in reasonable discussion? I'm actually starting to think that maybe you DO have a heart and DO regret your abortion. Why else would you continue this BS?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 9, 2009 5:41 PM


    Hi Megan.

    "If my mother had had an abortion, I wouldn't exist today to bemoan my lack of existence. There is no great lost to killing a fetus."

    But if you were killed yesterday, you would not be able to bemoan your lack of existence today. I'm not really sure how this justifies abortion.

    Are you saying that in order to be protected from being killed, you have to have the ability to bemoan? Or maybe, more generally, be aware of yourself? Is it being aware of yourself that gives human beings inherent dignity and moral worth?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 5:45 PM


    Liz and Megan demonstrate the very worst effect of abortion: The deadening of conscience. In that, they are the most serious of abortions maternal casualties.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 9, 2009 6:04 PM


    Hey Hisman. I understand you have been very busy lately but I really miss having you post your beautiful prose about what abortion has done to men and women. I love the part about it making babies the enemy of their own mothers. If you can could you post it or maybe the mods could find it and post it and give you credit. I think it would be appropriate now. God bless you brother.

    Posted by: Prolifer L at December 9, 2009 7:24 PM


    Oliver, who do you think you are? Your comments have been the most intolerant, and simply irritating. How dare you question the truth of a woman's abortion narrative? Post abortive women who are JUST FINE with their decisions exist. Carla, I'm sorry about your regret, but I really dislike how you turn personal opinions into categorical imperatives. Abortion comes with a range of consequences, some of them emotional. Not all women suffer from them.

    This thread has truly been interesting. I've been met with sympathy; received assurance from strangers who believe I'm in a deep state of denial; and characterized as hysterical and amoral. This kind of harassment! seems counter-productive, no? If I'm so incapable of making decisions about my fertility, then I probably wouldn't have made a very good birth mother. Gosh, I probably would've smoked crack and refused to take my vitamins.

    I started posting here because I was initially annoyed at the invocation of slippery slope fallacies. Abortion has been legal in this country for how long? Over 40 years? I'm not seeing national action campaigns for the murder of developmentally disabled children. While this society certainly devalues individuals with disabilities (sadly, I may add), scientists, former Supreme Court judges, and women all over the world (including myself) draw a clear distinction between the human and the pre-human. This doesn't have to be scary and terrifying and mean that we (pro-choice individuals) devalue human life. Inside a woman's body, the fetus is not yet a fully formed human being. Separate DNA or not, that conceptus is, in every way, dependent on the woman's body. A child enters the world when it is born. Birth endows us with person-hood. Before that, we are in a dyadic relationship with our mothers. There is nothing analogous to this situation, as far as I'm concerned. If you kill an eight-year-old with severe mental retardation, you kill an eight-year-old with severe mental retardation. The eight-year-old, while definitely dependent on other people for survival, is not a physical appendage to a woman's body. This is the distinction.

    I don't like absolutism (even though I can become a little too staunch in my convictions). There are always murky areas of situations to be debated. But there is no countering faith. God is an absolute, nobody can argue against God, not even science. It's absolutism in its purest form. This line of reasoning requires people to take a noetic leap to share the same viewpoint. If only we would just believe in Jesus, if only we were more Godly, etc. Unfortunately, law in this country is not supposed to invite religion in through the back door.

    Posted by: Megan at December 9, 2009 7:49 PM


    Megan, it's quite obvious you think yourself to be quite smart. It's really a shame that you don't think critically, and instead feel the need to regurgitate everything you learned in Women's Studies 300.

    First of all, you aren't actually making any arguments. You're just making claims. You say that birth endows a human with personhood. Why? What is so magical about birth?

    Instead of crying that Oliver is a big meanie, why don't you actually respond to his points?

    It really seems like you are incapable of actually having a discussion. Your skill set seems limited to building and destructing strawmen. Instead of parroting what you've heard, why don't you actually think for yourself and actually address the issues.

    I'll make this simple for you. What about birth changes a human in any qualifiable way?

    Posted by: Lauren at December 9, 2009 8:05 PM


    Actually, pro-life rhetoric ruins the mother-child unity, casting the fetus as some kind of prisoner of war facing the gauntlet of female prerogative. An unborn baby is not yet a child. A fetus' life experience is circumscribed to the body of its mother. In condemning abortion, you privilege potential life over the mother's desires. In what way is she OBLIGATED to bring the fetus into the world? A good friend of mine asked me (before my abortion) if I would ever feel guilty aborting a child because I wouldn't be giving the fetus a "chance to live." No. Pregnancy is more complicated than giving birth, sending the kid off into the world and hoping that it will "have a fighting chance." We're not mice. We're not animals who proliferate merely for the sake of perpetuating the human race. We have more dignity, and can control our fertility so that every child is WANTED.

    I considered having the baby, but realized that adoption would be the only option. Open or closed, I didn't care. I would have felt personally responsible for the baby, my child, forever. I didn't want to endure that kind of pain, and didn't think I owed anything to the nascent human being--at that point, a group of rapidly dividing cells--in my body.

    Posted by: Megan at December 9, 2009 8:14 PM


    Lauren: After birth, the baby is no longer physically attached to the woman's body. It's no longer part of her body. It is physically autonomous. That is the difference. Right there.

    Also, cut the condescension. I haven't belittled your education. Also, I am addressing the issues. They're just not what you want to hear. Oh, and for the record--if you think systems of oppression like sexism don't exist and aren't worth commenting on, then you must be very sheltered indeed.

    Posted by: Megan at December 9, 2009 8:23 PM


    The amount of spin you put into your "arguments" is really something to behold. Let's break this down a bit, shall we?

    You say "pro-life rhetoric ruins the mother-child unity, casting the fetus as some kind of prisoner of war facing the gauntlet of female prerogative"

    Um, the last time I checked it was the pro-abortionists who place the child against the female prerogative. Pro-lifers say that life is sacred. Pro-abortionists say that the woman should have the right to kill her child. If anyone has ruined the mother-child unity, it's those who believe the mother should have the right to kill the child. Nothing quite ruins unity like homicide.

    You continue "A fetus' life experience is circumscribed to the body of its mother. In condemning abortion, you privilege potential life over the mother's desires. In what way is she OBLIGATED to bring the fetus into the world?"

    Yep, you're right. The child's life experience is limited to its life experience. Glad we cleared that one up. We aren't talking about "potential life" dear God, the idea that you're going for an advanced health degree is beyond frightening. The life is not "potential" we aren't talking about eggs and sperm. A new, unique human life was formed at amphimixis.

    If the mother desires to kill this new, unique life, damn right I put it's life above her desires. I have a bit of news flash for you, dear. The child is ALREADY in the world. Shocking, I know. Screaming that the woman isn't obligated to do something that has already been done is coming a bit late to the party, no?

    The rest of your post wasn't so much an arguement as a justification for your own homicide. You continued into a little rant about EVERY CHILD A WANTED CHILD and end with you being a selfish and deciding that you would rather spare yourself pain than avoid killing your child.

    How's that "wanted child" deal working for our society? More child abuse and murder than ever. Awesome. I also find it bizzare that you feel entitled to someone elses child (as evidenced by your desire to adopt) but don't feel like you could ever make the sacrifice you call on them to make. That really takes the cake.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 9, 2009 8:27 PM


    Megan says "After birth, the baby is no longer physically attached to the woman's body. It's no longer part of her body. It is physically autonomous. That is the difference. Right there. "

    Nope, that doesn't tell me what about the child has changed. That tells me that his location has changed. There's a big difference. What about the child is different?

    Also, again, for the 100th time. An unborn child is not part of the mother's body. If you were pregnant with a son, you did not suddenly have a penis.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 9, 2009 8:34 PM


    Well, we can blame the world's ills on abortion policy, right? Abortion and the dissolution of the nuclear family structure and the homosexuals. If women would just take it and procreate on demand, then the world would be right again. Are you going to start opposing contraception use, too? God, the semen in that used condom could have been a child! OH, just had my period! Could've been a child! Either way, a potential life has been destroyed--and isn't the former a pillar of Catholic family planning?

    I'm sorry, but as long as something lives INSIDE MY BODY, it is my property. Got that? Once I give birth, I'm responsible for ensuring the child's well-being. That's the law. That's how natural law's worked since the advent of the sonogram machine and the Christian Right needed to pull a power grab and chose abortion as the hot button issue.

    Posted by: Megan at December 9, 2009 8:41 PM


    ...and location change is everything. There's a huge difference between living inside or outside someone's body. Why does some kind of qualitative, morphological change have to take place for this argument to be tenable in a court of law?

    Oh wait, it doesn't.

    Maybe if we could incubate children in petrie dishes, your concerns would be valid. But we haven't figured out a way around using Mom's body, that fat complaining bitch.

    Posted by: Megan at December 9, 2009 8:46 PM


    Megan,
    See: secular pro-life.com for non-religious arguments against abortion.

    Posted by: Janet at December 9, 2009 8:47 PM


    ...and location change is everything. There's a huge difference between living inside or outside someone's body. Why does some kind of qualitative, morphological change have to take place for this argument to be tenable in a court of law?

    Oh wait, it doesn't.

    Maybe if we could incubate children in petri dishes, your concerns would be valid. But we haven't figured out a way around using Mom's body yet, that fat complaining bitch. Why can't she just suck it up???

    Posted by: Megan at December 9, 2009 8:47 PM


    Megan,
    So is abortion OK up to the point when the baby leaves the birth canal? or when the cord is cut?

    Posted by: Janet at December 9, 2009 8:56 PM


    Megan: "I'm sorry, but as long as something lives INSIDE MY BODY, it is my property."

    Ahh, so slavery is now the justification for abortion. Makes sense in a sort of macro way.

    Megan: "...and location change is everything. There's a huge difference between living inside or outside someone's body."

    Care to explain why one conjoined twin has no right to the other conjoined twin's life then? Heck, they live in each others body, so to speak.

    And no, location does not change everything. If my hand becomes accidentally stuck inside your uterus, you do not have the right to insta-kill me. The principle guiding the ethical solution to our problem would be simple. "We must do the best to preserve the most life." This principle is applied to conjoined twins in this exact scenario.

    Really though, it sounds as if you are confused. We are not asking "what conflict of rights justifies abortion?" We are asking "what makes a fetus have no rights when compared to a newborn?" The location of the fetus does not change the nature of the fetus itself. Though it seems, through your petri dish example, that you implicitly agree that a fetus by itself DOES indeed have the right to life. Hence my belief that you are really just confused.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 9, 2009 8:58 PM


    Megan: "But we haven't figured out a way around using Mom's body yet, that fat complaining bitch. Why can't she just suck it up???"

    Hey guys, don't be condescending to Megan by the way. That wouldn't be fair!

    Posted by: Oliver at December 9, 2009 9:00 PM


    Megan :"God, the semen in that used condom could have been a child! OH, just had my period! Could've been a child! Either way, a potential life has been destroyed!"

    Who is talking about potential? Excuse me if I missed that point. We are talking about the killing of a human life. Surely you understand the significant difference between a gamete and a human blastocyst right?

    Really, if anyone is talking about potential, it is the pro-abort types. Your concerns are all about killing a child to prevent the costs associated with the child post birth. By most reasoning, your motivation is akin to killing that child post birth to begin with.

    (Its a little fun watching the wheels go flying off the cart, I have to admit. Oh and I gladly admit to holding intolerance towards stupidity, especially when it is such a dire issue as abortion.)

    Posted by: Oliver at December 9, 2009 9:04 PM


    Megan -

    Oliver, who do you think you are? Your comments have been the most intolerant, and simply irritating.

    Oliver can be irritating, if you want to use that word - I'd say abrasive; he has outright called me stupid on more than one occasion. If you are able to be the bigger person and read past his tone, he often has some interesting points.

    Posted by: Alexandra at December 9, 2009 9:11 PM


    Megan, you said:
    "I started posting here because I was initially annoyed at the invocation of slippery slope fallacies. Abortion has been legal in this country for how long? Over 40 years? I'm not seeing national action campaigns for the murder of developmentally disabled children. While this society certainly devalues individuals with disabilities (sadly, I may add), scientists, former Supreme Court judges, and women all over the world (including myself) draw a clear distinction between the human and the pre-human."

    So, Megan, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are simply uninformed and that you've never heard of Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58229

    Inhofe: Some Senators Share Holdren’s View That Born Babies Are Not ‘Human Beings’
    Tuesday, December 08, 2009

    (CNSNews.com) - Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, says he believes some of his Senate colleagues share the view expressed by White House science adviser John P. Holdren in a 1973 book that human fetuses do not become “human beings” until sometime after they are born.

    Holdren co-authored Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich in 1973. The book calls for a “massive campaign” to “de-develop the United States” and concludes that redistribution of wealth “both within and among nations is absolutely essential.”

    On page 235 of the book, in a chapter titled “Population Limitation,” Holdren and his co-authors wrote: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect.”

    Holdren holds a Senate-confirmed position as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and is the top science adviser to President Barack Obama.

    CNSNews.com asked Sen. Inhofe in a video interview if he believed that Holdren should come to the Senate and explain whether he still believes these words in his book and what he meant by them. Inhofe, who is pro-life, responded that he believed Holdren’s view that a fetus does not develop into a human being until sometime after birth is shared by some members of the Senate.

    There are members of the Senate who would probably agree with that,” said Inhofe. “I mean, those of us who believe—and, scripturally, we, obviously, we are on solid ground—that life begins at conception. Many members of the Senate don’t believe that. And that’s why you are getting into the big abortion argument.”

    Inhofe said that he not only thought some of his colleagues did not believe a fetus develops into a human being until sometime after birth, but said he thought some of his colleagues would actually state that this was their belief.

    “I think they would actually tell you that,” said Inhofe.

    “They would be candid enough to actually say that?” CNSNews.com asked.

    “I think they would, yes,” said Inhofe.

    CNSNews.com has asked the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to make John Holdren available for a video interview about his past writings on human ecology, population, and the environment. The invitation has not been accepted.

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 9, 2009 9:37 PM


    Or, in case you would immediately dismiss any criticism of this man because of his association with the Obama Administration (I don't know, maybe you're one of the ObamaBots), I can point to Peter Singer;

    http://www.equip.org/PDF/DD801.pdf

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 9, 2009 9:47 PM


    "Inside a woman's body, the fetus is not yet a fully formed human being. Separate DNA or not, that conceptus is, in every way, dependent on the woman's body."
    Posted by: Megan at December 9, 2009 7:49 PM

    The argument that because the fetus (which is as fully formed as its development requires it to be at that age) is dependent on his mother, that makes it OK for her to end his life is absurd.

    Imagine you're a passenger on a plane. Presuming you can't fly the plane yourself, if the pilot and co-pilot strap on parachutes and tell you they're bailing out, are they less responsible for your inevitable demise BECAUSE you depend on them to continue flying the plane until landing? No, they are MORE responsible because you are a passenger.

    "I considered having the baby, but realized that adoption would be the only option. Open or closed, I didn't care. I would have felt personally responsible for the baby, my child, forever. I didn't want to endure that kind of pain, and didn't think I owed anything to the nascent human being--at that point, a group of rapidly dividing cells--in my body. posted by Megan 8:14

    News flash, Megan: you were a mother when you conceived your son or daughter. An abortion didn't change that, it just made you the mother of a dead child. I'm sorry if that's overly blunt, but it is truth. If a child only enters the world when he or she is born (your words, 7:49), please explain who was reassembled, piece-meal, at the abortuary to ensure you didn't retain any of his or her body parts?

    Posted by: klynn73 at December 9, 2009 9:55 PM


    from
    http://www.equip.org/PDF/DD801.pdf

    "Using an illustration taken from J. P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae, consider a man entering a room. He can enter it gradually, be in halfway, and then enter it fully. During all stages of entering, the man must first exist in total to do the entering. Likewise, someone cannot be in the process of becoming a human person, since one must first exist in order to enter any process; nor can we say that the fetus becomes a person as it develops, since he or she must first exist in order to do the developing."

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 9, 2009 10:02 PM


    Or how about what's going on in the Netherlands?

    http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/noa.htm

    But, what?...you say "but we're not Holland"...ok...

    PROMOTION IN THE UNITED STATES

    The initial proposal for legalization of euthanasia in the United States was, in fact, aimed at permitting involuntary euthanasia for children, as well as adults.

    On January 17, 1938, the New York Times reported the official formation of the Euthanasia Society of America.(22) Within a year, the organization was ready to offer a proposal that would legalize "the termination of human life by painless means for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary suffering." According to Charles Nixdorff, the society's treasurer, the measure was limited to voluntary euthanasia because public opinion was not yet ready to accept a broad scope encompassing infants and incompetents. However, the article noted that the society "hoped eventually to legalize the putting to death of non-volunteers beyond the help of medical science."(23) Dr. Foster Kennedy, the euthanasia society's president declared that euthanasia was "needed mainly for defectives." He urged the "legalizing of euthanasia primarily in cases of born defectives who are doomed to remain defective, rather than for normal persons who have become miserable through incurable illness." (24)

    In a 1941 poll of twenty-five thousand New York State doctors, conducted by the Euthanasia Society, 27 percent of respondents favored euthanasia for severely disabled children. The poll did not differentiate between newborn and older children. (25)

    The following year, Dr. Kennedy came up with a plan for child euthanasia. In an American Journal of Psychiatry article, he wrote: "I believe when the defective child shall have reached the age of five years — and on the application of his guardians — that the case should be considered under law by a competent medical board…" If careful board examination determined that the child was considered to have "no future or hope of one," he continued, "then I believe it is a merciful and kindly thing to relieve that defective — often tortured and convulsed, grotesque and absurd, useless and foolish, and entirely undesirable — of the agony of living."(26)

    While Kennedy boldly stated the goal of the Euthanasia Society, the organization's public stance increasingly revolved around the more acceptable concept of voluntary euthanasia for adults.(27)

    Just as it is easy to dismiss what is happening in the Netherlands by saying, "We're not Holland," it would be simple to describe proposals of the 30s and 40s as aberrations of the past and declare, "That was a long time ago. No one would suggest such a thing today." But such things indeed are being suggested. The prospect of mercy killing for children entered the realm of "respectable debate" in the 1980s and 1990s.

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 9, 2009 10:18 PM


    "I started posting here because I was initially annoyed at the invocation of slippery slope fallacies. Abortion has been legal in this country for how long? Over 40 years? I'm not seeing national action campaigns for the murder of developmentally disabled children. "

    Megan makes a good point here folks. She's quite correct in stating that there are no national action campaigns for the murder of developmentally disabled children.

    That's because the abortion crowd is too busy killing them in the womb as fetuses. 92% of all Down Syndrome babies are prevented from ever seeing the light of day.

    But it's a cute argument.

    Yes Megan, it's true that Columbia University doesn't offer degrees in Patriarchy anymore. But it seems that sophistry has replaced critical thinking as the cardinal virtue of Alma Mater's scholars. Abortion has become the sacrament of initiation into the ranks of feminist scholars in the Ivies. How very, very tragic.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 9, 2009 10:19 PM


    Megan, Liz

    If so inclined, you could get and stay updated on the cutting edge of life and euthanasia issues by regularly visiting Wesley Smith's blog on bioethics and the importance of being human at
    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 9, 2009 10:21 PM


    Good Point, klynn73.

    If its NOT a baby, you weren't pregnant. But you were pregnant with a baby. A baby HUMAN. Not a kitten or a puppy or an elephant or a fish. A human being.


    And some childless couple out there could have adopted and cared for your baby.


    My aunt placed her child up for adoption nearly 40 years ago. For years we actually had no idea that she had had a baby as a young woman. Then 20 years ago (May 1989) right after my sister's high school graduation, we learned of my cousin. She and my Aunt were reunited and have a pretty good relationship. Oh and it turns out my sister and my cousin (who went to the same high school) once fought over the same boy!

    This same Aunt ended up adopting with her husband because they had trouble having a child of their own.


    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 9, 2009 10:33 PM


    Ah yes, the "every child a wanted child" argument. Wasn't it the abortion rights crowd who said that abortion would mean every child that is born is WANTED and thus child abuse would cease?

    Huh. In 1973 the number of child abuse cases in the US was 167,000. By 1982 it had risen to 929,000. Thats quite an increase. Oh yeah, and by 2008 it was at 2.6 MILLION cases of child neglect and abuse. These figures were found on an online almanac and confirmed on a child abuse/child advocacy website. So why has child abuse steadily INCREASED if every child born is a wanted child now that abortion is every woman's "right"?

    Maybe because if you treat the child in the womb like an OBJECT to be birthed if wanted and discarded if unwanted or burdensome then that attitude naturally is retained once the child is born...or if that child is aborted, when later children are born. The "I can decide if the kid lives or dies by my whim" mentality that has permeated our society has naturally poisoned their view on everything including their "wanted" children. I mean, whats the big deal if you break your two year old's arm while angry? at least you didn't ABORT him,which you COULD have...

    Children are no longer seen as precious individuals but as "pets" almost...put them in cute outfits and go to the portrait studio to get cute pics done...and then get them out of your sight. right? You're pregnant? Its inconvenient right now? You want to finish school? You don't love the father who you just slept with last week? Oh just have the kid sucked out. No big deal. And then magically later in life you will transform into this selfless loving devoted mother who will move mountains to provide for her child! Are you kidding me? Abortion colors everything Megan.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 9, 2009 11:01 PM


    just because of this thread, I'm going to sign up to be a clinic escort, to help women who want to terminate their pregnancies, like I did with no regrets.

    On January 7th (the first anniversary of my abortion), I will thank God I had that choice and was able to get on with my life. Since the abortion, I've stopped drinking (I was a borderline alcoholic before it and was arrested for DUI), stopped sleeping around, and found a man I love, who understands my reasons for aborting.

    "Post-abortive" syndrome IS A LIE. My abortion allowed me to break free from my destructive lifestyle and start a new life, away from the man who impregnated me.

    I can't wait to become more active in the pro-choice movement.

    Posted by: Liz at December 9, 2009 11:46 PM


    Thanks Sydney M. for your post. You have called the culture of death created by abortion-on-demand just what it is, a culture that has sacrificed our children on the altar of "every child a wanted child", selfish convenience and sexual promiscuity. Now we have disposable babies like disposable diapers, you throw babies you don't want away as medical waste. The ones you decide you "want" you get to take home with you wrapped in a beautiful blanket. This is schizophrenic, the ones you don't want are not human beings or living they are "a fetus" or a "product of conception" but the ones you do want you get to tell people "I'm having a baby. You can congratulate me".

    "Most abused children were originally wanted and planned. In a study of abused children 91% had been wanted and planned for" (Study by Dr. Edward Lenoski, Professor of Pediatrics and Emery Medicine at U of SC School of Medicine).

    Posted by: Prolifer L at December 9, 2009 11:50 PM


    That's it, Liz...double down on evil. It will just compound your culpability in the murder of your unborn child. But hey! We're all so glad killing a baby did all those great things in your life. Most people just live that way to begin with, sans abortion.

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 10, 2009 6:55 AM


    "just because of this thread, I'm going to sign up to be a clinic escort, to help women who want to terminate their pregnancies, like I did with no regrets."

    Liz,

    Along the way in life, I've known people who have committed suicide and left notes meant to inflict horrendous guilt and suffering on those left behind. For a time those notes succeeded in accomplishing their goals on some of the survivors. I and others were able to prevail upon them to see the suicide for what it was-a cowardly act of aggression from a very psychologically immature person who hadn't cultivated an alternative way of resolving their personal and interpersonal conflicts.

    This last post of yours was a spiritual suicide note, meant to do the same. It failed. I suspect that if you found your abortion as wonderfully liberating as you say, then you would have become an escort anyway.

    On the other hand, if you are going out to serve as a head hunter because you can't hold your own in a debate with people with whom you disagree, then you are no different than the one who commits suicide in order to punish those with whom there is conflict. In doing so you become more of a coward as it is the lives of innocents you seek to end in order to satisfy your tantrum.

    I doubt your spiritual suicide note has had its intended effect on any of the spiritually mature denizens of this blog.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 10, 2009 7:12 AM


    For those of us who have killed our children too, Liz your comments are not at all surprising. You must try to convince others of the "rightness" of your choice by helping them to make the same choice that you did to justify it. Been there. Done that.

    Can't wait to read your book How Abortion Cured My Alcoholism. Sounds amazing.

    I think this is good bye for the third time. Toodles already.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 10, 2009 7:33 AM


    Make sure that the pregnant mothers don't see the photos, Liz! Don't worry about the fact that if the photos are anything new to them, they just MIGHT not be as fully informed as the abortionist would have you believe. And if they're informed and have made their decision, then the pictures shouldn't bother them one whit.

    I can understand the knee-jerk, Liz. Faced with the reasoned arguments you've seen here in support of life over abortion, you really had only two options; realize your mistake and repent; or, turn militant promoter of the abortion "panacea".

    I wouldn't want to be in the room with you ten years from now when you grow up and realize that your shrill defense of the indefensible has contributed to the deaths of more than just your own child, but possibly hundreds of others' children, depending on how long you succeed in continuing your self-deluding charade.

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 10, 2009 7:42 AM


    It really is unfortunate that abortion's become the primary focus of the feminist movement these days, but that's because we're up against legions of wingnuts who believe pregnant women are mere holding vessels for unborn children. Sorry, but I don't want to be subordinated in importance to a--yes--collection of cells. A woman's the best judge of her own health and well-being, and if she deems a pregnancy "inconvenient," then she doesn't need to justify the choice.

    Inconvenience. Ha. As if having a baby were as simple as playing host for nine months. As if a woman's body didn't undergo extreme morphological changes during that time. As if nobody needed to procure money for doctor's visits, prenatal care, extra food, etc. As if maternity leave were easy to get with an entry-level job. As if we didn't have to fight to keep athletic and academic scholarships, while having the energy to still attend classes and complete our work. As if there weren't already pages and pages of babies in adoption agency catalogues looking for that nice shiny happy family. As if everything could just go back to normal after those nine months.

    Ah, but those are all just the sacrifices we need to make to FREE that poor, rapidly growing collection of cells, eh?

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 10:40 AM


    Ah, wait for it--wait for it--Gerard's didactic moral of the day! Let's hear more about your personal story of personal hardship and perseverance. I would LOVE another moralizing "back in the day, when my wife and I were in graduate school and had to walk 15 miles to the clinic..." Must have been a gratifying experience, since you WANTED to be a father.

    Oh, and to claim that child abuse is the direct result of changing abortion policy is completely ridiculous. First, women were having abortions long before the procedure was legalized. Two, that kind of statement ignores all the other major, sociological and structural changes that happened in the United States during the last few decades. How about the feminization of poverty, deindustrialization and decaying urban centers, federal policy that values war over educating its own children?

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 10:50 AM


    Megan,

    I'm sorry, but what part of the difficulties of pregnancy were you unaware of before you had sex, while knowing full-well that you did not fulfill these criteria for being a proper parent? Was it news to you that sex can lead to pregnancy?

    I also find it sad that you acknowledge abortion has been substituted for real solutions to social and financial inequities, yet you refuse to take the logical next step and name it for what it is; a mechanism for keeping women and children down; an excuse to those in power for failing to address the inequities. It's the lazy way out for pregnant mothers, and the lazy way out for those who should be solving the problems, not killing those who would be affected by them.

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 10, 2009 10:53 AM


    *policies that actually affect children who've been born.


    OH, (in response to a previous post), if your hand "somehow" ended up inside my uterus, I'd have the right to cut it off. Self defense.

    Nothing is analogous to pregnancy. No "man half in and half out of the room," "pilot and his passengers," etc. And conjoined twins: they're mutually dependent. Not the same as pregnancy.

    due process due process due process due process

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 10:55 AM


    And yet, Megan, all you've done on this site is to attempt to justify your choice. I know you're angry. I know you're misdirecting that anger at us here.

    If you must, keep telling yourself whatever you need to about the pro-life movement (i.e "wingnuts"). But the "wingnuts" are the ones who are out there providing maternity homes, care, tutoring, pregnancy support, money, food, diapers, etc, for those experiencing unplanned pregnancies. Free of charge.

    Keep calling it a "collection of cells" if that's what it takes. In truth, we're all just complex "collections of cells."

    The unborn child is not your ENEMY, Megan. That is the problem with the "feminist" movement of today. It equates pregnancy and motherhood with indentured servitude instead of one of the greatest privileges in life. (Our feminist foremother, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, had 7 or 8 children, I believe, and she was PROUD of the fact, and spoke out against abortion, along with the others of her time, who clearly had more reason than feminists of today.)

    Here's a thought: Maybe instead of killing our children to keep our academic scholarships, how about we lobby the system and DEMAND that they treat pregnant women the same way they'd treat others. Hmm? How about we do the same with our employers? I know of women who are fighting for these very things. How about we change the definition of "feminism" to mean "I can have BOTH. I can be whoever I want to be AND I can raise a family/give this child life, because I am strong enough to do it."

    No, Megan, things don't go back to normal once you've been pregnant. They don't go back to normal after a full-term delivery and they don't go "back to normal" after an abortion. You always have that with you. You have to find yourself a "new normal." The only thing that is constant is change.

    Posted by: Kel at December 10, 2009 10:57 AM


    Considering that pregnancy is the *intended* result of sexual intimacy between a man and a woman since the beginning of time, and the woman's body is designed for pregnancy.....


    And then consider that there are those who so desperately want a baby and they go and kill or injure a pregnant neighbor to steal their baby!


    Oh, and good points, Sydney. Child abuse has skyrocketed. The Abortion industry seemed to think abortion would be a cure all for everything: child abuse, poverty, etc. But instead it creates anger, more abuse (drug and alcohol abuse in addition to child abuse) and other destructive behaviors.

    Please listen to Carla. She's been through this.


    Life: A Beautiful Choice.

    Abortion: A Choice that will eventually turn around and haunt you.


    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 10, 2009 10:58 AM


    "yet you refuse to take the logical next step and name it for what it is..."

    Again, the assumption that I haven't clearly thought about these issues. Hilarious. Abortion is part of reproductive choice. It allows women to continue living their lives (having sex, yes) without having life upended by an unintended pregnancy.

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 11:00 AM


    BTW, we are all "masses of cells", too.

    Wow, you're all over the place; first you acknowledge abortion is killing, and say "so what?". Then, you say the fetus is just a "mass of cells" and therefore abortion is not killing.

    You say the decision to have an abortion requires "no justification", but you then proceed to give a host of (flawed and easily refutable) reasons to justify it.

    It's called grasping at straws. Why don't you grab onto something solid, like personal responsibility? It's incredibly freeing.

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 10, 2009 11:06 AM


    Kel, I actually agree with you. I truly am dismayed that organizations like NARAL are more focused on maintaining abortion legality than making it easier for pregnant women to have children if they want to. Colleges should make life easier for pregnant women. But even with all the help in the world, some women will still choose abortion, divorcing sex from its procreative function. Women should be offered an array of options. Some still won't choose "mother."

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 11:07 AM


    Hi Megan.

    "if your hand "somehow" ended up inside my uterus, I'd have the right to cut it off. Self defense. Nothing is analogous to pregnancy."

    Do you realize that you contradict yourself here? You give an analogy as to why you should be allowed to kill the unborn by comparing it to someone who puts their hand in your uterus, and then immediately say that nothing is analogous to pregnancy. Which is it?

    But let's take your right to do whatever you want with your body, including direct killing an innocent human being as a means or an end, to its logical conclusion. Suppose you are pregnant with a wanted child, but you have horrible nausea and sickness. There is a drug called thalidomide, which was thought to be a wonder drug for nausea and the like. However, it was found out in the 1960s that thalidomide caused severe birth defects when pregnant women took it. You can google image thalidomide to see pictures of children missing whole limbs and the like as a result of their mothers taking thalidomide when they were pregnant with them. Now suppose you are well aware of the effects that the drug has on your unborn child, but decide to take it anyway, saying that you don't care if your child is born with severe defects- you will love the child anyway. Anyone who would do something like that I would call a moral monster, yet under your bodily ownership hypothesis, you would have the right to do this to your unborn child. So should a pregnant woman be allowed to take thalidomide?

    "And conjoined twins: they're mutually dependent. Not the same as pregnancy. due process due process due process due process"

    Megan, you can't simply blow this argument off. In fact, lets create a situation in which they are not independent. Suppose we have a case of conjoined twins in which doctors agree that they are in a position where they can safely separate the two twins. Suppose further that one of the twins has poorly functioning kidneys and the organs of the twins are connected in such a way that the twin with the poorly functioning kidneys is using the healthy twins kidneys for her physiological needs. If the twins are separated right now, the twin with the bad kidneys will die due to kidney failure, but the twin with the good kidneys will live. However, the doctors believe they can safely transplant a donated kidney into the twin with the bad kidney which will allow her to live on her own once they are separated. It will take 9 months, however, for the donated kidney to arrive.

    Here we have a situation in which one twins life is dependent on the other twin. In other words, one person needs the other person to survive. Would the twin with the healthy kidney be justified in insisting that she be removed from her sister because her sister is "using her body" even thoguh her sister will die as a result?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 10, 2009 11:12 AM


    I never said abortion wasn't "killing." I ended a life. Just not a "fully formed, unique, separate, whole, yada yada yada South Dakota informed consent law BS person."

    And I did take personal responsibility for the situation. I had an abortion. Noone's issue but my own.

    Ha, listen to Carla, as if nothing I say has any validity. But I'm delusional, no?

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 11:13 AM


    Hitler admitted he was killing too, Megan. He just didn't think Jews were people either.

    If you don't want to be a mother and you don't have money for doctor's visits its called ADOPTION. Adoptive parents will pay for all the medical necessities and you won't have to parent a child you don't want. And your kid still gets to LIVE.

    I am so glad I had an unplanned pregnancy. My child wasn't an intruder, a parasite or my enemy seeking to destroy my life. And guess what, I'm a little rounder than when I wasn't a mother but its a small price to pay for the PRIVILEGE of being a little boy's mommy, who btw right now is climbing on me like I'm a jungle gym. Gotta go.

    Posted by: Sydney M at December 10, 2009 11:27 AM


    Megan,
    No, not delusional. I have been where you are. I have said what you are saying. I have done what you have done. I am almost 20 years out from my abortion and have learned a little bit.
    If you go to youtube and type in Abortion and Forgiveness my video is there. I am in the brown sweater. That is my story.

    Thanks, Liz. :) Nobody listens until they are ready to listen. I can wait.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 10, 2009 11:30 AM


    There is a bill I wish would have passed in congress before Obama became President. Its called the 'Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act of 2005'. It would require colleges to help provide care for pregnant and parenting students.


    Info from Feminists for Life:

    If passed, the act would establish a pilot program to provide $10 million for 200 grants to encourage institutions of higher education to establish and operate a pregnant and parenting student services office. The on-campus office would serve parenting students, prospective student parents who are pregnant or imminently anticipating an adoption, and students who are placing or have placed a child for adoption.


    I really wish this could be passed in congress. It certainly would help women who are scared and thing abortion is their only choice instead of thinking they have to drop out of school. :(

    Posted by: LizFromNebraska at December 10, 2009 11:40 AM


    I absolutely agree that colleges should make having children easier. Current policies are discriminatory, especially considering women that in their twenties are at the peak of fertility. Reproductive freedom means making all options feasible for a pregnant woman.

    I worked at a pro-choice organization a couple years back, and I really was dismayed that abortion was our primary focus. What about advocating for housing reform? Improved health care access to all women? Better maternity leave policies? Equitable adoption policies for lesbian and gay individuals?

    Politics has dictated that abortion must be the primary focus of the reproductive rights movement, not some anti-life, anti-woman ideology. I'm post abortive. I believe in adoption, but it wasn't the right choice for me. I'm grateful for the options I did have.

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 12:00 PM


    I have been where you are. Posted by: carla at December 10, 2009 11:30 AM

    I have been where Megan's child was. I was an unplanned "clump of cells". At what point was I entitled to human rights? When I was conceived? At the point my birthmother decided not to abort me? At the point I was physically separated from her at birth? On the day a judge ruled in my best interest to make me a ward of the state? Unless I obtained my human rights at conception, they are not basic rights. They are merely rights I was selectively granted based on another's decision.

    What's to stop culture of death proponents like Megan from deciding that my human rights, which aren't basic but were subject to decisions of another, can be further restricted or withdrawn entirely? What's to stop culture of death proponents (who cannot view Megan's human rights as basic because she was granted them by her mother) from selectively restricting hers if she enters a phase of the human life cycle considered unworthy of protection?

    When any phase of the human life cycle can be singled out as unentitled to basic dignity, worth, and rights, then all phases of the human life cycle are vulnerable. The same society that Megan celebrates as permitting her to end the life of her unborn son or daughter for her own betterment is the same society that will support Megan's born children to end her life one day if they perceive it as being to their benefit. When all human life is not protected, the lives of all humans ultimately become vulnerable.

    I believe in adoption, but it wasn't the right choice for me.
    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 12:00 PM

    I hope, Megan, that you are never incapacitated or reach a phase of life where you cannot advocate for your basic rights and are forced to depend on the good will of others. But if you should one day find yourself in that position, prolifers like me will be championing your human dignity and your basic human rights, even though you would deny those same benefits to unplanned clumps of cells like me.

    Thank you, Lord Jesus, for the gift of life! Thank you for strengthening my birthmother to bring me into this world in spite of hardship and illness. Eternal rest grant unto her, o Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon her. May she rest in peace.

    Posted by: Fed Up at December 10, 2009 1:44 PM


    "Ha, listen to Carla, as if nothing I say has any validity. But I'm delusional, no?"

    No Megan, it would be better for you if you were. You're actually quite a mean and spiteful person who doesn't know how to carry on a debate in a civil fashion. Post-abortive aside, this is apparently a part of who you were before the abortion. I'll cut you this much slack, it isn't done in the Ivies anymore. Students learn to ridicule the opposition from their faculty. Part of that tolerance and inclusivity that's the coin of the realm.

    Too bad you believe that people sharing alternatives is "moralizing" and feel a need to ridicule it. As I said, your not delusional, just a snotty little girl who'll steamroll anyone who gets in her way. Get well soon.


    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 10, 2009 3:56 PM


    FEDUP--wonderful wonderful post.

    Carla I watched your video and cried the whole way through. I am so so so sorry for your loss and heartbreak and I am so thankful that you are speaking out and showing women the way! You have made me re-evaluate the way I see post-abortive women and how I react to them. And I praise God I have never had an abortion! I can only imagine I would be an angry person too if I had gone through something so heartbreaking as that.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 10, 2009 4:31 PM


    Gerard, you've been condescending to me from the start. "Look inside your soul. The answer is right there." Thanks for the patronizing tone. I'm not a freshman in one of your lectures, thanks.

    Carla, I watched your video, and obviously you went through something difficult and traumatic. But your experience with abortion was much different from mine. I had emotional support from my parents, friends and boyfriend. I knew what abortion entailed. The people at the clinic I went to counseled me beforehand, asking me EXTENSIVELY about the reasons for my decision. I saw the sonogram of my fetus at six weeks old. I was in the clinic for at least six hours that day--only about half an hour of which were spent undergoing the procedure. I spent time resting after I had the operation. It wasn't a "mill." I gave informed consent.

    I'm glad my mother had children after Roe. I can't think of anything more horrible than being forced into an unwanted pregnancy--tantamount to physical coercion. Yes, I was given the opportunity to live, and, in the existential sense, I'm happy to be alive. But I don't find it phenomenologically "scary" that she had the right to terminate my nascent, potential life. I'm grateful she had the ability to choose. This isn't death-oriented thinking. It's the belief that personhood doesn't begin at conception, and that a woman should have the ability to control her fertility and future.

    Also, responding to a previous post: I know what thalomide is, and I believe it's a banned substance. But I do not agree with fetal protection laws--"Johnson laws." Protectionist rhetoric should concern the well-being of women. Ex.: companies discriminate against female employees based on their potential fertility (ie you could be a mother, so we don't want you absorbing these toxic chemicals). This is discriminatory, privileging the health of fetuses over their mothers. Why not target fathers, who could bring home toxic substances on their clothes and thus incidentally harm their families? What about making jobs safer so exposure to industrial hazards isn't an issue? But no--the fetus is the focus.

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 6:11 PM


    Gerard, you've been condescending to me from the start. "Look inside your soul. The answer is right there." Thanks for the patronizing tone. I'm not a freshman in one of your lectures, thanks.

    Carla, I watched your video, and obviously you went through something difficult and traumatic. But your experience with abortion was much different from mine. I had emotional support from my parents, friends and boyfriend. I knew what abortion entailed. The people at the clinic I went to counseled me beforehand, asking me EXTENSIVELY about the reasons for my decision. I saw the sonogram of my fetus at six weeks old. I was in the clinic for at least six hours that day--only about half an hour of which was spent undergoing the procedure. I spent time resting after I had the operation. It wasn't a "mill." I gave informed consent.

    I'm glad my mother had children after Roe. I can't think of anything more horrible than being forced into an unwanted pregnancy--tantamount to physical coercion. Yes, I was given the opportunity to live, and, in the existential sense, I'm happy to be alive. But I don't find it phenomenologically "scary" that she had the right to terminate my nascent, potential life. I'm grateful she had the ability to choose. This isn't death-oriented thinking. It's the belief that personhood doesn't begin at conception, and that a woman should have the ability to control her fertility and future.

    Also, responding to a previous post: I know what thalomide is, and I believe it's a banned substance. But I do not agree with fetal protection laws--"Johnson laws." Protectionist rhetoric should concern the well-being of women. Ex.: companies discriminate against female employees based on their potential fertility (ie you could be a mother, so we don't want you absorbing these toxic chemicals). This is discriminatory, privileging the health of fetuses over their mothers. Why not target fathers, who could bring home toxic substances on their clothes and thus incidentally harm their families? What about making jobs safer so exposure to industrial hazards isn't an issue? But no--the fetus is the focus.

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 6:11 PM


    Megan wrote:
    "What about making jobs safer so exposure to industrial hazards isn't an issue? But no--the fetus is the focus."

    What about making colleges more accommodating to pregnant and parenting women so that unplanned pregnancies aren't an issue? But no -- getting rid of the fetus is the focus.

    Kind of like that?

    Only in your case, instead of a woman losing out on a job, your child lost out on living the rest of her life so you could "get a degree".

    Question for you, Megan...how many abortions would you have to have before you would start to feel uncomfortable with the process? Just curious...if it was "nothing", why not have five, or ten, or twenty abottions?

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 10, 2009 6:58 PM


    Oh, and "Johnson Laws" are more about protecting companies from future lawsuits by litigious employees. They most likely don't give a rat's ass about the health of a theoretical fetus yet to be conceived.

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 10, 2009 7:00 PM


    Anyone else notice how conveniently Megan sidesteps every argument that debunks hers? I'm thinking there is a pattern developing...

    By the way Megan, no, if my hand becomes accidentally lodged inside your body, say after a car accident, you do not have the right to kill me by slitting my wrist to cut off my hand. The medical decision is pretty clear. The doctor must do his best to preserve the most life. This can be witnessed time and time again in freak medical accidents, coinjoined twins aside.

    Also, as Bobby already pointed out, and you so deftly avoided, not all conjoined twins are mutually dependent.

    You went to what school again? Hmmm


    "So should a pregnant woman be allowed to take thalidomide?"

    Will you actually answer this question Megan?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 10, 2009 8:26 PM


    "It's the belief that personhood doesn't begin at conception"

    When does personhood begin then? You have been dodging and confusing this question from the start. In plain words, when does personhood begin, and specifically, why?

    (By the way, "because they are separated" is not a why answer, but a what answer. Why for example, does separation bestow rights?)

    Posted by: Oliver at December 10, 2009 8:33 PM


    "Anyone else notice how conveniently Megan sidesteps every argument that debunks hers? I'm thinking there is a pattern developing..."

    Oliver,

    Yes. Megan's mind is made up and she's not budging, probably due to an overdose of feminist propaganda in her MPH program.

    Megan will probably get a high-paying job with Planned Parenthood or the Department of Public Health someday and will never have to defend her pro-abortion position so why should she bother with the facts here?

    Posted by: Janet at December 10, 2009 9:08 PM


    I think she is a highly advanced spambot. Notice how most of her responses are only tangentially related to the topic. Also, notice how almost every post has tons of feminist baggage couching the already off-topic responses. Weird.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 10, 2009 9:17 PM


    Megan,
    Of course you would say that. I actually was going to type out what you would say to me if you watched my story. Pretty standard answers. "Mine was so much different than yours! I didn't go to a mill like you did. My parents were so happy I killed their grandchild. My boyfriend was so glad for me. I am just so happy. I got to finish school. I couldn't bear the thought of adoption. So grateful I had a choice. I'm so happy now." blah blah blah

    Once again, I have to wonder why those who claim to have had such amazing abortion experiences are here.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 10, 2009 9:34 PM


    I can't believe Megan that you saw the ultrasound of your baby and yet still aborted. I mean, I believe you, I am not saying you are lying but how did that not affect you? What did you feel? Didn't you feel any maternal feelings at all? Or even pity on this poor little creature with his beating heart that you were planning to have sucked out of you?

    I ask, because I had my first ultrasound at 5 weeks post conception. so this is 7 weeks LNMP. They thought the pregnancy might be tubal so they wanted to make sure my son was in my uterus. At five weeks of life he already had a head with a face (you could see the orbits of the eyes, nose and mouth) and arm and leg buds (no fingers or toes yet but his appendages stuck straight out like a balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade--thats what it reminded me of). And the most touching thing of all was his huge heart beating away in the center of his chest. It was beating so fast. Still thinking of it now three years later...I still feel the same emotions.

    I knew I was pregnant. Blood work had revealed it. My breasts were getting very tender, my period was late, and I was starting to feel nauseated all the time. Plus I was exhausted. So I KNEW I was pregnant. I also knew what a 5 week old unborn baby looked like, but it wasn't until I SAW the ultrasound that it sunk in, THERE WAS A BABY INSIDE OF ME. I started bawling because it was so beautiful and emotional to me. The ultrasound tech was afraid she had hurt me and then she got very warm and bubbly as I just let the tears stream down my face. I will never forget that moment.

    and yet for you...that moment of seeing your child produced no emotions in you? I just can't comprehend how that could be.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 10, 2009 10:03 PM


    1. I think I've sufficiently answered your questions--they're just not what you want to hear. The legal precedent: a fetus isn't yet a person because it hasn't achieved viability. It is physically, directly dependent on the mother's body. Abortion is allowed pre-viability, and in instances after this point in circumstances when the mother's health is in question. Also, Janet: the Born Alive-Infant Protection Act (thank you, former President Bush) answers your question about the umbilical cord, etc.

    Conjoined twins: trying to trip me on a technicality is, really, hilarious. What's the current incidence rate? 1/50,000 live births? Fetus in fetu, even rarer. "Parasitic" cases usually involve some kind of triage--termination of the dependent entity. Complete dependence, rather than mutual dependence, is extremely rare, and typically occurs in cases where the dependent twin exists as an appendage usually having failed to develop a head, arms, heart, etc. I'm not even sure there have been cases of complete dependence where the dependent twin hasn't placed undue, life-threatening strain on its partner. But again, you could probably find an exception.

    2. I'm going to get slammed any way I answer the thalidomide question, so why try? The state shouldn't legally restrict what a woman does during pregnancy out of sole concern for the fetus. Women across the United States have been jailed because of perinatal crack cocaine use. Do you think jail time does anything to further the health of the fetus? No. If a woman takes thalidomide (assuming she can access the drug and is intending to go through with the pregnancy? taking the drug out of...spite?), it isn't good, or right, etc. But there shouldn't be fetal protection laws restricting her right to bodily sovereignty. That's state paternalism. A fetus shouldn't be considered a separate "person" under law. Also, say you have a woman who takes thalidomide. Given the punitive nature of fetal protection laws, this woman would probably be convicted of child abuse and sent to jail--though I'd hazard she's probably suffering some kind of mental derangement and needs psychiatric help. How healthy are jail pregnancies?

    Pregnant women usually aren't involved in clinical drug trials out of concern for the fetus, which is a huge ethical issue. Pregnant women get sick, too.

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 10:16 PM


    Sydney, I'm sure it produced emotion in her. But she stifled it and did what she believed she had to do.

    And now she's here...telling all of us how wrong we are, how it was nothing at all, no big deal, and how dare we make it all about "the fetus."

    But I'm betting the ultrasound image haunts her. That initial relief leads to feelings of regret which one feels the need to constantly justify. There may be some triggers in her life related to her abortion experience, and later on, she'll wonder why she's reacting SO strongly to such "insignificant" things, and she won't connect them to her abortion at all. But they are connected. Little things will set her off. Perhaps bitterness toward those who "supported" her and encouraged her to do it may surface one day, and she'll wonder why. Perhaps she'll be in a place where something even *smells* like it did at the happy, happy abortion clinic, and it will cause her to react in a way she least expects.

    I've met these women and girls. The ones who say "I used to wonder why I hated flowered wallpaper so much, and now I know it's because it reminded me of that day." It may sound strange, but it is very, very real.

    One day, she'll come to grips with what she has done, and she'll grieve. She's not there yet, but I think that she knows where to come when she's ready.

    Carla, you are an amazing woman. Thank you for being here for women like Megan.

    Posted by: Kel at December 10, 2009 10:23 PM


    You know, it's truly productive to pretend I'm some kind of moron. Listen, I'm sorry if you had difficult procedures, but nobody lied to me or coerced me. And if I have regrets in the future, I won't try to universalize my own sorrows.

    I've known women who regret their rhinoplasties. They've altered the gift God gave them, no? But do we treat them with paternalistic disdain?

    Did I say anywhere that my abortion experience was happy? Enjoyable? Fun? I don't think so. But Christ, I just LOVE invasive surgical procedures because I'm inhuman, no? Again, casting me as delusional and deranged becomes a way for you to justify my infantilization.

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 10:31 PM


    Megan, I don't take offense. Snark away. I don't think anyone is trying to make you out to be a moron. I think they are just trying to engage you in debate and feel you are dodging some questions.

    Thanks for answering me.

    It wasn't that I wasn't convinced of my pregnancy. I knew I was pregnant. It just that my son became so real to me when I saw that ultrasound. I had tons of the "symptoms" as I already described. Like textbook. But my belly was flat as could be and I obviously didn't feel my son Tommy moving in me. So even though I KNEW I was pregnant and knew what Tommy looked like, and even though I was excited to be a mother, it finally hit my heart and became REAL when I saw the ultrasound.

    Don't be angry with us Megan. We are truly nice people on here. We don't hate you or think you're evil or stupid or dumb. We're just trying to dissect the issue here.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 10, 2009 10:51 PM


    "I asked for a printout photograph, which I studied hard before making my final decision. I wasn't somehow blind to my position--it was quite overwhelming knowing that I had such potential life growing inside of me. But since, at that point, the fetus wasn't viable, I felt that I had the right to terminate that potential."

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 10:24 PM

    Why waste time studying the ultrasound photo if you knew intellectually that the baby wasn't viable? Why be overwhelmed? It was just a blob of cells. I don't think you've answered this question yet. When does a "fetus" become viable?

    Posted by: Janet at December 10, 2009 10:55 PM


    Megan, I never stated that you are a moron, nor delusional, nor deranged. Nor did I say you "loved" your abortion. You did, however, allude to feeling that your abortion experience was overall a positive one, including the 6 hour clinic visit.

    Did I anywhere say you enjoyed it or that it was fun for you?

    I have never had an abortion, Megan, but I've known and counseled women who have. The experiences I mentioned happen to be quite common among post-abortive women. I'm not "universalizing" my own experiences or sorrows.

    Rhinoplasty is not equivalent to your choosing to snuff out the life of your offspring, whose ultrasound picture you asked to keep. And you know it.

    I am treating you like a human being who made a life-altering decision and who has sought out a pro-life website on which to spew bitterness and anti-life rhetoric at complete strangers, while claiming abortion was a positive choice for her.

    You dehumanize your own offspring in every post. There is a reason why you do this, Megan. Goodnight.

    Posted by: Kel at December 10, 2009 10:57 PM


    "Rhinoplasty is not equivalent to your choosing to snuff out the life of your offspring, whose ultrasound picture you asked to keep. And you know it."

    How is this statement NOT condescending or infantilizing? Thank you for your enlightenment.

    Also, I started posting on here because I'm deeply, deeply irritated with the abortion argument. I've answered questions and discussed without being terribly condescending, not that I've been met with the same respect.

    Janet: I've answered the viability question, to the best of my ability, at least four times. I was overwhelmed with the knowledge that I COULD be a mother.

    I've shared my experience and it's been discredited as the actions of a person duped by some (fictional) commercial abortion industry, or someone in terrible denial. You listen to unhappy post abortive women--why not do the same with women who don't have the same regrets? Because you have a preconceived notion of what it's like and seek to impose it on other people. I don't deny that abortion can be difficult for some people. So can childbearing and rearing. I too have known women terribly upset by adoptions that took place twenty years ago, and that doesn't mean I advocate for restrictive adoption policies.

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 11:08 PM


    Megan: "I think I've sufficiently answered your questions--they're just not what you want to hear. The legal precedent: a fetus isn't yet a person because it hasn't achieved viability. It is physically, directly dependent on the mother's body. "

    No you haven't answer my questions before. Anyways...

    You now claim viability as a requirement for human rights. If this is the case, then why is it that other humans who are dependent on life support have rights? Why is it that an infant who is intolerant to formula has the right to its mothers milk? Really, you could argue that no human is viable in the sense that we all need oxygen, food, water, shelter, etc. Does it mean we all do not have rights then?

    You still haven't answered the question "why?" Why does reliance on a human womb for life differ from reliance on other life support? Hell, an infant relies heavily on other people, no matter how you slice it. No infant or newborn is "viable" outside of human intervention. Why do we require that some human care for children? Why can't I dump my needy newborn on the front lawn to starve?

    Megan : "trying to trip me on a technicality is, really, hilarious. What's the current incidence rate? 1/50,000 live births? Fetus in fetu, even rarer."

    What does the incident rate have to do with anything? Are you really that at a loss for argument that you must respond with "whatever it doesn't happen much anyways" ? In fact, your entire response, yet again, sidesteps the issue. We aren't talking about parasitic twins or mutual dependent twins. Bobby asked a specific question. Hell, I'll even repost it for you.

    Bobby: "Suppose we have a case of conjoined twins in which doctors agree that they are in a position where they can safely separate the two twins. Suppose further that one of the twins has poorly functioning kidneys and the organs of the twins are connected in such a way that the twin with the poorly functioning kidneys is using the healthy twins kidneys for her physiological needs. If the twins are separated right now, the twin with the bad kidneys will die due to kidney failure, but the twin with the good kidneys will live. However, the doctors believe they can safely transplant a donated kidney into the twin with the bad kidney which will allow her to live on her own once they are separated. It will take 9 months, however, for the donated kidney to arrive."

    Megan :"I'm going to get slammed any way I answer the thalidomide question, so why try?....If a woman takes thalidomide, it isn't good, or right, etc."

    That is all you needed to post. Nobody asked whether or not jail should be used as a punishment. Nobody asked whether or not the woman was mentally deranged. All you needed to say was that "it would be wrong to do that." You are desperately trying to conflate two issues - "is abortion wrong?" and "what is a practical, just solution to the problem of abortion?" Right now we are talking about the former, and not the latter.

    (By the way, the assumption is that the woman is willing to risk the babies life for a short term relief of illness. She may even regret the action in the long run. She doesn't have to mentally disabled.)

    So now the follow up. Why is it wrong? Does not the mother have full sovereignty over her body, no matter the circumstance? Who are you to judge her for her action?

    Really, you even hinted that fetus viability poses restrictions to abortion. Can a woman abort a perfectly healthy 35 week old fetus based on bodily domain? Why or why not?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 10, 2009 11:19 PM


    Megan: "I've answered questions and discussed without being terribly condescending, not that I've been met with the same respect."

    Yeah, that's crap. You've been condescending as well. Besides, the nature of someone's post is FAR less rude than the content, or in your case, lack of content. You have disregarded every strong argument posed to you and glommed on to the weakest ones. Even then, when you respond, you spiral off topic, dragging with you every stereotype you can muster about us "patriarchs" attempting to turn you into a "baby incubator."

    Did it ever occur to you that from our side of the fence, you have murderer a human being? What makes it worse is that your defense has been so ambigious. You not only killed your child, but it seems that, even to this day, you haven't thought it through critically. No wonder you piss us off.

    Though, to be fair, I have been far away the most irritated. I don't pretend to be a nice guy to people like you. Maybe I should, but honestly, I can't stand stupid, intellectually lazy people who condescend others along those very same grounds. You should be apologetic in your defense, given your obvious inexeprience in thinking about it.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 10, 2009 11:31 PM


    Oh yeah, and the "blob of cells" argument is the weakest one of them all. You are a blob of cells. I am a blob of cells. Every living creature is a blob of cells, except, I guess, protozoans. Really, and the best part is that you wonder why we can't stand you.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 10, 2009 11:37 PM


    "Janet: I've answered the viability question, to the best of my ability, at least four times. I was overwhelmed with the knowledge that I COULD be a mother."

    But apparently you became underwhelmed after intellectualizing the situation? I can't find where you answered the viability question of when it begins. Can you direct me to the post please?

    Posted by: Janet at December 10, 2009 11:42 PM


    I've offered relevant responses to your questions. The difference between an infant and a fetus is the mother's body. Difference. There. Codified by federal law, if you need recourse to some higher authority. No sidestepping. Her body.

    You send me complicated arguments that aren't even grounded in reality, asking whether it's "wrong" for a woman to take thalidomide and intentionally poison the baby she intends on carrying to term. I gave you an answer based on the current state of our legal system. Why not browbeat me some more for the answer you want? Keep throwing analogies at me that really have no bearing on the situation, and then berate me for failing to answer succinctly.

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 11:46 PM


    Let's see:

    If you think legalization of abortion will enable society to kill [post natal] individuals, then, using the same "slippery slope" argument, I can claim that sperm and eggs are also human beings waiting to join, form an embryo, and be born? Isn't this a teaching of the Catholic Church? Didn't the Pope deliver an encyclical in the 60's condemning the use of contraception on those very same grounds? Doesn't the current Pope still oppose condom use?

    Posted by: Megan at December 10, 2009 11:53 PM


    Megan :"The difference between an infant and a fetus is the mother's body."

    I thought it was viablity? Which is it? What does a mother's body have to do with a fetus anyways? Would a fetus grown in a testtube have rights?

    You are confusing the essential debate Megan. There are two questions to the abortion debate.

    "Is a fetus a person, and therefore has rights"

    and

    "Do those rights, if existent, rake precedent over the mother's right to bodily integrity?"

    You seem to be confusing the two, or attempting to answer one when asked about the other.

    I guess, you could answer by answering the testtube question.

    Would a testtube fetus have the right to life?

    Megan: "I gave you an answer based on the current state of our legal system."

    Nobody asked you what the legal system has to say. If we were curious, we could look up the law. We are asking you whether or not YOU, given your belief in absolute bodily integrity, believe it to be immoral. Don't try to alter the context either. The mother is doing this because she does not want to be sick in the moment, and is willing to risk the fetus's harm. Is it wrong to do so? She doesn't even care about the deformities.

    Megan: "Keep throwing analogies at me that really have no bearing on the situation, and then berate me for failing to answer succinctly."

    Ahh, the death throes of any philosophical discussion; "those analogies couldn't even happen in real life!!" A discussion of the implications and domain of bodily integrity most definitely relates to conjoined twins, by the way.

    Oh and one more point. I never complained about your verbose responses. Who could I be to make that complaint? My concern is your TANGENTIAL responses. It means off topic, not necessarily long. You are avoiding the strong arguments for sake of attacking the weak (or even non-existent.) I respond to everything. I wonder who is speaking for the more spurious position?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 12:00 AM


    Oh, and Oliver--do the world a favor and get a vasectomy. I pity the poor wretch who'll tolerate your viral money shot.

    Posted by: Megan at December 11, 2009 12:00 AM


    Megan: "Oh, and Oliver--do the world a favor and get a vasectomy. I pity the poor wretch who'll tolerate your viral money shot."

    What was that thing you said about rudeness?

    (Notice that my irritation never devolves into outright vitriol, Megan. That is because I know I am right. Why have you stepped so low then?)

    Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 12:03 AM


    Bodily sovereignty is preeminent. A fetus has no rights since it is not a person. A woman can take thalidomide knowing that she'll deform her baby (though thalidomide isn't really prescribed these days, and never to pregnant women). The state has no right to intervene on behalf of the fetus.

    "The mother is doing this because she does not want to be sick in the moment, and is willing to risk the fetus's harm.

    Doctors take this issue very seriously and are wary to prescribe anything to a woman that might cause complications to the fetus. If a woman needs to take a certain kind of medication that might have these effects, you can probably bet it's for good reason, not one of mere convenience. Antidepressants are thought to cause some fetal birth defects--would you say that risk of suicide is merely a "sick in the moment" kind of issue? And I'm talking about antidepressant use continued into pregnancy. It's not easy to withdraw from these types of medication. Not easy at all. Not simply a case of mother selfishness.

    Posted by: Megan at December 11, 2009 12:09 AM


    Megan: "If you think legalization of abortion will enable society to kill [post natal] individuals, then, using the same "slippery slope" argument, I can claim that sperm and eggs are also human beings waiting to join, form an embryo, and be born?"

    There is no slippery slope argument employed here Megan. I don't think anyone is claiming that post-birth children will actually be killed. We are claiming that there is NO slope between a human blastcyst and a human newborn ( or between a human teenager and a human adult or a human adult and an elderly human on life support for that matter.) I asked you once before, but I'll ask again, do you not know the difference between a gamete and a blastocyst? Sperms and eggs are not humans. Blastocysts are humans, whether or not you believe they are deserving of rights. This is scientific fact.

    Megan: "Isn't this a teaching of the Catholic Church? Didn't the Pope deliver an encyclical in the 60's condemning the use of contraception on those very same grounds? Doesn't the current Pope still oppose condom use?"

    I am not Catholic, so Bobby will have to step in as the official here, but it is my understanding that the Catholic position behind the ban of contraception has more to do with thwarting God's plan than destroying human lives. I may be wrong, but regardless, we are not talking about that. I'll say it again. Sperms and eggs are not humans, but blastocysts are humans.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 12:10 AM


    "Gerard, you've been condescending to me from the start. "Look inside your soul. The answer is right there." Thanks for the patronizing tone. I'm not a freshman in one of your lectures, thanks."

    My initial post was in response to your calling us 'hucksters'.

    My freshmen have more civility than that.

    Get Well soon.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 11, 2009 12:13 AM


    Megan: "Bodily sovereignty is preeminent. A fetus has no rights since it is not a person."

    And why is the sky blue? Because it isn't other colors!

    That is your same argument. We understand that rights stem from personhood. The question about rights is inherently a question about personhood. Yet again, you dodge the question.

    Megan: "Doctors take this issue very seriously and are wary to prescribe anything to a woman that might cause complications to the fetus. If a woman needs to take a certain kind of medication that might have these effects, you can probably bet it's for good reason, not one of mere convenience. Antidepressants are thought to cause some fetal birth defects--would you say that risk of suicide is merely a "sick in the moment" kind of issue? And I'm talking about antidepressant use continued into pregnancy. It's not easy to withdraw from these types of medication. Not easy at all. Not simply a case of mother selfishness."

    What does this have to do with the original argument? Nobody asked you whether or not a woman is LIKELY to take a damaging drug, or whether or not that drug has significant benefits for the mother. The question was simply, can a mother physically damage her fetus out of a desire to avoid feeling sick.

    Obviously if you present a case that even pro-lifers may support, you are missing the point of the experiment. You claim bodily integrity trumps all. We just wanted to know whether or not you extend that to the current illegal use of thalidomide. Apparently you do.

    Megan: "Don't think it's any worse than outright calling someone stupid and lazy. You supercilious ******** :)"

    I didn't call you anything that you haven't shown yourself to be here. You have said things that stem from an ignorant mind. Simple enough. I'm not sure you could say anything I said qualifies as a "********," considering the word has no meaning other than to be an insult.

    And for the record, I called you intellectually lazy, not just plain old lazy.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 12:22 AM


    Your boyfriend was really supportive, huh? I bet he was, considering he'd be off the hook for a kid he won't have to support, and your body is the one who had to endure the pain of having your fetal child (is that not what it is? I mean, even if you are a fully-grown adult, you are still the child of your parents, in the sense of the word "child" meaning "offspring of", are you not?) killed and ripped from you...and if your relationship hits the skids, well, he'd really like to keep you, but at least if he can't, he doesn't have that kid to worry about. What a relief (for him)! How liberated you are. My boyfriend at the time I became pregnant with my daughter was very ready to be "supportive" of me too, if I had chosen to abort our daughter-but only because he was scared of the responsibility entailed and frightened to be a father when he knew so little of infants. I'm glad cooler heads prevailed. He is too, now. And of course our DAUGHTER is glad to be alive even though blissfully unaware of the raging debate which had HER life hanging in the balance roughly 8 years ago. But you keep on being the oh-so liberated woman (to hell with the rest of us, right? I wonder if what might've been your daughter would've been as liberated as you obviously are), who is apparently so beholden to the patriarchy of her professors and educators she would kill her own child if she thought that would help her get ahead with them and her supportive boyfriend. At least you didn't gain any weight, right? Because that might displease your supportive boyfriend. Liberated.

    Speaking of women's liberation, I really get a kick out of all of your masculine-slanted adjectives you're so very wont to use when describing what you view as an entity or person limiting a woman's freedom to do as she pleases under any circumstances whatsoever. Too bad you're also so very WRONG in using them, especially here, considering you'll find the vast majority of those present happen to be women, myself included. But you keep fighting the patriarchy, m'kay? 9_9

    Oh, and if anything I say hits home hard enough to make you start tossing out slogans in which to seek your refuge once you've run out of ways to attempt to defend the indefensible as you guys usually do, you might want to avoid the "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!", as you will find me to be a nonbeliever in any sort of higher power.

    Posted by: xalisae at December 11, 2009 1:19 AM


    Xalisae, thanks for that really cute assessment of my situation. Gosh, only my blind, ill-fated love for a callous horny boy would be able to trump my undying maternal instinct. Because women aren't supposed to have non-procreative sex in the first place, or like it, or be dismayed for whatever reason if the pregnancy stick displays two pink lines. It was a relief for both of us not to be condemned to the hardships of untimely pregnancy, actually. But you know, I'm independent (and not pathetic) enough not to use a baby as a cheap trick to cement my boyfriend into a relationship.

    Arguments like yours perpetuate patriarchy: the idea that, unless women want to fulfill their procreative function, they're not really women. I'm sorry, but abortion is legal. It has been for 40 years. Let's not regress and start subordinating a woman's rights to her unborn child.

    Posted by: Megan at December 11, 2009 2:02 AM


    You certainly are good at being wrong.

    Just because I had the basic human decency not to kill my daughter certainly cannot mean I wasn't jumping for joy at finding myself pregnant with her, oh no! It's not as though I had to quit my job, move out the only place I had to stay at the time, and postpone returning to college after relocating half way across the country...oh...wait.

    I know you might find this mystifying, but some people in the world understand that they cannot, nor should they, ever be willing to actively eliminate another human from this earth simply to get what they want at the exact time they want it.

    I didn't intentionally conceive, nor did I "use a baby as a cheap trick to cement my boyfriend into a relationship". As a matter of fact, when he told me he wanted me to have an abortion, I told him to hit the road, I'd take care of the baby myself, and he could go on with his life pretending he didn't have a child if he liked. I said it was only fair that if I had the legal option of killing the baby if I didn't want to deal with it, he should have the legal option of not having to deal with it if he didn't want to, also. See...my big problem with feminism is its lack of fairness, so I try to lead by example. How's that for "liberated"? How can you say that women are equal to or greater than men, but then say that in order to be greater than or equal to men you have to have several laws passed and require a medical procedure? How much did you pay the patriarchy for your abortion? (and I'm not just talking dollars and cents here, I'm speaking more figuratively)

    Actually, my "procreative function" was just a fluke, but rather than deny biological reality and kill someone for it, I decided I'd add a little more fairness to the world and adapt myself. Yes, ADAPT myself to my circumstances, not "subordinate". Do you subordinate yourself to melatonin when you sleep? Seriously? I've since adapted myself further to facilitate my future plans and had a tubal ligation. But OH NOES, I'M NO LONGER FULFILLING MY PROCREATIVE FUNCTION, THEREBY NO LONGER A WOMAN! Give it a rest, lady. I'm plenty "girl power", and no snotty little women's studies undergrad with buyer's remorse on her abortion is going to tell me otherwise. I've just had enough actual live experience to have learned that the world does not revolve around me, and I've come to terms with that. Maybe you will as well, some day. Perhaps you should take a class in it.

    Posted by: xalisae at December 11, 2009 2:25 AM


    actual *life experience

    This signifies that it is far too late for me to remain conscious. I'll continue this tomorrow.

    Posted by: xalisae at December 11, 2009 2:30 AM


    I do hope and pray that Megan and Liz and Ashley find the hope and healing they need when they need it. There are amazing resources out there for the vast number of us who were broken over killing our children but didn't know what to do about it. There is help for you.

    I am free today. Free to tell others of the lies of the abortion industry. I am free to speak my mind and stand with the thousands that have joined their voices with mine. I will stand on the truth of my experience and patiently wait for more emails and phone calls and letters from women and men who need a helping hand.

    http://www.rachelsvineyard.org

    Megan,
    When you watch a video of someone telling of the most traumatic event of their life one of the most compassionate, unselfish things to say is I AM SO SORRY. Instead you went right to you. You have no idea how hard that was for me. 4 services sharing some very intimate details, crying in front of strangers. It was hard for THEM to listen to. That is how I know you are in denial. YOU talked about YOU in response to ME.
    When I stand with my I Regret My Abortion sign and someone walks up to me and says,"I don't regret mine!" They are in denial. What part of I Regret My Abortion has anything to do with YOU???

    Now you cannot come back and say Hey, sorry your abortion hurt you. So don't bother. Your first reaction to it is the truth.

    I will ALWAYS be here for you carla@jillstanek.com

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 6:16 AM


    "I can claim that sperm and eggs are also human beings waiting to join, form an embryo, and be born? Isn't this a teaching of the Catholic Church?"


    No.

    "Didn't the Pope deliver an encyclical in the 60's condemning the use of contraception on those very same grounds?"

    No. The encyclical in 1968, Humane Vitae, reiterated the teaching of the 1930 encyclical Casti Connubii which taught that contraceptive thwart the marital act in a grave way contrary to God's plan. It has nothing to do with sperm nor egg and everything to do with the nature of the sexual union.

    When people talk about slippery slope arguments, usually there is at least a small group of people who currently embrace "the slope." For example (and I do NOT mean to change the subject to this, nor am I saying I necessarily agree with this argument), many people argue that legalization of homosexual marriage will lead to things like polygamy and acceptance of sexual unions between humans and animals. Well, you can find many people who already embrace polygamy and "world class" philosophers like Peter Singer who approve of human and animal sex. So these "slopes" of homosexual marriage are already found quite previlently through out society.

    The point is that you will never find someone who is not mentally insane and who has taken a single course in biology who claims that the egg and sperm are human. This is simply on NO ONE'S radar, and we can draw a very distinct biological stopping point. So I see no reason why a slippery slope argument would follow.

    "Doesn't the current Pope still oppose condom use?"

    Yes, for the reasons mentioned above, having nothing to do with sperm and egg.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 6:41 AM


    "You send me complicated arguments that aren't even grounded in reality, asking whether it's "wrong" for a woman to take thalidomide and intentionally poison the baby she intends on carrying to term. I gave you an answer based on the current state of our legal system. Why not browbeat me some more for the answer you want? Keep throwing analogies at me that really have no bearing on the situation, and then berate me for failing to answer succinctly."

    Megan, where do you think the philosophical underpinnings for the "bodily ownership in favor of abortion" argument originated? It began with MIT professor Judith Jarvis Thomson's 1971 landmark paper "A Defense of Abortion" http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm in which she defends the bodily ownership argument for abortion by imagining a situation in which you wake up one morning WITH A VIOLINIST CONNECTED TO YOUR BODY (capps for emphasis, not shouting). The violinist has a rare disease and you are the only one who can keep him alive; in essence, you are acting as life support for the violinist. This is supposed to create a parallel situation to pregnancy and show that since you would be morally justified in unplugging yourself from the violinist, you are morally justified in "unplugging" yourself from the fetus.

    The point is that this line of argumentation where you create hypothetical is used ALL THE TIME in philosophy. It is an extremely legitimate way of arguing a point, going back hundreds if not thousands of years. While many philosophers and I would disagree about the moral status of abortion, probably 99.9% of them would agree that creating hypotheticals and thought experiments is a legitimate way to gain insight into a particular moral conundrum.

    The method of argumentation is something one of the "greatest" intellectual champions of abortion embraced , and so I see no reason why your objections to it are valid.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 7:02 AM


    "Let's not regress and start subordinating a woman's rights to her unborn child."

    Megan, it is not a subordination. It is a conflict of interest between two human beings. If there is a conflict of interests between two human beings, the law should fall on the side of who has more to lose. When it comes to pregnancy, there are many things that the woman has to lose by continuing an "unwanted" pregnancy. However, none are as great as what the fetus will lose, which is his LIFE. Whenever there is a conflict, the law should fall on the side of whomever has more to lose, and in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, it is always the fetus.

    Let me give an illustration. Here at Dartmouth we have an intersection with lights on campus. Stupid students tend to cross at the crosswalk even when they are not supposed to i.e. when oncoming traffic has the right of way. Now, a car that sees a green light is given the right of way by law, and hence may proceed through the intersection. However, even if you have a stupid student crossing at the crosswalk when he is not supposed to, the car MUST stop, even though the car has a green light. Why? Because the student has more to lose in this conflict of interests situation- namely, extreme aspects of his well being or even his life. The driver is inconvenienced, annoyed, and may get a little wear and tear on his car, but that in nothing compared to the life and health of the student. Again, a LEGITIMATE conflict of interest (which can be defined in further detail if need be) between two human beings should always fall on the side of the one who has more to lose.

    Now I foresee your objection- "I do not believe the fetus is a person with equal rights to the mother." OK, fair enough, but then why argue that we would "subordinat[e] a woman's rights to her unborn child."? Xalisae and I both believe that the unborn is a human person and if you want to argue against that claim, nip it in the bud and argue why the unborn isn't a person. Because if the unborn isn't a person, there is ABSOLUTELY no need to make bodily autonomy and bodily rights arguments for the mother. It's a completely moot point if the unborn isn't a person. On the other hand, if a woman has complete and total bodily rights, including allowing her to kill someone who uses her body, it is a moot point whether or not the fetus is a person.

    This is a large problem I'm seeing in your arguments, Megan. I can't tell what your main justification in favor of abortion is. You have question begging arguments, personhood arguments, and bodily autonomy arguments all conflated together. If you're arguing personhood, there is no need to mention bodily ownership or bodily rights. If you are arguing bodily ownership or rights, there is no need to argue that the fetus is not a person. You are just all over the place and I don't see a succinct, coherent position from you as to why abortion is morally justifiable.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 7:34 AM



    "I'm plenty "girl power", and no snotty little women's studies undergrad with buyer's remorse on her abortion is going to tell me otherwise. I've just had enough actual live experience to have learned that the world does not revolve around me"

    Oh how I love the pulled myself up by the bootstraps, American myth of individual strength and success. It's every bit as much "commercialized" as what you perceive the "abortion industry" to be. Newsflash, xalisae: abortion isn't some kind of recent technology developed by angry separatist feminists. Women have been getting them (albeit illegally) since they realized they could control their fertility. The notion that fetus and mother are separate entities came about only recently, definitely aided by the sonogram (oh no! terrifying machine probably created by men! yet we need it because it convinces us of the complete separate unique distinct personhood of our fetuses!). Real scientists, doctors and a supreme court precedent will tell you that a fetus, albeit life, isn't yet a person with a distinct set of rights, especially the "right to life."


    I'm happy for you and your daughter, truly, but cut the universalizing BS.

    Posted by: Megan at December 11, 2009 9:26 AM


    So, Megan, how many abortions would you have to have before you would start to feel bad? That is, if any number would be too many...

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 11, 2009 9:38 AM


    ...or, if you ended up with another unplanned pregnancy, would you have another abortion? Two more times, three more times, more? Why or why not?

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 11, 2009 9:43 AM


    I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm still waiting to hear how rhinoplasty is truly analogous to having an abortion, as Megan discussed earlier.

    The day each rhinoplasty surgery purposely snuffs out a unique human life, I do hope someone will inform us all.

    And I'm pretty sure ultrasound/sonogram technology is used for much more than "convinc(ing) us of the complete separate unique distinct personhood of our fetuses."

    I wonder...how many Darwinists, "doctors" and Supreme Court judges once refused to grant personhood status to African-Americans?

    Carla 6:16a: Good points.

    Posted by: Kel at December 11, 2009 10:10 AM


    Is that what they told you at your informed counSELLing sessions, Megan? (emphasis on the selling, since if you don't buy all the garbage they feed you, you won't buy an abortion from them). I never said I completely pulled myself up by my bootstraps, as you so eloquently put it, as a matter of fact, I've still got a lot of pulling to do. But one of the reasons you cited for having your abortion is that having a baby would've made your life harder, and if you think that just because you aborted your child life will not be hard, you have another thing coming. My life happened to be hard before I ever became pregnant. There are other ways your life may become hard for you in the future due to various other people, and if you think you're going to be able to just wipe those humans out as you've done this time without facing severe repercussions, you're one again mistaken. The pattern of behavior you're establishing for dealing with difficulty in your life is rather disturbing, and I wouldn't want to be in your shoes once you run into a problem you can't solve with a 6 hour trip to the clinic.

    It's true I didn't have a bunch of doctors or counselors explaining to me how my baby is not actually a baby, it's just tissue, it's just a part of your body, etc. But I have witnessed an awful lot of pregnancies yielding relatives and family members, so I didn't need someone to lie to me in order to delude myself into thinking that what was inside me wasn't another human just like me-that couldn't possibly have happened, considering I have basic biological knowledge and the capacity to retain it and apply it to situations I've witnessed and of which I've been a part. I had people at my job tell me that it was just a simple procedure, and you could get on with your life like nothing happened, because nothing really did happen, it was just some tissue removal and it didn't really hurt, and boy were they ever glad to have done it, really! I just felt sad for them, because it sounded more like they were trying to convince themselves than me.

    No, using critical thinking skills, I looked back at my own life, and realized that, WHOOOOAAAAH, my mother had actually been tracking the cycles of my life BEFORE I WAS BORN! How could she possibly have been doing that? I mean, if I didn't really exist, and was just a part of HER body, how could MY bodily development eventually leading to the adult I am today be separated from her own regular bodily functions? I've known her to have had benign tumors and various cysts in the past, and none of them were ever invited to the dinner table after their removal. The entire idea of a developing person being part of or property of another is a.) laughable, and b.) disgraceful in any form. You'd find if you hadn't listened to the sales pitch you were given and obviously consumed gleefully, you would've found yourself in the presence of another human who was depending upon you to protect them, and you instead paid to have them killed. My daughter was never at any time some property of mine to be disposed of as I saw fit, and the fact the law would've allowed that action is lamentable. She isn't now, and I don't see why she ever should have been considered such. You've failed to provide me with sufficient reason I ever should have viewed her in such terms, and until you do, I'm afraid someone like you will hold just as little gravity with me as any other thug who killed someone for a piece of paper.

    Yes, there are some subtle differences...you only wanted one piece of paper (a diploma), but you and the thug are ultimately after the same papers (money), the thug only takes a more direct approach and uses different tools with less consideration of the law, which you seem to have substituted for your basic comprehension of what is right and acceptable vs. what is wrong and unacceptable. But thinking for yourself is hard, no doubt, and I'm sure it's much easier just to have your world view fed to you by judges, professors, and doctors.

    The idea that a human magically has "personhood" conferred on them by a government at birth, from a scientific perspective, is laughable. Just as spontaneous generation is now considered utter nonsense by the scientific community through measured experiments and technological advancements (like the one you so ignorantly scoff at in your post, the sonogram...I wonder if they teased Anthony Leeuwenhoek in such a manner about his microscope "Yeah, right...there are tiny little animals flitting about in that droplet of water. HARDY HAR HAR!"), so too should the notion that someone is only truly human after some sort of indefinable capacity on their part is attained. I mean, the whole "part of the mother" dogma you espouse really is absurd, considering that that would entail mothers pregnant with boys would have a conflict of gender seeing as how they would then have a penis which would be considered part of their body and their additional genitalia. My driver's license expired while I was pregnant with a boy, for gender should I have put "Both"? Simply because abortion has been going on for a long time does not and should not make it acceptable. Genocide of many shades has been occurring in various countries and against many different groups since before recorded history, I'm sure, it doesn't mean we should eventually come to accept it as a great deal for those benefiting from it and just lay back and enjoy the show, even legalizing it and having it take place with the aid of trained doctors to make it less painful for those eliminated.

    Posted by: xalisae at December 11, 2009 11:00 AM


    If you want to "control your fertility", how does that somehow mean killing another human being? Contraception means preventing a conception from occurring in the first place, not killing the child who has been already conceived.

    BTW, the whole "part of the mother's body" argument is, scientifically speaking, bunk. It's complete and utter nonsense. The mother's own body even recognizes this and makes provision that the immune system does not harm the child even though on a normal basis, the immune system would attack any "foreign tissue" or object in the body. The mother's own body recognizes the need to protect the conceived child.

    Posted by: army_wife at December 11, 2009 11:44 AM


    When you really think about it, allowing women to have abortions is the most paternalistic policy development in modern history.

    We readily hold adult men wholly responsible for their actions and tell them to "deal with it, you should have kept 'it' in your pants", but say that to the woman?...You're suddenly a big "meanie" who hates women. What's evil about expecting adults to fulfill their responsibilities? Instead, we give tough love to fathers, but pat pregnant mothers on the head and say "It would just be too HARD for you to do the right thing, so just do whatever makes you feel better, Sweetie."

    I almost expected to be offered a lollipop after my abortions. Looking back, aside from the "murdering my own children" part, my abortion experience was the most humiliating and demeaning experience of my life.

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 11, 2009 11:44 AM


    ah yes, duped by the abortion industry (much like the cosmetics industry, and the weight loss industry, etc etc), I considered abortion to be a panacea for all my troubles. Would it be wrong to say you've been duped by the motherhood industry? Because your claim--that abortion is a product of male-centered, greedy capitalist gain--can be made for maternity, too. In typical neoliberal fashion (where efficiency is the only virtue), pregnant women are pumped full of drugs to make the process "easier" for harried OB/GYNs. And then let's not mention the normative consumerist aspect of motherhood: brand name kid clothes, fancy photo shoots, organic baby formula, perfect suburban home with green green grass, etc etc.

    Both sides are tainted in the same way, but "motherhood" is supposed to be natural and right, so it seems somehow free from the trappings of commercializion and consumerism.


    "But thinking for yourself is hard, no doubt, and I'm sure it's much easier just to have your world view fed to you by judges, professors, and doctors."

    That's interesting, since I've had the same views since I was growing up and saw young girls saddled with unwanted pregnancies time and time again. I'm sure motherhood is incredibly gratifying if it's planned, but--and get this--some women, WITH COMPLETE VOLITION, choose to terminate their pregnancies. Many of these women do so out of concern for current children--CONCERN FOR CHILDREN WHO HAVE BEEN BORN. Here's a triage scenario for you: if a mother of two conceives again, but doesn't want to go through another pregnancy because of severe postpartum depression, what should she do? Should she risk being rendered unable to care adequately for her current children? What "preserves the most life," taking a phrase from Mr. Bambino?

    And I hate to invoke this, but forcing a woman to conceive if she's been raped (to take a hardline conservative position) is absolutely despicable. "Preserving innocent life." Yes, innocent life that hasn't even formed into a person yet--potential for life.

    I'm going to concede here, alright? The law says a fetus cannot be conferred with rights until it's viable--meaning until it can survive outside it's mother's body. Thus you have debates about the legality of late-term abortion, which aren't technically protected constitutionally. (I (personally) believe abortion should be legal at any point as long as the fetus is inside the mother's body, since how could viability be determined for sure without removing the child? But this is an estimate, typically measured by length of pregnancy until that point) I know this ambiguity might be terrifying to pro-lifers--what stops us from killing people [post natal]???? so thus the argument is made that personhood begins at conception.

    Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

    "Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive....Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will."

    (I agree: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/fetusperson.html)

    Posted by: Megan at December 11, 2009 12:15 PM


    It I got pregnant right now, I probably would have another abortion. Good thing, though, I'm on a much more reliable form of birth control (copper IUD), so hopefully I can avoid that situation. Sounds like personal responsibility to me.

    ...and do you speak to all the crying, weeping, sad women who've given their babies up for adoption? what about the seemingly innate need for adopted kids to go searching for their birth mothers? the process isn't universally simple. i've known women who'll say it sucks (just like you'll met upset post abortive women).

    Posted by: Megan at December 11, 2009 12:19 PM


    Ha, you act like you just "wake up" pregnant through no action of your own, like some leach just crawled up into your uterus while you were innocently sleeping.

    Hint: you do legally have to risk your life to save a drowning person if they fell in either through your negligence or if you pushed them in with malice aforethought, that is, if you plan on escaping prosecution.

    Now, tell me you didn't know that sex can lead to pregnancy so we can end this discussion with full knowledge that you're a certifiable moron.

    God, the idea that someone like you could be walking around with some sheepskin that gives you credibility in some circles is truly frightening. You personify the phrase "knowing just enough to be dangerous".

    Posted by: Michelle a.k.a. PajamaMama at December 11, 2009 12:26 PM


    "Now, tell me you didn't know that sex can lead to pregnancy so we can end this discussion with full knowledge that you're a certifiable moron"

    Contraception's legal in this country. People have the right to engage in non-procreative sex. It's called sexual freedom. It's, like, an idea that came around at the same time we realized it wasn't okay for men to hit their wives, or force pregnancy on them? It's, like, the idea that women can have sex without proliferating endlessly? It's, like, tied to the idea that women shouldn't hold complete responsibility for raising children? It's, like, the idea that daycare should be available for women who work (though this system certainly hasn't been perfect in the US)?

    You can disparage the feminist movement all you want. It certainly has had its flaws, and hasn't solved the world's problems. But all you would be far less outspoken today if the first wave had been a mere blip on the sociocultral radar. And much of that freedom availed to you has been a direct result of pro-choice campaigns.

    Posted by: Megan at December 11, 2009 12:57 PM


    nerd, schoolnerd, Ashley Herzog, Liz, whoever you actually are...pick a name, please.

    Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 1:19 PM


    Nerd,

    Your objection has been voiced and answered multiple times. I will be more than happy to refute it when I have some time, most likely tomorrow morning. But it's not a good objection and I'll explain why when I have some time.

    In fact, if your insistence on the greatness of your argument shows anything, it is that you are very poorly read when it comes to abortion literature. But I'll put my money where my mouth is tomorrow.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 1:22 PM


    Megan,

    So many excuses. If I were an alien coming down here from another planet talking to you, I'd think all Earth-women were a bunch of whiners. Where's your strength, the "I can do anything" attitude? I'm not hearing it. Instead you blame everyone but yourself for your difficulties. You are the face of feminism today. It's not attractive, in the figurative sense, at all.

    Posted by: Janet at December 11, 2009 1:39 PM


    "You can disparage the feminist movement all you want. It certainly has had its flaws, and hasn't solved the world's problems. But all you would be far less outspoken today if the first wave had been a mere blip on the sociocultral radar. And much of that freedom availed to you has been a direct result of pro-choice campaigns."

    Posted by: Megan at December 11, 2009 12:57 PM

    "sociocultural" - isn't that redundant?
    Pro-choice campaigns have given us freedom? How?

    Posted by: Janet at December 11, 2009 1:45 PM


    So motherhood is only enjoyable if it is PLANNED? Huh, I didn't know that. I guess I can no longer enjoy motherhood. Thanks for sharing Megan. Afterall, my baby was unplanned.

    The IUD only works by causing the lining of the uterus to be in constant irritation and thus implantation is impossible. So its just another way to get an abortion. You may be having abortions every month, lucky duck! I guess that means you'll be REALLY REALLY successful since abortion = success, right?

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 11, 2009 1:53 PM


    Megan: "Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it."

    First of all, you have failed again to explain why a distinction matters. Why, for example, does it matter that the pool of caretakers is limited? Would it change if the pool was 2 or 3? Dependence is dependence. Besides, there are plenty of cases where a child is wholly dependent on his or her parents. For example, does a parent have the right to relenquish responsibility for his or her child in the middle of cruise? Can a parent enforce property rights and remove his or her child from the house in the middle of a blizzard?

    Secondly, you are still avoiding the original question. What makes a fetus inherently different from a newborn in terms of rights? As Bobby so eloquently put it, you are clearly confused as evidenced by your conflation of the central questions of abortion.

    Megan quoted: "Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals."

    Being inside someone's body doesn't affect your personhood. Otherwise, there would be a lot of bizarre consequences of sex, or surgery for that matter. Besides, by that definition, yet again, conjoined twins are not considered persons. Surely you believe conjoined twins are persons right? Yet, they are not separate individuals.

    Megan quoted: "They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive...."

    What? Are you kidding me? Who is trying to say that humans gain their rights BECAUSE they are first inside someone's body? They gain the status of human being, not by requiring human sourced life support, but because they are humans, by DNA definition. Whoever you have quoted is very misinformed about the abortion debate, possibly intentionally.

    Megan quoted: "Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being. For example, the state cannot force people to donate organs or blood, even to save someone's life. We are not obligated by law to risk our lives jumping into a river to save a drowning victim, noble as that might be. Therefore, even if a fetus has a right to life, a pregnant woman is not required to save it by loaning out her body for nine months against her will."

    The state cannot demand blood donations to save someone's life, but the state can demand blood samples and urine samples as well as full body cavity searches to protect human lives from harm. Why do you think the state makes such a distinction? Furthermore, the state cannot demand that you house strangers, yet at the same time, you are forced to house your children until a suitable alternative is procured. Why do you think the law makes a distinction in this case as well?

    Parents are expected to provide CARE to their children, because no child is competent to secure care for him or herself. Care is a simple term that is limited to those necessary inputs. A parent, for example, is obligated to provide an education for his/her child, but a parent is not required to spend 500,000 dollars on a procedure to correct limited brain function. Food, water, and shelter are items required for care. Organ transplants are items meant to overcome a deficiency or to rectify unfortunate outside influences.

    In short, providing care is not about rectifying genetic or accidental deficiencies. It is about providing the necessary food and shelter. Pregnancy is not an organ transplant, nor is it a blood transplant. Pregnancy is the source of necessary care items, and therefore, given that a fetus has rights, abortion is the ultimate in child neglect.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 2:27 PM


    When is Megan going to answer the tough questions? Honestly, if you want to give pro-choicers a good name, you really shouldn't avoid the difficult points made by Bobby. It only reinforces the stereotype that the pro-choicers are full of emotion-driven, intellecutally weak individuals.

    (Also, I think I am developing a sinful man crush on Bobby.)

    Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 2:32 PM


    Nerd's posts got deleted, for whatever reason, but I still want to respond.

    Yes, nearly every day I think about my wife's miscarriages, and yes, every time she is late on her period, I am simultaneously joyed that she may be pregnant, and terrified that she may miscarry.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 2:36 PM


    "They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive...."

    Yep, that's pretty offensive, and scientifically stupid, since "human" has to do with WHAT one is, not WHERE one is. It's human offspring, not a tapeworm. A human is a human, inside or outside of the womb. There is nothing else it could possibly be. Organisms reproduce offspring according to their own kinds. There is a difference between philosophical belief and scientific fact.

    "Even if a fetus can be said to have a right to life, this does not include the right to use the body of another human being."

    Do we need a class on Mammalian Reproduction 101? A human being that has been conceived grows, by the very nature of NATURE, inside his/her mother's womb. This philosophical gobbledy-gook may *sound* intelligent to you, but it flies in the face of everything we know to be a biological fact.

    ...forcing a woman to conceive if she's been raped... No one is *forcing* anyone to conceive. One cannot naturally *make* oneself become pregnant. *maybe if I just concentrate hard enough I can do it!* Nope, probably not. It's actually not that easy to get pregnant. The timing has to be right. And even if the timing's perfect, I believe you have a 1 in 4 chance of actually conceiving. Wow, right?

    Both sides are tainted in the same way, but "motherhood" is supposed to be natural and right...

    I hate to break it to ya, but "motherhood" (I love how you put it in quotes, lol) IS natural. It goes along with nature. It is called reproduction. Paying someone to suction out one's offspring from one's uterus is not a "natural" occurrence.

    Posted by: Kel at December 11, 2009 2:42 PM


    You act like I intentionally conceived because I saw some baby booties at the gap I just HAD to have. Are you really this stupid?

    The only reason I didn't have an abortion is because I didn't want to kill my daughter. The fact that my daughter is a living human being at the age of 7 today proves enough to me that killing her then would've been just as wrong as killing her today would be. I actually had never discussed abortion with my parents, had never discussed it with any of my peers, didn't talk about it with my boyfriend, and had never cared to give it much thought at all.

    Realizing that my daughter was alive inside me, then realizing that there were people in the world who thought that it was a.) acceptable to kill her, and b.) preferable to allowing her to live in my circumstance, was a real shocker for me. It was horrifying, really. The only person in the world that I didn't have an abortion for was my daughter. The only reason I'm on this website here now is because she, and every other human in the world in her situation, is vulnerable, has no voice of their own, and deserves the protection of the law, if not their own mothers.

    Posted by: xalisae at December 11, 2009 2:45 PM


    "Also, I think I am developing a sinful man crush on Bobby."

    Haha, well, perhaps I should stop posting then, as I do not want to be an occasion of sin for another...

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 3:21 PM


    "Yes, nearly every day I think about my wife's miscarriages, and yes, every time she is late on her period, I am simultaneously joyed that she may be pregnant, and terrified that she may miscarry."

    I'm so sorry Oliver and Lauren... you have little treasures waiting for you in heaven. God love you.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 3:22 PM


    Nerd's post was deleted, but I'm going to respond to his/her question about taking a picture of your miscarriage at 6 weeks...because I did exactly that. I took several pictures, and buried my baby under 5 weeping cherry trees. I did mourn my baby, just as i would have if one of my born children had passed away. Yes, I have more memories with my born children but the loss of human life is just the same. Please see pictures of my baby at this link- the baby was 6 weeks when s/he passed away.

    http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/03/bethanys_baby.html

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 11, 2009 4:35 PM


    Bethany, wow. Your baby Blessing was beautiful. So well formed already! I have only been blessed to conceive once so far but I can never forget my first ultrasound at 5 weeks. My son looked just like Blessing on the ultrasound except he didn't really have fingers and toes yet. The face is what I remember.

    Thankyou for sharing something so deeply personal. I am so honored.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 11, 2009 6:08 PM


    I've answered the tough questions.

    "Dependence is dependence."

    No, it isn't.

    Sit comfortably in your parental self-righteousness, though. I give it five years before your little darlings are a band of intolerant thugs. Oh, and except in the case of xaelisais, Bible-thumping thugs.

    Posted by: Megan at December 11, 2009 7:50 PM


    I've answered the tough questions.

    "Dependence is dependence."

    No, it isn't.

    Sit comfortably in your parental self-righteousness, though. I give it five years before your little darlings turn into a band of pizza faced, intolerant thugs. Oh, and except in the case of xaelisais, Bible-thumping thugs. Praise.

    Posted by: Megan at December 11, 2009 7:51 PM


    Did pizza face really help the insult THAT much? Was it just too good that you had to try to stop your post and insert it? Hahahaha.

    You haven't answered a damn thing. I could repost every single thing you have avoided, but I'll just post one.

    Does a fetus grown in a test tube have human rights? Why or why not?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 8:01 PM


    Well, technically it wouldn't be a fetus, but an infant. A fetus needs it's mother's body to survive. You're talking about an infant. Infants have rights. Not fetuses.

    Posted by: Megan at December 11, 2009 8:36 PM


    What? Now you really must be joking. A fetus is a development stage, regardless of the mother's body. That's like saying an expelled blastocyst is now an infant!

    Come on. Time to fess up. Are you really still in high school?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 11, 2009 9:11 PM


    Megan, really come on. Why so hateful? Its not enough you detested your own child but now you spew venom and hate at our children?

    I wrote a journal to my son when I was pregnant with him beginning the day I found out I was pregnant which was February 24, 2006 at 7:30 in the morning. The doctor called me to tell me blood work had revealed HcG and I was pregnant. I was 13 days along. My son was only a flattened disc of cells at this point, in the process of curling around and forming a spine and then growing arms, legs and a head. But he was still a PERSON. I wrote this to him. I told him he was a person and that when he grows up I hope he would defend unborn life and remember that once he was just a defenseless little disc in his mother's womb and that I showed respect for his life and I hoped he would show respect for other's lives too. I wrote how at that very moment I could legally destroy him and hoped that later in life he would remember his origins. I think we all should remember our origins. We were all unborn once. I know you've mocked this before Megan, but I am so glad my mom chose life and yours did too. It means nothing to you but it means something to me.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 11, 2009 9:49 PM


    OK Nerd, if you could, please give your objection once again in a coherent, concise summary since I don't want to attack a straw man. What is your objection and how does it imply that the unborn are not worthy of the same rights that you and I enjoy?

    BTW, if you are indeed the same Liz as was suggested above, I find it astonishing that you would claim triumph and victory (I believe you wrote some comment to this affect before it was deleted) with this argument you are about to present in light of your claiming that the "fire at the fertility clinic scenario stumps pro-lifers every time" just a few days ago. It was thoroughly refuted to the nth degree, and so I would think twice about claiming unanswerability for this argument.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 9:57 AM


    Sydney, thank you so much for the kind words. :)

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 10:38 AM


    "That's like saying an expelled blastocyst is now an infant!"

    ...aaand the blastocyst wouldn't be alive. If you can find a way to grow a fetus in a petri dish (without using a woman's body), please let me know.

    "I wrote a journal to my son when I was pregnant with him beginning the day I found out I was pregnant..."

    It might seem terrifying to think that our mothers could have chosen abortion--doesn't that really shake the ground you walk on!!! And as much as you might "feel" an embryo is a fully-formed human being, not all pregnant women do. Ultimately, it's subjective. "Life begins at conception"--well technically, conception is an extension of biological processes that have been happening all along. A sperm is "life." An egg is "life." When fused, they create a new type of life--that's undeniable. But is that life a PERSON? Can a blastocyst be endowed with the same rights as PEOPLE--human beings who breathe oxygen, walk, see sunlight, think, drool, sit in wheelchairs, are attached to feeding tubes in vegetative states? Find me a human being who is DIRECTLY dependent on a woman's body--placenta, blood, nourishment, etc--for survival. The conjoined twin argument doesn't cut it because it isn't grounded in reality. Do you realize how far-fetched that point is? It's beyond the realm of the philosophical, transcending the realm of dumb. Okay, I've got one for you. WHAT IF a tiny midget crawled inside a really fat woman's body...spare me the bizarre exceptions.

    Pro-life rhetoric sits on a wave of pathos. It makes people nice and fuzzy thinking that personhood begins at conception, since it's too scary to think that women would have the power to control their fertility, and equally scary thinking that we too could have been casualties of the abortion industry.

    Posted by: Megan at December 12, 2009 12:08 PM


    Like it or not, Megan, the siamese twin argument is a perfect analogy, as with many siamese twins, one twin is fully dependant on being attached to the other person's body to survive.


    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 12:12 PM


    Life begins at conception"--well technically, conception is an extension of biological processes that have been happening all along. A sperm is "life." An egg is "life." When fused, they create a new type of life--that's undeniable. But is that life a PERSON?

    Define "person"

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 12:14 PM


    And as much as you might "feel" an embryo is a fully-formed human being, not all pregnant women do.

    As much as I feel that African Americans are just as much a person as myself, there are many people still today who don't feel that way. Does that make personhood of African Americans subjective?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 12:16 PM


    "Life begins at conception"--well technically, conception is an extension of biological processes that have been happening all along. A sperm is "life." An egg is "life." When fused, they create a new type of life

    Okay, Megan...well, what type of life is created when the egg and sperm are fused?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 12:18 PM


    Megan: "...aaand the blastocyst wouldn't be alive."

    So you are saying that an expelled blastocyst is a dead infant?

    Megan: "If you can find a way to grow a fetus in a petri dish (without using a woman's body), please let me know"

    Have you never heard of philosophical discource? Ever heard of the cool dudes named Socrates and Aristotle? How about the very feminist philosophers you so admire? They all participated in philosophical debate. Why are you so afraid of it? Oh well, I'll play your game.

    I'm a secret mad scientist in reality Megan, and I have finally perfected the ability to grow a fetus in a petri dish to be exact. In fact, I have one now growing in my basement. Don't ask about the scientific details though; I am trying to get a patent first. So tell me. Does my fetus have the right to not be killed?

    Megan: "Pro-life rhetoric sits on a wave of pathos."

    Who is the one refusing to debate Megan? Who is the one trying really hard to cleverly insult our kids?

    I haven't seen a pro-choicer present logical ideas in a long long time. In fact, I can only think of one pro-choicer in my entire time on this site who made any kind of sense. Whenever a pro-choicer starts to make sense, he or she immediately backs down from debate. You don't even know why you FEEL the way you do. You can't even explain what it is that you FEEL about abortion. The pro-life side may present emotional arguments to match your own, but so far, the pro-life side is the only side to strongly support those ideas with basic logic.

    The pro-life side is obviously the intellectually superior side.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 12:24 PM


    Megan: "The conjoined twin argument doesn't cut it because it isn't grounded in reality. Do you realize how far-fetched that point is? It's beyond the realm of the philosophical, transcending the realm of dumb."

    Hahahahaha!

    Megan meant: "Your point beats my argument to a pulp...but...but...that's not even fair! There aren't even that many cases!! WAHH WAHH"

    I hate to break it to you Megan, but coinjoined twins really exist. Sorry if that inconveniences your shotty argument. (Sometimes they are even women, for whatever reason that matters!)

    So this is the best you can do? That's it. I'm calling another one out. You never went to Columbia. There is NO way that you could pass any critical thinking class. So what's your real story?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 12:31 PM


    Oliver,

    What you have to understand is that people don't really fail college classes anymore if they don't want to. I can only speak from my experience here at Dartmouth, but I think it is a very common trend in the Ivy league to curve the entire class towards the median and then spread the grades out from about C- (or higher) to an A. People who get into Ivy league schools tend to have received only 0, 1 or 2 non-A grades in their lives, so I think the "philosophy" is that a non-A grade is punishment enough. Unless someone doesn't do most of the work, they will most likely pass. It's a pretty sad state of affairs indeed.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 1:13 PM


    Really, Megan. It's just so far fetched that it could never ever happen?

    It did happen. Meet Kendra and Maliyah Herrin.

    http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?x=13164

    They were successfully seperated, but first they had to find an acceptable kidney transplant for Maliyah. The mother was an acceptable donor, but separation had to wait until both girls were strong enough to undergo separartion and Maliyah could survive on dyalisis while recovering from the initial surgery.

    So...was Maliyah not a person? She relied on Kendra's kidney for 4 years.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 12, 2009 1:26 PM


    I notice the mods have deleted every single comment I've left that made a little too much sense or exposed what liars pro-lifers are. Oliver, you sit around screaming in terror every month because your wife might miscarry a fertilized egg? (After all, that's how most people react to the idea that their child might die, and you're saying fertilized eggs are children).

    I don't believe you.

    You don't truly, in your heart, believe fertilized eggs should be treated like people. You can make all the "intellectual" arguments you want and get aroused thinking about how smart you are, but you don't believe it.

    It must be nice to have the mods rush in and delete comments that expose the truth. Yes, it's easy to win arguments when no one else with a good point is allowed to talk.

    Therefore I am done, gone, never posting on this again.

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 1:30 PM


    "I notice the mods have deleted every single comment I've left that made a little too much sense or exposed what liars pro-lifers are."

    Like I said before, Nerd, please, I'm begging you, give me your great argument.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 1:33 PM


    Was that supposed to be an argument, Nerd?

    "NUH UH OLIVER! YOU DON'T REALLY BELIEVE THAT!"

    Brilliant. You realize, don't you, that Oliver has absolutely no control over your comments being deleted. He's responded to what he's seen.

    As Bobby has said, if you have a great argument, I'd love to see it. So far, I haven't seen anything that even looks like an argument, let alone a brilliant one.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 12, 2009 1:37 PM


    "You [Oliver] don't truly, in your heart, believe fertilized eggs should be treated like people."

    What a stupid thing to say. How dare you question how Oliver feels about his child. I would love to hear about more of what Oliver really believes from you.

    Can you read my mind too? I certainly hope you can because what I'm thinking would be immediately deleted.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 1:43 PM


    Oh, and Nerd...To steal a term from Megan. How dare you question Oliver's miscarriage narative?

    Seriously though, I've been with my husband as I lay bleeding in our shower, knowing that I was losing another child.

    Sure I had only been pregnant a few weeks, but that was a human life that was alive, but now dead. Yes he mourned. The miscarriage of our children has been, easily, the most difficult thing that we have gone through together in our marriage.

    That's not to say that we've had everything easy either. We have a son with a genetic disorder who spent 7 weeks of his life in the hospital and has has 4 surgeries. He gets a shot every single night of his life. Yet, we are so thankful that he managed to survive. See, we were told that he had miscarried as well. It was a miracle that he did not.

    We loved him even when we thought he had died, and mourn that his twin did die.

    Of course, since that happened early in my pregnancy you can't comprehend that we would care. It was just a clump of cells, right?

    Posted by: Lauren at December 12, 2009 1:44 PM


    I don't expect you to answer this honestly, but think about it to yourself.

    Imagine you (or your wife) takes an early pregnancy test and it's positive. You've conceived another child! Unfortunately, you get your period on time the next day. You've conceived and then expelled the fertilized egg, which doctors believe it quite common.

    Would your emotional reaction be the same as if your 3-year-old child was killed in an accident? Would you be devastated, in shock, unable to eat, sleep, or go to work, need YEARS to heal? Those are normal reactions for parents who lose a child. If the fertilized egg is a precious new child, shouldn't it be treated like your other children?

    You know the answer. And it proves you don't believe a fertilized egg is equal to a child outside the womb, and shouldn't be treated like one.

    Byes!

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 1:54 PM


    Would my reaction be exactly the same? I don't know. I haven't lost a born child. I know how I felt when I lost my children to miscarriage...several years ago. I was all that you mention above. I still mourn them, and will for the rest of my life.

    Would losing a born child be different in some ways? Of course. I would know my born children much better and have more interactions with them. That doesn't mean that my love for them is bigger than my love for my children who have died.

    I don't know what you're trying to prove here. I would probably be more upset if my grandmother died than a person I met the day before. Does that mean that my grandmother is more of a person?

    Was this supposed to be your brilliant argument? Wow, what a let down.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 12, 2009 1:59 PM


    And what would be a fitting memorial for the expelled fertilized egg? A funeral mass? A marker in a cemetery? Aren't you a cold, unfeeling parent if you don't honor your dead child?

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 2:00 PM


    Actually, instead of "does that mean my grandmother is more of a person" should really ask "Does that mean the individual I met the day before is not a person, and thus has no rights and can be killed whenever someone sees fit?"

    Posted by: Lauren at December 12, 2009 2:01 PM


    Nerd, my first child reabsorbed into my body. Nothing was there for me to bury.

    I couldn't recover the body of my second miscarried child. I was and am extremely distraught over this fact. Thanks a lot for bringing it up and implying that I'm a monster not to give my child a funeral. I have a memorial to both children.

    I know others on this site were able to recover the bodies of the children they lost to miscarriage. They have had memorial services and burried their children.

    We're working to get death certificates for those who want them.

    I really don't understand your point here. We fully believe that a human is a human from conception. No gotcha scenerio is going to prove otherwise.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 12, 2009 2:08 PM


    Nerd,

    Good moniker. It fits you well. The reason that one gets more traumatized over the death of the three year old s because there is more shared experience, more time to bond, to interact. There is more invested. You're obviously not a parent or you would not have embarrassed yourself this way.

    Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 12, 2009 2:09 PM


    "The reason that one gets more traumatized over the death of the three year old s because there is more shared experience, more time to bond, to interact."

    So you love your child more as he gets older and you spend more time with him? I've never heard a parent say that.

    Or...

    does a baby outside the womb simply have more worth than a fertilized egg, which even you secretly realize?

    I really am out for the night now.

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 2:13 PM


    And the grandmother vs. stranger comparison is invalid. If you conceive a child, it's your child. It doesn't go from being a stranger to being a family member. Why aren't you holding a funeral? Why aren't you being a good parent to your child? (even if your child is a microscopic embryo--after all, you said size is irrelevant to personhood).

    Posted by: Liz at December 12, 2009 2:16 PM


    No nerd, a baby outside the womb does not have more worth than a newly conceived child.

    You're obviously very young and have never actually had children (beyond perhaps those you killed while in utero). One does not love their children more as time goes on. No one said that. You do, however, experience more with them as they grow older. You know their favorite color and their favorite song. You know that they get afraid of the dark or that they like to pretend to be a dinosaur.

    You never get that when your child dies before birth, and rather than minimize the value of that child, those lost experiences merely serve to make miscarriage just that more tragic.

    All of that is missed when your child dies before birth, but that does not mean that you do not love and cherish that child. My children lost to miscarriage have0the exact worth as my born children.

    I don't know what the hell you're trying to do, but all you're actually doing is belittling the lives of all of the children we've lost. I'll make this really easy for you. I care for and love all my children equally. That includes the ones lost to miscarriage, and even ones, if any, that were lost before I even knew I was pregnant.

    You need to find a new string of argument. You've failed horrifically at this one.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 12, 2009 2:21 PM


    No, Liz. The person I met yesterday is not a stranger. Perhaps we really hit it off and I thought we could become great friends. The fact remains that I knew my grandmother more and it would be entirely possible that someone would mourn more for their grandmother in that situation.

    The point is that even if they DID mourn for their grandmother more, it doesn't mean that the new friend who died was any less of a person or any less deserving of rights.

    As for the rest of your statement. You can go screw yourself.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 12, 2009 2:24 PM


    And do you want to know why I can't hold a funeral, you smug little bitch? Because I couldn't get a death certificate for my children.

    Because of our pro-abortion society, the death of a child by miscarriage is not seen as a death. So two of my children's lives are marked on paper only in my medical records under miscarriage. Do you really think that that is the way I would want it to be?

    Just because you treated your child as medical garbage doesn't mean that the rest of us want our children treated as the same.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 12, 2009 2:28 PM


    "Imagine you (or your wife) takes an early pregnancy test and it's positive. You've conceived another child! Unfortunately, you get your period on time the next day. You've conceived and then expelled the fertilized egg, which doctors believe it quite common. Would your emotional reaction be the same as if your 3-year-old child was killed in an accident?"

    No. What follows from that? Nothing. Does this somehow address all the scientific and philosophical arguments put forth by pro-lifers? No. At the VERY BEST, it shows that some pro-lifers are inconsistent. So what? How does the way a person react to a situation determine reality?

    "Would you be devastated, in shock, unable to eat, sleep, or go to work, need YEARS to heal? Those are normal reactions for parents who lose a child. If the fertilized egg is a precious new child, shouldn't it be treated like your other children? You know the answer. And it proves you don't believe a fertilized egg is equal to a child outside the womb, and shouldn't be treated like one."

    Nerd, do you have the same reaction if you learn that a child in Africa dies as you do when you learn your mother dies? No and the reason is because you know your mother. You have spent time with her and met her etc etc. Your reaction, however, has no bearing on reality. The reality is that the person who dies in Africa is a human being and had you known him, you would react differently. You have a different emotional reaction to the death of someone you know, someone you don't know, someone you know but have never seen, someone you have never met but seen, a child who dies a month after birth, a child who is still born, and a child who is miscarried. But none of it changes the reality that they are persons.

    This is an example of sloppy thinking. You aren't arguing from the objective reality of things, you are trying to make an argument about objective reality based on the way people emotionally act.

    So again, how does one's emotional reaction determine reality?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 2:28 PM


    Thanks Bobby, I got a little emotional. I appreciate your rational argument in response to Nerd.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 12, 2009 2:35 PM


    Lauren,

    Don't worry about it. Clearly Liz and nerd have issues. I'm not going to try and delve into her/their psyche, but the fact that their/her arguments are so void of logic and that she/they are so blind to it speaks volumes.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 2:39 PM


    "You have a different emotional reaction to the death of...a child who dies a month after birth, a child who is still born, and a child who is miscarried."

    Why?

    The personhood argument is based in absolutism. A zygote is an equal human being at the moment of conception, and the law can't treat a zygote/embryo/fetus differently just because of the stage of development. So why are you treating your own child differently at different stages? Is your son more valuable to you at age 9 (when you know him better) than he was at age 9 months? If not, why is he more valuable to you at 9 months than at 9 weeks gestation? Your child is your child is your child, regardless of development.

    Remember, absolutism! The exact kind you want written into the law.

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 2:56 PM


    In other words, if you truly believe a zygote is equal to a human, you should be living that way in your personal life. If the death of your son at 9 months or 9 years would be equally devastating (and most parents agree it would be, the age of the kid makes no difference), then it should also be equally devastating at 9 days gestation. Regardless of age and development, it's YOUR CHILD.

    Unless, gee, there IS something less valuable about an embryo.

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 3:05 PM


    OK nerd, you got me. I'm totally inconsistent. I'm the biggest hypocrite in the world. I hate my child and treat him like a dog when his age is even, but I treat him like a prince when his age is odd. I will only put up pictures of my child when he was in the womb but never after. What follows from that? Nothing. You are again trying to dictate reality based on my own or others' personal reactions to things. Again, how does my hypocrisy refute all the scientific and philosophical arguments in favor of the personhood of the unborn? It doesn't, and I don't know what else I can say to get that through to you.

    This argument is a complete non sequitar. Give it to any pro-choice philosopher and they'll tell you that it is fundamentally logically flawed. Read some actual pro-choicers with actual arguments like David Boonin, Eileen McDonagh, Judith Thomson, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Peter Singer, Paul Simmons, and Stuart Rosenbaum.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 3:09 PM


    Nerd...you have a father who you only knew briefly in your life. Then through no fault of his own (and not by any desire to leave you) he was kidnapped by terrorists and held overseas for years. Then he died.

    OR , you have a father who was in your life every day of your life and you made many many memories with him. Then he died.

    In which scenario would you grieve more? The fact that you KNEW your dad in one scenario would probably cause you to grieve the loss of him more. It doesn't mean that you wouldn't grieve in the first scenario. And it doesn't mean that your father wasn't a human person and a life in both scenarios.

    I loved my son from the MOMENT I found I was carrying him. But honestly, I love him MORE today than I did February 24th 2006 (the day I found out he existed). It means that my love GREW since then not that it was absent when I carried him.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 12, 2009 3:09 PM


    And I have heard many many mothers say they love their children MORE every day. It doesn't mean that there was a day they DIDN'T love their children. You make no sense Nerd.

    My own mother-in-law says that in regards to my husband. And honestly, its a lot like marriage. I have only been married 5 years but with my husband for 9 years. I can honestly say I love him more now than the day he first asked me to be his girlfriend. And I can honestly say I would have grieved had he died on September 16, 2000 (the day we started OFFICIALLY dating :-) but if he died today I would be inconsolable! I would be CRAZY with grief. Does that mean I didn't love him on September 16, 2000...or wait, it proves he wasn't a PERSON on September 16, 2000...oh, now it all makes sense to me Nerd!

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 12, 2009 3:17 PM


    Why did your love grow? Do you love your child more as he gets older? Will you love him more after you've known him 20 years as opposed to 5? That's the argument you're making with the, "what if your father died when you were young as opposed to when you were older"? That makes no sense.

    Or, is a zygote inherently less valuable than a child outside the womb, and the stage of development DOES change the person's(fetus's) status in your eyes?

    Posted by: nerd/Liz at December 12, 2009 3:26 PM


    Oh good grief, Nerd, everyone has made their point crystal clear and I know that you cannot be that obtuse. You're intentionally twisting everything everyone has tried to explain to you, because you're too cowardly to admit that you have no good argument and that you are wrong.

    Plus, you've said about 5 times now that you're leaving, but guess what....big surprise, you're still here. @@

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 3:29 PM


    The "loving more every day" is a cliche. I don't know any actual mothers who claim to love their 20-year-olds more than their ten-year-olds, just because they've known the former longer and have had a more lengthy relationship. But I DO know lots of mothers who love their born children more than they loved their fetuses. Birth changes status.

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 3:32 PM


    Nerd, do you think someone can mourn the loss of a stillborn baby? If so, why?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 3:34 PM


    How about this scenerio, nerd?

    I mourned the loss of my own children lost to miscarriage more than I mourned the loss of my husband's cousin's little boy who was lost to stillbirth.

    By your logic, the children I lost to miscarriage were worth more than the child she lost at birth.

    OR (shocking!) perhaps a child's worth is not based on another's mourning, but rather given to it on the basis of being a human being.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 12, 2009 3:37 PM


    Nerd, do you not realize the difference between an inherent value and a value placed by another person?

    Emotions are subjective- some people "feel" that babies who are born are worth more than babies who are unborn. That does not change their INHERENT value, it does not change the fact that they are in fact complete human beings. It only means that an outsider "feels" a certain way.

    Many people actually "feel" that a baby is not a person until 18 months (I think Peter Singer says this).. does that "feeling" change the baby's status? Of course not!

    All of your emotions are based on emotion and do NOT reflect any sort of reality whatsoever.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 3:38 PM


    *Birth changes a child's status in your eyes. You know, instinctively, that nothing you do to a zygote (including killing it) comes even CLOSE to the magnitude of doing it to a child.

    If you did, the women on here who have had abortions would consider themselves as evil as Ted Bundy (premeditated murder!). But you don't. And your anti-choice friends also don't treat you like someone who slit their child's throat, even though you say it's equal.

    Carla admits to having an abortion. Do you all consider the murder she committed JUST as evil as the one committed by Susan Smith, who drowned her two sons in her car? If not, why? (I'm talking about the evilness of the murder, not the individual, so you can't consider repentence.)

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 3:39 PM


    The conjoined twins were mutually dependent, actually: "The twins shared a kidney and a liver, besides being able to control one leg each." There are instances when one twin is completely dependent on the other. The dependent twin is usually deformed in serious ways, and compromises the health (and potentially the life) of its co-twin. So yes, the host twin (in a parasitic type of situation) would have the right to ask for a separation--if he/she were old enough to consent, which is unlikely since any type of separation surgery would have probably taken place in infancy. But say one twin in a mutually dependent twinship wanted to cut off the other twin. If they were mutually dependent, they'd both die. This wouldn't be allowed, since suicide is illegal.

    Personhood means being a rights-bearing citizen.
    If you're a happily pregnant woman, of course you have all kinds of expectations for your [future] kid, hopes and aspirations and all that, which has the effect of projecting personhood on your fetus. But I hate to say it, but the fetus isn't yet a PERSON. The African American/slavery argument isn't exactly analogous, because African Americans--whatever 19th century defenders of scientific racism would call it--did, and do not, reside INSIDE A PERSON'S BODY.

    PERSONHOOD means being a separate individual. A fetus has its own set of DNA, but is wholly dependent on its mother for survival. The conjoined twin argument doesn't work because conjoined twins are usually mutually dependent, and even in cases of unilateral dependence, the "parasitic" places undue strain on the other twin, compromising its life.


    Posted by: Megan at December 12, 2009 3:42 PM


    Or how about the really tough guy, the "man's man" who is a real harda** and never cries, even at his own son's funeral. Well, check out this "syllogism."

    If you are a human being, then you cry at your son's funeral.
    A really tough guy didn't cry at his son's funeral.
    Therefore, the really tough guy is not a human being.

    This is a perfectly valid syllogism, using the law of logic known as modus tollens. Remember, the justification for the first premise is the principle that reality is determined by emotional response to situations.

    Given your bizarre worldview which is formulated solely around your a priori acceptance of abortion as a moral good, nerd, I see no way out of this.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 3:44 PM


    *Birth changes a child's status in your eyes. You know, instinctively, that nothing you do to a zygote (including killing it) comes even CLOSE to the magnitude of doing it to a child.

    If you did, the women on here who have had abortions would consider themselves as evil as Ted Bundy (premeditated murder!). But you don't. And your anti-choice friends also don't treat you like someone who slit their child's throat, even though you say it's equal.

    Carla admits to having an abortion. Do you all consider the murder she committed JUST as evil as the one committed by Susan Smith, who drowned her two sons in her car? If not, why? (I'm talking about the evilness of the murder, not the individual, so you can't consider repentence.) And don't give me the "abortion doctors should be punished, not women" argument. She consented and paid the doctor. If her aborted fetus was an equal human, isn't she similar to someone who hires a contract killer? Shouldn't she be serving her debt to society in jail, even if she regrets it? If not, why?

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 3:45 PM


    I'm talking about the evilness of the murder, not the individual, so you can't consider repentence.

    I can most certainly consider repentance because that has much to do with it.

    Imagine that killing born children was legal and people were claiming that born children were not persons worthy of protection.

    If Susan smith had drowned her sons under this kind of society's teaching, and then had repented and had begun speaking out to other women telling them that children ARE persons, and explaining how killing children is horrible and should be stopped- I would have compassion for her as well, absolutely!

    I DO think abortion is every bit as evil as what Susan Smith did to her children.

    The sad part is that because there is no window in the womb, it is easy for women to be deceived by money hungry abortionists who convince them that their baby is just a "clump of cells" or whatever other lie they come up with at the moment. Many high school students today are completely ignorant when it comes to fetal development and actually fall for these lies.

    I have sympathy and compassion for those who are actually deceived and aborts, not realizing fully what they have done- and especially when one of these women comes to the light and realizes what they have done and makes and effort to do something to save others.

    You have no idea what you're talking about, Nerd.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 3:46 PM


    Hi Nerd,
    Since you referenced me by name thought I would give you my 4 cents.

    I had an abortion. I grieve that baby. I named her Aubrey. I love her. I had a miscarriage. I delivered that baby into my hand. I held him. I named him Jamie. I love him. I had another miscarriage at 9 weeks. I named him Lee. I love him. We grieve because we love.

    I have four children to raise. I love them all. I do not need to quantify my love to anyone. Who cares?

    My abortion was evil. Absolutely!!! By my choice my child was cut into pieces and thrown away!!
    The act of murdering a child, born or unborn is sin. Susan Smith and I have committed the same heinous act.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 3:49 PM


    The conjoined twins were mutually dependent, actually: "The twins shared a kidney and a liver, besides being able to control one leg each." There are instances when one twin is completely dependent on the other. The dependent twin is usually deformed in serious ways, and compromises the health (and potentially the life) of its co-twin. So yes, the host twin (in a parasitic type of situation) would have the right to ask for a separation--if he/she were old enough to consent, which is unlikely since any type of separation surgery would have probably taken place in infancy. But say one twin in a mutually dependent twinship wanted to cut off the other twin. If they were mutually dependent, they'd both die. This wouldn't be allowed, since suicide is illegal.

    So you're saying that a born human being, the twin who is dependant on the other, is not a person worthy of protection under the law, Megan?

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 3:49 PM


    Megan, I would love for you define "person" .

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 3:51 PM


    Sorry you already did that and i had not read it. Reading now!

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 3:53 PM


    ...and the argument that abortion devalues motherhood is bullshit. check the stats on mothers who get abortions out of concern for the children they already have. i wouldn't be surprised if your own mothers had a few skeletons in the closet, so to speak.

    And Bobby: the only reason I mentioned where I went to school is that, surprisingly, Professor Nadal and I share an alma mater. We're all very impressed of your Dartmouth pedigree, though. I'm confident you've found a nice group of white, madras-clad fellas to pump fists and listen to glenn beck with. I'm sure you'll do a fine job someday drafting state referendums banning same-sex adoption and dispensation of Plan B to rape victims in state-funded hospitals. enjoy that soul of yours while it lasts.

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48199


    Posted by: Megan at December 12, 2009 3:54 PM


    Personhood means being a rights-bearing citizen.

    Megan, in conjoined twins, does either twin have equal rights under the law? Are they both rights- bearing citizens?

    Yes or no.

    If you're a happily pregnant woman, of course you have all kinds of expectations for your [future] kid, hopes and aspirations and all that, which has the effect of projecting personhood on your fetus. But I hate to say it, but the fetus isn't yet a PERSON. The African American/slavery argument isn't exactly analogous, because African Americans--whatever 19th century defenders of scientific racism would call it--did, and do not, reside INSIDE A PERSON'S BODY.

    But they were considered non persons for equally arbitrary reasons.

    PERSONHOOD means being a separate individual.

    Unborn children are separate and distinct individuals.


    A fetus has its own set of DNA, but is wholly dependent on its mother for survival.

    And.....? You just said that a person is a separate individual, admitted that an unborn child is separate, but just has a limitation of needing it's mother for a duration of time. How does that change the fact that it is a separate individual? It doesn't.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 3:58 PM


    Nerd: "Yes, it's easy to win arguments when no one else with a good point is allowed to talk."

    Who has had a post with a good point deleted? Surely you are not refering to your posts. Personally, I'd rather no post be deleted that isn't outright spam. I'd love your ignorance to be on parade. The more spectators read what you say, the more likely the shift in public opinion will favor the pro-life movement. Keep em' coming!


    Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 4:07 PM


    Bobby Bambino...She can't stand that you went to Dartmouth (what? A pro-lifer is educated????AHHHH.) so she is going to knock it. But kudos to you anyhow.

    You know what Nerd? I do think abortion is just as heinous as what Susan Smith did to her children. Thats why I sometimes get angry at women that have had abortions. I tend to be a little more sympathetic to women who had abortions in the 70's and didn't know what they were doing. But women who have them now (with the availability of fetal photos on the internet and also ultrasound) I tend to feel angry towards, because they can SEE that its a baby yet they are just so cold and don't care and are so selfish they still abort. So yes, I used to get angry at those women. Knowing Carla on here and listening to what she has to say has changed my viewpoint some. I know I need to work on my compassion. I know I am not a perfect person at all and Christ forgave me my faults so I need to show forgiveness and mercy to others too. So I try not to judge. That does not mean I don't speak out about abortion.

    A mother loving or not loving her miscarried child doesn't mean a thing. I love my son. I would DIE for him. I would do anything to protect him. He is my heart. Sometimes at night when I watch him sleep I feel like my heart could burst when I think of all the joy he has brought to my life. But the kid is 3. Anyone who knows 3 year olds know they try your patience! He is extremely active and talks VERY well (like an adult) so he gets sassy a lot too. There are days he is so naughty that I feel like I could sell him the gypsies! Does that mean in that moment of human weakness and irritation when I feel like I don't "like" him that he is suddenly rendered non-human? OF COURSE NOT. So what does you argument prove? What does it have to do with ANYTHING? If anything it proves OUR point that personhood is not granted by other's feelings. It is inherent.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 12, 2009 4:10 PM


    Why post a spoof article from a spoof site like the Onion here, Megan? Do you think we're that stupid, or is that your attempt at humor on a not-so-humorous thread?

    Posted by: Kelli Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 4:12 PM


    I'm not questioning Bobby's intelligence. I just hate Dartmouth and think it breeds all kinds of conservative evils.

    If bodily sovereignty isn't a cornerstone of the American legal system, then what stops the continued, systematic rape of women? What prevents me from marching up to Hanover, NH, reaching my hand down Bobby B's throat and yanking on his uvula, besides utter personal revulsion at the prospect of being anywhere near his mucous membranes? Because we value bodily integrity. The same goes for pregnant women. You think (copying BB), a priori, that a fetus is a person. Okay, following that logic, since a woman has bodily integrity, she shouldn't be required to house that fetus inside her body. Too bad we don't have sophisticated enough technology that can support the development of 3-week-old fetuses, and mom, that fat cow (right???), will just have to shut up and take it. Because sex, for women, is always a pregnancy contract.

    Posted by: Megan at December 12, 2009 4:19 PM


    "The more spectators read what you say, the more likely the shift in public opinion will favor the pro-life movement. Keep em' coming!"

    That's funny, since pro-lifers keep losing elections as they gain visibility. The Colorado voters thrashed the personhood amendment 75 percent to 25 percent as soon as the Personhood USA people explained, very clearly, that they believe fertilized eggs are humans and made all your "philosophical" arguments. This was a much larger margin than other failed abortion bans, in which the antis never explicity said that fertilized eggs are people, just that abortion should be illegal.(Although the South Dakota abortion ban failed by a 10 point margin in a Republican state.)

    Huh, it seems like spouting "eggs are people and here's my philosophical PROOF!" insanity causes you to lose elections by an even wider margin than usual. Keep making those arguments.

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 4:19 PM


    Megan: "The conjoined twins were mutually dependent, actually: "The twins shared a kidney and a liver, besides being able to control one leg each.""

    Where do you think the shared kidney and liver came from? The ether? One of the twins successfully created the kidney and/or liver and the other twin was using it/them. In other words, one twin was dependent on the other. So tell me again, are they persons?

    Megan: "There are instances when one twin is completely dependent on the other. The dependent twin is usually deformed in serious ways, and compromises the health (and potentially the life) of its co-twin. So yes, the host twin (in a parasitic type of situation) would have the right to ask for a separation--if he/she were old enough to consent, which is unlikely since any type of separation surgery would have probably taken place in infancy."

    We are not talking about a situation where one would die or both would die, Megan. We are talking about a conjoined twin scenario analagous to pregnancy. One twin is dependent on the other for life within a specific time table. In the case of Kendra and Melyiah, it was 4 years. (In fact, normally, twins cannot separate when there is a shared kidney and only one twin could survive, hence they are not separated.)

    Megan: "But say one twin in a mutually dependent twinship wanted to cut off the other twin. If they were mutually dependent, they'd both die. This wouldn't be allowed, since suicide is illegal."

    Again, you are attempting to distort the argument. We are not talking about a case where both twins need each other. We are talking about a case where only one twin needs the other for a specific time table. Why won't you just answer the question?

    Megan: "Personhood means being a rights-bearing citizen.
    If you're a happily pregnant woman, of course you have all kinds of expectations for your [future] kid, hopes and aspirations and all that, which has the effect of projecting personhood on your fetus. But I hate to say it, but the fetus isn't yet a PERSON. The African American/slavery argument isn't exactly analogous, because African Americans--whatever 19th century defenders of scientific racism would call it--did, and do not, reside INSIDE A PERSON'S BODY."

    So persons are persons because they are persons? And I thought Artistotle ended the use of circular reasoning!

    You have failed again to explain why residence in a human body bears special significance. Parents have to sacrifice their rights routinely to provide food and water and shelter for their children. Heck, you sacrifice your right to bodily integrity all the damn time for the sake of promotion of the good of society. Where on earth do you get that there is a difference? Besides, conjoined twins are a direct refutation of your argument. Residing within another body does not automatically negate your rights.

    Megan: "PERSONHOOD means being a separate individual. A fetus has its own set of DNA, but is wholly dependent on its mother for survival."

    These two sentences have nothing to do with each other. Being a separate individual has nothing to do with what you are dependent on. Otherwise you could claim that all humans are dependent on the Earth and are therefore not separate individuals.

    Megan: "The conjoined twin argument doesn't work because conjoined twins are usually mutually dependent, and even in cases of unilateral dependence, the "parasitic" places undue strain on the other twin, compromising its life."

    It doens't work because it doesn't USUALLY happen? What the hell are you talking about? You don't even need one case to make the argument. All you need is a hypothetical. Socrates must be rolling in his grave.

    And people wonder why we think pro-choicers are so damned stupid?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 4:20 PM


    Nerd, wow. No one here has ever claimed that an egg is a person.

    Once the egg and sperm are united, they become a fully unique and individual human being, which is a scientific fact, not a philosophical belief.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 4:21 PM


    Oliver, that was a perfect analogy- especially because of the temporary timeline. Megan is too cowardly to address the argument because she knows it!

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 4:23 PM


    "The more spectators read what you say, the more likely the shift in public opinion will favor the pro-life movement. Keep em' coming!"

    Actually, the more honest antis are about believing fertilized eggs should be treated like people, the bigger they lose. The Colorado voters thrashed the personhood amendment 75 percent to 25 percent as soon as the Personhood USA people explained, very clearly, that they believe fertilized eggs are humans and made all your "philosophical" arguments. This was a much larger margin than other failed abortion bans, in which the antis never explicity said that fertilized eggs are people, just that abortion should be illegal.(Although the South Dakota abortion ban failed by a 10 point margin in a Republican state.)

    Huh, it seems like spouting "fertilized eggs are people and here's my philosophical PROOF!" insanity causes you to lose elections by an even wider margin than usual. Keep making those arguments.

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 4:26 PM


    Hey Megan...gonna hit the bar tonight. Don't have a sitter but I don't feel I should have to sacrifice anything of myself or be encumbered by parenthood in any way...and since my son is dependent on me I guess I can exercise my choice to NOT be a mother tonight and just ditch him at home alone. The cops better not stop me from exercising my right! Afterall, I shouldn't HAVE to use my body to feed, bathe and clothe my son nor use my body to keep him from getting into mischief (like sticking a finger in the light socket).

    I mean, this is the philosophy of the abortion-rights movement Megan. This is YOUR philosophy. Why does that philosophy magically end at birth?

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 12, 2009 4:34 PM


    Megan: "Because we value bodily integrity. The same goes for pregnant women."

    Sure. I also don't have the house homeless people or feed the poor or make sure the illiterate go to school or ensure proper emotional development for the lonely. So tell me then, why do I HAVE to do all these things for my child? Why can I not kick my child out of the house during a blizzard or throw my child off of my boat during a cruise?

    Simple answer. No one owes any rights to anyone else except in the case of moral obligation. Taking care of your children is one of our societal moral obligation. The very source of human rights also mandates that parents care for their children until a suitable alternative is found.

    Megan: "You think (copying BB), a priori, that a fetus is a person. Okay, following that logic, since a woman has bodily integrity, she shouldn't be required to house that fetus inside her body."

    I think you are confused as to what bodily integrity means. No fetus could force a woman to become pregnant with it. Nor could anyone force a woman to become pregnant through a fetus. However, ONCE pregnant, there are two human lives caught up in the mix. The most just thing to do when two lives are at risk is to preserve the most life.

    There are two options made available to the mother. Wait for an operation for 7 months that would save both lives involved at the minimum damage to bodily integrity, or to side with one patient and take an immediate operation that takes one of the lives involved.

    There was a real life (not that it matters) accident which two gitls were impaled on a stop sign pole. One of the girls was in less danger than the other due to the specific puncture points. The girl that was in more danger required a specific tool to be saved that was NOT present in the hospital. Instead of siding with the less endangered girl and killing the other girl, the doctors chose to preserve the most life by waiting for the tool.

    So Megan, do you believe that in this case, the less injured patient would be justified in killing the other girl?

    "Too bad we don't have sophisticated enough technology that can support the development of 3-week-old fetuses, and mom, that fat cow (right???), will just have to shut up and take it. Because sex, for women, is always a pregnancy contract."

    Hey guys, don't be condescending! Megan doesn't deserve that. Besides, you never know when she might call you pizza-faced.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 4:35 PM


    NERD...although I admit freely that I am not as educated as Gerard is, I WAS a Biology major (a decade ago) and I recall a few things. One thing I do know is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FERTILIZED EGG. Once an egg is fertilized it is NO LONGER AN EGG.

    Biology 101, kid!

    I have never heard a single pro-lifer say that eggs and sperm are life. The only ones I ever hear throwing that around are you pro-choicers saying it to try to confuse the issue and pretend that WE believe that which we don't.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 12, 2009 4:39 PM



    Sydney, 4:39 you took the words out of my mouth. LOL Would it be so difficult for them to use accurate terminology? I guess it's hard to deal with the facts.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 4:41 PM


    Nerd: "Huh, it seems like spouting "fertilized eggs are people and here's my philosophical PROOF!" insanity causes you to lose elections by an even wider margin than usual. Keep making those arguments."

    Funny that, because more Americans consider themselves pro-life since Gallup starting asking the question 14 years ago.

    www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

    Anyone else find it funny to see liberals bash philosophy and reason as motives in an argument? They are relying more and more on rhetoric as the discussion develops.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 4:43 PM


    Ha, I know, Bethany! Terminology is everything in semantics. All the best have played that game...Hitler, Stalin, Sanger....should I keep going?

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 12, 2009 4:44 PM


    "I'm confident you've found a nice group of white, madras-clad fellas to pump fists and listen to glenn beck with. I'm sure you'll do a fine job someday drafting state referendums banning same-sex adoption and dispensation of Plan B to rape victims in state-funded hospitals. enjoy that soul of yours while it lasts."

    What the deuce? I have a family- two small children, and no group of non-math friends friends. I'm a mathematician, so I don't know what a state referendum is, much less do I plan on drafting one, and I've never watched Glen Beck in my life. I don't like Fox news.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 4:46 PM


    This is a little off topic, but really Liz/nerd, is it that hard to remember what name you are using? You post as nerd, then randomly as Liz, then randomly as nerd/liz. You must have some serious instability issues to not remember for 5 minutes which moniker to use.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 4:51 PM


    Yes, and apparently the outcome of elections should determine our moral imperatives. I hope no one ever votes to legalize the killing of those we find annoying (apart from the case of abortion, of course). This whole thing has taught me a very important lesson though: having the misfortune to be a conjoined twin if attached to a pro-choicer is a death sentence.

    "If you're a happily pregnant woman, of course you have all kinds of expectations for your [future] kid, hopes and aspirations and all that, which has the effect of projecting personhood on your fetus."

    Did you not read anything I wrote, Megan, or do you just choose to ignore it because it makes you uncomfortable? I wasn't planning on becoming pregnant. I did not engage in sex with my fiance in the hopes of becoming pregnant. When we ended up creating our daughter in my uterus, I had to give up the most perfect job of my life which I had begun the process of attempting to make a career out of, I was forced to leave the only place at the time I had to call home, and my education was placed on the back burner temporarily. I was not jumping for joy as you seem to imagine. I didn't care what color eyes my daughter might have, and at no point did I involve what occupation I might like for her and expect her to have in the future in my decision to let her have a future in the first place. Simply the fact that she was a human like me who would have eyes (hopefully) and a future as I had been granted by the fates was enough for me NOT TO KILL HER. It was not what she might be but what she was that was in my consideration. In this statement you seem to be confusing the typical pro-abortion mindset of "What I want!" with the anti-abortion mindset of consideration for others...or you're just not able to think in any other terms yourself. Probably the latter.

    Posted by: xalisae at December 12, 2009 4:58 PM


    "Funny that, because more Americans consider themselves pro-life since Gallup starting asking the question 14 years ago.

    www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx"

    I think election results are a lot more revealing than one opinion poll. Such as: voters rejecting the personhood amendment in Colorado 3-1 and the abortion ban in South Dakota. If you can't get the people to ban abortion in SOUTH DAKOTA of all places, where are you going to do it?

    The people voiced their opinion loud and clear in 2008. They seem to find your belief that zygotes are equal people rather insane and terrifying.

    They don't give a rat's behind if your argument is philosophically correct. They don't support outlawing hormonal contraception, fertility treatments (which produce more embryos than can be used), and all abortions.

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 5:00 PM


    Bobby was also a (semi?) pro wrestler. Not exactly your stereotypical neo-con, Megan. I thought the left didn't do that sort of thing? Well I guess the ignorant are the ignorant.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 5:01 PM


    I love how Nerd is trying to avoid the actual discussion by making appeals to popularity now.

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 5:06 PM


    Nerd: "They don't give a rat's behind if your argument is philosophically correct."

    Oh so you admit that we are correct? Interesting.

    It turns out that it doesn't really matter what people think, as long as they think we are philosophically correct. Congress has a moral imperitive to protect human life from injustice, and if we are correct, who cares what South Dakota-ians think?

    By the way, isn't that what got us Roe v Wade to begin with?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 5:08 PM


    Nerd is too dense to discuss with the big kids, Bethany.

    Megan is too, but at least she pretends to discuss, before curling into the fetal position crying "but thats not very common!" over and over.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 5:10 PM


    But BB, some fancifully-fabricated caricature of you is so much easier to debate than your actual self. Bobby has every right to do what he pleases at the imaginary Dartmouth in your mind's eye, and you shouldn't criticize him for the things you imagine him to do.

    Much in the same grain that I cannot chastise you for standing out in the field behind my house where I am currently imagining they've erected a McDonalds which you're probably standing in front of in a tutu, one of those black t-shirts with the tuxedo silk screened on it, neon-pink leg warmers, electric blue flip-flops, a yellow afro, and oven mitts, holding a halibut and slapping a goat in the face with it as you bid customers exiting the drive-thru a nice day in Portuguese. You pro-choicers are all the same, what with your legwarmers and such.

    Posted by: xalisae at December 12, 2009 5:12 PM


    Oh so you admit that we are correct? Interesting.

    No, I don't. But since you just getting an erection over how smart and logical you are, I figured I'd point out that your arguments have persuaded no one.

    Are you one of those bitter middle-aged men who likes to tittilate yourself by screaming at young women entering a clinic, because you're simultaneously aroused and enraged that they have a sex life you can't control? I'd put money down that you are.

    Off to a Christmas party!

    Posted by: nerd at December 12, 2009 5:12 PM


    But nerd, being a woman, I'm afraid I cannot get an erection, and therefore I do not know MY motivations for opposing abortion! Please, PLEASE tell me why I oppose abortion!

    Posted by: xalisae at December 12, 2009 5:18 PM


    I wasn't aware that my arguments were presented to the entire state of South Dakota nerd! Did you present them? I'm a little confused by it all.

    You and Megan are really batting a thousand with your characterizations by the way.

    At least you didn't call me a poopy head!

    Posted by: Oliver at December 12, 2009 5:19 PM


    X, you make me laugh!!!! I KNOW...those pro-choicers and their halibut too!

    Yes, yes we are all middle-aged men here Nerd. I am a 29 year old wife and mother. Can't debate the FACTS so try to throw insults that make no sense. typical. Must be all the halibut they use.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 12, 2009 5:19 PM


    "Bobby was also a (semi?) pro wrestler."

    Yup, pro wrestler in the independents, kinda like AAA in baseball. Bobby Bambino was one of my wrestling names, and so was The Evil Dr. Numbers. My younger brother actually makes a living as a pro wrestler.

    I must attend to the family now, but I wish I could continue the discussion with Megan further. She at least is beginning to put forth an argument that isn't a complete non sequitur, and I feel that she is more serious about this than nerd. And of course, because I FEEL it, that determines reality.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 5:34 PM


    Much in the same grain that I cannot chastise you for standing out in the field behind my house where I am currently imagining they've erected a McDonalds which you're probably standing in front of in a tutu, one of those black t-shirts with the tuxedo silk screened on it, neon-pink leg warmers, electric blue flip-flops, a yellow afro, and oven mitts, holding a halibut and slapping a goat in the face with it as you bid customers exiting the drive-thru a nice day in Portuguese. You pro-choicers are all the same, what with your legwarmers and such.

    LMBO

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 12, 2009 5:51 PM


    "Probably" can be a very fun word, and I don't see why they should be allowed to have all of the fun. ;)

    Posted by: xalisae at December 12, 2009 5:56 PM


    Hey, let's not pretend we're all above personal attacks. I'm merely returning the favor, snotty feminist women's studies inhuman that i am.

    "The most just thing to do when two lives are at risk is to preserve the most life." What you're defining is triage, and it takes different forms in different situations (battlefield vs. hospital room, let's say). I've also responded to the conjoined twin argument pretty well (since conjoined twins are MUTUALLY DEPENDENT...the kidney doesn't just belong to "one" or the "other"...it's shared), yet you cut down the responses with reductive, fear-laden responses. The problem with this "philosophizing" is that it decontextualizes everything. In real life, there isn't a case where one twin is entirely dependent on the other twin without a) being irreparably deformed b) causing intense strain on the dependent twin. But "real life" doesn't matter when you're "grasping at straws."

    You charge me with dodging your questions. What about mine? Why ignore a woman who has had an abortion and isn't terribly upset about it? Why not speak about the countless women who have adoptions and are devastated knowing someone else is raising "their" child?

    oh, and xalisae: it's truly noble and all that you sacrificed all your hard work to rise to your maternal calling. But you could have carried the pregnancy to term and given your daughter up for adoption to a nice, loving, warm and fuzzy family who would have taken good care of her!

    My decision wasn't merely self-centered, though it doesn't matter if it had been. I considered raising a baby in a crappy neighborhood on an income that barely accommodates its father and I, with grandparents who would absolutely shun their son when they found out he had impregnated me. Sounds like a pretty quality of life to me, and I didn't want to subject any kid to such an unstable environment. OOOH but I could have given the baby up for adoption!!!! To whom? The nearest adoption agency contains pages and pages of babies waiting to be adopted. And I had enough personal responsibility not to abandon a baby at the local Lutheran church. So there--thinking out the situation. And I didn't hold truck with the whole "giving the kid a chance at LIFE" argument (because I didn't have a fully-formed, separate, unique, etc. PERSON growing inside of my body, physically attached to me). How many abortions take place every year in the US? Something like a million? If women themselves aren't the best judge of when it's right to introduce another person into this world, then somebody is going to have to make space to accommodate all these extra people. Or you could just outlaw sex...WAIT...policymakers have already tried to enact that one. Hahahaha.


    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 3:41 PM


    God Megan. Answer the damn question. Oliver very clearly explained that the kidney did not simply magically formed. ONE of the twins formed the kidney. Got it? The other twin was USING THE OTHER TWIN'S KIDNEY.

    Where do you think the kidney came from? The Kidney Fairy?

    Maliyah was using Kendra's kidney for 4 years. Sure they treated it as a shared organ, but it wasn't. Not really. Try to think before just flippantly ignoring the argument.

    Was Maliyah a person for the 4 years she was using Kendra's kidney. Yes or no?

    Posted by: Lauren at December 13, 2009 4:20 PM


    Oh and as for your question, I really don't care if no woman ever regretted her abortion. It wouldn't change the fact that abortion is the intentional killing of another human being.

    Can a woman have an abortion and not care? Sure. I don't think the BTK killer cared about his victims either.

    People can justify all sorts of things to themselves. Most people with a hint of a conscience will eventually regret that they killed their child. Perhaps you lack a conscience, many people do. I don't know what that proves.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 13, 2009 4:22 PM


    The Siamese twin comparison is patently ridiculous. Do you think anyone should be forced to live like THIS, even if the attached head is technically another person?

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/122740/baby_born_with_2_heads/

    I'm sure a lot of antis would get their rocks off telling parents they have to watch their daughter suffer this horrible, horrible condition, because the attached twin is "a life!"

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 4:54 PM


    Hey Nerd, why don't you actually answer the question.

    Was Maliyah a person during the 4 years she was attached to Kendra and using Kendra's kidney?

    Posted by: Lauren at December 13, 2009 4:59 PM


    Yep, the very first comment is from an anti. Read it.

    I'd like anyone on this site to admit they think that this girl should have been forced to live with an attached head, until it died its "natural death," because it's a PERSON. It says in the video the conjoined twin threatened her life. But what if it hadn't? What if she could technically survive with the attached head, although living an unimaginably horrible life? Do you think the doctors should be allowed to kill it?

    The anti-choice movement revels in human suffering. That's why you think women should also be FORCED (not encouraged, forced) to give birth to horribly deformed children who can't survive outside the womb, instead of having an abortion at 5 months and getting on with life. No, she has to experience maximum trauma by going to full term, letting her milk come in, and then waiting for her child to die, which could take a few agonizing minutes, hours or days. You also tell women to put up babies for adoption, even though many will experience severe grief and lifelong depression.

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 5:06 PM


    "Was Maliyah a person during the 4 years she was attached to Kendra and using Kendra's kidney?"

    Yes, but clearly I don't think all members of the human species (embryos, conjoined twins who are slowly killing the other twin) have an absolute right to life.

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 5:11 PM


    And some people don't think all members of the human species (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.,) have an absolute right to life, either. You sure are a winner there, nerds.

    Posted by: xalisae at December 13, 2009 5:22 PM


    Alright. So you accept that personhood and rights are not based soley upon not being attached to another person.

    That's more than Megan will admit.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 13, 2009 5:31 PM


    I want someone to answer about the parasitic head. Yes, it's technically another "person." So was it wrong to kill it? If she could have survived with the head attached, should she be forced to? Why or why not?

    Any "pro-life" person who thinks someone should have to live with two heads (because it's a person) is cold, sadistic, and enjoys watching people suffer.

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 5:40 PM


    Thanks, nerd. Well put.

    The conjoined twin argument is flawed. "Sure they treated it as a shared organ, but it wasn't. Not really." I don't see it written anywhere in the article that one twin had complete ownership over the kidney. Their bodies developed fused--they weren't cauterized together at birth or something. Stop making unfounded claims to support your argument. The twins were mutually dependent. Cases of asymmetrical dependence, where the dependent twin isn't deformed to the point where its "personhood" is called into question, and it doesn't compromise the other twin's health, simply don't occur. Nerd illustrates a case of unilateral dependence: The dependent twin placed incredible strain on the other twin. The "independent" twin had the right to terminate the other twin's life (though doctors had to make this decision, since infants can't consent to medical procedures on their own).

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 5:47 PM


    "Alright. So you accept that personhood and rights are not based soley upon not being attached to another person.

    That's more than Megan will admit."

    Not just being attached--being *completely dependent* upon someone else's body for survival. I guess that's my requirement for giving someone rights. That's why I would ban post-viability abortions. If the doctor thinks the baby could live outside the womb, it should be illegal to abort it unless there's some extraordinary circumstance (can't survive outside womb, etc).

    That's also why that girl's parasitic head had no right to life. Yes, it's human, but it certainly did not deserve full rights.

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 5:49 PM


    Oh, and definitely hyperbolic, the Onion article actually has some scary truth to it. Pro-lifers don't give a damn about the health of women. I don't care if you all are women. You're shooting yourselves in the feet, as far as I'm concerned.

    This is another lovely example of staunch pro-life ideology. Gosh, I wouldn't want to be a mentally disabled rape victim in the state of Florida.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/us/gov-jeb-bush-to-seek-guardian-for-fetus-of-rape-victim.html?sec=health

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 5:53 PM


    Nerd, the reason I didn't respond to you immediately is because I had no knowledge of the case and needed to look at the details before I could form a response.

    According the the wikipedia article the parasitic twin could "The twin removed in this case could smile, blink, cry, and tried to suckle."

    In this case, yes I would consider the moral implications of removing the parasitic twin if its presence was not causing complications to the other twin. Obviously this was not the case with the case you brought up. The host twin was in danger due to the parasitic twin's presence. Sadly, the host twin later died as well.

    The reason the whole thing is not a simple cut and dry answer is because their is a continuem of parasitic twinning. Sometimes it is merely the presence of foreign DNA. Sometimes it might be something similar to a hydatiform mole.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 13, 2009 5:53 PM


    In other words, if you're 100% dependent on someone else's body for survival, they should get to call all the shots. You should have an equal right to say "I want this parasitic head removed" as "I want this embryo out of my body." The fact that the embryo/parasitic head is a member of the human species should be irrelevant.

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 5:55 PM


    "In this case, yes I would consider the moral implications of removing the parasitic twin if its presence was not causing complications to the other twin."

    So if it had caused her no problems, the girl should have been forced to live a life of total incapacitation and suffering because she has a body-less, parasitic twin attached to her head? Nice. That's compassionate.

    "Pro-life" zealotry sure can lead people to advocate some really horrific things.

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 6:01 PM


    Megan. You're like a freaking Hare Krishna or something. Despite what is said to you, you just keep repeating the same thing.

    Let me make this really, really simple for you since you're completely incapable of grasping a simple concept.

    Conjoined twins often have a double the ordinary set of organs, each coming from one individual twin. If they have only one organ, it is because one twin created the organ and the other did not.

    They "share" the organ in that they both use it, not in the sense that they both equally created it.

    There are cases where both twins work to create a single organ, but in these cases that organ is not functioning. I.E. both might form partial cardiac tissue that forms into one nonfunctioning or heart.

    Because there was ONE functioning kidney, it follows that the kidney was formed by ONE of the twins.

    Answer the question Megan. Tick Tock.

    Oh and Nerd, Maliyah was completely dependent upon Kendra and her Kidney for the first 4 years of her life. They could not be separated until it was decided that Maliyah was strong enough to undergo dialisys and a kidney transplant.

    However, neither were in danger of dying due to this dependence.

    Given this knowledge, was Maliyah a person entitled to life during the time she was reliant upon Kendra's kidney for life?

    Posted by: Lauren at December 13, 2009 6:03 PM


    I can agree with nerd on viability as the point where "personhood" becomes enacted. The issue, though, is how to determine viability, since pregnant women (who have healthy pregnancies) aren't going to get their fetuses removed to test viability. And then there's the question of the preemie's risk of dying, etc.

    But I also know that women who get late-term abortions usually do so for good reasons, most of them medical. That's why I don't believe late term abortions can be outlawed completely--it's too absolutist. What if the woman developed a really difficult complication during the pregnancy? There always has to be an exception where the woman's health is directly compromised.

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 6:05 PM


    I can agree with nerd on viability as the point where "personhood" becomes enacted. The issue, though, is how to determine viability, since pregnant women (who have healthy pregnancies) aren't going to get their fetuses removed to test viability. And then there's the question of the preemie's risk of dying, etc.

    But I also know that women who get late-term abortions usually do so for good reasons, most of them medical. That's why I don't believe late term abortions can be outlawed completely--it's too absolutist. What if the woman developed a really difficult complication during the pregnancy? There always has to be an exception where the woman's health is directly compromised.
    "Preserving the most life" (IF we follow oliver and bb) would apply to the mother, since she's actually HAD a life, and life experience, etc.

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 6:06 PM


    I can agree with nerd on viability as the point where "personhood" becomes enacted. The issue, though, is how to determine viability, since pregnant women (who have healthy pregnancies) aren't going to get their fetuses removed to test viability. And then there's the question of the preemie's risk of dying, etc.

    But I also know that women who get late-term abortions usually do so for good reasons, most of them medical. That's why I don't believe late term abortions can be outlawed completely--it's too absolutist. What if the woman developed a really difficult complication during the pregnancy? There always has to be an exception where the woman's health is directly compromised.
    "Preserving the most life" (IF we follow oliver and bb) would apply to the mother, since she's actually HAD a life, and life experience, etc. Risking her life wouldn't be "just."

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 6:07 PM


    Well, Nerd, it appears that the twin was another living human being, albiet one with incredible disability. If her presence was not threatening to her sister's life, you most certainly must morally weigh the parasitic sister's life when deciding the course of action.

    We don't simply murder anacephalic infants whose neural development is less than the parasitic twin's.

    Sorry, my idea of compassion doesn't extend to killing another human being just because you think its presence is horrific.


    So, now I've answered your "never ever going to happen"(because any such twining WOULD be detrimental to the host twin) scenerio.

    Now answer my ACTUAL scenerio, or hell really go out there and answer a freaking hypothetical like a big girl.

    That goes for you too, Megan.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 13, 2009 6:09 PM


    Actually, most late term abortions are performed in young women who ignored or didn't realize their pregnancies until they became obvious to family.

    My source on that? None other than the spokesperson of king of late term abortions, George Tiller.

    Kansas City Star, August 26, 1991, quoting Peggy Jarman of the Pro-Choice Action League: "About three-fourths of [George] Tiller's late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families that they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it."

    SO what about Maliyah, Megan. She wasn't "viable" in the sense that she could live on her own without Kendra and her kidney for 4 years. Could she have been killed during that time?

    Posted by: Lauren at December 13, 2009 6:14 PM


    Megan, there's absolutely no scenerio when a late term abortion is necessary to save the mother's life. The child can always be delivered early either vaginally or via c-section and then rushed to the NICU.

    Yes, there are times when a baby must be taken before viability, but again, this would happen at a hospital as either a labor induction or a c-section.

    Of course ectopic pregnancies are also managed at a hospital.

    There's absolutely no reason for a freestanding late term abortion clinic to care for mother's with health issues.

    In fact, if you think logically about them, it makes no sense. A late term abortionist spends 2 days slowly dialating the woman's cervix with seaweed while she waits in a hotel room. She delivers in a free standing clinic, not a hospital. Can you imagine being in this situation if you had become ecclampsic? No way.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 13, 2009 6:19 PM


    I've got to go for a bit, I'll be back later tonight.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 13, 2009 6:21 PM


    "Oh and Nerd, Maliyah was completely dependent upon Kendra and her Kidney for the first 4 years of her life. They could not be separated until it was decided that Maliyah was strong enough to undergo dialisys and a kidney transplant."

    A human, yes. Legally entitled to life? No. If the parents had wanted them separated knowing the *completely dependent* twin would die, I'd let them. If you have absolutely zero chance of surviving once detached from SOMEONE ELSE's body, I don't think you have a right to life.

    After all, if a sick person decided they wanted to harvest your organs, would they have a right to? No. They don't have a right to survive on your body.

    But of course that didn't happen because the doctors were able to do a transplant, so YOUR example isn't based in reality, either.

    Sorry, that's where I draw the line. I still consider that more compassionate than you admitting you would force a girl to live with an attached head. That's sadistic, and I think you're a vile person for advocating it. Have a nice night!

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 6:23 PM


    ...and the twins shared a liver and a spine, too. You're making inferences about organ ownership, twisting the argument in the direction you want it to go.

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 6:24 PM


    I note that in the parasitic twin case, the grand mufti of Egypt gave his blessing to remove the "person" (the parasitic head) from her twin, intentionally ending her life. But Lauren is against it. So a lot of our pro-lifers right here in America are more extremist than the religious authorities of an Islamic theocracy.

    That's something to think about when we consider letting the extremist pro-life movement dictate our policies.

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 6:55 PM



    Posted by: Fed Up at December 13, 2009 8:01 PM


    Fed up, LOL!! I wish that stuff worked!!

    Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at December 13, 2009 8:04 PM


    I love debating with Nerd and Megan. To Megan I say it doesn't matter if women don't regret their abortions or not, that doesn't change that children are DEAD. Hitler didn't regret the holocaust either...doesn't mean 6 million Jews didn't lose their lives. Regretting or not regretting doesn't mean a thing.

    There are NOT pages and pages of kids waiting to be adopted. There are pages and pages of COUPLES waiting to adopt a baby. I know because my cousin and his wife can't conceive. They've been married 11 years, are both engineers and have tried to have a baby and she can't get pregnant and they don't know why. They are looking into adoption and the waiting list is YEARS.

    So to makes sure your kid didn't have a POOR quality of life you just took care of that and made sure he didn't have life. huh...so, if I ever find out my kid has something awful like cancer, I don't want him to suffer or have poor quality of life so I'll just put a bullet in Tommy's little skull. Better to be dead than have "poor" quality of life!

    You're a cold person Megan. Its scary unfeeling people like you exist. I dare say I could be laying on the street having a heart attack and you would step right over to go on with your life and not be bothered by another person.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 13, 2009 8:55 PM


    Nerd says "A human, yes. Legally entitled to life? No. If the parents had wanted them separated knowing the *completely dependent* twin would die, I'd let them. If you have absolutely zero chance of surviving once detached from SOMEONE ELSE's body, I don't think you have a right to life."

    Well, you're absolutely wrong. Medical ethics dictate that both children live if both can live while conjoined, but one will die if separated.

    Thanks for playing.

    Nerd says:"But of course that didn't happen because the doctors were able to do a transplant, so YOUR example isn't based in reality, either."

    Are you really that dense, Nerd? They were only able to do the surgery 4 YEARS after birth. Maliyah lived for 4 YEARS attached to Kendra and reliant on her Kidney. How long is a pregnancy again? Last I checked, it was a lot longer than 4 years.

    The rest of your post has no actual argument, so I'll just leave it there.

    Megan- Are you freaking kidding me? Ok, let's say that every single organ that was "shared" was created by Kendra. It was her spleen and her liver.

    Now what? Was Maliyah a person entitled to life?


    Posted by: Lauren at December 13, 2009 9:17 PM


    We're cold people? I'll just re-post my comment:


    The "pro-life" movement revels in human suffering. That's why you believe:

    -women should be FORCED (not encouraged, forced) to give birth to horribly deformed children who can't survive outside the womb, instead of having an abortion at 5 months and getting on with life. Either way the baby dies, but you want the woman to experience maximum trauma by going to full term, letting her milk come in, and then waiting for her child to die, which could take a few agonizing minutes, hours or days. (My mom has a friend whose severely deformed Trisomy 13 baby lived for several agonizing, pain-filled weeks that traumatized her and the rest of the family. She said she wishes more than anything she had had an abortion.)

    -You also tell women to put up babies for adoption, even though many will experience severe grief and lifelong depression.

    -You think a girl (like the one in the video above) should be forced to live with a body-less, conjoined twin attached to her head. You're willing to force someone to live a horrible, horrible existence because the attached twin is a "life."

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 9:22 PM


    We're talking about legal rights. No one should have a right to survive on your body. If someone with failing kidneys decided to take yours (remember, you can survive with one), should you be FORCED to give it to them? You might decide to give it to them, just like a woman might decide to let an unwanted pregnancy survive in her body. But do they have a legal right to your kidney?

    What if doctors came up with some way to keep people awaiting transplants alive by physically attaching them to another person? Should they be able to attach them to you without your consent?

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 9:34 PM


    Megan : "You charge me with dodging your questions. What about mine? Why ignore a woman who has had an abortion and isn't terribly upset about it? Why not speak about the countless women who have adoptions and are devastated knowing someone else is raising "their" child?"

    I'm not sure how that question has anything to do with abortion, but I'll glady answer it. A mother's feelings do not matter when it comes to the obligation of child care. Whether or not a woman regrets murdering her child has nothing to do with he morality of the action either. So to put it simply...

    a)It has no bearing on the argument that some women feel no remorse for abortion.

    b)A mother's negative feelings about adoption have no bearing on whether or not the mother can kill her child.

    Megan: "The problem with this "philosophizing" is that it decontextualizes everything. In real life, there isn't a case where one twin is entirely dependent on the other twin without a) being irreparably deformed b) causing intense strain on the dependent twin. But "real life" doesn't matter when you're "grasping at straws.""

    You do understand that every single one of your feminist idols would be utterly embarrassed to hear you say this right? You also understand that the very argument that spurred the "bodily integrity" argument stemed from a hypothetical case of a kidnapped man attached to a violinist right?

    Philosophical discourse is not "grasping at straws." It is, in fact, the very foundation of every philosophical movement.

    It reminds me of my first philosophy proffessor. He was a pro-choicer, and I was taking contemporary morals. We got along great because he participated in philosophical discourse. I'll always remember how he responded to a pro-lifer questioning the reality of the "burglar analogy."

    Proff: "Philosophy requires hypothetical ideals to test ideal principles, especially in the realm of ethics. Honestly, if you run into someone who cannot accept a hypothetical argument because it is 'not real,' that person is probably too dense for this kind of conversation anyways. Don't bother."

    You, Megan, really have no place in this kind of discussion. You just aren't mentally developed enough. Might I suggest that you take a few years off, read some books, meet different kinds of people, and then, once you have matured, try again at this whole thing. In all honesty, I don't really think that you are THAT stupid. It is just as my proffessor said, it really isn't worth anyone's time to talk to you about this, given your current state of maturity.

    If only I could follow his advice and not bother!

    Also, I need to clarify this.

    Megan: ""Preserving the most life" (IF we follow oliver and bb) would apply to the mother, since she's actually HAD a life, and life experience, etc. Risking her life wouldn't be "just.""

    Duh. You will be hard pressed to find a pro-lifer who opposes saving the mother over the fetus. You just don't get the whole point of being pro-life. It really is about preserving the most life.

    Try thinking of pregnancy as a horrible, unfortunate accident. Two people's lives are caught in flux. One operation has a 7 month waiting list, but it would save both unfortunate lives. Another operation only has a few days waiting list, but it would necessarily kill one of the lives. Doctors are faced with this kind of decision all the time, and the moral choice is always the choice that preserves the most life: the first operation.

    Oh an Nerd, you are probably just an idiot. Most of what you have said is flimsy at best and incoherent at worst. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 13, 2009 9:47 PM


    "I don't want him to suffer or have poor quality of life so I'll just put a bullet in Tommy's little skull. Better to be dead than have "poor" quality of life!"


    --too bad Tommy's a PERSON, meaning he's been born, has advanced to a state of self-sufficiency beyond complete attachment on your body and your body alone, has become a physically autonomous entity, etc etc.

    Not that I need to prove my humanity to this group of fear and pathos-encumbered fruitcakes, but I care plenty for PEOPLE. Short resume (past three years): Advocacy work to end discrimination of pregnant girls in the NYC public school system (i.e. ensuring schools don't illegally kick them out). Volunteer with an organization that provides skill-building opportunities for developmentally disabled people. Teach math and writing to underprivileged kids. Advocacy work to end discrimination against HIV+ individuals, as well as efforts to expand sex education.

    But I guess I must be less than humane since I don't weep for all those children who have YET TO BE BORN. I lived in a very tiny house growing up, meaning my parents had limited privacy and thus few opportunities for sex. Oh, if only they had had more chances to conceive another little brother or sister for me! Boohoo! When you start counting fertilized eggs, blastocysts, etc. as fully-developed human beings with personhood status is ridiculous, then you can go back as far as you want (reverse slippery slope fallacy!). Why are sperm and egg so different separate than when fused, if you don't consider there to be any profound difference between an infant and a fetus that lives off and within its mother's body? Why define personhood merely when egg and sperm are fused????

    Outlaw male masturbation, I say. So many potential lives lost.

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 9:52 PM


    Nerd: "We're talking about legal rights. No one should have a right to survive on your body. If someone with failing kidneys decided to take yours (remember, you can survive with one), should you be FORCED to give it to them? You might decide to give it to them, just like a woman might decide to let an unwanted pregnancy survive in her body. But do they have a legal right to your kidney?"

    No. Should you be forced to house a homeless person for free, if he wants to take your spare room?

    Nerd: "What if doctors came up with some way to keep people awaiting transplants alive by physically attaching them to another person? Should they be able to attach them to you without your consent?"

    No. Should you be forced to provide food for a poor family, should they really need your food and you can afford to give it?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 13, 2009 9:53 PM


    Nah, the fact that you won't respond to my question of whether anyone else has a right to survive on your body, proves that you're the idiot.

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 9:57 PM


    Ah, so an embryo has no right to survive on my body, so long as no one can force you to give up an organ keep them alive.

    Let's say you're the ONLY genetic match to give your brother bone marrow. Should doctors be allowed to chain you to a hospital bed and forcibly take it because he can't survive otherwise? What's the difference?

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 10:01 PM


    *Keep in mind that giving up bone marrow won't kill you, just like pregnancy won't kill a woman. Do the doctors still have the right to strap you down and take your bone marrow against your will?

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 10:03 PM


    "Are you freaking kidding me?"

    It's called nuance, not ignoring glaringly apparent facts (i.e., that despite one child supposedly having created a kidney, the twins had a fused spine). If one twin were wholly, and truly, wholly dependent on the other one (as in the case nerd brought to our attention), the independent twin has the right to terminate attachment--that is, if he/she is of consenting age (not four years old).

    Oh, and Oliver, insulting my intelligence won't change my ideals or voting record. Spare me the oh-so-didactic philosophy 101 talk. You sound like a post-1st semester college kid trying to impress all those high school douchebags with his new appreciation for "higher thought." I'll answer your question for you: in your hypothetical situation, the completely dependent twin wouldn't have the same right to life as the dependent twin, alright? But now, like the true philosopher you are (right), you're going to try and make this statement applicable to real life cases, even though you'd be hard-pressed to find a case where one conjoined twin is completely dependent on the other and a) can, without a doubt, be considered a fully-developed human being b) isn't risking the other twin's life. Or, like Lauren, etc., you could take a situation, ignore important details, and berate me for a reductive answer. Yay Logic 200!

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 10:07 PM


    Is "No" not clear enough nerd?

    A fetus does not have the right to live off its mother body, because people have that right in general. A fetus has the right to not be instantly killed, when there is a safer operation available 7 months later that does not greatly increase the risk to the mother's life. Just like the girls impaled by the stop sign, the moral choice is to preserve the most life.

    Besides, the mother is not at a great risk to lose anything substantial to the fetus, especially if the fetus is taken at 33 weeks. The fetus however has the greatest of all things to lose, its life.

    Additionally, the mother DOES have the obligation to provide food, water and shelter to her child. Just like I do not have to house a homeless person, but I DO have to house my children, a parent has a special relationship that necessitates a partial loss of rights.

    Here is a simple question. Can I envoke my right to own property and kick my 5 year old out of the house into a freezing blizzard? If no, then why not?

    (By the way Nerd, you are an idiot because you feel that philosophical hypotheticals MUST have a comparative real life example. You also think that a conjoined twin's organ magically is created by BOTH twins. You also think that a parasitic twin, if benign, can be killed ONLY if that twin is a freak, but not if that twin is normal. I think you are the idiot here.)

    Posted by: Oliver at December 13, 2009 10:08 PM


    "Are you freaking kidding me?"

    It's called nuance, not ignoring glaringly apparent facts (i.e., that despite one child supposedly having created a kidney, the twins had a fused spine). If one twin were wholly, and truly dependent on the other one (as in the case nerd brought to our attention), the independent twin has the right to terminate attachment--that is, if he/she is of consenting age (not four years old).

    Oh, and Oliver, insulting my intelligence won't change my ideals or voting record. Spare me the oh-so-didactic philosophy 101 talk. You sound like a post-1st semester college kid trying to impress all those high school douchebags with his new appreciation for "higher thought." I'll answer your question for you: in your hypothetical situation, the completely dependent twin wouldn't have the same right to life as the dependent twin, alright? But now, like the true philosopher you are (right), you're going to try and make this statement applicable to real life cases, even though you'd be hard-pressed to find a case where one conjoined twin is completely dependent on the other and a) can, without a doubt, be considered a fully-developed human being b) isn't risking the other twin's life. Or, like Lauren, etc., you could take a question arising from a particular situation, ignore important details for the convenience of your argument, and berate me for a reductive answer. Yay Logic 200!

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 10:10 PM


    You also think that a conjoined twin's organ magically is created by BOTH twins."

    That was Megan you frickin moron.

    If I were pregnant with conjoined twins, I would have an abortion immediately. What a horrible life. The pro-life movement is only compassionate towards their precious little embryos; us pro-choicers have compassion for women with unwanted pregnancies, mothers carrying babies who can't live outside the womb, people who want to correct a horrible deformity (a parasitic twin), etc. That's why we keep winning elections and defeating abortion bans anywhere they're tried.

    I'm out for the night!

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 10:15 PM


    I care plenty for people too Megan. I have done a lot of volunteer work with Birthright and put a lot of my own money into buying supplies for these pregnant women. I also worked to raise money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association etc...done some other things too, but the greatest way I have shown care and love and concern for another person is that I allowed a little boy to develop and grow inside my body. I threw up and was exhausted (while working a full time physically demanding job in loss prevention) almost every day of my pregnancy. Still I sucked it up knowing I must suffer in order to allow my son to grow and live. Then I went through hours of non-medicated labor (I asked for an epidural but they didn't come right away and when they finally came it was too late). After I delivered my son in pain, I allowed him to feed from my own body. I nursed him and got up hour after hour to comfort and feed him for weeks and weeks. For three years now I have put my needs and wants second to make sure my son is fed, has clothes that fit him and keep him warm, that he feels loved, and is happy. When he has nightmares, or is sick and cranky I sacrifice my own sleep and comfort so that he can be comforted. I've cleaned up poop, and vomit, and pee and everything you can think of. I've dealt with numerous temper tantrums. I've watched him break things around the house as he explored...I've had to completely put MY needs, MY wants, My possessions LAST. THAT shows true caring for other people when you show your child that kind of sacrificial love. And every mom on here knows exactly what I am talking about.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 13, 2009 10:23 PM


    Nerd: "Let's say you're the ONLY genetic match to give your brother bone marrow. Should doctors be allowed to chain you to a hospital bed and forcibly take it because he can't survive otherwise? What's the difference?"

    Of course they should not. I also do not have to house my brother, or give him food. I do have to provide these things to my children.

    I'll go ahead and ask your next question.

    "BUT do you have to provide bone marrow to your children???"

    The answer is also "No." The gift of bone marrow is either to repair a defeciency or to balance out some sort of outside circumstance. No parent owes anything to his or her child other than the universal necessities of life not "built in" to a complete human.

    Does a parent, for example, owe his/her child the chance to get an appropriate education? Yes. Does a parent owe his/her child a mind altering surgery to repair brain damage? No.

    Megan: "Oh, and Oliver, insulting my intelligence won't change my ideals or voting record. "

    Who wants to change your ideals or voting record? You won't even engage in honest debate about the issues. Why would I care what you think? Trust me, we would be much better off without you "on our side."

    Megan: "I'll answer your question for you: in your hypothetical situation, the completely dependent twin wouldn't have the same right to life as the dependent twin, alright? But now, like the true philosopher you are (right), you're going to try and make this statement applicable to real life cases, even though you'd be hard-pressed to find a case where one conjoined twin is completely dependent on the other and a) can, without a doubt, be considered a fully-developed human being b) isn't risking the other twin's life. Or, like Lauren, etc., you could take a situation, ignore important details, and berate me for a reductive answer. "

    I thought my insults wouldn't affect you Megan? Yet, you actually answered the hypothetical. Of course, the very fact that you think I will try to bring it into the realm of "real life" goes to show that, despite my careful refutation of your immature approach to discussion, you still don't get it. I'll give you this, at least you finally answered the damn question. Sheesh.

    So let's move on the next few questions.

    Does a fetus that grows in a test tube have human rights. Why or why not?

    Would the "healthy" girl in the "girls impaled upon a stop sign pole(*real life too!!*)" example have the right to demand immediate treatment at the immediate death of the other girl, despite that there was no additional health risk to the "healthy" girl.

    Megan: "Yay Logic 200!"

    Was this another zinger that you just HAD to add on to the end of your post?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 13, 2009 10:26 PM


    Nerd: "That was Megan you frickin moron."

    Eh, I'll concede that. I thought somewhere along the line you implicitly agreed with Megan.

    Nerd: "If I were pregnant with conjoined twins, I would have an abortion immediately. What a horrible life."

    Ah, so now you are saying that it is okay to kill someone because they are conjoined twins? Is it then a good thing to kill people who also have, as you view it, a horrible life? Keep in mind, your argument supporting your this abortion has nothing to do with bodily integrity, which is the ONLY argument that can even begin to be made. You are strictly saying that you can, and should, kill someone for having a bad life.

    Nerd: "The pro-life movement is only compassionate towards their precious little embryos; us pro-choicers have compassion for women with unwanted pregnancies, mothers carrying babies who can't live outside the womb, people who want to correct a horrible deformity (a parasitic twin), etc. That's why we keep winning elections and defeating abortion bans anywhere they're tried.

    I'm out for the night!"

    I'll give you that I do not give a crap about the woman attempting to murder her child. At least, no more than I would give to any mother abusing or murdering her infant, teenager, or whatever.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 13, 2009 10:34 PM


    You better correctly define your terms, Kant.

    noun, plural -tus⋅es. Embryology.
    (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

    By definition, a FETUS can't grow in a test tube.

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 10:46 PM


    I thought we got past this Megan? We can split hairs as to the intention of the biological term of "fetus" all day long. I'm not really sure what you are trying to assert. The term may not be accurate, so the embryo...doesn't have rights? I don't get it. Also, why did you not answer my other questions?

    Well whatever. Let's make it an embryo. Would an embryo growing in a self sustained test tube have the right to not be killed?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 13, 2009 10:54 PM


    By the way, I have no doubt whatsoever that most anti-choicers would go out and abort conjoined twins or babies with some other major defect.

    How is it that we have a "pro-life" majority, yet 90 percent of Down's syndrome babies, 90 percent of babies with anencephaly, and 95 percent of babies with cystic fibrosis are aborted? Those pregnancies don't only happen to pro-choicers.

    You all like to spew nonsense you don't believe in because you hate women and enjoy the idea of punishing them for having sex. But you also have the comfort of knowing abortion is still legal, and you can take advantage of it if you want to.

    And antis do take advantage of it, because if over 50 percent of the country says they're "pro-life" and 95 percent of cystic fibrosis babies are aborted, that math doesn't add up.

    Nice work, hypocrites.

    End.of.story.

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 11:08 PM


    By the way Megan, do you have any more snappy one liners? Your pizza-face comment really had me rolling!

    (I'm also kind of digging this "smart people are stupid!!" vibe you are putting off. It is interesting to see the left abandon the intelligentsia whenever the arguments don't go their way.)

    Posted by: Oliver at December 13, 2009 11:11 PM


    "Well whatever." The philosopher's response.

    1. embryo: the young of a viviparous animal, esp. of a mammal, in the early stages of development WITHIN THE WOMB, in humans up to the end of the second month. Compare fetus.

    And I will be honest--I'm not sure how to answer that question, since, by definition, embryos and fetuses need a host body in order to survive and grow. But if you could find a way NOT to rely upon a woman's body for gestation, then the baby-in-the-tube could, potentially, be endowed with human rights, since it wouldn't be dependent in that direct, physical way, on one body.

    I'm waiting to get slammed. Go for it. Oh, and please stop whining. I'm answering your questions. Don't belittle me for giving you responses you don't like.

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 11:16 PM


    Nerd: "End.of.story."

    Good rant. You should post that on your Myspace.

    By the way, all the more reason to make it illegal. Even principled people are weak and give in to the easy way out. We clearly cannot rely on ethical people to protect those innocent's lives. Have you ever met someone with Down Syndrome, Nerd? Do these people really look better off dead?

    Thank God our government is not a strict representative Democracy, but a Republic, and is therefore ruled by Law and not mob mentality.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 13, 2009 11:17 PM


    *where the defenders of Law (i.e., a state governor) consider it ethical to a) attempt to take a fetus into state custody when a mentally challenged woman gets impregnated by a rape b) make sure she carries the pregnancy to term, even though, as a ward of the state, she herself has no right to the child. That sounds like a fair policy. Sounds like something for which Jesus himself would advocate.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/us/gov-jeb-bush-to-seek-guardian-for-fetus-of-rape-victim.html?sec=health

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 11:23 PM


    "Good rant. You should post that on your Myspace."

    Oh, emotions can't influence someone's well-reasoned argument, eh? Maybe you'd like to reread what nerd wrote. It makes sense.

    Posted by: Megan at December 13, 2009 11:29 PM


    Megam: "And I will be honest--I'm not sure how to answer that question, since, by definition, embryos and fetuses need a host body in order to survive and grow. But if you could find a way NOT to rely upon a woman's body for gestation, then the baby-in-the-tube could, potentially, be endowed with human rights, since it wouldn't be dependent in that direct, physical way, on one body."

    Now here you are showing your ignorance. The medical term embryo specifically refers to the development stage. The only reason the website you pulled mentions womb is for clarity. Any biological text book you could find specifically points to the embryo as a human development stage. Not everything is defined in regards to a woman's womb, Megan. I mean come on, just think about it. What do they call frozen humans waiting to be implanted? Embryos. What do we call that special research technique using humans not implanted within their mothers? Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

    I still don't understand why you are making a fuss over the terms, honestly. What does it gain you to make a big stink, especially when you are completely ignorant of the terminology?

    Now, you didn't really answer the question. You said it could "potentially" be endowed rights. What do you mean by this? The question is, for clarity sake, would an embryo grown in a test tube have the basic human right to not be killed?

    Megan: "I'm waiting to get slammed. Go for it. Oh, and please stop whining. I'm answering your questions. Don't belittle me for giving you responses you don't like."

    I haven't belittled you for answers I don't like. If you would pay attention, I actually was fine when you actually answered one of my questions. (And it only took you three days, and countless posts to do it too!) What I am "whining" about is that you are NOT answering many, many other questions. When you answer a question about a "test-tube fetus" by responding "LOL YOU CANST HAVE A FEOTUS IN A TUBE!! ^_^;;" you did not give a legitimate response.

    Now, do you or do you not believe an embryo grown outside of its mother has the human right to not be killed?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 13, 2009 11:29 PM


    Megan: "Maybe you'd like to reread what nerd wrote. It makes sense."

    I don't know what you mean. I did respond to it.

    By the way, whether or not someone is a hypocrite has nothing to do with the veracity of his/her argument. I guess I should have stuck that in there too.

    Does Al Gore's argument, for example, on "Climate Change" become invalidated because Al Gore pumps more carbon into the atmosphere than 99.9% of the world's citizens? No of course not.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 13, 2009 11:34 PM


    1. I don't believe Oliver is a father, inasmuch as no woman would sleep with such a huge douchebag.

    2. They say pro-lifers make exceptions for "rape, incest, and me," which is true, given the facts I cited in my previous post. Polling about abortion should start being redirected toward the individual.

    "Do you think you (or your wife) should be forced to carry to term an anencephaly baby that has an exposed brain stem, eyes that need to be taped shut to keep them from falling out, and who will die within hours or days?"

    "Do you think you should be forced to give birth to Siamese twins who can never be separated?"

    "If you're carrying twins with twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome, should you be forced to let both babies die instead of aborting one twin to save the other's life?"

    "Do you think you should be prevented from using The Pill, because it might kill a fertilized egg?"

    If people realized these are all goals of the anti-choice movement and had to answer those questions honestly, I'm betting their support would plunge to around zero percent.

    These pro-life fanatics are dangerous. Remember that the Islamic clerics in Egypt are less extreme than our pro-life whackos, because even they agreed a parasitic twin can have its life terminated. People need to realize we're dealing with the American Taliban. They even produce terrorists like Scott Roeder! I guess they're not too different from the real Taliban.

    Posted by: nerd at December 13, 2009 11:51 PM


    Nerd: "I don't believe Oliver is a father, inasmuch as no woman would sleep with such a huge douchebag."

    Ahhh, quite the intelligent response. It doesn't even make sense really. Don't the douchebag guys get all the girls anyways? Really, from your characterization, you didn't seem to have too much trouble sleeping with one.

    Nerd: "If people realized these are all goals of the anti-choice movement and had to answer those questions honestly, I'm betting their support would plunge to around zero percent."

    Sure if you threw those extremely biased questions out. I could also create some biased questions.

    "Do you believe that this cuddly baby cooing deserves at least the chance to live a normal life?"

    "Do these conjoined twins deserve to be killed simply because they are conjoined?"

    And for your last question about the "one or both" argument, almost no pro-lifer would oppose that line of thinking. Remember, we want to follow medical ethics and preserve the most life.

    Nerd: "People need to realize we're dealing with the American Taliban. They even produce terrorists like Scott Roeder! I guess they're not too different from the real Taliban."

    Scott Roeder was a paranoid schizo. He wasn't a member of any pro-life organizations. Your side also produced a terrorist who killed a pro-life protester. He didn't even have a history of insanity, last time I checked. I'm sure you will take responsibility for that, of course.

    Also, I love the Taliban argument. We are trying to save humans, and honestly believe that humans with rights are being killed, and we don't even stand to directly gain any benefit from saving these humans (unlike pretty much any other human rights movement,) and that makes us the Taliban. At least you seem to have the wisdom to understand that the Taliban is something evil to be despised.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 14, 2009 12:02 AM


    Terminology is everything, actually.

    There is no way currently to raise an embryo from conception to infancy outside a woman's body. Even if your biology books don't define it explicitly in terms of the mother's body, it is implicit in the definition.

    If we developed some kind of simulation-uterus, then, given my argument about bodily sovereignty, you wouldn't have the right to terminate the entity (I won't call it an embryo because that wouldn't be definitionally correct, at least not right now).

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 12:07 AM


    Gosh, I would love to see the day when both men and women become redundant, sexually. We can just grow babies in petri dishes and not have to worry about this mess. Maybe then we can bestow equal rights on the queeeahs, since it would no longer make any shred of sense to consider gayness as a direct obstacle to the procreative function (not that it is now, considering how advanced surrogacy systems have become, and that gay men are starting to adopt forgotten foster care kids in droves).

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 12:14 AM


    Megan: "There is no way currently to raise an embryo from conception to infancy outside a woman's body. Even if your biology books don't define it explicitly in terms of the mother's body, it is implicit in the definition."

    No it really is not. You are making yourself look foolish. Embryos are frequently stored outside of their mothers' bodies and they are still termed embryos. Is this some kind of stalling technique? Are you trying to distract me by making an ass of yourself? How exactly does terminology determine anything? Do you honestly not understand the role of language? You clearly did not take Philosophy 101 at Columbia, did you not take Linguistics either. (Nor did you take any biological sciences for that matter.) What exactly did you use to fill that prerequisite?

    Well, at least you answered the question.

    Now, you agree with me that a fetus inherently has the right to life. The only question between us, then, seems to be whether or not that right to life overcomes the mother's right to bodily integrity, correct? (I am honestly not laying a trap, so don't be arbitrarily stand-offish. I just want to continue to point number two in the argument.)

    Posted by: Oliver at December 14, 2009 12:14 AM


    Megan: "Gosh, I would love to see the day when both men and women become redundant, sexually. We can just grow babies in petri dishes and not have to worry about this mess."

    I actually agree with you here, much to many a pro-lifer's chagrin. The problem is though, that many pro-choicers still would believe that the "petri dish" babies would be viable to kill. You should read up on a pro-choice philosopher named Mary Ann Waren. She actually believed that infanticide is moral because infants do not truly have self recognition.

    Megan: "Maybe then we can bestow equal rights on the queeeahs, since it would no longer make any shred of sense to consider gayness as a direct obstacle to the procreative function."

    Who is arguing that homosexuals shouldn't have rights? I'm very pro "Gay"-marriage. I don't think it is our country's position to discriminate against anyone based on religious views alone. Until I see more convincing arguments supporting the opposing side, I am fine with homosexuals doing whatever.

    But of course, what exactly does that have to do with abortion anyways?

    Posted by: Oliver at December 14, 2009 12:23 AM


    I thought we weren't going to try and make hypotheticals directly applicable to real-life situations? Language is everything. An embryo stored outside a woman's body still needs a woman's body to grow. A frozen embryo isn't an embryo in a gestational stage. It's still an embryo.

    "Now, you agree with me that a fetus inherently has the right to life."

    Sounds like a trap to me. A fetus doesn't have a right to life. A conceptus that can develop outside the mother's body, with sophisticated enough technology, would have the right to life.
    Nuances, pesky nuances.

    "Do you honestly not understand the role of language? You clearly did not take Philosophy 101 at Columbia, did you not take Linguistics either. (Nor did you take any biological sciences for that matter.) What exactly did you use to fill that prerequisite?"

    Why is my education such an object of concern? I don't care where you were educated, or even if you were. State school or Ivy or Thomas Road Baptist Church University. Who cares?

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 12:25 AM


    I will probably read up on Mary Ann Warren when I've got the time this break, because it's definitely a subject that interests me.

    And admittedly, homosexuality has nothing to do with abortion. I was just reasoning aloud, my apologies.

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 12:28 AM


    Megan: "It's still an embryo."

    Right. And that is only one example of how the term embryo applies to the development, and not to the location. So we are okay calling an embryo an embryo? Glad that is over.

    Megan: "A fetus doesn't have a right to life. A conceptus that can develop outside the mother's body, with sophisticated enough technology, would have the right to life.
    Nuances, pesky nuances."

    But they would be the same entity Megan. I am not asking you whether or not the fetus's right to life overwhelms the mother's right to bodily integrity. I am not trying to solve the debate in a single blow. If the fetus does have a right to life, abortion can still be a morally okay choice. I'm honestly not sure why you are confused. How about this...

    "Does an embryo, regardless of outside circumstances, have the right to not be killed?"

    You can assume any relevant circumstances for the question, that is fine.

    If the answer is "Yes" as you gave before, then we can easily move into the next realm of discussion: whether or not the mother has a prevailing right over the embryo's right.

    If the answer is "No," contrary to what you said in the previous post, then we have to back up and clarify our position.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 14, 2009 12:37 AM


    "And admittedly, homosexuality has nothing to do with abortion. I was just reasoning aloud, my apologies.
    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 12:28 AM
    "

    No, you were just trying to throw something out there you thought would get a rise out of us "Christian extremist anti-choice zealots", amirite? Sorry to disappoint you, but you'll find quite a few of us "antis" support gay rights. Myself included. Nice try with your attempt to look cute after you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar though "...just reasoning aloud...AWWWW SHUCKS!"

    As someone who was born with a birth defect which affects my outward appearance, it never fails to sicken me when I encounter those who would've had me killed in the womb. I might look different than most other people, but at least I'm not as ugly inside as the lot of you.

    Posted by: xalisae at December 14, 2009 8:18 AM


    Would you abort if you found out through genetic testing somehow that you were pregnant with an individual who would be predisposed to obesity throughout their life?

    Posted by: xalisae at December 14, 2009 8:21 AM


    oh, it makes so much sense now.

    Posted by: megan at December 14, 2009 9:36 AM


    Megan: "oh, it makes so much sense now."

    Brilliant response! I'm sure your feminist idols would be proud of how you acted here.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 14, 2009 2:19 PM


    "But they would be the same entity Megan"


    "If you wish to converse with me,” said Voltaire, “define your terms.”

    Actually, they wouldn't be, by definition. A fetus needs a woman's body to survive, and so in this scenario, we are not talking about a FETUS. I'm insisting on definition because you're conflating two scenarios here: one in which a mother's body is necessary, and another in which it isn't. Some kind of free-standing conceptus would have the right to life if it doesn't, in any stage of development, depend on a woman's body for survival. Oh, but then I guess we're getting into the issue of bodily integrity and the supply of sperm/egg cells--interesting! But let's not go that far just yet.

    "If the answer is "Yes" as you gave before, then we can easily move into the next realm of discussion..."

    You can always accelerate a discussion by browbeating your opponents into capitulation. What you present here is more intellectual thuggery than deductive reasoning.

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 2:44 PM


    Megan,
    We all know that viability changes constantly as neonate technology improves. It's not outside of possibility that a fetus, or even a zygote, could someday be removed from a pregnant woman's uterus through a procedure no more invasive than a suction abortion is today.

    So, when/if that becomes possible, would the zygote or a 10-week old fetus have the right to be removed and kept alive (either in an artificial womb or by transplantation into a surrogate mother), even if the mother does not wish to give the baby for adoption?

    Or, as I suspect, are you really just more interested in the pregnant woman's right to a dead baby than you are in "bodily autonomy and the right not to be pregnant"?

    Posted by: Michelle at December 14, 2009 2:58 PM


    Pardon me, xalisae, for assuming the worst of this group, and for not declaring it explicitly. My apologies.

    It's truly terrible that abortion makes you frightened about the prospect of not having been born. But I guess we could have all been miscarried, too. Such unstable, unstable beginnings! I'm all for creating a culture of diversity and acceptance (and equitably distributing power and resources to enable tolerance). In countries where there's a high sex selection rate, girls must also feel some kind of phenomenological vertigo thinking their futures too could have been snuffed out from the start. But this fight doesn't need to take place at the level of a woman's body. Even if abortion were completely outlawed, there would still be social hierarchies (maybe even worsened). If we can stop the devaluation of PEOPLE (those who have been born), then maybe "selective" abortion wouldn't be as big of an issue.

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 3:13 PM


    "So, when/if that becomes possible, would the zygote or a 10-week old fetus have the right to be removed and kept alive (either in an artificial womb or by transplantation into a surrogate mother)"

    Pro-choicers would still demand that the woman give CONSENT to have the zygote removed and gestated elsewhere, and for many women the answer would still be "no."

    This whole scenario is completely absurd. An embryo gestating in an artificial uterus? How did it get in there? Someone must have deliberately placed the embryo into the fake uterus. In other words, the parents gave their consent...just like some women consent to carry unwanted pregnancies.

    And yes, if a woman's egg (because it was frozen, or whatever) was used to create the artificially gestating embryo without her consent, I think she has the right to demand it be terminated. That's just another way of using your body parts (your egg) without consent.

    Besides, there's no such thing as an artificial uterus, so who cares?

    Posted by: nerd at December 14, 2009 3:15 PM


    Michelle: You can't force an invasive surgical procedure on anybody, and for that brief period of dependence (before removal), the woman's bodily sovereignty would be of primary importance. Once removed, I don't believe the conceptus should be killed--that period before removal would ultimately determine the conceptus' fate.

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 3:17 PM


    And the Taliban comparison is more than fair.

    Both groups revel in creating oppression and suffering, especially for women. The Taliban forced women to suffer and die rather than let them see doctors. Radical anti-choicers relish the idea of making women carry dangerous pregnancies to term, such as Alicja Tysiac, who was denied an abortion and went blind as a result of her pregnancy. And then there was the 9-year-old pregnant rape victim in Brazil who could have died giving birth. The Catholic church excommunicated her mother and the abortion doctors, but not the rapist. That sounds Taliban-like to me.

    As for terrorism, the shooting of one abortion protester is nothing compared to the thousands of bombings, arsons, break-ins, assaults, vandalism, stalking, and murders committed by anti-choice extremists over the years.

    http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/index.html

    Scott Roeder wasn't an anomaly. There have been thousands of instances of pro-life violence over the years.

    Hmm, what do we call it when extremist groups in other cultures and religions inspire members to use violence against political opponents?

    Posted by: nerd at December 14, 2009 3:32 PM


    So Nerd and Megan both admit that the right to abortion is NOT based on their tiny-feet-stomping rant "my body, my choice". The wish to simply "not be pregnant" is a weak ruse to cover the real wish to cause the direct death of the life within. So, you have to admit that your argument for keeping the right to abortion based on "bodily autonomy" is just a clever cover. You don't want the right not to have your body used for nine months; you simply want the right to kill your baby. At least admit that.

    Nerd said:
    "Besides, there's no such thing as an artificial uterus, so who cares?"

    That's about as intelligent a response as saying back in the 1920's "but babies can't survive birth as early as 25 weeks, so who cares". Again, you simply can't admit the fact that "viability" has an ever-changing definition based on the ever-changing abilities of the latest medical technology. To ignore and even try to dismiss that fact is an out-and-out admission that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Your continued failure to analyze hypotheticals shows utter stupidity and just, well, lack of an imagination.

    Talk about "blind faith in absolutes".

    Posted by: Michelle at December 14, 2009 3:33 PM


    I think I did analyze it, by pointing out that a zygote isn't going to form in a fake uterus spontaneously. Someone has to put it there. Someone needs to give their consent.

    Posted by: nerd at December 14, 2009 3:43 PM


    But if the pregnant mother was going to give consent for the removal of the zygote or fetus during an abortion anyway, and if technology now allows for a procedure no more or less invasive than a traditional suction abortion to instead remove the zygote or fetus intact and still living, and allow it to continue his or her development in either a surrogate mother or an artificial womb environment, then why couldn't we replace abortion with that procedure in all cases? The woman has already given her consent by stating that she no longer wishes to be pregnant and has no desire to raise a child. Why, if there is no difference in physical invasiveness or length of pregnancy required, would that not meet all of the pregnant woman's rights and requirements?

    Posted by: Michelle at December 14, 2009 3:49 PM


    Another Taliban-like feature is the lack of concern for human life once it's out of the uterus and can't be used as an excuse to control women.

    Remember that Mississippi has the most restrictions on abortion, as well as the highest infant mortality rate in the country. Infant mortality is mostly a problem among the poor and those who lack access to health care.

    The precious, precious fetuses aren't so precious as soon as they're born, apparently.

    Posted by: nerd at December 14, 2009 3:49 PM


    But if the pregnant mother was going to give consent for the removal of the zygote or fetus during an abortion anyway, and if technology now allows for a procedure no more or less invasive than a traditional suction abortion to instead remove the zygote or fetus intact and still living, and allow it to continue his or her development in either a surrogate mother or an artificial womb environment, then why couldn't we replace abortion with that procedure in all cases? The woman has already given her consent by stating that she no longer wishes to be pregnant and has no desire to raise a child. Why, if there is no difference in physical invasiveness or length of pregnancy required, would that not meet all of the pregnant woman's rights and requirements? That is, unless the REAL goal is simply a dead baby...

    Posted by: Michelle at December 14, 2009 3:51 PM


    I guess in Mississippi, they don't mask infant mortality by simply killing them before they make it out of the womb. Six of one, half-dozen of the other...at least they don't kill babies in utero 'cuz they "might" have diseases, then have to deal with the realization that they killed a completely healthy fetus because of some mis-diagnosis in utero.

    Posted by: Michelle at December 14, 2009 3:57 PM


    Nerd...who said the 9 year old rape victim would have died giving birth? There was a FIVE YEAR OLD, the youngest recorded mother ever (google it, its true!) Because of some disorder this girl started menstruating at 8 months old!

    Someone raped this poor girl and she got pregnant with a son and he was delivered through C-section and the GIRL WAS FINE PHYSICALLY.

    I feel bad this 9 year old was raped. So the solution is to punish her unborn baby with DEATH because the father is an evil jerk? So the 9 year old should be traumatized further with an abortion because she was already victimized in rape?

    Read "Victims and Victors" nerd. Its all about rape and abortion, including testimonies from many people who are the products of rape. And they really don't like cold-hearted people like YOU Nerd who think they should never been born.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 14, 2009 3:58 PM


    "So the solution is to punish her unborn baby with DEATH because the father is an evil jerk?"

    Yes, if that's what she and her family want. I'm not a believer in forcing a young child to give birth to her rapist's child against her will. If you think that's right, I'll just put you in the "American Taliban" category.

    How about forcing a woman who already has several children to go blind due to pregnancy? I'm sure you antis (who secretly don't believe in anything you want to force on the rest of us) would just LOVE the opportunity to live with a permanent, severely disabling condition as opposed to an early abortion. Look at the statistics on abortions of severely deformed babies. The abortion rate for anancephaly babies is over 90% in a country with a "pro-life" majority. Those pregnancies don't only happen to pro-choice women. Therefore, antis scream about baby killing and then run out and get the abortion when THEY face a tragic situation.

    Posted by: nerd at December 14, 2009 4:09 PM


    Well Nerd, I'll just put YOU in the American taliban category since you think its alright to put a child to death to suit your political beliefs. Pretty taliban-like I would say!

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 14, 2009 4:12 PM


    Abortion adds to the trauma of rape, it doesn't "undo" the rape nor take away any of its lasting trauma. It only ADDS to it. Read Victims and Victors, Nerd. Really. See if you're brave enough to read it.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 14, 2009 4:15 PM


    "Abortion adds to the trauma of rape, it doesn't "undo" the rape nor take away any of its lasting trauma."

    How do you know? Which studies prove that? Name one.

    Also, if you were in your first trimester and realized you were going blind because of your pregnancy, would you jump at the chance to never see again in order to save the embryo? I wouldn't.

    Posted by: nerd at December 14, 2009 4:19 PM


    All of the women I know that were raped and aborted now wish they wouldn't have. They speak to the trauma of rape and the trauma of abortion. Two traumas. The women I know that have been raped and kept their babies have never regretted it.
    Just because many of us wouldn't want to carry a baby conceived in rape doesn't mean other women don't. They have. They do. They know that abortion trauma only adds to the trauma of rape.
    Name any study that proves that abortion heals women.

    http://www.gailmcwilliams.com
    Gail was going blind due to her pregnancies and yet continued to grow a family. She is now completely blind with 5 beautiful children. I met her and her husband while taping the Faces of Abortion show.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 14, 2009 4:41 PM


    http://www.rebeccakiessling.com

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 14, 2009 4:44 PM


    I can cite a study from the American Psychological Association--you know, the experts--saying that abortion is psychologically benign and rarely causes depression.

    http://www.apa.org/releases/abortion-report.html

    Of course, you will refuse to accept a scientific study by leading mental health experts. Your anti-choice fanaticism is blind to facts and evidence, just as much as the Taliban was blinded by radical Islam and could not be swayed by anything found outside the tenets of radical Islam.

    If your friend wanted to go blind during pregnancy, that's her decision. I would never do that, and I'm willing to bet a huge majority of women wouldn't bee willing too, either.

    Should they be FORCED to go blind?

    Posted by: nerd at December 14, 2009 4:50 PM


    Always with the namecalling....

    None of us really knows what we will do in any given situation. I have friends that have faced some pretty terrifying prenatal diagnosis BUT refused to "terminate the pregnancy."(kill the child)
    You never know, Nerd. You might surprise yourself and err on the side of life.

    As for experts on abortion? I listen to the men and women that have been through it.
    http://www.operationoutcry.org

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 14, 2009 5:11 PM


    Oh, and that is not the study I asked for is it??

    I asked for a study that shows that abortion heals women. That abortion helps women. Good luck with that.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 14, 2009 5:23 PM


    You didn't answer my question, either. Would you use government force to make a woman carry to term if her pregnancy was making her go blind? Even if she desperately wanted an abortion so she could remain able-bodied and continue to care for her living children?

    Posted by: nerd at December 14, 2009 6:34 PM


    There is no force involved in pregnancy. A baby grows from conception on her own. Are you talking about the force it takes to rip the limbs off a child and vacuum her body out?

    Sigh. Sorry but I am not one to argue endlessly about pregnancy scenarios that may or may not happen. Let us stay in reality, shall we? Gail McWilliams for example. Rebecca Kiessling for another.

    I would like your comments better if you ended with Neener, Neener, Neener.....try that.

    Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 14, 2009 6:52 PM


    Nerd, I believe pro-lifers have made it clear that if pregnancy were to threaten the mother's life or a major bodily function (I believe eyesight would qualify) then abortion would be allowed; however, anyone who values all life would see that treating BOTH patients would be the moral course to take.

    Also, please explain how a pregnancy could cause blindness in the mother. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, I just would appreciate not having to do an internet search to find what you're talking about.

    I DO know that there are countless OBs (many who are former abortionists) who will testify that they have never seen a situation in which an abortion of a viable fetus would save the life of the mother. Delivery of a live baby either by labor or by C-section would successfully end any pregnancy-caused complications; no need to dismember or brain-drain the baby to get the job done.

    Posted by: Michelle at December 14, 2009 6:55 PM


    Victims and Victors is a very tragic read indeed, but only presents one side of a thorny issue. Obviously not all women who conceive a child through rape want to abort, and that's definitely understandable--if she wants a baby, then having a child could definitely be a positive outcome of a very violent, horrible situation. But you're discounting the voices of many, many other women. Let's talk about the systematic violence against women in war-torn countries like Rwanda.

    Oh, but at least those unborn children had a chance to live! Good thing we're humane enough these days to include Plan B in rape kits so rape survivors (who are brave enough to come forward) aren't placed in a position of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 7:24 PM


    Some of you posters truly demean yourselves as women. If you don't respect bodily sovereignty (the right to control one's body based on physical autonomy), then on what grounds do we criminalize rape?

    And in response to an earlier post by Janet: you can thank pro-choicers and the women's health movement of the 1970's for securing you access to contraception and reproductive health care; woman-centered birth procedures that respect HOW women want to give birth; bringing rape to public consciousness; and demanding the right to domestic violence-free home.

    You wouldn't even be discussing these issues on an internet forum had it not been for these women fighting for the right to self determination and BODILY SOVEREIGNTY.

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 7:37 PM


    and michelle, it doesn't matter whether abortion is as surgically invasive as embryo removal. it's still an invasive surgical procedure, and nobody could be subjected to it without their consent.

    since we love hypotheticals:

    Your daughter faces an unwanted pregnancy in this pro-natalist county we've been envisioning, where abortion is outlawed. She expresses some dismay to a friend about the pregnancy. this friend informs local authorities and your pregnant daughter is hauled to a local hospital and sedated. Doctors make an incision in her stomach and remove the embryo, and then cart it off to the fake uterus for incubation. In 9 months the baby will be placed in a home with a good, loving, warm and fuzzy family--to think how it narrowly escaped death! The foolish girl might have tried to terminate the pregnancy on her own (drinking bleach, coathanger, etc etc)! But at least that embryo is safe. And with a minimally invasive surgical procedure out of the way, your daughter's ready to be send back home. Really, a simple outpatient procedure.

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 7:46 PM


    Megan says "Some of you posters truly demean yourselves as women. If you don't respect bodily sovereignty (the right to control one's body based on physical autonomy), then on what grounds do we criminalize rape?
    "

    Megan, you seem very confused about our argument. It isn't that we don't recognize bodily sovereignty in any capacity, just that we don't recognize it as a right that trumps all other rights, including another's right to life.

    Of course you have bodily integrity. A rapists violates that during a rape. He doesn't have any sort of competitive right to use your body. It's a very clear instance of a right being infringed upon.

    Pregnancy, however, involves competing rights. The child's right to life must be weighed against the mother's right to bodily integrity. In this situation, pro-lifers believe that the child's right to life outweighs the mother's right to bodily integrity.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 14, 2009 7:55 PM


    *and if a rapist is intent on impregnating a woman (such as what often happens during the systematic rape of women during war), trying to prevent him from doing so would potentially rob the world of a new little life, right? If bodily integrity doesn't mean anything in the case of pregnancy, then the "competitive right to use one's body" is perfectly acceptable. A woman doesn't have the right to terminate the pregnancy anyway (in your worldview), so really, who cares how she gets pregnant?

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 8:32 PM


    Uh, no Megan. No one has the right to force himself sexually upon another person. There's no right to non-consensual sex. His intent doesn't matter, he still has no rights that compete with the woman's bodily domain.

    If the woman were to get pregnant, the child would have a right to life that competes with her right to bodily domain. That is a seperate issue and completely independent from any intention of the rapist.

    Posted by: Lauren at December 14, 2009 8:49 PM


    "It's truly terrible that abortion makes you frightened about the prospect of not having been born. "


    Only when I encounter monsters utterly devoid of empathy and compassion such as yourself, Megan. MY mother would never do such a thing to one of her own children.

    Posted by: xalisae at December 14, 2009 8:49 PM


    Feminists for life once put out this statement which I thought was great " When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of another human being it is called abortion. When a man acts out the same philosophy it is called rape."

    In the case of a mother losing her eyesight from her pregnancy...to use Megan's argument "its uncommon!" YES I would sacrifice my eyesight in order to give life to my child. I hope I never have to do that...it IS horrible. And as to the rape scenarios put forth by Megan, you are acting as if we are defending rape! I feel so badly for those poor women. No one is saying they are not victims and to read the accounts of their rapes makes me ANGRY!!! But the anger should be at the RAPISTS not an innocent child who did nothing wrong!

    My husband did sound for a band and one of the singers in the band was raped during a first date. She conceived but she kept her daughter and is amazingly enough, raising her. The daughter is 7 now.

    My husband and I discussed what we would do if I ever was raped (GOD FORBID) and conceived and I made the decision I would have the baby and place the child in a loving, stable, Christian home. I would not ask my husband to raise the child of his wife's rapist but I also would not consent to my innocent child being murdered because of the sins of his father.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 14, 2009 9:06 PM


    Amazing, Sydney. My daughter is also 7, and it's so horrible to think that my daughter, and that woman's daughter (what a coincidence they're both females...hmmm...so much for women's rights, huh?) if they had been placed by the fates into the hands of someone else could've possibly been killed in utero...Terrible.

    Posted by: xalisae at December 14, 2009 9:19 PM


    Megan, you really do clumsily ignore arguments and twist them to your needs.

    I did NOT ask you if a pregnant woman should be forced to give her wanted zygote/embryo/fetus up against her will; I asked you if she decided she wanted an "abortion", your definition of which is a medical procedure designed to defend her bodily autonomy and render her "no longer pregnant", then why wouldn't a zygote/embryo/fetus TRANSPLANT fit the bill?

    Unless the BODILY AUTONOMY argument is a cover for the REAL goal?...a dead baby.

    Posted by: Michelle at December 14, 2009 9:23 PM


    Seriously, Megan, circular logic, indeed.

    BTW, you never answered my question...How many abortions would you feel comfortable having?

    Posted by: Michelle at December 14, 2009 9:25 PM


    You know X, more females die because of abortion than males. When you figure half of all "normal" abortions are females, then throw in the millions of sex selection abortions in India, China, and yes, here in the US, and then throw in the maternal deaths from abortion (and YES it does happen! Check out cemetery of choice) there are a lot less women in the world because of abortion.

    But Megan and Nerd still try to champion it as some gift to women.

    Posted by: Sydney M. at December 14, 2009 9:37 PM


    Megan: "If you don't respect bodily sovereignty (the right to control one's body based on physical autonomy), then on what grounds do we criminalize rape?"

    *facepalm*

    I take back that thing I said about you probably not being stupid. You are just as moronic as Nerd, if not maybe worse. No WONDER you are so damn confused on the abortion argument!

    Megan: "Actually, they wouldn't be, by definition. A fetus needs a woman's body to survive, and so in this scenario, we are not talking about a FETUS."

    You know, honestly, I give up. This is like trying to debate a mathematical proof with someone who insists the number zero is "undefined." You don't even have the basic tools for this debate.

    The very idea that you think there is any inherent difference between an human implanted within a woman and a human of the same age implanted in a machine is amazing. I mean, I've taught some really dense people before, but for some people, there comes a point at which nothing can be explained. I mean, how do you instill the basic understanding of reality into someone? How can you explain that 1 = 1?

    Good luck talking to this fencepost everybody.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 14, 2009 10:02 PM


    The transplant scenario still doesn't work. It matters which minimally invasive surgical procedure she undergoes when there is a life form in her body that is not an autonomous human being. If she consented to a transplant, that's fine, but if not, then abortion should still be allowed--because she used her body to produce that embryo, and thus it's her part of her body (and therefore, her property). Abortion isn't a cover for killing a baby, because what's "killed" isn't yet a baby. There is no cover, there's nothing to lie about.

    annnnnnd we reach the fundamental impasse: the fruitcakes who, blinded by emotions, believe a fertilized egg is a person (i vote Blastocyst B for senate!), and those who can see reason.

    your concern for a blastocyst trumps everything. i'm with nerd: reaching a state of disbelief thinking a pro-lifer would say something like this:

    "Someone raped this poor girl and she got pregnant with a son and he was delivered through C-section and the GIRL WAS FINE PHYSICALLY."

    Hmmm, what's the age of consent again? I'm sure this girl, who probably didn't even know what sex was, will be just fine after this little incident. Just, you know, brush herself off and keep on keepin' on. Maybe when she hits ninth grade sex ed, somebody will clue her in on what happened five years back. I'm sure it won't be totally earth-shattering realizing she conceived a child before middle school.

    But at least that gosh darn fetus got born healthy and whole.

    Posted by: Megan at December 14, 2009 10:04 PM


    "YES I would sacrifice my eyesight in order to give life to my child."

    I wouldn't.

    Just be honest, would you force another person to go blind in order to prevent them from having a first-trimester abortion?

    As for sex-selective abortions, most are done in countries where men or the government can force women to have an abortion, such as China and India. That's not "choice," therefore pro-choicers don't support it. The US birthrate of boys and girls and other countries where abortion is legal is more or less 50/50. There's not much sex selection going on in countries that allow abortion.

    Posted by: nerd at December 14, 2009 10:06 PM


    Megan: "...and those who can see reason..."

    Really, you are in no position to claim anything about reason Megan. You think a human, dependent on a machine, has rights, but that same human, dependent on a person, doesn't. And you can't even grasp the stupidity of that idea, either.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 14, 2009 10:13 PM


    Before someone runs in to point out that there are more boys born than girls, I note that the ratio in the US hasn't budged since 1940, when people couldn't even determine the sex in the womb, much less abort it based on sex.

    "At the highest sex birth ratio in the United States, which occurred in 1946, there were about 105.9 boys born per 100 girls; and at the lowest sex birth ratio (in 2001), there were about 104.6 boys born per 100 girls. There were 104.8 boys born in 2000 for every 100 girls."

    http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/05/06/22/why-are-more-boys-than-girls-being-born.htm

    Posted by: nerd at December 14, 2009 10:17 PM


    Megan: "inherent difference:

    a) fetus in scenario A require mother's body for survival
    b) life form in scenario B does not, and therefore isn't the same as a fetus."

    LOL. Do you not know what the word inherent means?

    Besides, no fetus requires its mother's body to survive. A fetus requires certain hormones, nutrients and a certain environment, not its mother. I swear, it's like talking to a 12 year old, and a dumb one at that. Heck, the 12 years old I debated abortion with knew better than this.

    Posted by: Oliver at December 14, 2009 10:17 PM


    "A fetus requires certain hormones, nutrients and a certain environment, not its mother."

    Really? Where do those hormones and nutrients come from?

    Since you're so brilliant, go create that environment without a woman so you can fondle a precious, precious fetus every night.

    Your statement revealed how deeply you hate women, since you clearly consider a woman a life support system for the almighty fetus. You know, instead of people with thoughts and feelings.

    Posted by: nerd at December 14, 2009 10:24 PM


    Lets say that Sarah is pregnant and wants to have an abortion. According to you, the embryo within her body is not a person, and to clarify, you are not claiming that the embryo's rights take a backseat to the mother's right, you are claiming that the embryo does not have any rights.

    Now, let's say that Sarah stepped into a time portal and was hurled 3000 years into Earth's future. In this future world there are artificial wombs and technology to remove the embryo from Sarah with zero invasion. (Let's say they have some teleportation technology.) According to your argument, that very same embryo is no longer an embryo, because it is no longer dependent on its mother's womb.

    So in essence, according to your...uhm...argument, the embryo changed states, not by any actual change to itself inherent makeup or construction, but simply because of the external world.

    Yeah I'm sure this is what Wittgenstein and Chomsky were talking abou

    Posted by: Oliver at December 14, 2009 10:29 PM