Democrat, feminist hypocrisy on legitimate rape-rape
Democrats and feminists have mounted a sustained attack against Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin for using the term “legitimate” rape, feigning horror at the implication there might be such a thing as “illegitimate” rape.
One liberal of distinction notably missing from the conversation is Whoopi Goldberg, who in 2009 defended director Roman Polanski by claiming his rape of a 13-yr-old in 1977 “wasn’t rape-rape,” she said. ” I think it was something else, but I don’t believe it was rape-rape.”
The conveniently ignored reality today is that just as men can victimize women by rape, women can victimize men by falsely accusing them of rape. It’s as old as the book of Genesis…
Joseph was well-built and good-looking, and after a while his master’s wife began to desire Joseph and asked him to go to bed with her. He refused…. Although she asked Joseph day after day, he would not go to bed with her.
But one day when Joseph went into the house to do his work, none of the house servants was there. She caught him by his robe and said, “Come to bed with me.” But he escaped and ran outside, leaving his robe in her hand….
[S]he called to her house servants and said, “Look at this! This Hebrew that my husband brought… came into my room and tried to rape me, but I screamed as loud as I could. When he heard me scream, he ran outside, leaving his robe beside me.”…
Joseph’s master was furious and had Joseph arrested and put in the prison….
Ironically, the legalization of abortion in 1973 was based on the false claim of pregnancy by rape. From About.com:
[Norma McCorvey] initially said that her third pregnancy, the one in question at the time of Roe v. Wade, was the result of rape, but years later she said she had invented the rape story in an attempt to make a stronger case for an abortion.
Nevertheless, when it comes to Republicans, “rape is rape,” said President Obama of Akin’s comment, adding, “the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we are talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people and certainly doesn’t make sense to me.”
Obama could have strengthened his statement by saying, “Rape is rape-rape,” but I digress.
His point is that we should take a woman’s word for it.
Thus, Obama would apparently take umbrage with the plot of To Kill a Mockingbird, wherein a white attorney defends a black man against a white woman’s false accusation of rape…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44TG_H_oY2E&sns=em[/youtube]
Now enter former president Bill Clinton, a touted speaker at the upcoming Democrat National Convention. A letter writer at DailLobo.com reminds President “Rape is Rape” Obama:
[Clinton] was accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape, respectively, by Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. The only case to come to trial resulted in Clinton paying an $850,000 settlement to [Paula] Jones, and perjuring himself with regard to his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
In all, Clinton has been “implicated in at least five instances of rape, including the rape of former Miss America Elizabeth Ward Gracen,” quoting godfatherpolitics.com.
If “rape is rape,” then why are Democrats and Obama showcasing Clinton?
Because they’re hypocrites, of course. And don’t expect the hypocritical mainstream media to point this out.
And there’s more. Akin’s opponent, pro-abortion Democrat incumbent Claire McCaskill, was incredulous that Akin could be “so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape.”
Meanwhile McCaskill refuses to support a law that would make it illegal for adult nonparents to traffick minors for abortions from a state with parental notification laws, such as Missouri, to a state without them, such as the one next door, Illinois, often, obviously, to cover up rape-rape.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Here we go again with the needless, counter productive, and hurtful insults directed towards all democrats – and all feminists. Kind of ruins an otherwise good and logical article. DFLA and FFL are COLLEAGUES, not enemies, Jill.
No rational person should take these loons seriously. They invested so heavily in deception they have deluded themselves.
This just in:
Vagina: A New Biography.
I kid you not. Here is the Amazon review of Wolf’s 400 page paean to absurd narcissism:
An astonishing work of cutting-edge science and cultural history that radically reframes how we understand the vagina—and consequently, how we understand women—from one of our most respected cultural critics and thinkers, Naomi Wolf, author of the modern classic The Beauty Myth.
A brilliant and nuanced synthesis of physiology, history, and cultural criticism, Vagina: A New Biography explores the physical, political, and spiritual implications of this startling series of new scientific breakthroughs for women and for society as a whole, from a writer whose conviction and keen intelligence have propelled her works to the tops of bestseller lists, and firmly into the realms of modern classics.
[My mind immediately flashed back to the scene from a Woody Allen flick where is he being pursued by a giant lactating breast.]
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2012/08/27/naomi-wolf-writes-biography-about-her-body-part#ixzz24qf8g9GD
Code Pinko, aka the ‘vagina demigogues’, show up in Tampa, Florida dressed as giant pink vaginas.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tampa-republican-conventions-code-pink-vagina-protesters-365541
These ms guided ms ogynists are ‘gential warts’ on real women.
I suppose slick willy could write a book entitled ‘Penis: A new bigography’ [I understand it would be a very short book, that leans to the left and would NOT be available in a hardback edition.] and none of the Code Pinko ‘vaginas r us’ vamps would utter a single syllable in protest, but gaia forbid if a an authentic man were to write a tribute to his gentitalia. [Not that any ‘authentic’ man would.]
This collection of human debris will enure the ‘duh’ remains in Floriduh.
I wonder which one of the lovely lassies was aCCuser of the brethren.
Anyone who has been the victim of rape ought to be on these bimbos like bums on a bologna sandwich.
[Apoligies to indigent people everywhere for associating you with air heads like these nincompoops.]
Ken the Birther could be making money writing comedy, and pharmer would spell check the terms for free, because it’s hilarious good stuff.
Women make up the majority of undecided. Mr. Akin did the unforgiveable sin of putting a portion of the electorate at risk. Many (not all) people were not offended by his comments, as much as they were offended by the effect that his comments may have on winning a senate seat. Some dissenters had the courage to say this and to explain their justification for it. However, at the end of the day, Mr. Akin’s comments did not physically harm any rape victim. In contrast, children who had the audacity to have been conceived as the result of a rape are still allowed to be killed and disposed of merely because their father was a (pick your favourite expression). We can take their life, in fact, we can ignore their life, and very few people give a hoot. It is those who don’t support the rape exception that should be asked to justify their claim.
Sean, it is tha majority of Democrats who support the likes of President Clinton, and President Obama and others who hold extreme positions on life and rape, either by deed or talk, that I think Jill is identifiying as hypocritical. Democrats who support life and Feminists for Life, by their affiliation with the pro-life cause, would not be included in Jill’s observation.
Jill, this a bigger, better Akin article than the rest, including those of yours truly, and verily, it kicks @&& of the democrat donkey kind.
It is those who support the rape exception that should be asked to justify their claim.
I made this a few days ago. I think it’s appropriate:
http://cheezburger.com/6531404288
1/3 of republicans are pro aborts. 1/3 of democrats are pro life. FOCA was co-authored by a republican.
The partisan terms here do NOT fit, and smearing all feminists as pro aborts is also nonsensical.
True. We should really start using quotation marks when appropriate.
100% of “republicans” are pro-aborts. 100% of “democrats” are pro-life. FOCA was co-authored by a “republican”. The partisan terms here fit, but we can’t help it if someone is fighting against the very platform of the party they claim to align themselves with when they should probably just move to a party that is a better fit for them.
Sean,
LOL dude. Wow. You do realize that we can’t go around qualifying everything right? And do you want to know who are the biggest hypocrites in “not generalizing” are? Pro-aborts. Oh yes. Relentlessly, they cling to the absurd notion that all pro-lifers are these little Catholic old ladies and these chauvinistic white dudes who are die-hard Republican, war-hawks, pro-death penalty, and view women as breeders.
Is that true in the slightest? NO!!!!!!!!!! It’s not. But do we whine and moan and groan about “wahhhh they put us in a box! You’re not being fair!!” No. We calmly point out that it’s a vast misconception. And you can think what you want – we are who we are and we’re proud of it.
But as to the article,
Wow I had never made that connection with To Kill a Mocking Bird. I wonder what Obama does think of it (if he ever read it)? It’s one of my favorite books. And I do understand that there are absolutely cases where self-entitled little females decide to cry rape to subjugate or punish males. And yes, I do see a tendency in the feminist crowd to idolize women and brush away the fact that they could ever do anything wrong. Why don’t we attempt to view rape cases like other crimes? Like, hey you know what, let’s not judge anyone or anything until the facts come out? Hmm? Cause that is always an option…. I know rape is a sensitive topic, but it shouldn’t become so taboo that raising the possibility that a woman could use it to manipulate is out of the question (and for the record, no, the way Akin handled it was not appropriate)
Pharmer is right. ken’s comment was a grit-your-teeth LOL as usual. If that’s even possible. ;)
If it were not for pro life democrats in Congress, FOCA would be federal law right now. Roe/Wade would no longer matter at all, and every state victory we have won recently would be invalidated.
How soon we forget… and turn on.. the people who saved us.
LibertyBelle rings out the truth, as per usual.
Jill’s post was brilliantly succinct, also as per usual.
But I’m still of the minority opinion that Akin wasn’t trying to make a point of “legitimate rape – legitimate rape”. He just had a brain cramp and inserted an unnecessary phrase roughly equivalent to “For real, dude!”
Unfortunately it accompanied an ill-informed opinion so the opposition could hysterically give in to their worst stereotypical fears.
I’m wishy-washy on how severely to scold Akin, and just hoping that a Romney wave will carry him through.
To Kill a Mockingbird is a work of fiction. It did not actually happen. It is interesting as a thought experiment.
Clinton’s actions are real events as are Obama’s and Ms. Goldberg’s statements about rape.
Here, let me translate:
“I’ve never read or heard the HUGE amount of feminist criticism of Polanski defenders (including Whoopi Goldberg). So, I’ll just say it never happened. Also, NO ONE can criticize Akin until I’ve been given specific knowledge that Polanski (and every single alleged rapist that ever walked the planet) have been roundly criticized by feminists and/or pro-choicers. Until then, feminists and pro-choicers support rape. (Spoiler alert: I’m not actually going to look for any evidence of criticism of these rapists or their defenders. And even if I’m presented with it, it will never be enough.)”
“There is a mythical thousands-year old story of a woman who allegedly lied about being raped by a dude who is the hero of the myth. Billions of people are religiously invested in this dude continuing to be a hero. Therefore, women are liars.”
“There is also a decades-old story of an actual woman who was so desperate to obtain an abortion (back when forced pregnancy was the law), that she said she was raped so that people would have mercy on her. Somehow, the moral I take away from this is not that chaos and cruelty would ensue if abortion were outlawed, but that again women are liars. Also, the rape issue had nothing to do with a subsequent famous abortion case the woman was involved in, but whatever.”
“There is yet another decades-old story, this time definitely fictional, of a white woman who falsely accused a black man of rape. I will recognize the racial aspects in the story just enough to make our black President sound like he supports lynching of black people, but not so much that I actually talk about the racial aspects of the story. Also, this is yet more proof that women lie, and black people are hypocritical.”
“In a late-in-the-game effort to claim that women tell the truth, I will believe every single rape or sexual harassment accusation against Bill Clinton, whether it was proven in a court or not. Therefore, Democrats support rape. I will not connect this to the Akin quote in any logical way, except SHINY OBJECT! LOOK OVER HERE”
“Finally, a law that prevents minors from obtaining help to get an abortion in another state could only be used for evil, and totally NOT to help a minor escape the rapist that’s living in her own house.”
“Also, I’m a big plagiarizer of this article. But you know that, if you have Google.”
How soon we forget… and turn on.. the people who saved us.
When they take the abortion plank out of their platform, I might be willing to view them as anything other than The Enemy. Until that happens, though, anyone claiming to be one is standing for a party that has a platform built on dead children. Don’t forget that.
back when forced pregnancy was the law
Really?! Rape was legal and mandatory pre-Roe?!
Sean says: August 28, 2012 at 12:53 pm “The partisan terms here do NOT fit, and smearing all feminists as pro aborts is also nonsensical.”
Sean,
Are you EX-RINO’s long lost siamese twin brother from a different mother?
I will leave it someone else to quibble over you assertions about the precentages of pro-lifers in either party.
But the pro-life feminists, homosexuals, and democRATs could hold their combined annual convention in a Porta Potty. [Figureatively speaking]
Though I tip my hat to them for getting it right on the ‘life’ issue, their numbers command no consideration when it come to political calculations.
The so called ‘pro-life’ democRATs in congress evaporated when it came to crunch time on the obamahelltscarescam.
I have met plenty of pro-choice republicans, but I have yet to meet a pro-life democRAT. I believe they are a urban myth, like big foot, chuppacabra and alien abductions.
Mary,
What is the name of the female ‘journalist’ who said she she would grovel on her knees before the phlianderer in chief in a demonstration of appreciation for slick willy’s labors to ensure more pre-natal children would die?
“Really?! Rape was legal and mandatory pre-Roe?!”
Not mandatory. But it WAS legal in some places until 1993, if you were married to the rapist. (That’s when the last of the marital exemptions was stricken.) And it’s still often de facto legal, depending on whether the kindly jury thinks that the victim is worthy enough of protection.
But we’re talking about forced pregnancy. And you knew that.
But we’re talking about forced pregnancy. And you knew that.
Yeah, I did. That’s why I said what I said. Because “forced pregnancy” doesn’t really exist. Pregnancy is something that happens naturally, without force. But you knew that.
Calling illegal abortion “forced pregnancy” is like calling illegal suicide “forced breathing.” As X said, this is a process that the body does naturally as well as a points to the body functioning properly so it isn’t like ignoring cancer or anything.
Fact remains that Akin is being disowned by the GOP for saying something stupid, and yes, offensive at face value (arguably thinking it too), and Clinton, having done something(s) hurtful and completely offensive, is still championed by his party and being used to add credibility to our current president.
Sure, individual democrat voters may disapprove of Clinton – we are all individuals, even Clinton, whose escapades need not speak for all democrats, UNLESS the platform continues to embrace him. Just shows that the whole “Weiner” thing was about a cost-benefit analysis and not high, or mediocre, standards.
I like your cheezburger creation xalisae. If something like that statement was made right away, we could’ve had a few days less of Dems admiring themselves in the mirror.
AnnaAnastasia: I’m fine with pro-abortion commenters like you taking advantage of my good will to come to my site to mock me
But accusing me of plagiarism is another matter. Plagiarism is copying another’s work. The article you link to and mine have no words in common.
Hitchhiking on another’s thoughts, on the other hand, is totally acceptable. But for those I am always careful to give hat tips. I want to give credit where it’s due. I didn’t in this case, because I’ve never read the Salon article you linked to before checking your link.
Attack my beliefs but not my character.
“But accusing me of plagiarism is another matter. Plagiarism is copying another’s work. The article you link to and mine have no words in common.
Hitchhiking on another’s thoughts, on the other hand, is totally acceptable.”
No, that’s actually plagiarism. Which is taught in English 101, which is a standard part of nursing education. Unless there’s another source that’s saying the same thing, and you borrowed their examples. Then that’s plagiarism of a different source.
xalisae:
“Because “forced pregnancy” doesn’t really exist. Pregnancy is something that happens naturally, without force. But you knew that.”
Exactly. So I guess it’s not necessary to block clinic entrances, shout at patients, harass or kill health care providers, and threaten pregnant people and their health care providers with jail time and/or the death penalty to make sure pregnancies continue. Because no force is necessary. Oh.
And of course, since women do absolutely nothing while pregnant or giving birth, then mandating that a pregnancy continue is totally NOT forcing a pregnant person to do something with their bodies that they don’t want to do. Like rapists do.
But then again, we’re getting off topic. If Todd Akin is right, then all those pregnant women wanted it anyway. But again, we won’t focus on that…
Whoopi didn’t lose her job, nobody asked her to quit, and likewise with Teflon Bill.
“forced pregnancy”? Kramer, please. Grow your own brain cells and come up with something original. I’m getting really bored of abortionistas recycling their own material over and over.
“Forced pregnancy” and “forced birth” still sound a lot better than “forced death”. Just sayin’.
““Forced pregnancy” and “forced birth” still sound a lot better than “forced death”. Just sayin’.”
To whom? Also, if you’re also considering the container in which the fetus resides, sometimes forced pregnancy and birth IS forced death. At least, to the container.
To whom?
To me, but I guess that’s only because I think the right to not be killed is more important than the right to not be pregnant and that all other rights are meaningless without the right to life.
Also, if you’re also considering the container in which the fetus resides, sometimes forced pregnancy and birth IS forced death. At least, to the container.
AnnaAnastasia, why do you feel the need to compare a pregnant woman to a container? Is this really how you see pregnancy, or are you attacking a strawman version of the pro-life position (which, in reality, treats pregnant women as parents rather than objects)?
Pregnancy isn’t without its risks, but it’s extremely safe in the developed world. The average person would be much more likely to die in a car accident in a given year than die from childbirth in that same year (if they became pregnant). To say that we should allow abortion (which, 100% of the time, forces someone to die) because childbirth is sometimes fatal for the mother is like saying that parents should be able to kill their born children because there is a chance that the child could (directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally) get the parent killed.
Exactly. So I guess it’s not necessary to block clinic entrances, shout at patients, harass or kill health care providers, and threaten pregnant people and their health care providers with jail time and/or the death penalty to make sure pregnancies continue. Because no force is necessary. Oh.
Right, because those women going into the clinics are just going to get a status report, rather than FORCEFULLY ending their pregnancies (yes, the FORCE is completely on the part of those taking the action required to FORCE the child to die thereby “terminating the pregnancy”).
“..to make sure pregnancies continue.” lol, I love your guys’ euphemisms!!! Too cute! You meant “…to make sure no children are killed.” which would be more accurate, and also provide proper context when talking about possible legal repercussions for doctors and mothers. Because no force is necessary to continue a pregnancy as long as the child needs it to continue, but A LOT of force is required to end it prematurely by killing.
And of course, since women do absolutely nothing while pregnant or giving birth, then mandating that a pregnancy continue is totally NOT forcing a pregnant person to do something with their bodies that they don’t want to do. Like rapists do.
Have you ever seen the show “I Didn’t Know I Was Pregnant”? Were they “forced” to carry to term and give birth by default, or was that something their bodies did on their own, naturally? Because their kids were gestating away without the mothers having the chance to FORCE their children to die by choosing abortion, were their children behaving “like rapists do”? Think about things before you say them.
But then again, we’re getting off topic. If Todd Akin is right, then all those pregnant women wanted it anyway. But again, we won’t focus on that…
Right. Because I’ve been an outspoken supporter of the stupid crap Akin said, so it totally makes sense that you’d direct that comment at me.
“To me, but I guess that’s only because I think the right to not be killed is more important than the right to not be pregnant and that all other rights are meaningless without the right to life.”
That’s a rather egotistic view, that you have a right to use someone else’s physical body so that you can live. Does it extend after birth? I mean, can a 40-year-old claim someone’s kidney because they need it?
It’s also a very narrow view of the right to life. Many of the commenters on this page claim that the right to life doesn’t extend to the right to have food, shelter, and medical care, which all seem pretty necessary to life.
“Pregnancy isn’t without its risks, but it’s extremely safe in the developed world. The average person would be much more likely to die in a car accident in a given year than die from childbirth in that same year (if they became pregnant).”
I was under the impression that forcing a person to ride in a car without her consent was a crime.
Also, how many pregnant women need to die before forced pregnancy becomes a moral shame? I ask because a lot of the deaths from forced pregnancy happen in the non-developed world, which you didn’t seem address here. I’m pretty sure they count, too. Although if your concern is what occurs in the developed world (even under the so-called liberal abortion laws in the US), here’s one example. It’s not clear that the woman died, but then again, we haven’t completely outlawed abortion yet.
This “forced pregnancy” crap is so pathetically stupid.
Abortion restrictions are placed on doctors and health care providers, not women. The women are already pregnant. The government did not get them pregnant. Sheesh. Abortion laws restrict what doctors and health care workers can do to pregnant women and gestating babies.
Abortion laws do not and could not get you pregnant.
We all knew that, too.
That’s a rather egotistic view, that you have a right to use someone else’s physical body so that you can live. Does it extend after birth? I mean, can a 40-year-old claim someone’s kidney because they need it?
Oh yes. All the people who helped to create things like child protective services just have such an egotistic view, that they should have the right to your parents’ stuff so that you can live. Gosh. The nerve of some people. Granted, after you’re no longer a minor, you don’t have the right to demand things from your parent(s), and it’s not their job to make sure you go on surviving, because you should be able to do it yourself.
The only thing a gestating child gets from a mother’s body is shelter and nourishment. That’s the same thing a born child gets from a parent post-birth. Acting as though women come out of the pregnancy deal post-birth a kidney short is just ignorant. Have you ever been pregnant and given birth to a (live) child? I hope not, since you don’t seem to know much about the process, and I’d expect less ignorance about such a thing from someone who’s actually experienced it.
It’s also a very narrow view of the right to life. Many of the commenters on this page claim that the right to life doesn’t extend to the right to have food, shelter, and medical care, which all seem pretty necessary to life.
Those things can be achieved without government intervention, by the private sector. It’s not that we think people shouldn’t have those things, it’s that we think they should get them elsewhere.
Anything else you’re confused by that we can try to teach you about, AA?
AA–the verbal gymnastics you and your peeps have to endure must make you sick to your stomach. The truth is, you base your personal liberation on the numbers of babies who can be killed. That’s your legacy. Well that and your hate.Own it.
My legacy? Well, I got to serve as a container 4 times. It was really cool, and I promise, no rights were violated .
X, I’m your biggest fan.
hippie:
“Abortion restrictions are placed on doctors and health care providers, not women. The women are already pregnant.”
Gosh, and yet it’s so funny that they restrict pregnant women from obtaining something…I can’t put my finger on it…hmmm. I mean, it’s not like the forced pregnancy advocates are calling women murderers or anything. Because if they were murderers, or even accessories to murder, then they’d need to go on trial and do jail time (or be put to death) for obtaining abortions. One in three women – that’s a lot of jail cells!
So, I’m assuming even though abortion would be illegal because it’s “murder”, the women who procure them are somehow blameless, since abortion laws don’t apply to them. Curious.
xalisae:
“All the people who helped to create things like child protective services just have such an egotistic view, that they should have the right to your parents’ stuff so that you can live.”
Yes, I totally remember that time when CPS forced this father to give up his kidney. You can’t get away with just paying child support these days! Nope, every parent must bodily support their child until the age of 18 under law, including fathers!
“The only thing a gestating child gets from a mother’s body is shelter and nourishment. That’s the same thing a born child gets from a parent post-birth. Acting as though women come out of the pregnancy deal post-birth a kidney short is just ignorant. Have you ever been pregnant and given birth to a (live) child?”
Yep. The pregnant woman just lays there, completely unaware of the “shelter” and “nourishment” she’s giving. And hosting a human being inside of a uterus never results in gestational diabetes, eclampsia, depression, or other potentially life-threatening illnesses. Piece of cake! Why don’t we all stay pregnant, all the time?
Also, I’m sure there are no permanent consequences of childbirth, like:
incontinence
obstetric fistula
diabetes
neurological problems from anesthesia
thyroiditis
Not to mention serious internal and external scarring, increased risk for spousal violence, serious cardiopulmonary disorders…the list goes on. Including kidney and liver failure (ta da!) Hope some of the people who force women to stay pregnant are giving up their organs to help them if they’re ill!
“Have you ever been pregnant and given birth to a (live) child?”
No, I’m just a steampunk abortion robot who can’t read medical literature.
“Those things can be achieved without government intervention, by the private sector. It’s not that we think people shouldn’t have those things, it’s that we think they should get them elsewhere.”
Yes, because the private sector is totally taking care of that now. No children go hungry or without medical care, because kindly rich people take care of them.
Anything else you’re confused by that I can try to teach you about, x?
AA,
You got any original material or are you just gonna regurgitate the feminista dogma?
“To exchange one orthodoxy for another is not necessarily an advance. The enemy is the gramophone mind, whether or not one agrees with the record that is being played at the moment.”George Orwell, 1945
Anna doesn’t even know what Todd Akin said, but she has been spending a lot of time advocating the main support system of sex slavery. She and the vagina brigade have been programmed to objectify women to the max.
Her actions suggest a bad case of Stockholm syndrome.
I love it when we hit the sweet spot and the ’dead babies r us’ mob get all roiled up.
Reminds me of that scene from ‘Hunger Games’ where the young lady drops the hornets nest into the camp of her enemies.
The ‘truth does hurt’ even when it’s wrapped in love.
It seems AA has a bee in her bonnet.
For whom doth this belle troll?
Hey, this is AA. I would respond, but I’m in permanent moderation. So, have fun with the echo chamber! Nighty night, forced birthers!
G’night, and remember, there is no force involved in carrying a pregnancy to term and birthing a child-that happens on its own. There IS force involved in killing the child though. Sleep well, if you can. ;)
“forced birthers”
So you’re really depending a lot on the old if you repeat a lie enough it will become true tactic, huh?
That’s a rather egotistic view, that you have a right to use someone else’s physical body so that you can live.
Well, if you want to go that way, it seems rather egotistical to say that you have a right to destroy your own child’s physical body so that you can live as you want.
Does it extend after birth? I mean, can a 40-year-old claim someone’s kidney because they need it?
Of course the right to care from one’s parents extends after birth. That would be why we have child support laws. And it would seem that a mother has a duty to use her physical body to breastfeed her infant if there are no substitutes available. As xalisae pointed out, a 40-year-old isn’t a minor (parental obligations are terminated when the child turns 18).
Furthermore, since needing a kidney from one’s parent is highly unusual and not part of a human’s ordinary developement, it seems reasonable that parental obligations wouldn’t include donating a kidney to your child.
It’s also a very narrow view of the right to life. Many of the commenters on this page claim that the right to life doesn’t extend to the right to have food, shelter, and medical care, which all seem pretty necessary to life.
If we can agree that the right to life definitely includes the right not to be killed by one’s parents, we can then talk about where the state is obligated to provide some or all of those things. Is that reasonable?
I didn’t see anyone on this page claiming that the “right to life doesn’t extend to the right to have food, shelter, and medical care”. That would also be an ad hominem argument.
I was under the impression that forcing a person to ride in a car without her consent was a crime.
I’m assuming you mean “against their will” rather than “without consent”. If consent was necessary, then it would be a crime to drive an unconscious person to the hospital. I’m pretty sure that this isn’t because driving a car is statistically more dangerous than not. We can easily come up with other examples where one is morally and legally required to perform an action that’s more dangerous than another. Rescuing your child from drowning in a body of water is more dangerous than staying dry. Working longer hours in a dangerous or physically demanding job to pay child support is more dangerous than not making the
payments. Going to the grocery store to feed your family can have inherent risks. Yet it’s obligatory to do these things. Since childbirth is statistically safer than something most people do every day, it’s not plausible that it’s so dangerous that you can kill someone to avoid it.
Also, how many pregnant women need to die before forced pregnancy becomes a moral shame? I ask because a lot of the deaths from forced pregnancy happen in the non-developed world, which you didn’t seem address here. I’m pretty sure they count too.
They count, but they’re not relevant to the discussion of a policy in a developed country. There are many factors (lack of skilled medical professionals, antibiotics, clean water, etc) that make childbirth dangerous in a third-world country. These should all be improved to reduce infant and maternal deaths. Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.
Although if your concern is what occurs in the developed world (even under the so-called liberal abortion laws in the US), here’s one example. It’s not clear that the woman died, but then again, we haven’t completely outlawed abortion yet.
Deaths from abortions are tragic. But it doesn’t follow that, just because some women choose to do something dangerous (as well as illegal and violent), laws against abortion are unjustified.
At conception, a new individual organism becomes real in the physical world. By DNA, this human being is related to his or her father and mother. DNA also links this new individual with his or her grandparents, great-grandparents, and on into the beginning of human beings.
You can deny that your relationship with your offspring exists. You can destroy the unique and living human individual. You can dehumanize with names and ideas.
But the fact remains, scientifically, logically, and biologically: you are your child’s mother or father. Whether you allow your own progeny to live his or her natural life before birth is your legal choice…for now. But at conception, two people become mother and father and there’s no denying it. DNA doesn’t lie. Embrace life.
The ovewrwhelming majority of liberal pro-choicers do NOT condone Polanski’s rape of a 13 year old girl at all, including me.
Bill Clinton may be a womanizer, and that is reprehensible, but accusations of actual rape have not been proven against him. He is entitled to presumption of innocence .
Sex between consenting adults is NOT a crime .
I like how she cites the results of a legal abortion as a reason not to make abortion illegal. How many sub-par abortions do you think end up being cleaned up in hospital ER and OR rooms? How many less do you think that would be if the people doing those sub-par abortions had to worry about getting caught and sent to jail?
“Abortion restrictions are placed on doctors and health care providers, not women. The women are already pregnant.” Gosh, and yet it’s so funny that they restrict pregnant women from obtaining something…I can’t put my finger on it…hmmm. I mean, it’s not like the forced pregnancy advocates are calling women murderers or anything. Because if they were murderers, or even accessories to murder, then they’d need to go on trial and do jail time (or be put to death) for obtaining abortions. One in three women – that’s a lot of jail cells!
No, women are not prosecuted for the actions of the doctors. Got that? Laws that prohibit the provision of abortion services do not affect the women who consider or want abortions. They are enforced on the provider. Pretty simple really. I don’t see how you can’t understand it. It is like prohibiting the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors. The clerk and the store are prosecuted, not the kids who try to buy the stuff.
Hi AA,
You seem to like the logic of ‘different’ thinking. I have had an idea and would like to hear your take on this ‘thought experiment’. In Canada, and I presume most countries, we have laws which have been monikered as ‘Good Samaritan Laws’. They are the laws which ‘force’ a doctor to give assistance on an in-plane-flight IN AN EMERGENCY. What kind of ‘assistance’ would be provided, if the doctor was 1) an abortionist; 2) one who ‘provides’ euthanasia?
Would you ‘want to be treated’?
Thanks
Yay! I’m glad I’m out of moderation, although I’m bored with this thread. Since y’all had questions, I’ll respond, but I’ve got a holiday weekend to enjoy after that.
First, though, a few rhetorical questions:
1) Is anyone concerned that the blogmistress considers something plagiarism only when two works have “words in common”? Or that it’s ok to “hitchhike” off others’ ideas, as long as you’re careful to give a “hat tip”? No? That’s OK – I’m not necessarily invested in this blog having intellectual integrity. However, you may want to speak to her if you are invested in this blog.
2) Is anyone here ever going to address Todd Akin’s comments, instead of making excuses with shiny objects? I mean, are you content that Akin has furthered the notion that anti-choice equals anti-science and pro-victimizing someone who’s already a victim (by at best, casting suspicion that she wanted to be raped, and at worst, forcing her to again use her body against her will just like a rapist would)? That’s not worth discussing? Ok then…
Courtnay:
“My legacy? Well, I got to serve as a container 4 times. It was really cool, and I promise, no rights were violated .”
How nice that you were able to choose to bear children. It sounds like a very fulfilling experience for you to choose that. It’s too bad that you don’t want others to do the same.
Pharmer:
“Anna doesn’t even know what Todd Akin said, but she has been spending a lot of time advocating the main support system of sex slavery. She and the vagina brigade have been programmed to objectify women to the max.
Her actions suggest a bad case of Stockholm syndrome.”
I love (by which I mean I totally don’t love) the notion that allowing women to choose what happens to their body after rape is “slavery.” Meanwhile, experiencing a man forcing himself inside her, and then having the government force her to stay pregnant for nine months and go through a painful birth, is totally NOT slavery. Nor is it slavery to be tied to a rapist forever through visitation rights. (Also, thanks Pharmer for being unintelligible when making that point. It makes it easier to be convincing when pointing out the obvious, like I just did above.)
kenthebirther:
“It seems AA has a bee in her bonnet.
For whom doth this belle troll?”
Aw ken, thanks once again for playing! It might make it more challenging for you to comment, however, if you try doing it the next time without patronizing sexism. At least it keeps up the veneer that you respect women.
xalisae:
“G’night, and remember, there is no force involved in carrying a pregnancy to term and birthing a child-that happens on its own. There IS force involved in killing the child though. Sleep well, if you can.”
And once again, the mythical woman who never lifts a finger while pregnant or giving birth! Leave it to a pro-birther to completely disregard a woman’s part in bringing forth a child into the world. Have you ever seen a level 3-4 tear between vagina and anus in a woman who’s just given birth? How she now has no barrier between her rectum and her vagina, often resulting in a repair that requires hundreds of stitches? I wonder how that happens without force. Oh well – I can sleep pretty well knowing that I would never force a rape victim to endure that type of violence, nor would I hesitate to show my disgust at any person, including a legislator like Akin, who says she’s enduring it because she wasn’t raped. In fact, I’d gladly lose sleep to spend my time opposing such a monster. Otherwise, I sleep very well.
JDC:
“So you’re really depending a lot on the old if you repeat a lie enough it will become true tactic, huh?”
“Forced birther” is not a lie if it’s true. This site is in favor of birth, full stop. I don’t see a lot of consensus regarding anything that would help human beings after they’re born. Some of you lukewarmly support health care, day care, or other parts of the social safety net. But that’s by no means the majority. The basic thing that you agree on is that any woman who happens to be pregnant has to stay pregnant, then give birth. After that…well, good luck! Hope that Daddy Warbucks is around to care for you, because no government should, even if government forces you into this world!
Navi:
“Well, if you want to go that way, it seems rather egotistical to say that you have a right to destroy your own child’s physical body so that you can live as you want.”
And yet, that’s the unambiguous law in every case except pregnant women. Have a 5-year-old kid who needs a bone marrow transplant to live, and you’re a match? As a parent, you’re not legally obligated to do a thing. Your body is your own, and you can use it to help your child or not. Where are the laws on this matter? Why are pregnant women treated differently? Oh yeah: 1) they’re women, and 2) they’ve had sex. No man should be obligated to give up his body for fathering a child, though – that would be ludicrous.
“Of course the right to care from one’s parents extends after birth. That would be why we have child support laws. And it would seem that a mother has a duty to use her physical body to breastfeed her infant if there are no substitutes available. As xalisae pointed out, a 40-year-old isn’t a minor (parental obligations are terminated when the child turns 18). Furthermore, since needing a kidney from one’s parent is highly unusual and not part of a human’s ordinary developement, it seems reasonable that parental obligations wouldn’t include donating a kidney to your child.”
Child support doesn’t involve bodily integrity. No one has to literally use parts of their body to support their child in child support. They have a multitude of options – work at any number of jobs, borrow money, or even disappear. A pregnant person doesn’t get to choose the method in which she solely supports a fetus.
A mother has a duty to breastfeed? In what circumstance – a national famine? Barring that, she could always give the child to someone else to feed, or in a less Dickensian country than the US, she could rely on a social safety net to offer her the resources to feed her child.
As for the 40-year-old, that’s a rather heartless statement, isn’t it? When your kid’s 18, you’re no longer pro-life? If your “child” is a ball of cells, you must do anything possible to ensure its development, but once it’s 18, who cares? Also, children who require more than what a human’s “ordinary development” (whatever that is) requires shouldn’t have their needs met? So, you’re pro-life unless the kid has kidney disease – then the parent has no legal obligation to keep that kid alive?
“I didn’t see anyone on this page claiming that the “right to life doesn’t extend to the right to have food, shelter, and medical care”. That would also be an ad hominem argument.”
Talk to xalisae on that one. If you look around in other threads, you’ll see others.
“I’m assuming you mean “against their will” rather than “without consent”. If consent was necessary, then it would be a crime to drive an unconscious person to the hospital….We can easily come up with other examples where one is morally and legally required to perform an action that’s more dangerous than another.”
We are prohibited from driving someone around against their will. That’s kidnapping. And yet, it’s OK to force them to use their body for gestating a human being? That’s straight out of science fiction. Also, there are BIG differences between being “morally” required to perform and action and being “legally” required to perform it. You may feel morally required to practice a religion; being legally required to do it is a different matter. Some people may feel morally obligated to use their bodies to help another live (anything from giving blood to donating body parts to carrying a pregnancy). But the only person you all are proposing should have a legal obligation to use her body to support someone else is a pregnant person. Why? Why does no one else have to literally give their body? Wouldn’t that result in an increase in “life”?
“Since childbirth is statistically safer than something most people do every day, it’s not plausible that it’s so dangerous that you can kill someone to avoid it.”
Wow…that would be cold comfort to the person who dies in childbirth. Whoopsie! You’re the statistical anomaly! So sorry.
“Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world.”
So it’s OK when a woman in Ireland is forced to gestate a fetus and dies, because she had antibiotics available.
“Deaths from abortions are tragic. But it doesn’t follow that, just because some women choose to do something dangerous (as well as illegal and violent), laws against abortion are unjustified.”
In other words…”sure, we know some women will die from illegal abortions if we outlaw abortion. We know abortions won’t stop, and that they will be driven underground and made unsafe. But that’s the price pregnant people need to pay. It’s their own damn fault, and they should be driven underground where they belong.”
PS A great way to increase the number of abortions is to cut the safety net from children and pregnant women, plus make contraception and medically accurate sex education difficult to obtain. You can increase illegal abortions in particular by committing terrorist acts against legal abortion providers and by shaming sexually active women. All these things are happening now, and all of these things could be stopped by anti-choicers whether abortion is illegal or not. If the anti-choice movement doesn’t make progress on these issues, they’re essentially saying that lowering the abortion rate isn’t what they’re after. They’re after a world view that values chastity and/or forced birth above all else. (I’d look forward to anti-choice sites discussing these problems and how to stop them.)
ninek:
“At conception, a new individual organism becomes real in the physical world…But at conception, two people become mother and father and there’s no denying it. DNA doesn’t lie. Embrace life.”
Two words: identical twins. Are their two tiny souls stuffed into one fertilized egg and one set of chromosomes? Seriously, though, I’ve never understood why fertilization equals ensoulment. If so, why shouldn’t it be a sin not to bring into the world as many souls as possible? If all that potential is merely inside one’s gonads, then there’s millions of little Vinnies and Debbies just screaming to come into the world right now. Don’t they want to exist? Why aren’t people having sex right now? What about the estimated 30-70% of fertilized eggs that are washed out of the uterus naturally? Will we be hanging out with them in heaven?
xalisae:
“I like how she cites the results of a legal abortion as a reason not to make abortion illegal. How many sub-par abortions do you think end up being cleaned up in hospital ER and OR rooms? How many less do you think that would be if the people doing those sub-par abortions had to worry about getting caught and sent to jail?”
I like (by which I mean I totally don’t like) that you don’t understand the anti-choice role in the story. It was most likely an illegal abortion if the person who did it wasn’t qualified, or at best it was nominally legal only because the person had a title. Why would someone go to a person who’s unqualified? Generally, when I get medical care, I go to a person who is qualified in that particular area of medicine. I assume you and the woman in the story are the same. So why would she choose someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing? Probably because there aren’t enough providers due to anti-choice terrorism, there’s no monetary support for abortion like for other medical care, and most of all, the woman would be attacked and shamed if she went to a legit provider. This is all due to anti-choice activism.
Point being: you’ve already rigged the laws so that abortion is practically illegal, and this is what is happening now. If ERs and ORs are cleaning up sub-par abortions, the anti-choice movement is largely responsible, because women don’t willingly choose sub-par providers – they must resort to them. And if abortion becomes actually illegal, it will happen on a much larger scale, as it did before. Abortion will never stop; it will be more dangerous, and women will die. As for illegal abortionists going to jail – then women will give themselves abortions, when necessary. And then they’ll be in jail. Which leads me to…
hippie:
“No, women are not prosecuted for the actions of the doctors. Got that?…It is like prohibiting the sale of alcohol and tobacco to minors. The clerk and the store are prosecuted, not the kids who try to buy the stuff.”
1) Why wouldn’t women be prosecuted? If abortion is “murder,” then women are at least an accessory, if not the hirers of the hit men. That means they’re guilty of first degree murder. One in three women.
2) Minors DO get charged with underage consumption of alcohol, among other things. Are women less responsible for their actions than children? If not, then I assume you’re in favor of jailing large numbers of women for life on murder charges (or giving them the death penalty).
John McDonell:
“What kind of ‘assistance’ would be provided, if the doctor was 1) an abortionist; 2) one who ‘provides’ euthanasia?”
Well gosh, John, that’s a toughie. I don’t know about Canada, but in America, doctors are trained in many areas, although they go on to specialize in one or a few of those areas. And Good Samaritan laws refer to providing the type of assistance that is necessary to a person in need. So, if a person is having a heart attack, an OB-GYN would be qualified to provide CPR until more sophisticated equipment is available to help the person recover from a heart attack. Just because they’re OB-GYNs doesn’t mean they’ll give a person an abortion during any emergency. However, if the person is pregnant and needs an emergency abortion (which can be necessary in the case of hemorrhaging, for instance), any doctor could provide general assistance until the patient gets to a hospital and gets…ta dah…an emergency abortion. However, an OB-GYN specializing in abortion would be really helpful in that case. Of course, that would be in the best case scenario. As it stands now, plenty of pregnant people are left to die in ERs when conscience laws and/or abortion restrictions keep them from getting medical assistance, even when it’s clear they want to keep the pregnancy but can’t. If they’re lucky, they don’t bleed out before they find someone who will help them obtain an emergency abortion.
Doctors aren’t able to specialize in euthanasia in the US. But even if they were, euthanasia is, by definition, not an emergency need. However, a doctor who generally provides euthanasia (if such a person existed) would also be qualified to give a person in need whatever medical care is necessary at the moment.
I guess doctors in Canada can only work within their specialty? So, if I have a heart attack in Canada and I’m in the vicinity of a proctologist…well, that won’t be very helpful. Oh, wait – I get it! You weren’t serious, but instead asking a supposedly tricky question to get me to say that abortionists go around giving abortions even when they aren’t wanted or needed. Actually, the fact that I’m pro-choice means that I don’t go around advocating that society force pregnant people to make medical decisions against their will. But if anti-choicers are advocating that the government tell women they must stay pregnant, then the government also gains the right to tell women they must NOT stay pregnant. Government control of uteruses swings both ways. It’s lucky that most Canadians, and Americans, realize that.
Swell discussion. Have a great holiday weekend!
AnnaAnastasia, believe me, there’s a whole Internet full of stuff to do besides read threads that bore you.
You’ve asked two rhetorical questions, but I think I’ll try answering them anyway:
1. Plagiarism is generally defined rather loosely, relative to the field under discussion. In academia, it’s expected that you list every source you consulted. There are also various manuals of style that must be strictly adhered to, depending on the discipline. Journalism, especially opinion pieces, is quite different. Only direct quotes and contentious factual claims need to be cited, and it’s common for journalists (and even more so, columnists) to recycle each others’ ideas without attribution. So no, I’m not concerned with the author’s understanding of plagiarism.
2. Todd Akin’s quote has been beaten to death on numerous other threads. Find and read them yourself if you want. I’m not going to link to them or discuss it here.
Now, for your critique:
And yet, that’s the unambiguous law in every case except pregnant women. Have a 5-year-old kid who needs a bone marrow transplant to live, and you’re a match? As a parent, you’re not legally obligated to do a thing. Your body is your own, and you can use it to help your child or not.
It’s not the unambiguous law in every case, actually. I’m not aware of a court ruling that decided a parent is not legally obligated to donate an organ to his/her minor child.
But this still isn’t an accurate parallel to what you’re defending. Most abortions aren’t mere refusal to provide support, but deliberate killing. See here for a description of abortion methods. The fetus is physically destroyed in-utero, prior to or during removal. In your scenario, the child already has a fatal ailment that they die of unless they’re given assistance. A closer analogy would be paying an assassin to shoot your child in the heart after you’ve been conscripted as a bone marrow donor.
Now, I don’t really like this argument very much. After all, pro-life advocates are opposed to abortion methods where the fetus is removed from the uterus alive and fully intact before being left to die. A significant portion of this site is indeed dedicated to induced-labour abortions. But you would do well to at least honestly acknowledge what it is you’re supporting.
Where are the laws on this matter? Why are pregnant women treated differently? Oh yeah: 1) they’re women, and 2) they’ve had sex. No man should be obligated to give up his body for fathering a child, though – that would be ludicrous.
I’m not sure why you’re so obsessed with playing the “dirty sluts” card. Nothing I have said implies any of that. Pro-lifers are not pushing for all sexually active women to be registered as bone marrow donors. The female body, unlike that of an organ donor, is intrinsically ordered to protect and nurture the child for the first nine months of life. There are certainly differences between the sexes regarding the burden of pregnancy, but that’s not sufficient justification for abortion. After all, there are also differences between the mother and fetus with respect to how each can be harmed by the pregnancy outcome (a more relevant comparison). Since every successful abortion results in the death of the fetus, it seems pretty clear which has more to lose.
Child support doesn’t involve bodily integrity. No one has to literally use parts of their body to support their child in child support. They have a multitude of options – work at any number of jobs, borrow money, or even disappear. A pregnant person doesn’t get to choose the method in which she solely supports a fetus.
No, but it does involve parental obligations (which I’ve based my argument on) and extends them after birth. This is what you were asking.
A mother has a duty to breastfeed? In what circumstance – a national famine? Barring that, she could always give the child to someone else to feed, or in a less Dickensian country than the US, she could rely on a social safety net to offer her the resources to feed her child.
I see you skipped over the words “if there are no substitutes available”. Sure, a national famine would be one possible example. We can easily come up with others. Many women live in countries where there is no infant formula. Or a woman could give birth unexpectedly, but become stranded due to a freak snowstorm and unable to get any. Does a mother have an obligation to breastfeed if there are no substitutes available, or would this violate her bodily integrity? And if she does have a duty to breastfeed, doesn’t that undermine your case for abortion rights (which is dependent on the assumption that you always have the right to refuse to use parts of your body to keep someone alive)?
As for the 40-year-old, that’s a rather heartless statement, isn’t it? When your kid’s 18, you’re no longer pro-life?
I think that’s self-evident. Humans are more needy the younger they are, so their parents can be expected to provide greater support when they’re young. There’s an obvious difference between kicking your 22-year-old daughter out of your house and doing the same to your 2-year-old daughter. It’s not that the former lacks the right to life, it’s that her right to life no longer includes a just claim on her parents’ resources.
If your “child” is a ball of cells, you must do anything possible to ensure its development, but once it’s 18, who cares?
This is a strawman. I never said that “you must do anything possible to ensure its development”. If the unborn child developed a rare condition that could only be cured if the mother donated her bone marrow, I wouldn’t expect such a donation to be mandatory.
Also, children who require more than what a human’s “ordinary development” (whatever that is) requires shouldn’t have their needs met? So, you’re pro-life unless the kid has kidney disease – then the parent has no legal obligation to keep that kid alive?
If you don’t understand what a human’s ordinary development is, I would recommend picking up a book on human biology. It’s not that they shouldn’t have their needs met, it’s that extraordinary care (such as donating a kidney to cure an unusual medical condition) isn’t necessarily morally obligatory but ordinary parental care (which includes providing food, shelter, etc) is. And I think I adequately showed above through the breastfeeding analogy why gestation is not extraordinary care. So it’s not inconsistent to be against both abortion and compulsory organ donation (which you’ve assumed
Talk to xalisae on that one. If you look around in other threads, you’ll see others.
I somehow missed that, though she was the first person to make that claim on this thread (and she did so after you made the most I responded to). Anyway, it’s still an ad hominem.
We are prohibited from driving someone around against their will. That’s kidnapping.
You made my point for me. It’s not reckless endangerment (conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person). So since driving someone in a car (even against their will, which is illegal for other reasons) doesn’t constitute a substantial risk of physical injury to another person, neither does childbirth.
And yet, it’s OK to force them to use their body for gestating a human being? That’s straight out of science fiction.
Pregnancy itself is quite weird, if you stop and think about it. The idea of one human being growing inside another would make an excellent science fiction movie if it weren’t for the fact that it happens every day. Weirdness hardly implies that it’s superior to let her forcibly destroy her child’s body to avoid pregnancy.
Also, there are BIG differences between being “morally” required to perform and action and being “legally” required to perform it. You may feel morally required to practice a religion; being legally required to do it is a different matter. Some people may feel morally obligated to use their bodies to help another live (anything from giving blood to donating body parts to carrying a pregnancy).
I can see what you’re saying, though I think it makes more sense to distinguish between whether an action is morally criticizable (inferior) or morally impermissible. Buying an expensive car instead of donating to charity would be morally criticizable. Hiring a hitman to kill someone you don’t like would be morally impermissible. Refusing to donate a kidney to your ailing child would be morally criticizable. Refusing to feed the same child (including through the uterus or breast) is morally impermissible. The difference, I think, is that morally impermissible actions deprive someone of something they of which they have a just moral claim. The state comes into play here in making sure that everyone gets what he or she is entitled to.
But the only person you all are proposing should have a legal obligation to use her body to support someone else is a pregnant person. Why? Why does no one else have to literally give their body? Wouldn’t that result in an increase in “life”?
I gave an example above (breastfeeding), which I also included in my previous post. Why must you repeatedly misrepresent my position?
Wow…that would be cold comfort to the person who dies in childbirth. Whoopsie! You’re the statistical anomaly! So sorry.
I see you’re appealing to ridicule and shame rather than forming a legitimate, non-fallacious argument. The point still stands.
So it’s OK when a woman in Ireland is forced to gestate a fetus and dies, because she had antibiotics available.
I didn’t say that. I have yet to meet any pro-lifer who is fine with women dying in childbirth. I’ll paste what I actually said:
And:
In other words…”sure, we know some women will die from illegal abortions if we outlaw abortion. We know abortions won’t stop, and that they will be driven underground and made unsafe. But that’s the price pregnant people need to pay. It’s their own damn fault, and they should be driven underground where they belong.”
For the record, I believe that most women would follow the law if it were to become illegal and that very few would resort to dangerous measures. Ireland’s low abortion rate and low maternal mortality rate affirm this. Additionally, prior to Roe, physicians did 90% of illegal abortions (in conditions similar to after legalization). 39 women died of abortions in 1972, the year before, according to the CDC. This is a far cry from the “much larger scale” that you’re trying to sell.
Once again, appealing to ridicule doesn’t make your argument any less fallacious. Philosopher Mary Anne Warren, author of one of the most widely cited essays defending the moral permissibility of abortion, shows how it begs the question:
The task of a legal abortion supporter, then, is to show that abortion is not ethically equivalent to murder. If you can do this (which you haven’t yet), then you don’t need the argument from unsafe abortions. Either way, it’s a red herring.
Further down, you claim that abortion opponents are responsible if women die from unsafe or illegal abortions. I’d like you to consider the following thought experiment: Suppose a woman goes to a clinic for a legal late-term abortion. She is given instructions to follow but, despite the warnings from the clinic staff, decides not to follow them and dies as a result. Is the clinic to blame? What about supporters of legal abortion? After all, late-term abortion is only legal and available in this case because of these two parties. If she had been unable to have a late-term abortion, she would still be alive.
You could respond by pointing out that the woman chose to do something dangerous, despite knowing better (so abortion access is not to blame for her death). But wouldn’t the same hold true for a woman who died from an illegal abortion? She chose to do something dangerous, despite knowing better, and restrictive abortion laws are not to blame. Women are not “forced” into aborting illegally. They are capable of choosing to have the baby instead. Saying otherwise would be a very degrading, paternalistic view of women.
PS A great way to increase the number of abortions is to cut the safety net from children and pregnant women, plus make contraception and medically accurate sex education difficult to obtain.
{{citation needed}}
Why do you attribute “cut[ting] the safety net from children and pregnant women” to pro-life advocates? You should recall that the National Right to Life Committee actually opposed welfare reform because they thought that it would increase the number of abortions:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/19/weekinreview/the-nation-abortion-foes-worry-about-welfare-cutoffs.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Americans United for Life, the most prominent pro-life public policy organization, went as far as saying they would support more generous welfare benefits if there were peer-reviewed studies showing that they reduce abortion.
As for contraception, pro-lifers in general aren’t out to ban it. But here’s how handing it out like Halloween candy worked for NYC:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/nyregion/04abortion.html?pagewanted=all
You can increase illegal abortions in particular by committing terrorist acts against legal abortion providers and by shaming sexually active women. All these things are happening now, and all of these things could be stopped by anti-choicers whether abortion is illegal or not.
You’re really making less and less sense. Violence is universally condemned by pro-life organizations. And I don’t know what you mean by “shaming sexually active women”, or how it relates to abortion rates. Do you have any meaningful data to cite?
If the anti-choice movement doesn’t make progress on these issues, they’re essentially saying that lowering the abortion rate isn’t what they’re after. They’re after a world view that values chastity and/or forced birth above all else. (I’d look forward to anti-choice sites discussing these problems and how to stop them.)
Firstly, this is another ad hominem. Even if pro-lifers are the worst people in the world, abortion is still wrong. Secondly, you’re correct that lowering the abortion rate isn’t the only thing we’re after. It’s an important priority, but it’s also necessary to change the law and society (which currently allows a certain class of human beings to be killed without justification).
Enjoy your long weekend. Be sure to drive safely.