Stanek wkend question: Thoughts on Coulter’s charge that having no rape/incest exception is “insane”?
I like Ann Coulter.
I can’t think of a time when I haven’t agreed with Ann Coulter, even if her rhetoric is sometimes considered over-the-top. I usually enjoy her rhetoric, except her insistence on using the word “retard.”
Rhetoric aside, Coulter is a smart and savvy conservative.
So I was disappointed and stymied by this portion of Coulter’s analysis of the shellacking many Republicans took in Tuesday’s election:
No one can be blamed for the hurricane that took the news off the election, abruptly halting Romney’s momentum, but Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock can be blamed on two very specific people: Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
The last two weeks of the campaign were consumed with discussions of women’s “reproductive rights,” not because of anything Romney did, but because these two idiots decided to come out against abortion in the case of rape and incest.
After all the hard work intelligent pro-lifers have done in changing the public’s mind about a subject the public would rather not think about at all, these purist grandstanders came along and announced insane positions with no practical purpose whatsoever, other than showing off.
While pro-lifers in the trenches have been pushing the abortion positions where 90% of the country agrees with us – such as bans on partial birth abortion, and parental and spousal notification laws – Akin and Mourdock decided to leap straight to the other end of the spectrum and argue for abortion positions that less than 1% of the nation agrees with.
In order to be pro-life badasses, they gave up two easy-win Republican Senate seats.
No law is ever going to require a woman to bear the child of her rapist. Yes, it’s every bit as much a life as an unborn child that is not the product of rape. But sentient human beings are capable of drawing gradations along a line.
Just because I need iron to live doesn’t mean I have to accept 100,000 milligrams, which will kill me. If we give the guy who passed bad checks a prison furlough, that doesn’t mean we have to give one to Willie Horton. I like a tablespoon of sugar in my coffee, but not a pound.
The overwhelming majority of people – including me – are going to say the law shouldn’t force someone who has been raped to carry the child. On the other hand, abortion should be illegal in most other cases.
Is that so hard for Republicans to say?
Pro-life activist and the product of rape Rebecca Kiessling wrote a lengthy response to Coulter that is well worth reading. I wish Ann would speak with Rebecca.
Coulter got the scenario so wrong. It wasn’t so much the “no exceptions” position Akin and Mourdock held that got them in trouble. It was the ridiculous way they explained their position.
Consider how Ohio U.S. Senate candidate Josh Mandel deftly turned the tables on that question by pointing out opponent Sherrod Brown’s extremist position of believing abortion should be legal throughout all 9 months of pregnancy.
Brown stuttered in response, “I’ve never heard anybody say that before Josh, I’m not aware of that.” Mandel may have lost his race, but it wasn’t over a stumble on his pro-life position. (View video here, 48:52-51:40.)
And it wasn’t only the “last two weeks of the campaign” that were “consumed with discussions of women’s ‘reproductive rights.'” It was the last 10 months of the campaign, after Obama and the Democrats launched their “war on women” meme.
At any rate, what are your thoughts on Coulter’s analysis? Perhaps you agree with her?
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.
From a logical standpoint, a person who believes that from conception, a fetus is a baby – there’s no way to say that the baby should be killable in situations where the babies father is a rapist. If the fetus is a baby, logically, you can’t draw a line.
From a political standpoint, there’s no way that position is ever a winning position. It is too easily seized by those looking for a bumper sticker argument and not a well explained position.
I also don’t think the issue was that the two HAD the position – it was the way the PRESENTED or SOLD the position.
Josh did a good job defending the prolife position. This video should be sent to all prolife politicians. The video was revealing to in that we need to press the case further when politians like Sherrod Brown say that he supports prochoice exceptions for rape and incest because he trusts women to make the best decisions for themselves. We need an argument that explains why the prolife movement trusts women more than the prochoice movement. However, prochoice candidates will always bring some way of phrasing their support for baby killing in unexpected ways. Josh did a good job.
I think as Christians we need to practice prayerful Grace when people don’t handle traumatic situations the way we personally would. I do think there should be Grace applied in situations of rape and incest. Every baby aborted goes directly to God. That does not mean I agree, but I do believe people should have the freedom God gave them to make decisions that they alone will be held accountable to God for. We cannot force morality based on our own convictions on to everyone else. God does not do that to us. Just my two cents.
By that logic we should not have laws, just because you think stealing is wrong doesn’t mean I should be in trouble when I steal your car, right?? look out for those slippery slopes people.
Hey Ex, I agree with you mostly. Logically, makes no sense to try and have a rape/incest exception, I tried for literally years to make one that made sense and just can’t make it work. Politically, I sincerely doubt that it will ever come down to making abortion illegal in those situation. I think at one point most elective abortions could be illegal, maybe even all of them could be illegal, but I cannot see the rape/incest exception just going away.
I don’t really agree with you on why people reacted to Akin and co that way though. Sure, it was partially the way they came across. Especially Akin, that was just terrible. But I think most people, even nominally pro-life people, are going to have a visceral reaction to no exceptions that will make it near impossible to get that position across in a way that will ever really get people to be okay with it.
As far as I am aware Ms. Coulter has always been for the exceptions of rape and incest. She agrees with the pro-choice movement on these issues. I have never seen Ms. Coulter as a very strong prolife supporter. Her comparison of a fetus that was product of rape to a pound of sugar in her coffee is offensive. Basically, she articulated the prochoice argument: the baby only has worth if Mommy wants the baby.
I strongly dislike Coulter, not because of her exceptions stance though.
Tyler, I guess I just assumed, and you know what that means!
I think Ms. Coulter has been very coy about her prochoice positions because she doesn’t want to offend her conservative base and readership. It is a shame, because with her high octane personality she could be a great prolife speaker and it could probably be very lucrative for her as well.
I think the “trust” argument is the most powerful prochoice argument in my opinion because it doesn’t get into the weeds, and allows the politician or person to sound reasonable. It is by far a way better argument than the obviously self-serving and selfish sounding bodily autonomy argument. Saying you trust women sounds so magnanimous.
I don’t think the “rape” exception would very much lower the abortion rates. Most likely every abortion-minded woman would cry “rape” and get the exception. No different that in the UK, where abortion is illegal (yes, you heard it right!), unless continuing the pregnancy would cause a great damage to woman’s physical or mental health. (I have to vent though, whoever came up with a “law” like that knows close to nothing about pregnancy and women). And guess what – every abortion-minded woman is complaining to the doctor how she “can’t take it, and will kill herself if she can’t have an abortion”. That is except in the cases where the doctor already pre-signed a bunch of blank forms giving abortion to everyone and anyone… Praying for the world that has a greater respect for the gift of sexuality and resulting children…
Through the act of rape the rapist has infringed upon the rape victim’s right to self-determination. But the act of abortion infringes on the baby’s right to life. Both deserve to be legislated as illegal because both are unconstitutional.
What I can’t understand is why pro-lifers insist, despite all logic, reason, and emotion, to let pro-choicers make rape a ‘hard case’?? IT ISN’T! Women who have been raped and find themselves pregnant DON’T WANT ABORTIONS. They abort at a lower rate than other unplanned pregnanies, those who *do* abort largely report not only being forced to do so but that it only compounded their problems. Mothers-by-rape have stood up in Congress and begged not to be used as ‘hard cases’. They has resoundedly stated that they DO NOT regret baring their children (whether they then parented or found adopted parents). And as pro-lifers we *should* know that the last thing a traumatized woman needs is to have *her* baby traumatically and invasively torn from her body and killed. Rape survivors know this too, in the largest study of pregnant-by-rape women 80% said abortion was not the answer. We need to STOP letting pro-abortionists use the pain of women to line their pockets, politically and monetarily. Abortion DOES NOT HELP a rape victim, it helps the squeamish of society pretend the rape didn’t occure and abandon the needs of the victim. When someone parades out a ‘rape exception’ as necessary we should be agast, we should be *horrified* and turn the tables right back on them. How dare they use women who need real help, who have spoken resoundingly against abortion, who will only be further traumatized by the invasive death of their child, to try to weasel in an abortion mandate! How DARE they think so little of women; how dare they sacrifice rape victims needs to the alter of dead babies! Rape victims know better than abortion, want better than abortion, deserve better and we should bloody well grow a spine and DEMAND better! Stop running for cover when someone mentions rape/incest! The high ground is already yours, you only lose on abortion and rape if you allow yourself to be heeled into submission by societies discomfort with actually dealing with rape victims. Saying a raped woman needs an abortion is the worst sort of ‘blame the victim’ mentality, it’s forcing something 1) she doesn’t want 2) doesn’t need and 3) will make matters worse just so society can stick their fingers in their ears and yell ‘lalala’ so they can ignore the rape and the victims real needs!
Jack – I think we’ve got to remember though – Akin didn’t say “I am pro-life with no exceptions”.
Akin said, and I quote “Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
At least from what I saw, it wasn’t the no exceptions part of his stance that was attacked – it was the phrase “legitimate rape”.
Home run post again Jespren.
I can’t stand how the prochoice side exploits rape victims for their cause.
I’m not going to pull any punches. Ann Coulter is a bigot. She seems to be committing the golden mean fallacy (if there exist two seemingly extreme positions on any subject, the correct position must lie somewhere in the middle). Some things to note:
1. She’s off on the percentage of Americans that oppose rapes exception by a factor of twenty.
2. Same-sex marriage and abolishing slavery both had similar
approval ratings at times in history. The former is rapidly becoming accepted. The latter took many decades to accomplish, and that was at a time when people were more open to logic and reason rather than listening to whatever the talking heads in the media told them.
3. Politicians without a rape exception are not necessarily unelectable. Scott Walker keeps getting elected, despite being opposed to abortion in all cases.
4. Other western democracies have banned abortion in cases of rape. Ireland has exceptions only for the life of the mother. While it’s not without its problems, underground abortions performed by doctors are not prevalent as they are in Poland (which has exceptions for rape as well). The latter was close to totally banning abortion last year. As Vita pointed out, it is false that this position has “no practical purpose whatsoever” even if you’re willing to go “meh, it’s only 1% of all abortions”.
Coulter’s piece is fundamentally flawed and not helpful. She could have (correctly) pointed out that two idiots chose to express their position in an inarticulate and repulsive manner. She could have even made a debatable but compelling argument that now isn’t the time to run 100% pro-life candidates in those states. Instead, she displayed her own ignorance of what the pro-life cause is actually about.
I think the “trust” argument is the most powerful prochoice argument in my opinion because it doesn’t get into the weeds, and allows the politician or person to sound reasonable. It is by far a way better argument than the obviously self-serving and selfish sounding bodily autonomy argument. Saying you trust women sounds so magnanimous.
Funny, I would say the exact opposite. I would say that “trust women” is an empty and self-serving slogan (rather than an actual argument). The bodily autonomy argument (sometimes known as the Good Samaritan argument), on the other hand, actually has some pull to it and requires some work to answer (especially in cases of rape). Unlike most sophisticated arguments for the moral permissibility of abortion, it’s consistent with many pro-choice intuitions (like that abortion should be rare, for instance).
OK, so we kill the ones who get here by rape and incest. Who’s next? Who volunteers to be negotiable next go-round?
I’ll wait.
I’m really annoyed that Ms. Coulter seems to be pulling numbers out of her rear end to make her point. While the abortion restrictions she listed may be very popular, I don’t think any poll has shown any of them near 90% support. On the other hand, it is not any where near true that less than 1% support the Akin/Mourdock position. I believe the last Gallup poll showed something like 20% against abortion in all cases. In any case, I’ve definetly never seen a poll showing less than 1% for such a position.
I took too long to make my comment, and Navi made the same point and more. I either need to get faster at this, or just leave the work to everyone else. :)
In the argument against abortion, there can be no exceptions for rape and incest. To allow those exceptions shows an inconsistency.
But in the eyes of the American public, not allowing exceptions for rape and incest is a political failure. If you look at the polls concerning abortion restrictions, less than 25% of Americans favor restricting abortions even in cases of rape and incest.
She was interviewed by Peirs Moragan a week ago, and he got to her when he brought up the “rape exception.” He shamed her for using the word ‘retard,; when he’s perfecting in favor of killing such ‘retarded,’ human beings with “flaws,” as long as the act of murder is committed in-utero.The language is policed but the denigration of the mentally retarded is perfectly fine.
The same with those who have been disabled by rape. It is an issue of silencing the issue. We don’t have to talk about the rape if we destroy the evidence, the baby, and ignore the deeper impact that society at large has essentially faulted the victim with; that she somehow deserved it for somehow exposing herself to her attacker. If anything, the raped are treated as iconvenient truths. Humiliated and silenced by the actions of another. Where are the knights in shining armor–?? Pornography is a big problem.
We dont have to dealt with the woman’s trauma, and the criminal’s responsiblity to own up to the resulting fatherhood. We ‘ok,’ the rape victim’s acceptance of her total and violent sexual objectification. the rape of one woman is the rape of all women, when it ends in an abortion, because it sanctions the action of the rapist, by neatly silencing all parties–the woman with further mortification, the rapist by securing his annoniminity and cleaning up his “mess.” By seeing an accidental pregnancy as a problem that needs to be solved, it devalues all pregnancies, by stating that under intellecually conditional circumstances, they could be deemed unvaluable.
In fantasyland, this might hold up. In reality, where all women have to deal with mass objectification in which Critical Women’s Healthcare refers not to helping women, but declining the population to maintain the population that can be served by what remains of the credibility of the remaining American currency. It is promoting an economy, not based on growth, but based on failure dressed-up nicely in the word so commonly used now-a-days: sustainability.
Hi folks,
I could not hope for a better response than jasperen’s. We too often shy away from harsh words and forget that ‘sticks and stones, may hurt my bones, but names will never hurt me …’. We are called ‘extreme’ and we shy away in tacit agreement. Tell me: killing babies is not EXTREME (in capitals)? As jasperen pointed out we must DEMAND better treatment.
Navi, interesting perspective. In truth the “trust women argument” is tied to the bodily autonomy argument. It overlays the bodily autonomy argument and undergirds it. It basically assumes the bodily argument is defacto true and proven and not even debatable.
I see the bodily autonomy argument as an epic fail, therefore, since the trust arguments skirts this argument and simply assumes it to be true I think it is a good rhetorical move.
You may be right that the “trust” argument is only a slogan but if it is only a slogan, it is a slogan with teeth. It sticks into the prolifer and is usually never responded to. If it is an argument I think the argument goes something as follows (but I could be wrong) – women are adults, we let adult make their own decisions, therefore we should let women decide if they want to continue a pregnancy; and if we don’t let women make decisions about whether to continue their pregnancy then we don’t trust women as adults.
It appears to be an insult as well as a slogan/argument. It basically accuses prolifers of being mistrusting.
Navi, I don’t have the ability or time to break down this argument this morning - perhaps you could do that for us.
Thanks Taylor, this has been a frustration of mine since sophomore year in highschool when some jerk proclaimed during a debate on abortion ‘i wouldn’t let *my* daughter carry her rapists child’. I (verbally) jumped on him, shouldn’t he be concerned with what’s best for his hypothetical daughter not with what he was comfortable with? By the time the debate was over he looked ready to crawl under his desk and most the kids in the room (study hall) was thinking partial birth abortion shouldn’t be held over as legal just for a rape exception (partial birth abortion being what we were specifically debating).
WOW – two home runs in one thread. First Jespren, now CityofAngelsNativeMission at 12:58 pm.
Thanks John McDonnel
Jespren if you’re not involved in a very active way with the prolife movement I hope someone contacts you to make it possible so that you can be. Although, if I recall, you are busy with raising your family right now. Anyway, great posts.
When I was homeless I knew this prostitute who aborted her stepdad’s (who was also her paternal uncle, don’t ask) baby when she was fourteen. She lied to her mom and told her some guy from school got her pregnant. She begged her mom to get her an abortion and she did. She told me that if she hadn’t gotten an abortion she would have just killed herself. I’m not saying it makes abortion after rape right at all, just saying I know some people feel like they can’t handle it.
What’s “insane” is wanting to (or believing it’s ok to) kill innocent, helpless pre-born babies because of the circumstances of their conception.
THAT’S insane!
Jack, the prostitute you knew needed some counselling. Have you kept in touch with this prostitute? Do you know how she feels about it now? Even though she felt she would’ve killed herself at the time of her pregancy if she didn’t get an abortion did she feel that she did the right thing? Or did she regret it?
In truth the “trust women argument” is tied to the bodily autonomy argument. It overlays the bodily autonomy argument and undergirds it. It basically assumes the bodily argument is defacto true and proven and not even debatable.
It doesn’t necessarily assume the bodily autonomy argument is true. It could really assume the truth of any pro-choice argument (including, but not limited to, bodily autonomy). But that’s precisely the problem: you can’t make your argument without assuming that your opponent is wrong. This is known as begging the question.
I like the way Scott Klusendorf handles it, and there isn’t really much I have to add. He points out that pro-lifers trust adult women to handle a number of personal decisions themselves (which house to buy, who to marry, what kind of vehicle to drive, which school to attend, where to work, etc). Some choices, however, are wrong. Killing innocent human beings because they’re in the way and can’t defend themselves is one choice that should not be allowed.
(this then sets up the debate around the question of whether the unborn are human beings like the rest of us).
She extremely obviously needed counseling Tyler. No, I haven’t seen her since I stopped selling drugs when I was eighteen. I have no idea if she’s even alive, so I don’t know how she feels now. At the time I knew her she felt like she didn’t regret it and she did the right thing, but honestly since she was a heroin addict, and like 90% of the point of doing heroin is not to feel any pain who knows what she was covering up. I wasn’t making an argument that abortion was definitely the best thing for her in that case, not at all. The best thing would have been, at the very least, her getting help from her mom for what was happening with her stepdad. I was just pointing out, people tend to focus on the fact that a lot of rape victims regret aborting, and the ones that have their babies usually don’t. People seem to forget that some people are trapped in absolutely horrendous situations and there aren’t always easy answers.
more …,
Coulture does indeed point to a pro-life argumentation ‘difficulty’. The problem is the phrase ‘human rights’. If you say ‘All humans have rights’, you say one thing. How about: ‘Those with rights (inalienable) are called humans!’? Truth be told, ‘All unique individuals of the species homo sapiens sapiens (who live) have Rights.’ . It is not the species as a group that has Rights, but its (individual) members.
If you hold that Rights are species-related and not individual-related, you get into the problem of Rights being ‘bestowed’ instead of being ‘recognized’. Black people always did (and do) have Rights, even when on slave ships. Their Rights were not ‘recognized’ until emancipation.
In the case of abortion, the act of naming only recognizes individuality. It does not bestow ‘individuality’. During gestation we use the words ‘fetus’ and ‘human being’ and we recognize Rights too, but the babe remains un-named, but is still an individual with Rights attending his/her individuality.
Maybe we as a group should emphasize what Carla has done. She has named her aborted child ‘Blessing’. We pro-lifers do not save ‘babies (human species) from abortion’, instead we save ‘Blessing’, ‘Paul’, ‘Fred’, ‘Jocelynne’, etc …. BEFORE they are named.
Thanks Navi. Is there a way that a prolifer can avoid being accused of not trusting women in advance of being slandered by this accusation. Is there a good opening statement or slogan that you know of that prolifers can/should use to diffuse this accusation before it is actually made? What are somethings prolifers can say or show that demonstrate prolifers trust women? I don’t like it when prolifers always have to start off on the defensive.
Furthermore, I think pointing out that prolifers trust women to make other decisions comes accross as rather patronizing, especially if the prolifer is a male.
JackBorsch, the ‘easy answer’ would have been someone coming along side her, getting her to the cops, who could have used a simple blood test upon birth (or even inutero sampling) to prove rape, put her rapists away and get her help from victim rights groups, sexual assault survivor groups, and victim restitution funds. Allowing her to believe the lie that abortion was the only thing she could do, and that she was hopeless and helpless without it was a compounding of her problems, not a fix. She wouldn’t even have needed the initial strength to point at her stepfather, she was 14 and pregnant. In the eyes of the law there is a presumption of a crime at that point in time. Once she was safely away from her abuser, as she would have been during police questioning, lawyer statements, and victim advocacy meetings at the very least, she would have been able, hopefully, to drop the lie about a ‘boy from school’ and point to her real abuser. When people feel like they are being looked after and believed they are far more likely to tell the truth.
On a side note, my father is legally my stepfather and genetically my paternal uncle. It might sound a bit weird, but it’s not really, just old fashioned. My biological father asked his brother to come take care of his family when he died and my uncle joined our family as husband and father. (Your word choice suggests something amis, and certainly I’m sure improper or bizare situations could be involved in a father/uncle pairing, but it isn’t always)
JDC – you are correct – I’ve never seen 90% – it has been 80% in the polls I’ve seen.
The GOP would be much better off if they somehow found a deserted island and put Coulter, Limbaugh, and Rove on it. Maybe even Newt as well…though he seems to have calmed down a bit since he got knocked out.
Navi I just thought of something.
When you pointed out that the “trust women argument” begs the question I then asked what question is it begging? The implied “question” didn’t come to me at first, but then it did. I think the question it begs is whether abortion is a choice at all. It is not a question about trust. The “trust women argument” was a rhetorical trick in order to re-establish that abortion is a choice.
I think a prolifer can say: ”We trust women when there are choices to made – however, abortion is not a choice! Therefore, we prolifers are not questioning a woman’s ability to make choices. Abortion is the premature destruction and evacuation of an embryo or fetus from a mother’s uterus.” Defining our terms at the beginning of the debate is probably a good idea.
Thank you Tyler (again). I have 3 small kids and a chronic health condition. I fear my ‘worth’ in this case is mainly limited to informal debate and prayer (I don’t even have the physical ability to stand in a picket line). I am always open to the possibility of more happening, and certainly my situation may change in the future. You or anyone else certainly would be welcome contact if I can do anything to help. I don’t stick my blog link up very frequently but it’s an easy way to contact me ( tigaseren.blogspot.com ). I am a good artist in several mediums, a writer, a practiced debator, and a Christian apologeticist. But I do have 3 young kids and limited mobility/partial disability.
Excellent point Vita. Any law restricting or banning abortion that includes a rape exception is a self-negating law. As a rape conceived person, it is always hurtful to be used as a pawn in the debate over “acceptable” political positions and laws. It is very disappointing that some national pro-life organizations are willing to accept and endorse pro-life laws with exceptions, laws that just won’t work. Leave a door open and that is where all the abortion traffic will file through. If anyone has an explanation of how a law with exceptions will work, please spell it out. I have never heard anyone explain the next step, the enforcement step, when a law with exceptions is defended. What will be the burden of proof? Where will the lines of proof be drawn for rape/incest related to an abortion? What set of some or all of the following activities: a medical exam, drug test, DNA match, police report, court conviction, check mark on an abortion clinic admission form or other burden of proof, is possible during the subsequent 9 months of pregnancy? If there is no rape proven, oh-oh, the abortion is already done, now what? Do you think the police are ready and willing to investigate more rape cases? Are the courts ready? Does it make any sense to thrust an abortion decision into the investigational and prosecutorial morass of rape law? From the pro-abort’s side, any exception we give them, they will gleefully take. Can we really expect the exceptions to be limited to only one? The rape exception creates a protected class. There will be constant pressure, and most likely legal challenges, to create more protected classes of exceptions and we will end up right back where we are now.
Jespren, I agree that’s what should have happened. It didn’t though. I don’t know if it had more to do with abortion laws, lack of parenting on her mother’s part, or it was just one of those things but it ended up she got the abortion, ran away at fifteen, and ended up on heroin and hooking. Do you think with no exception laws this situation would be much less likely to happen? Do you think that every time a fourteen year old is pregnant that it needs to be an assumption of rape (I do believe this, actually, I’m not sure where it stands legally though. I knew a couple girls pregnant very young who had their babies and no investigation was done).
Oh, her mom cheated on her bio dad with his brother, and ended up leaving her dad for him. Her dad ended up committing suicide. It was a terrible home environment.
Navi, for example, Josh could have said to Brown in his response: “I think my colleague Mr. Brown is confused about what an abortion actually is. He thinks abortion is a choice. He doesn’t acknowledge that the preborn child is a human being who is denied a choice. An abortion is the destruction of a human being prior to be born and not a choice. If he wishes to characterize the destruction of human beings by abortion as a choice of the mother then he is asserting mothers who abort are choosing to destroy their own preborn children. That is one choice I definitely disagree with and would consider to be a false choice.”
Or something to that effect. However, this would only address the charge head-on. This kind of statement might no be appropriate for the circumstances. It is probably best to use this argument with casual supporters of abortion.
No problem Jespren. Reading your posts is like enjoying a sunny day at your kid’s soccer game – they are very bright and make you feel the home team is going to win.
I take issue with Coulter’s statement
“these purist grandstanders came along and announced insane positions with no practical purpose whatsoever, other than showing off.”
She acts as if Akin and Mourdock loudly trumpeted their abortion views without any inducement. Abortion, and specifically the issue of rape, only came up because both were directly asked about it by the media.
I said it on another thread a few weeks back and I’ll say it again. It’s the media, and not pro-life Republicans, who have a disgusting obsession with rape and incest abortions. It’s the media who should be blamed for shamelessly trying to exploit rape victims to score a few cheap political points.
The next time a pro-life Republican is asked about the rape/incest exception by the media, he or she ought to indignantly scold the questioner the way Newt Gingrich did in the primary debate when asked about his ex-wife.
Some great comments, even from folks with whom I don’t always agree.
The rape exception is illogical for any pro-lifer because it supposes:
a) if the mother objects STRONGLY enough to being pregnant, her objections trumps the new human being’s right to his or her own life
b) it supposes some new human beings don’t deserve to live while some do.
The only logically sound positions are: abortion on demand or no abortion ever.
We need better PR. Abortion arguments always boil down to emotional arguments. It’s always, at the bottom line, about the mother’s emotional state of mind at being pregnant that is being used to justify the premature and deliberate death of a new human being. We need to point this out to people, clearly. Abortion advocates CLAIM to be interested in science, they CLAIM that religious belief does not justify the banning of abortion.
We need to better articulate the truth, so that they can see how absolutely UNSCIENTIFIC and wholly emotional their abortion rationale IS.
It is perfectly logical to support anti-abortion laws but allow abortions in rape cases. One can argue that by voluntarily engaging in a certain type of sex, the woman accepted the consequences that could follow. The rape victim didn’t agree to that type of sex and can’t legally be forced to accept the consequences.
I’m not saying anyone should adopt this position but it is perfectly consistent and logical.
Denise, rational people who are anti-abortion don’t make the argument that abortion should be illegal because women need to accept the consequences of consensual sex. If they make that argument I would argue against them. Anti-abortion laws based on “consequences” would be nonsensical. If the fetus isn’t considered a human person, what other consequences are people not allowed to medically correct? Even a drunk driver who kills a family of five in a wreck isn’t denied treatment for his injuries. So, the consequences argument just fails.
Two things I would like to say as a 67 year old man with no axe to grind and no direct experience.
1. First of all, I understood exactly the point Akin was trying to make. Rape is rape trumps his argument in the world of Herbert Marcuse and the modern liberal. If any female under any circumstance says no then any act performed after that no is considered rape if the female chooses to press the issue. So my young wife is mad at me, says no , but relents to my begging even though she never says “oh, okay go ahead and get it over with”……. then in the modern liberal sense, I’ve raped her. A once estranged spouse impregnates his wife during consensual make-up sex can she claim rape if there is no reconciliation? I’m afraid the answer is yes if she is so inclined.
Akin was referring to a violent and brutal sexual encounter with a complete stranger where the completed coital act produces a fertilized female egg. Which brings me to:
(2)He referred to a medical study and statistics giving a historical look at the number of pregnancies resulting from “real rape” which were very low for various reasons. The study was conducted by a Dr Mecklenburg(SP) in the ’70s if memory serves. He performed studies to investigate the female reproductive system physiological response to physical stress of rigorous training and to a violent and brutal psychological trauma induced by “real rape”. This study was cited regularly by pro-life people soooooooo, debunked and castigated don’t come close to describing what happened to him and his study.
In closing, I can tell you this from the experience of raising a daughter who was a rabid basketball and track star in high school. According to my wife, just about every young lady on the basketball team ceased menses during competition. My wife continually harped about the coach and his work ethic. They won state two years running! I loved the man and so did my daughter!
JackBorsch, please tell me you aren’t an attorney!
Not an attorney. And I wasn’t arguing for abortion to be okay. I just believe the only anti-abortion argument that is fully consistent is that the fetus is a human, and all humans should be legally protected. The consequences argument fails.
Btw “real rape” doesn’t have to involve physical violence or be committed by a stranger. If Akin thinks it does he has even more reasons to just keep his mouth shut about it.
The one orthodoxy that the legacy media clings to more than all others is abortion “rights”. Consequently they made a mountain out of a molehill with the Akin and Mourdock comments. We made it worse by capitulating to the faux indignation coming from the media types looking for anything to do their smear job.
Ann Coulter’s overeaction to those comments are more contemptible in some ways than those of the main stream media. Why? Because Ann knows better. She gets caught of in the whole image thing and OMG why are they saying these things because she understands the media will pound them on their comments. But she knew exactly what was meant by these two and yet she does not rise to their defense.
The teaching point that should come out of this election is that sometimes good people say things that the pro-abortion media will run with. Instead of us turning our backs on them as the whole Repub establishment did with Akin we should calmly reassert our principles. We are not going to win every battle, but shrinking from our duty to defend those who defend life is not the way to win the war.
JackBorsch says:
November 10, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Not an attorney. And I wasn’t arguing for abortion to be okay. I just believe the only anti-abortion argument that is fully consistent is that the fetus is a human, and all humans should be legally protected. The consequences argument fails.
(Denise) If the fetus is fully human, it still must impose greatly on the pregnant woman or girl if it is to survive. By agreeing to a certain type of sex act, the female can be seen to have accepted this burden as a consequence of that act. If she is raped, she didn’t accept the consequences. Even though the unborn is considered fully human, it doesn’t have the same claim on her as if she agreed to the sex act.
But that argument also fails, Denise, because humans aren’t deprived of life due to burden. I can’t kill my kids no matter how burdened I am by them. You can’t kill an elderly and ill parent due to how imposed upon you are, even if you never asked to be born and related to them, and never asked for the responsibility. If a fetus is a human like any other human, there isn’t a rational reason to deny them the same protections legally.
The rape exception is perfectly logical. What is perplexing is the tendency to tie it in with incest. Are they thinking of fathers who forced themselves on daughters? Then that is rape so the “rape or incest” exception is really just the rape exception. OTOH, if all incest is included, it means that a 40-year-old woman pregnant by her 20-year-old son can get an abortion. Should she get special consideration because of her PERVERSITY?
(Denise) If the fetus is fully human, it still must impose greatly on the pregnant woman or girl if it is to survive. By agreeing to a certain type of sex act, the female can be seen to have accepted this burden as a consequence of that act. If she is raped, she didn’t accept the consequences. Even though the unborn is considered fully human, it doesn’t have the same claim on her as if she agreed to the sex act.
WRONG !!
Evolution and the Constitution do not care about the circumstances of conception. Evolution has imparted the drive for life to create and to sustain itself through continual pro-creation. The Constitution as neatly summed up by the Declaration of Independence states that our “Creator” (God…evolution….the Universe…The Force…whatever) has endowed us with certain inalienable rights….namely...LIFE…Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Sorry ladies…but nature and or God gave you a biological device called the womb to give sanctuary to young life and as a sort of “American Embassy” for the young citizen to be. Evolution and the Constitution do not care if that human being is in the form of a blastocyst. Evolution and biology prove that it is human and is in a state of “being”….hence is a human being….and since it was created on American soil to either a legal or illegal citizen….is automatically endowed with Constitutional rights.
Once conception happens….all prior claims to supremecy by the woman ends. Period….end of story. Even if that conception happens by rape or incest.
Otherwise….do not witch and moan about the shredding of the Constitution by various politicians or by the voting public at large when you are not prepared to support the Inalienable Rights of ALL human beings….even if that human is in the form of a blastocyst. The moment that a woman gives birth to anything other than a human…then the deal is off. Otherwise….all abortions are unconstitutional and should be taught and supported as such regardless of the political consequences.
Every one here should now know after Tuesday…that principles should never be aborted for political expediency. And people such as Ann Coulter….who are put on pedestals by Conservatives…should be never listened to again….because they really know very little of the Constitution…human biology and how it pertains to Constitutional rights….and have proven themselves unworthy of respect when they give up their principles (if they ever had any at all to begin with) for political gain for their side….simply to put a WIN in their column.
JackBorsch says:
November 10, 2012 at 6:00 pm
But that argument also fails, Denise, because humans aren’t deprived of life due to burden. I can’t kill my kids no matter how burdened I am by them. You can’t kill an elderly and ill parent due to how imposed upon you are, even if you never asked to be born and related to them, and never asked for the responsibility. If a fetus is a human like any other human, there isn’t a rational reason to deny them the same protections legally.
(Denise) Pregnancy is a special sort of burden. It is somewhat similar to a kidney transplant or a blood transfusion in that the most intimate (yet public) use of the body is required to sustain life. The rape victim didn’t agree to undergo this ordeal to sustain life. It is at least arguable that a woman who willingly agrees to the type of sex we all know can lead to pregnancy has contracted to undergo this ordeal to sustain a life if one is conceived.
You can argue either way but it is not illogical to state that most pregnant women are obliged to undergo the ordeal to sustain life but exceptional cases might be allowed to get out of the ordeal even though the unborn must die as a result.
For those girls and women who have just been attacked, would you support the Morning After Pill?
Or something similar to PREVENT conception?
I know one person on this board said she would be disappointed if she was attacked and not pregnant as a result. I think it’s safe to say that most raped women and girls are hoping their menstrual period arrives on time.
At any rate, WHY is incest always paired with rape?
One possibility: allowing abortions in rape cases may make it more likely that rapists will kill the victim. A woman’s chances of being raped decrease significantly when she reaches age 50 but her chances of being killed if she is raped increase significantly. Why is this? It is at least possible that the possibility that a rapist can impregnate leads him to spare a victim’s life since when that possibility is obviously not there, he is so much more likely to take her life.
Suppose a young woman doesn’t have a boyfriend. However, she is fertile and lives in a high crime neighborhood. She says, “I would have an abortion if I got raped and pregnant from it.”
Should she be on effective contraception?
Denise …we keep telling you .. there is no healthy and effective contraceptive. She may wish though to effectively suspend her ovulation cycle through an extreme sports regime – or the non-healthy anorexic route,
Thanks Navi. Is there a way that a prolifer can avoid being accused of not trusting women in advance of being slandered by this accusation. Is there a good opening statement or slogan that you know of that prolifers can/should use to diffuse this accusation before it is actually made? What are somethings prolifers can say or show that demonstrate prolifers trust women?
See my previous post. But to be perfectly honest, there really isn’t any way to falsify the charge that pro-lifers don’t trust women. You have no way of proving what your actual motivations are. Really, each person has to make up their own mind about this. And it might take years before you can win someone’s heart (not something a politician can say on television).
I don’t like it when prolifers always have to start off on the defensive.
I wouldn’t consider this response starting off on the defensive. It’s more about framing the debate around the most important question instead of spending the whole time chasing after red herrings. The one who frames the debate is usually the one who wins the debate. It’s impossible to show how strong the pro-life case really is if you’re stuck arguing about whether we should trust women to make decisions about their own healthcare.
Furthermore, I think pointing out that prolifers trust women to make other decisions comes accross as rather patronizing, especially if the prolifer is a male.
I disagree. It might seem obvious to us that we trust women to make other decisions, but many people do not know this is true (or haven’t considered it) especially if the pro-lifer is a male.
A choice is simply “an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities”. Torturing toddlers for fun is a choice. So the question is what kind of choice abortion is. Everyone agrees that something is killed in an abortion. Whether it should be legal to kill it is largely dependent on what it is. That is where pro-lifers must focus the debate.
Navi, I agree with pretty much most of what you said and I appreciated you providng your perspective on how prolife arguments are perceived. I would just add that I think a prolifer also needs to be prepared to explain why they think killing a human being is wrong. Unfortunately, in today’s society I believe many people understand exactly what they are killing and are now ok with killing said innocent human life.
Everyone doesn’t agree that something is being killed during an abortion.
When Rebecca Keisling was on Peirs Morgan, he coldly told her her mother deserved the choice to destroy the unwanted pregnancy, to which the woman he had on to rebut Keisling, said, EMBRYO-when Keisling said baby, this woman corrected her and said, embryo-the embro-as in-the blob of cells.
When Anne Romney was on the view a few weeks ago, she said her husband was against stem cell research, and they corrected her and said EMBRYOTIC stem cell research.
As in–an embro is a cluster of unfeeling, unthinking more-likely than not-soulless cell cluster.
That’s open for debate in the large majority of circles.
And when a friend had her abortion, (I have been through more than six abortions with friends, and could not talk one of them out of it, and am no longer friends with pro-choicers,) she told me that puppy dogs, when they are first born, are not alive-you have to shake them and rub them and they ‘wake-up,’ and they can feel pain after that, but before that, it was doubtful they could be aware of anything, and they were’nt breathing, and of course there were other reasons that baby was not alive. She was at three weeks when she aborted her child. At three weeks the baby has a heartbeat as fast as a hummingbirds, and AND–it is about the size of a pea-it has a soul at conception, and a sex well, but that is lost, because Planned Parenthood has gotten to them i the schools, and even if you pull your kid out the day they come in with their diagrams and freebees, their friends will tell your kids what they learned. We need to get this information into the Church’s and get to our kids before they do. When iw as missioning I was surprised how many ten eleven and twelve year olds were attracted to the information about pre-borns.
John McDonell says:
November 10, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Denise …we keep telling you .. there is no healthy and effective contraceptive.
(Denise) So you would not want her on contraception even though she lives in a neighborhood in which rape is especially likely to occur — AND even though she has told you she will definitely abort if she is impregnated through rape.
DeniseNoe, I’d rather give her a gun, a carry permit, and teach her how to use it, thus punishing the *rapist* and not the would-be victim. Why this obsession with healthy young women taking dangerous and ineffective carcenogenic drugs on the off chance that they *might* be the victim of a crime? That is punishing the victim, possibly with life-long complications. You really need to wrench your thinking around to punishing the criminal, not the possible victim. If you want to lower the chance of pregnancy through rape you don’t lower fertility, you lower rape! Increased penalties for rapists, better reporting of the crime, and an armed citizenship all would/will do a much better job of avoiding pregnancy through rape than harming the health of a rapists potential victim.
JackBorsch, sorry didn’t respond to your querry last night. Yes, I absolutely believe that without easy access to abortion your above senario would happen much less. With abortion so easily accessible it becomes the ‘easy fix’ and everything else becomes a harder, more difficult option. Why go to cops? Why go through the ‘horror’ of a trial (which is utterly false since win or lose victims of rape who go to the police/courts overwelmingly appreciate it.) Why deal with *that*? When you can just make it all ‘go away’ with an anonymous doctor’s visit? It’s a bald faced lie we shove down victim’s throats, abortion doesn’t make it all go away, but society currently shuts their eyes and pretends it does so they don’t have to deal with the victims. If abortion were not easily availible then real help would be more forthcoming. It’s basic, if your choices are x, y, and z and you take away x then y and z will be chosen more often. And yes, I believe there should be a presumption of rape when a woman under the age of consent turns up pregnant. Not an ‘automatically arrest the father’ type of assumption, since, unfortunately, yes some 14 year olds will become pregnant by their also underaged boyfriends, but a ‘talk to the woman in private and determine who the father is and if it was legally consenual’. I do not know if the requirment is nationwide, but I know in most states a pregnant underaged girl will be reported to a social worker and/or the police by the hospital/doctor’s office when she comes in for testing/prenatal care. (Thus the outrage over PPs lack of reporting). I’d guess the women you knew with underage pregnancies the reporting/confirmation was just done descretely enough that no one outside the immediate knew it happened. The underaged moms I have known all had to to speak to a social worker during their prenatal care or at the birth of their child and afirm who was the father and that it was consentual.
John McDonnel, just an fyi, not all women lose their periods due to exercise, it has more to do with initial weight loss than fitness level itself, since it does take an unhealthy level of body fat (lack thereof) to cause long term loss of ovulation. I ran track in high school and almost all the girls lost their periods at the beginning of the season for a couple of months as they dropped their off-season weight rapidly and got back in shape, then it returned. But myself and a few other girls who either did sports year round or retained their athletic health year round were never effected. It also depends upon diet. A runner at 12% body fat eats lots of protien and is likely to cycle. A serious gymnast with the same 12% eats a firmly protien-restricted diet to avoid puberty and almost assuredly does not cycle.
Jespren says:
November 11, 2012 at 6:49 am
DeniseNoe, I’d rather give her a gun, a carry permit, and teach her how to use it, thus punishing the *rapist* and not the would-be victim. Why this obsession with healthy young women taking dangerous and ineffective carcenogenic drugs on the off chance that they *might* be the victim of a crime?
(Denise) Because the question of pregnancy through rape comes up so often.
DeniseNoe, then a proper woman would be argueing for less victims, not more convient victims. Instead of your perpetual querry ‘should women be on contraceptive in case of rape’ try ‘should we make a gun safety course mandatory at 12?’ Or ‘should we offer reduced gun prices for women’ or ‘should we reinstate harsh penalties for rape up to and including the death penalty’? Or one of a hundred other things you may believe would lower the likelihood of a woman being raped. Civilized people try to lower consquences of crime by lowering crime, not by punishing would-be victims for being ‘volunerable’ to those consquences.
@ Jespren: I support the 2nd Amendment and the right of private gun ownership. My Dad has owned guns. I believe my Mom once shot a snake with a gun. That’s fine with me. However, not EVERYONE should be armed. Some people don’t have the right temperament because they are overly nervous or they might be a bit absent-minded.
The penalties for forcible rape are currently very harsh. Men who are rape-prone are often psychopathic and aren’t deterred by harsh penalties. They may also be drunk at the time of the crime which again means they don’t take penalties into account.
I just put it out as a possibility that a rapist MIGHT be less likely to kill the victim if there is a good chance she will become the mother of his child.
The problem is that I strongly identify with a girl or woman who has just been attacked and dreads the idea of getting a big belly as a result of the attack. Even the idea could terrify her and make her sick.
DeniseNoe, harsh penalties?? Have you checked a law book since the 50’s? Because I had to vote for a law to require a minimum of 5 years for a rapist. Rape is a nothing crime in most jurisdictions, you’ll get more time for stealing a car! We used to execute rapists and, guess what, rapist, even psycopathic rapists, can’t rape again if you execute them! (You could substitute ‘life imprisionment’ for ‘execution’ if you are against the death penalty). And, another ‘guess what’, unless they are drugged without their knowledge drunkeness does not happen in an instant. If a violently-minded man knows he’ll be executed for raping a woman, he might think twice about getting drunk and losing his inhabitions in a situation where women are around (even more so if he knows the woman is likely to be armed). And wait, the person who thinks dangerous and potentially lethal drugs are a-ok for everyone balks at encouraging universal use of a device so simple a 6 year old can be taught to safely weild it? If a woman isn’t comfortable with a gun try a tazer, mace, asp, or even a dog. My point, however, was not specifically guns. *I* would argue for guns, someone else would argue for something else. The point was prevention of the CRIME, what can we do to keep pregnancies from rape from happening, why we keep RAPE from happening. Any other answer is, frankly, unacceptable. It’s anaologist to hearing someone complain about suicide from bullying and your response being ‘well people who get bullied just need to learn how to grow thicker skin’. The problem is never with the victims. The ‘problem’ is never the random side effects of the crime. The problem is solely, utterly, and completely with the perpetrator and their crime. We know some people will commit crime, so rational people take precautions against those crimes like locking doors or not accepting a drink from a stranger. But ‘precautions’ which harm the law abiding citizen AND does nothing to stop the crime is not a solution, and is an egregious misuse of people’s fear of the crime. Putting girl’s on contraceptives will do NOTHING to stop the crime of rape, it doesn’t even deserve to be in the same conversation as ways to midigate rape.
I have to admit that I tend to think this supposed concern with side effects of effective contraceptives is a smoke screen for the fear that being on effective contraceptives will render girls and women heterosexually “easy.” In “The Bell Jar,” the protagonist, Esther Greenwood, says, “I’ve got a baby hanging over my head like a big stick.” If girls and women are to keep boys and men away from their privates, they need to be scared of pregnancy.
I was on the Pill for two years and didn’t engage in that form of sex. I know women who are sterile and not sexually active. Post-menopausal women are often celibate.
However, I think you believe you’ve got to have fear of pregnancy to keep young women chaste.
Whether it should be legal to kill it [the embryo/fetus/bab] is largely dependent on what it is. That is where pro-lifers must focus the debate.
Navi I forgot to address this bit of your point. I agree that definitively establishing that the preborn child is a human being is key for the legal system and winning the legal argument. But as prolifers we need to be also concerned about how the preborn is viewed by the culture at large. The legal system is confused and manipulated, but it is only confused because the general public is confused and manipulated. Prolifers need to deal with the confusion and the manipulation. The confusion is the result of ignorance. The manipulation, on the otherhand, is done by those who know the preborn is a child but simply want the child to be killed anyway (think eugenics, population control, etc..) I don’t think the evil of abortion is simply the result of ignorance. Prolifers still need to make the moral argument in addition to the legal argument as to why the preborn child should be protected.
DeniseNoe, and you’d be wrong. I don’t wouldn’t even begin to think a ‘fear of pregnancy’ was needed to keep women chaste, that’s absurd. The women I know who were chaste until marriage all *wanted* pregnancy. At *worst* pregnancy announces to the world at large that you have had sex. But the negative proves nothing. I don’t want unmarried women and men to engage in sex because it’s morally wrong and hazardous for their physical and emotional wellbeing. None of those reasons need the world at large to know anything about it. I’ve know 2 unwed women in my churches (one growing up and one in high school/early twenties) neither of them were upset by the pregnancy, niether was the others in the church. As one put it when I expressed surprise at her big belly (I thought i’d missed the wedding announcement) “oh, we keep forgetting others don’t know, we dealt with the ‘mistake’ months ago”. And that’s the general idea most Christians I know portray. They’re happy about the pregnancy, it’s a cause for joy. What we are trying to ‘prevent’ happened a while before we knew about the pregnancy and, ultimately, is immaterial to the pregnancy itself. The time when an unwed pregnancy shamed the family is long past. And Christians, not exclusively but by and large those calling for abstenence, understand the concept of forgiveness and moving on and good coming from bad. The only people I know of who think ‘the fear’ of pregnancy is useful to keep women chaste are those who don’t advocate for chastity!
I, and those like me, are concerned about the side effects of hormonal birth control because we are concerned about WOMENS’S HEALTH and not considering them merely a sex object. Nearly all the women I know, personally, who took hormonal birth control gained 50lbs after starting it (myself included back before I understood the dangers of hormonal contraceptives). Many of them had horrible headaches, cramping, mood swings, hormone shifts, lost their sex drive, or had other nasty side effects. A couple of them ended up pregnant despite their ‘fool proof’ birth control shots or implants. Blood clots, stroke, weight gain, weight loss, horomonal shifts, intense mood swings, horrible headaches, loss of sex drive or an overactive sex drive (like weight gain or loss both are known side effects), increased risk of osteoporosis, and increased cancer risks just to name a FEW are nothing to sneeze at! You want to talk about sexism in medicine you needed look any further than hormonal birth control! No man would take something so incredibly damaging to their system to ‘break’ a bodily function which is working perfectly. Nor would they accept it as a catch-all ‘here this will cover up the problem’. Women deserve a lot better than hormonal contraceptives! But I don’t even know any Catholics who think they are wrong because they remove ‘the fear of pregnancy’ from an unwed women who should be remaining chaste. We’ll point out that, due to this eroneous belief, unwed men and women *will* engage in more risky activity that will then lead to pregnancy. But that is pointing out their ineffectiveness in keeping the overall under of unwed pregnancies down, not because we think girl’s ‘need’ to be terrified of pregnancy to behave themselves. Christians generally have more respect for people’s ability to use their free will than that.
@ Jespren: I should probably make it clear that I don’t want to encourage young single people, especially teenagers, to have sex partners. Most contraceptives don’t protect from STDs. None protect from psychological fall-out.
AHA
“But I don’t even know any Catholics who think they are wrong because they remove ‘the fear of pregnancy’ from an unwed women who should be remaining chaste”
I do, but I do my best to listen, and when I find myself waiting to talk, I try to listen up even more. You gather alot of info that way, much you might not want to know about, but it’s good to have it either way. There is alot of ignorance about abortion primarily because there is not an established comfort zone in which to freely express emotions which aboriton stirs up which are new to most people, because the older generation, though they experienced abortion, didn’t have it taught to them in schools, and the younger generation has been saturated with sex, more and more the younger you get.
I know if there is a school attached to the Catholic Church, and the Church is highly liberal-then you will find the priests do have this stigma–that by talking about the evil of abortion, you are somehow promoting teenage pregnancy-and they will not have pregnancy crisis materials on campus or int he pastoral center–just my experience, but it deserves to be shared.
Hi Tyler, I noticed your question above, “What are somethings prolifers can say or show that demonstrate prolifers trust women?” And just wanted to say it really frustrates me as a women when you have pro–choices call abortion a woman’s choice or women’s choice, because I am a woman and I don’t like have one woman speak for me and every other women I know, just because she thinks she’s right and we’re all wrong.
So thank you in advance for telling pro-choice women that you’ve been personally asked by the women you wish to protect that in no way is abortion a women’s issue-the desire for one woman to want to terminate her healthy pregnancy is clearly the mental state of certain very specific individuals-and in no way shape or form should be applied to the entire female sex.
You could tell them outright, don’t act like your an ambassadore for all women, because the women I know already told me to tell you watch your mouth and speak only for yourself and not for them when you are talking about feticide.
And also pro-life women are way sexier-especially women who are not on chemical birth control because our natural phermones are not destroyed and natural phermones are more attractive than the best perfume.
Pro-life men are too.
I was trying to edit my 4:42 post with this:
Hi Tyler, I know you weren’t asking me, but I was hoping for a man who wanted to defend pro-life women to speak up.
Thank you.
It really frustrates me as a women when pro–choicers call abortion a “woman’s choice” or “women’s choice,” it’s not just placing a huge freedom or responsibility on us, but a massive burden in which the pregnancy is all on us-since we “chose it, we are the ones who soley have to deal with it.” that’s of course a huge lie, men are equally responsible for the creation of a human being, but we are naturally responsible for the 9 month gestation. The child is apready been chosen to exhist. Not by us, but by natural law-the gestation is the thing that is being argued not the creation of a child.
I am a woman and I don’t like have one woman speak for me and every other women I know, just because she thinks she’s right and we’re all wrong. That’s ignorant and you can tell any women speaking on “my” behalf, I said so.
So thank you in advance for telling pro-choice women that you’ve been personally asked by the women you wish to protect:
that in no way is abortion “a women’s issue (soley a woman’s burder)”-the desire for one woman to want to terminate her healthy pregnancy is clearly the mental state of individuals-and in no way shape or form should be applied to the entire female sex as a whole. Shame on them.
You could tell them outright:
Don’t act like your an ambassadore for all women, because the women I know already told me to tell you watch your mouth and speak only for yourself and not for them when you are talking about feticide. Women are individuals just as men are individuals and women shouldn’t be treated as a block or a collective unit because all women are free thinkers and as we are such are so entitled to be. Same as men. Equality.
And also pro-life women are way sexier-especially women who are not on chemical birth control because our natural phermones are not destroyed and natural phermones are more attractive than the best perfume.
Pro-life men are too.
CityofAnglesNativeMission.com, to be fair I’ve known almost no conservative Catholics in my life. Largely due to where I’ve lived almost everyone who I’ve know who calls themselves ‘Catholic’ is not only woefully uneducated about the faith they call their own but frequently living in direct opposition to the tenets of the Catholic church. (The same ironically with Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, and self-proclaimed Buddists). Actually the *majority* of people I have personally known who self-proclaim as ‘Catholics’ have been practicing New Agers or Wiccans. I don’t know what it is with Wiccans considering themselves Catholic in Portland but there sure are a lot of them.
My main difference with Ann Coulter is that I hate to be illogical, inconsistent and wrong, on the issue of abortion, just because the majority is.
Coulter, with her expensive Cornell education, apparently doesn’t mind closely following the herd, wherever it goes. indicating that she has no core values whatsoever on the issue of killing humans.
She’s is being pelted with the herd’s excrement, as well as stepping in it, making her a very messy Cornell gurl.
Jespren, I agree a lot of Catholics don’t practice their faith. I have yet to meet a Catholic that is a Wiccan but it wouldn’t surprise me and I am Catholic.
But I don’t put this “lack of faith” on all the Church heirarchy or the parents. I think a lot has to do with a anti-Catholic/anti-religion Culture that has grown in modern society. The pseudo-secular agenda has purged many Catholic educational institutions of any instruction in the faith. Catholic families trusted the education of the younger generation to the Church and to Catholic schools. This trust, unfortunately, was misplaced.
In my area most of the Catholics practice but too many have taken the liberal perspective on many of the topical and ”tougher” social/moral issues. I believe that too many Catholics don’t support the prolife position, the Church’s position, because they feel bullied by the Culture, and bullied primarily by the culture as presented by Hollywood and TV. If a person spends more time watching TV than they spend time attending Mass that person is going to get their values from TV rather than from the Church – no matter how good the intentions of the person are.
—-
City of Angels, thanks for response. I will remember to do so. That was very encouraging advice. I agree that abortion and children are not a women’s issue they are a family issue and it is entirely inaccurate to call it otherwise. I just never connected the dot that that the issue has also been called a “choice.” In this sense, reproductive health is not even a woman’s issue, it is also a family issue. It appears the pro-abortion forces used the old war tactic: divide and conquer – separate men and women from one another and don’t let them think of themselves as a family. If we educated men about the issue of abortion – we could create a significant decrease in the demand for abortions.
Sorry ladies…but nature and or God gave you a biological device called the womb
Oh Danny, you sweet talker you. “Biological device.” I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
Rebecca Kiessling’s response = awesome!
Oh Danny, you sweet talker you. “Biological device.” I almost fell out of my chair laughing.
And your point…..Jess ?
You see Jess…..when I use a word on this site (as I always strive anywhere for that matter)…I pick them carefully for their meaning.
And the meaning of the word device has nothing to do with some romantic notion of the womb vis a vis the woman.
The definition of the word device is as follows…….
“A thing made for a particular purpose.”
Also…..
“Something elaborately or fancifully designed.”
So…laugh if you want…..but the word device connotes the extraordinary thing that either Evolutionary biology and Nature made…if you are an unbeliever..,,,or God made…..if you do believe. Either way…..my saying “biological device” is not derogatory but scientifically correct AND carries with it the correct gravitas of meaning.
To follow up Jess….for your increased knowledge and understanding…..the word device comes from Middle English long ago and connotes a division.
Which is precisely what the womb does biologically. It divides the woman from the child.,,,(I understand that there is the connection of the umbilical cord…however….the womb acts as a self contained division for the protection of the child AND the mother).
This device (division) only STRENGTHENS the argument that Nature or God gave provision to the developing child in the device we call the womb for PROTECTION not as a TRAP for SLAUGHTER at the whim of the mother.
Couple the straight…clear…reasoned…and proven biological nature of the womb with the rights enlightened by and enumerated by the Constitution and NO ONE has any grounds whatsoever….atheist or believer…..Evolutionist or Creationist…..Liberal or Libertarian for supporting Legalized Infanticide.
And the “biological device” of the womb…..arguably the GREATEST device ever created by whatever….or whomever…..proves it so.
One year at a pro-life dinner I heard Ann speak. She’s vibrant, charismatic, and no-holds-barred. I didn’t know at the time she held this position.
It’s a pity, really. She could be really dynamic for the pro-life conservative. I don’t agree with every way she goes about it, but I still could see her being dynamic.
All,
First, regarding abortion being “a choice,” the correct answer is that, yes, it is indeed a choice. And as is true of all other moral decisions, there is a right choice and a wrong choice. Whether we should see it as right or as wrong depends on the status of the unborn. When they tell you that it is a decision about the woman’s “own” body, it’s important to point out that the unborn is a second body, within the mother’s womb. I like to point out this one, since his sex is obvious, he’s cute and he’s early term:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28004184@N00/5229381679/
You can even agree that the role of government isn’t to enforce any one person’s feelings regarding morality. But all agree that one of the primary purposes of government is to protect the rights of one human from being infringed by a second human; in other words, to prevent people from making “choices” that would deny rights of other innocent humans. It can be both be a choice, and yet, like other “choices” our government prevents (theft, murder, etc), still be appropriate for the government to prevent.
DeniseNoe,
You’re not alone on this. I’m not sure I agree with the argument you’re making, but it is not patently illogical. The argument asserts that, indeed, the fetus is a human being. It also asserts that the woman is a human being. The fetus has a right to life, and to be protected from unwarranted violence against it. But the mother also has the right to bodily autonomy, and to choose how her own organs are used. That said, pregnant women (except those with pregnancies caused by raped) implicitly consented to the fact that a fetus might take residence in their womb. The woman made a decision that directly led to the fetus entering her womb, and, as such, as consented to those use of her organs. The fetus has not consented to be killed; indeed, he has no choice in the matter. It’s wrong to purposely subjugate the rights of innocent humans — the fetus has done nothing voluntarily to infringe on the rights of the mother. On the other hand, the mother has implicitly accepted the possibility of pregnancy, but choosing to end the life — that is, to violate the rights — of the fetus.
The fact that there is a decision on one hand and not on the other are of utmost importance.
Like I said, I don’t necessarily agree with that argument. But it’s not patently absurd.
Akin foolishly played into their hands. He should have just looked straight at that jerk and asked him if he thought rape should be a capital crime in all cases or if there should be exceptions if the victim wishes to let him live.
Chuckingabit, the reason why it’s patently absurd is because the bodily autonomy arguement is patently absurd and the only logical base for the rape exception is, as you stated, the autonomy arguement. But since *that* is patently absurd, so is anything based upon it. The law requires we use our bodies, usually in the forms of the fruits of our labor, to support that which we did not agree to all the time. The notion that a fetus places a ‘unique’ burden upon a woman’s body is foolishness at best. There is just as much support demanded from a 1 month old infant, in many ways there is *more* demanded by a toddler. There certainly is more demanded by a severly disabled spouse. And there is certainly more demanded of the body of one conjoined twin yet we do not allow them to murder their twin to be free of that burden. The law even requires, in times of war, that we use the fruits of our labor to feed, house, and care for strangers if the government so declares it necessary (quarter given to soldiers). The notion that a man working his body to it’s breaking point, risking life and limb and health to keep a house over his child’s head, care for his disabled wife, or food for his family is somehow *less* of a ‘demand’ upon his bodily autonomy than a swollen belly, hormone changes, and weight gain is upon a female is for a sexist fool to make. More men die on the job than during pregnancy/childbirth (so are more women), more men are maimed during their labor than women. If the law can demand that men and women care for their children, there is no logical reason to exempt the 1st 9 months. There is nothing different asked of a woman in the 1st 9 months, as far as basic bodily autonomy, that is asked during the next 18 years. And ‘rape’ isn’t an exception during toddlerhood, there is not a whit of difference a year or so earlier in the development.
Chucklingabit,
I agree that it is important to ask what kind of choice is it to abort a child. I also agree that the government restrict choices all the time. I also agree that it is important for the government to ask itself what kind of choice abortion is. I also recognize that the fetus is another body, another human being. However, unfortunately so do many prochoicers. For example, Dr. Peter Singer, the Princeton University Chair of Bio-ethics, is arrogantly pro-choice. No reasonable person would say that he is ignorant of the fact that he is supporting the killing of a human being. His argument is that preborn human beings do not have much value because they are not sentient – they have no concept of their future happiness; therefore, he reasons the conscious happiness of the mother is more important. Mr. Singer also supports infanticide and believes that adult cows have more consciousness than preborn babies and that therefore we should consider granting rights to such animals as cows, dolphins, etc… It is logical once you remove the premise that God exists and that human beings are made in His image. Logic isn’t everything.
Mother In Texas says:
November 12, 2012 at 1:57 pm
One year at a pro-life dinner I heard Ann speak. She’s vibrant, charismatic, and no-holds-barred. I didn’t know at the time she held this position.
It’s a pity, really. She could be really dynamic for the pro-life conservative. I don’t agree with every way she goes about it, but I still could see her being dynamic.
(Denise) Ann Coulter believes in outlawing abortion. She makes an exception for rape victims. About 1% of abortions are done on women who conceived through rape. Coulter would make the VAST majority of abortion unlawful.
Chucklingabit,
…or rather we have to debate whether it is logical to assume that God does not exist and that man is not made in his image.
Chucklingabit says:
November 12, 2012 at 2:03 pm
All,
First, regarding abortion being “a choice,” the correct answer is that, yes, it is indeed a choice.
(Denise) People who want abortion legal throw this word around reflexively. The criminalizers tend to use it as well.
However, it seems possible that it is not a true “choice.” Writer Eleanor Cooney got pregnant at 17. No rape. Nothing even “interestingly sordid” about the circumstances of conception. She was alone with a teen boy and they were horny. (This is part of the reason I emphasize PREVENTION: keep boys and girls from being alone together or encourage the girls to get on effective contraception. Contraception has got to be better than abortion or suicide). She admits she acted “foolishly and irresponsibly.” It’s not uncommon for teens to have poor judgement.
What’s more, she didn’t even admit to herself that she was pregnant until the start of the FOURTH MONTH of pregnancy. She knew that abortion is more difficult after the 3rd month.
Abortion was illegal. She had no fear of stigma or embarrassment. But she started looking for an abortion. She was molested by 2 abortionists and told by the abortionists, “You’re too far along. Have the baby.”
She never once considered carrying to term.
She aborted.
Without the usual fears, why did she abort? She believes that in some unwanted pregnancies, “compensating brain chemicals” fail to activate that allow the woman to calmly accept the biological terms of pregnancy. When those chemicals fail to act, the reaction can be as it was with her: “No way. No way in hell.”
Perhaps we need to research this possibility.
When I was a teenager, I remember a conversation with another teen girl. She was very intelligent and a “good girl” sans boyfriends. She once said, “You know, if I was raped and got pregnant, I don’t know what I’d do. I really don’t know what I’d do.” Her uncertainty was very genuine.
I felt similarly. However, I thought it was most likely that I would abort. No matter how it is argued out, not matter what someone might say, I was very uncertain that I would be able to allow my body to get a big belly and walk around with a constant reminder to myself and advertisement to the world of an attack. It is possible I would have carried to term and given birth if I’d been impregnated by a rapist. It is possible I would have aborted.
It is extremely difficult to know what one would do in that situation. IMO, the concentration ought to be on decreasing the numbers of girls and women who are in that situation to begin with.
@Jespren: I’m not saying I know with certainty that having abortion available increases the chances a rapist will kill his victim. I’m saying that it is POSSIBLE that this is a negative consequence of the availability of abortion. These men are quite frequently psychopaths. They lack the ability to empathize. They may be filled with rage. It may be that the possibility that a victim will be the mother to his child stays his hand from just eliminating her as a witness.
The fact that post-menopausal rape victims are much more likely to be murdered suggests this as a possibility.
Should children of rape who are adopted out also enjoy the same freedom to find their biological mothers? Phil Donahue did a show about reunions that weren’t happy. A woman had been raped when she was young and married. She was a white woman raped by a black man so they were certain the rapist was the father when she delivered a racially mixed baby. She placed the baby for adoption. About 20 years later, a young man appears at her home. “I thought he was one of the kids’ friends,” she recalled. “He seemed nice enough at first.”
He showed her documentation proving he was the baby she had relinquished years ago. He had lunch with her and her husband. He talked about astrology and then mentioned getting arrested for being naked in a church. “He said he wasn’t really naked but ‘clothed in the arms of God,'” she elaborated.
At the end of this reunion, her husband asked, “Do you think of her more as a mother or as a friend?”
The man replied, “I don’t think of her as either a mother or a friend. I think of her as a lover.”
While the program was being aired, he was in prison. “He’s in prison for raping a woman,” she said.
The last point is probably just a macabre coincidence — but it IS a macabre coincidence that a child conceived in rape grew up to follow in the wicked footsteps of the biological father he had never met. Then again, there is something to be said for nature in the nurture vs. nature process. It might be POSSIBLE that he inherited some sort of genetic weakness. However, I believe that is unlikely.
Anyway, should adoptees conceived in rape have an equal right to find their birthmothers?
And your point
I think you got the point quite clearly. Two wordy posts designed to put me in m place (wherever that is).
My notion of the womb is anything but romantic.
Yeah, sorry, it’s still funny.
It’s hard to read how cavalierly people discuss the issue of whether or not it was politically expedient for my life to have been legally protected.
Jess said:
I think you got the point quite clearly. Two wordy posts designed to put me in m place (wherever that is).
My notion of the womb is anything but romantic.
Yeah, sorry, it’s still funny.
Yeah…too wordy…..that seems to be a problem with a lot of people on this site….words that have meaning.
And those people’s lack of understanding or courage to take to heart that meaning.
“It’s hard to read how cavalierly people discuss the issue of whether or not it was politically expedient for my life to have been legally protected.”
Really sorry, that you have to read things like that, Rebecca. But its a reflection of the sad state of the world we live in that protecting everyone’s’ lives may not be politically possible. Would it be better to succeed at protecting most or to fail in an attempt to protect all?
Defense of the “unborn” is actually quite simple. Any argument that cannot be made for a day old baby cannot be made for an unborn baby. Would we allow a day old baby to be “put to sleep” because it is the product of rape or incest?
Because we abort babies at later stages than other babies are born and survive, and that “viable” mark is subject to being lowered as technology improves, there is no logical argument for killing a baby for any reason at any stage of development.
“Gradations” would have us believe, as Lincoln said of the Democrat’s view of Black slaves – “They would have us believe there are men who are neither dead or alive, but somewhere in between.”
Is a human life less human because of size or stage of development? Or is that calling a human being neither dead nor alive where we can morally treat them as property?
Pregnancy is not a death sentence, while abortion is. By the time a woman even realizes she is pregnant her unborn child is usually only weeks away from viability. Every day an abortion is put off is one day closer to life for that child.
In a society that values life, it is not too much to ask a woman to endure a few weeks of difficulty to sustain a human life, and every possible psychological, spiritual and physical assistance given toward that end.
lots of people never existed. And all of us one day will cease to exist.
Hal, does that mean you don’t mind someone else deciding you are ready tonight to go on to your final reward?
Rape victims don’t necessarily abort when it is legal for them to do so. Murderer Lisa Coleman, on death row in Texas for the starvation death of her step-son, was born in 1975, three years after Roe v. Wade. Her 12-year-old mother, who had been raped by her uncle, did not abort even though she legally could. It might be possible that the child didn’t even realize she was pregnant or was too ashamed to talk to anyone about it. Rapists who attack youngsters may be especially likely to get a victim who will carry to term for these reasons.
MLane asks: Is a human life less human because of size or stage of development?
Peter Singer responds yes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCNz95E-3Wg&feature=related
Listening to Mr. Singer is difficult but I think prolifers should listen to him so that they understand the depravity to which the prochoice side has sunk.
MLane listen to Noam Chomsky talk about abortion as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzY0L2g1f64&feature=related
By the way, Mr. Singer not only demeans human life in that first video but completely distorts Catholic theology, the concept of the Trinity, and what Catholic mean when they say humans have a rational mind and soul. By mangling the Trinity and not being clear about what Catholic Trinitarian theology means by person he makes it appear that Catholics don’t recognize the two natures in Christ: his divine and human nature. At the end of the video, Mr. Singer cowardly hides his true views behind the law. See Romans 6:15-23.
Denise Noe that is an offensive comment you made on November 13 at 4:00 pm, please apologize to Rebecca.
@ Tyler: It is not an offensive comment and I will make no apology. However, as I have previously pointed out, every human being has, somewhere in his or her ancestry, rape, adultery, prostitution and other awful things.
Denise,
It appears that the proper response to your posts that aren’t truly offensive and insensitive is: “so what?”
Tyler says:
November 14, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Denise,
It appears that the proper response to your posts that aren’t truly offensive and insensitive is: “so what?”
(Denise) I’m pointing out that we all owe our existences to sex acts of which the vast majority of us disapprove. Anyone can say they wouldn’t be here if not for rape, prostitution or adultery. They can say they wouldn’t have been here if the woman who bore them had access to abortion. It’s ALL pretty much “so what.” None of it really relates to the issue of legal or illegal abortion.
Hi Tyler, I did watch the two links. If by “yes” you mean we can use gradations to determine value of human life, then you would agree there is such a man who is neither dead nor alive, but somewhere in the middle – and therefore subject to being treated as property. This would fall directly in line with the two fellows you used to make your point, who both famously believe in infanticide.
You would probably also agree a woman can be a little pregnant.
Following this same line of logic you would have supported the Dred Scott decision, declaring Blacks to be property, not fellow human beings. Neither dead men or live men, but somewhere in a gray no-man’s land where they can be dominated and exploited.
You can comfort yourself knowing there are a few people who agree with you, although sadly most of them are now dead and forgotten while Lincoln’s words stand as strong and vitallly true today as they did then.
“Society shuns moral absolutism, but does not shun all moral absolutes, that is why Lincoln didn’t shun them 150 years ago.” (Allen Guelzo)
Lincoln refused to view slavery as a democratic choice, as proposed by Stephen Douglas and the idea of “popular sovereignty” because the object of that choice was a human being, very simple.
If you want to argue a baby is not a human being you certainly can. But understand what you are supporting.
Setting aside a small baby with Down’s syndrome to gasp for air after a live birth abortion, or have a woman deliver a small boy in the bathroom of an abortion clinic living and breathing for almost an hour while she cries for help is not something I personally can support and live with. Not for the baby, and not for the woman.
Allowing the devaluation of human life at the smallest end of the spectrum is directly linked to devaluation of life at the other end of the spectrum, and one day – if you live long along, that will be you.
A society is only as strong as it treats it’s tiniest, it’s old, and it’s vulnerable – who may not have awareness or earning power but who are desperately trusting us to care for them as we would ourselves.
“The legitimization of infanticide constitues a grave threat to the principle of human equality at the heart of American civil rights ideals. If weak and vulnerable members of the human family – and infants are surely among the weakest and most vulnerable – can be defined out of the community as a ‘person’…the constitutional principle of equal protection becomes a sham.” (Princeton Law Professor Robert P. George)
I certainly respect your right to disagree, and it adds not one second to my life whether you do or don’t. However as a “fellow member of the human family” I implore you to rethink your position. Nothing, absolutely nothing is more important than where you fall on this issue.
Tyler I didn’t have time to read the past comments before replying, I see I’m speaking to the choir. Thank you for directing me to the videos, watching helps my understanding quite a bit.
I agree with everything DeniseNoe said. You argue your points very well by the way. I liken it to compulsory blood or bone marrow donation. A embryo shouldn’t be entitled to use someone else as an incubator for 9 months. And that person should not be forced to undergo, basically forced treatment.
I don’t see how Rebeccah Keissling being the daughter of a rapist makes her opinion anymore valid then anyone elses. Especially someone that’s actually experienced rape(I have not). I’d bet that everyone is a descendant of someone concieved in rape down the line and they to ’wouldn’t be here’ if that person had been aborted.
“I liken it to compulsory blood or bone marrow donation.”
The problem is that the two situations are not analogous. The raison d’être or purpose of your blood or bone marrow is for your body- your helath an well-being. The purpose of the womb is for the health and well-being of the embryo. Thus, to forcibly remove the embryo from the womb is more akin to forcibly removing your blood or bone marrow from your body.
“A embryo shouldn’t be entitled to use someone else as an incubator for 9 months.”
First of all, an embryo does not “use” another because in order to use someone, there has to be some kind of intent. I cannot use someone if I have no cognizance of using them at all. Secondly, using someone implies that you intend to take advantage of a certain relationship in a way other than the relationship implies. For example, I use the boss’s daughter if I date her with the sole purpose in mind of moving up the corporate ladder, as opposed to with the intent that the relationship implies, namely a view towards marriage. Hence using someone also requires taking advantage of a certain relationship in a way that that relationship is not meant for. But once again, the sole purpose of the embryo being inside the woman is to grow and be birthed, so by definition the embryo cannot use the woman since 1) it is not conscious and able to use the relationship in a way other than its purpose and 2) the way that it “uses” the woman is precisely the purpose for teh relationship between the woman and embryo in teh first place.
The fact of the matter is that the embryo is precisely where it belongs; that is, inside of a woman. It is teh kind of thing that is meant to flourish, grow, and survive inside of a woman’s body at taht stage of life just like you or I am designed to flourish on the planet earth and not designed to survive at the bottom of teh ocean or in teh middle of outer space.
except that embryos/fetuses have their own blood/organs/tissue, and really aren’t taking any such thing from their mothers. I think it’s more appropriate to liken illegal abortion to the fact that it’s illegal to deny BORN children care/nourishment at risk of being held accountable by law through agencies like Child Protective Services.
Embryos don’t take much from their mothers? Is that why women get preeclampsia, have to be put on bedrest and sometimes die in childbirth? Is that why women get depression, lethargy and are hormonal during pregnancy? I’d say that’s taking a lot. A lot more then a shot to the vein or back. Embryo’s don’t have their own blood or bone marrow very early in the pregnancy either.
It’s completely irrelevant anyway. Embryos can’t be entitled to use someone elses body but not everyone else. Either you’re obligated to allow others to use your body to sustain life or you’re not. You can’t make the case for why a woman has just been brutally raped should serve as an unwilling incubator for her rapists embryo, but say it’s perectly okay for a lazy businessman to deny a dying 3 year old his bone marrow simply because he doesn’t feel like it.
“The problem is that the two situations are not analogous. The raison d’être or purpose of your blood or bone marrow is for your body- your helath an well-being. The purpose of the womb is for the health and well-being of the embryo. Thus, to forcibly remove the embryo from the womb is more akin to forcibly removing your blood or bone marrow from your body. ”
So are you saying a woman’s uterus is the property of the embryo, and that a womans organs don’t all belong to her? What if she was a hysterectomy while pregnant? She hasn’t defeated the purpose to the uterus. She merrily disconnected it from the parts of her body she has the right to control.
“First of all, an embryo does not “use” another because in order to use someone, there has to be some kind of intent. I cannot use someone if I have no cognizance of using them at all. Secondly, using someone implies that you intend to take advantage of a certain relationship in a way other than the relationship implies. For example, I use the boss’s daughter if I date her with the sole purpose in mind of moving up the corporate ladder, as opposed to with the intent that the relationship implies, namely a view towards marriage. Hence using someone also requires taking advantage of a certain relationship in a way that that relationship is not meant for. But once again, the sole purpose of the embryo being inside the woman is to grow and be birthed, so by definition the embryo cannot use the woman since 1) it is not conscious and able to use the relationship in a way other than its purpose and 2) the way that it “uses” the woman is precisely the purpose for teh relationship between the woman and embryo in teh first place. ”
That’s completely and totally irrelevant and doesn’t change the fact that a embryo is using someone as an incubator. Just like when you use a knife to cut something. Just because you’re using it how you’re ”supposed to”, doesn’t change the fact that you’re using it.
The purpose of the embryo might be to grow and be birthed, but the womans purpose is not to grow and birth an embryo. Who exactly assigns this so called purpose anyway?
“The fact of the matter is that the embryo is precisely where it belongs; that is, inside of a woman. It is teh kind of thing that is meant to flourish, grow, and survive inside of a woman’s body at taht stage of life just like you or I am designed to flourish on the planet earth and not designed to survive at the bottom of teh ocean or in teh middle of outer space.”
But the thing is planet earth isn’t a woman that’s just been raped. Planet earth is a thing. A woman is not a thing. The embryo isn’t where it belongs if it is there without the consent of the uterus’s owner.
So basically what you’re saying is, women are obligated to use their bodies to sustain life. Solely because they’re women. And they don’t have complete control over their bodies, solely because they’re women. I think there is a word for that.
So does having a uterus make you obligated to accept force pregnancy? What’s the difference between forced pregnancy and forced sex?
“So are you saying a woman’s uterus is the property of the embryo, and that a womans organs don’t all belong to her?”
No, I am not. The uterus is for teh embryo, yes, but none of her other organs belong to teh embryo. In other words, the womb is ordered to or points towards the sole purpose of being the proper environment for an embryo.
“What if she was a hysterectomy while pregnant?”
That is a different situation than the average run-of-the-mill abortion situation, and if teh principle of double effect applies, sure, she can undergo a hysterectomy during pregnancy.
“She hasn’t defeated the purpose to the uterus.”
I’m not sure what this means. She can certainly remove it for teh greater good of the survival of the whole body just like she can remove a gangrenous limb for the good of the whole body.
” That’s completely and totally irrelevant and doesn’t change the fact that a embryo is using someone as an incubator.”
Responding to an explanation that discusses why the term “use” is inappropriate in a certain context with “that”s irrelevant and doesn’t change the fact that my use of the word “use” is correct” is not a response. You need to say why it is irrelevant and why the distinctions I made were not relevant.
“Just like when you use a knife to cut something. Just because you’re using it how you’re ”supposed to”, doesn’t change the fact that you’re using it.”
If by “use” you simply mean “utilize” and there is no negative connotation to teh word “use”, then I fail to see any of the power of your original argument. If the sense of “utilize”, my children use me for food, my students us me for knowledge, but none of this is objectionable. So what is the thrust of your original argument then?
“The purpose of the embryo might be to grow and be birthed, but the womans purpose is not to grow and birth an embryo. Who exactly assigns this so called purpose anyway?”
Nature. Just like the purpose of the heart is to pump blood and the purpose of the eyes is to see, so the purpose of the womb is for an embryo. Only someone who didn’t want to embrace a certain consequence would deny that the womb has no purpose or say that its purpose can’t be known. It would be like denying teh heart had a purpose.
But in teh case of teh woman’s purpose, it is teh same as the man’s purpose. That is, happiness. Those actions which are evil, such as abortion, by definition cannot contribute to our good or purpose which is happiness. That is the relationship between abortion and the wooman’s purpose. It is completely antithetical to it.
“But the thing is planet earth isn’t a woman that’s just been raped. Planet earth is a thing. A woman is not a thing. The embryo isn’t where it belongs if it is there without the consent of the uterus’s owner. ”
The point is that location and environment should not be used as a criteria to determine the value of a thing. You also seem to make clear that consent is what constitutes the good. But this is a highly dubious claim. For suppose I withdraw my consent for my children to live in my house. It is not enough to say that I can put them in foster care or living with someone else, for something like that may not be possible. If I withdraw my consent from my children living with me, I should not be allowed to kill them or even kick them out of my house. For I have a responsibility to them whether I like it or not to take care of them. It is also not enough to say that I gave my consent for all time when I decided not to kill them in the womb. For people change their desires all the time and if consent is the sole criteria for the good, there seems to be no reason to have to hold to what you consent to earlier in life when you were young and foolish.
“So basically what you’re saying is, women are obligated to use their bodies to sustain life. Solely because they’re women. And they don’t have complete control over their bodies, solely because they’re women. I think there is a word for that.”
I’m saying women can’t kill people, just like men can’t kill people.
“So does having a uterus make you obligated to accept force pregnancy?”
If you’re already pregnancy, no more than having lungs obliges you to accept forced breathing.
“What’s the difference between forced pregnancy and forced sex?”
If you are already pregnant, the difference is that continuing pregnancy is a passive and natural course of action. It requires no special action on anyone’s part, save taking care of one’s self. Forced sex is to engage in a direct action which forcibly goes against the natural order of things by using (in the proper sense of the word) someone else against their will for your own gratification. Again, the embryo simply cannot “use” a woman in this way. So teh two situations simply are not analogous.