Saving the 1%: Pro-life bills lose the rape/incest exception
Set aside the spin and snarkiness, and the August 27 New Republic article, “Pro-lifers aren’t even trying to make abortion restrictions sound nice anymore,” contains exciting news:
The year 2011 was “The Year of Abortion Restrictions,” when states enacted more new laws narrowing abortion rights than in any other year since Roe v. Wade….
The era of warm and fuzzy-sounding abortion laws, though, may be behind us. The success they saw in 2011, and 2012 – another unprecedented year for abortion restrictions – have galvanized pro-lifers to undo a set of rights that they had previously left well enough alone: exceptions for victims of rape and incest. A new report out from the National Women’s Law Center found that a staggering number of new curtailments on abortion rights don’t make exceptions when a woman has become pregnant by rape.
This comes despite the negative publicity drawn to the “no exceptions” stance ineptly explained by political candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock in 2012. Here was NWLC’s breakdown of 298 pro-life bills introduced (and 27 enacted) in the first half of 2013:
• 86% (235 provisions) of the 273 provisions that were introduced in state legislatures to restrict a woman’s access to abortion apply to a woman whose pregnancy resulted from rape.
• 71% (27 provisions) of the 38 state provisions restricting women’s access to abortion enacted by the states apply to a woman whose pregnancy resulted from rape.
• 72% (18 bills) of the 25 bills introduced in the United States Congress to restrict a woman’s access to abortion apply to a woman whose pregnancy resulted from rape.
Here was Americans United for Life’s apt response to New Republic:
Clearly, this life-affirming trend has staying power, and it is terrifying Big Abortion.
For example, rather than focus on the protective effect pro-life legislation has for women’s health, abortion advocates wrongfully accuse pro-life legislators of ignoring the needs of women facing pregnancies conceived through rape.… In fact, women who have been victimized by rape are arguably more in need of legislation aimed at protecting their physical and mental health. But abortion advocates have made rape their political straw man to advocate for unregulated and unrestricted abortion-on-demand. It is dishonest. It further victimizes women by making them a tool to advance Big Abortion’s agenda.
To be clear, a person professing to be pro-life who holds a rape/incest exception is actually pro-abortion with exceptions. Thankfully, we are surmounting that obstacle to save the 1%. Now, politicians have to learn to articulate our rationale better. Learn from AUL’s Charmaine Yoest, who responded to the rape/incest question this way in a 2012 New Republic piece:
I asked whether she thought abortion should be illegal in cases of rape and incest…. She wouldn’t say yes or no explicitly, but her positions seemed clear. “There are many women in the pro-life movement who brought babies to term who talk about the importance of not adding another tragedy to a tragedy, so that is the way we look at it in the cases of rape and incest,” she told me. “Deal with the perpetrator in that crime, not the innocent lives caught up in that crime.”
[Graphic via Save The 1; HT: Rebecca Kiessling]
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.
I have once on this blog already professed to tmesiter and some other trolls here that we cannot penalize preborn life for the unacceptable act of rape. It is hard to swallow for pro-abortionists but is the hard truth they have to live with. We do not penalize our born children for the misdeeds of others (well some do so we shall not) and we shall not penalize the preborn either. Punish the perpetrator not the gift. Every life has potential to reach greatness. Perhaps the one conceived through the despicable act of rape, will transcend that stigma and become the voice for goodness in life.
But no, pro-abortionists want to destroy this preborn life and subject the woman to the ordeal of an un-necessary invasive procedure instead of even advocating for adoption if the woman is not willing to provide unconditional positive regard for that innocent preborn child.
Thank you Jill for yet another reminder that all pre-born life is to be cherished. This never was a valid “exception” to begin with.
What is truly amazing is the fact that in states (GA and MI) where the leading prolife groups have “held the line” on rape and incest exceptions for political endorsements, they surprising have NO rape and incest exceptions in ANY of their prolife laws. Other states are now following that lead.
“To be clear, a person professing to be pro-life who holds a rape/incest exception is actually pro-abortion with exceptions.” Jill this is very bold statement and I am proud that you have highlighted the fact that many of our “prolife” politicians “have no clothes”. Is it any wonder that it is the “moderate” prolifers who work behind the scene to weaken and undermine our prolife advances.
When the movement’s leadership decides it is time to stop this nonsense . . . then it will stop.
Will you lend your voice to “calling the question” and asking our top leaders to reconsider their stance?
Dan Becker
President
Georgia Right to Life
“To be clear, a person professing to be pro-life who holds a rape/incest exception is actually pro-abortion with exceptions.”
Woh. Well said, Jill. Keep on!
@ Thomas R.: Let’s get to work on transplanting embryos and fetuses from womb to womb. The adoption will take place before birth.
Those who want prolifers to support aborting the 1%, (the exceptional not the exceptions), should always be asked what they would like to do with the 1% and whether they will pay for the burial.
“we cannot penalize preborn life for the unacceptable act of rape.” – yep. so we’ll penalize the woman instead.
Not having exceptions for rape and incest will greatly assist in the overturning of these unjust and dishonestly derived laws.
Why not wait until the kid is born? Then, see if the pro-choice scenario plays out: the woman’s life is made terrible because of the reminder or recognition effect.
Then, let the woman kill the kid up to age 1 year old.
what difference is there between killing a person, without due process, at six months before birth and six months after?
The truth is this: when people have no argument to make, they resort to one of two tactics: name-calling and change-the-topic.
The conceived-in-rape issue is a change-the-topic. Pro-abortion advocates only bring this up because pro-life people are un-prepared, and because analysis of this complex issue cannot quickly be done. So, a pro-life person is left there un-prepared, and looking like a stupid dogmatic idiot. Be prepared.
Last Democrat posits (three italicized parts):
“The conceived-in-rape issue is a change-the-topic. Pro-abortion advocates only bring this up because pro-life people are un-prepared.”
Nope, we bring this up because each and every preborn life has value. And we will not stand idly by while pro-aborts minimize that value. Rape/incest victims have plenty of resources available to them. I know as I work in a field that constantly provides referrals and also counseling.
“The woman’s life is made terrible because of the reminder or recognition effect.”
Let me see if I can flip this argument from the perspective of a domestic violence female victim (and I have worked with many). Would you advise such a woman to kill her children because they remind her of the abuser. I know that tmeister would but would you in such a scenario dispose of them? It is not a stretch for pro-lifers to apply this logic to preborn life as we strongly belief of the sanctity of conceived life.
“Then, let the woman kill the kid up to age 1 year old.”
Now I know where you stand, its very telling…
So NO, we are very consistent on our topic and it is just that you have not been paying attention.
Oh dear, Thomas R.
Thomas, TheLastDemocrat is pro-life, he was being sarcastic.
Reality, zero pro-choicers have ever given me a satisfactory explanation on why a newborn isn’t essentially the same, humanity-wise, as a seven month old fetus.
You are aware of the biological differences Jack? There are also the philosophical differences, whether we agree on them or not. Some pro-choice folk draw the line at viability, some draw it at birth and some not until self-recognition is reached.
Of course there’s also the fact that for you to deem any explanation satisfactory it would need to be universally profound, and of vast significance.
“for you to deem any explanation satisfactory it would need to be universally profound, and of vast significance”
I’m not sure what you mean? Can you explain? Sorry.
A late-term fetus and a newborn full-term infant have far more in common than not. I was referring to the “personhood” arguments, actually. Pro-choicers will often put a whole list of other characteristics down for when a human can be considered a person, besides just being a human. I was just saying that newborns and late term fetuses seem to lack most of what pro-choicers tell me makes someone a person. So I don’t see how people can be horrified by infanticide but promote abortion until the point of birth, if they are of that opinion on personhood.
“A late-term fetus and a newborn full-term infant have far more in common than not.” – so it’s not universally profound or of vast significance to you.
“newborns and late term fetuses seem to lack most of what pro-choicers tell me makes someone a person” – true, hence the Singer position.
“I don’t see how people can be horrified by infanticide but promote abortion until the point of birth” – despite the mirthtful disparaging displayed by many here about ‘magic vaginas’ and ‘what about caesareans’, there is a transition from the gestational process via the woman to separation and the associated factors such as independant breath taking and ingestion.
A seven month fetus may well be viable but the fact is the the gestational process has not been completed as intended, so apart from the development which has taken place the basic criteria is the same as for a seven week fetus.
Ugh my stupid computer isn’t letting me “quote” again, so I’ll try to respond without.
I’m not really getting what you mean with the universally profound or significant thing.
Well, I don’t normally make jokes about “magic vaginas” and such, but I do think the reasoning is often poor when people justify the abortion of post-viability fetuses (I think the abortion of pre-viability fetuses is a somewhat internally logical position, even if I firmly and utterly disagree). The argument that people like to use for abortion, for why it’s not murder, is usually a woman’s right to protect her body from use by another party. After viability, a baby is possibly capable of living outside the womb. So there’s zero justification for killing him or her. The baby’s death is not needed to protect body autonomy.
Other pro-choicers, like you, don’t believe body autonomy is the only reason abortion is legally justified. You put stipulations on whether a fetus is a person or not, depending on characteristics that humans have to possess before you deem them a person. So, it’s not exactly illogical for someone who justifies abortion like you do to agree with aborting post-viability fetuses, but I don’t think it’s logical to deny that killing a born baby, up until at least a couple months outside the womb, is essentially the same thing (in regards to the personhood argument). Which is why I (no offense to you as a person, but offense to your opinions lol) think it’s seriously a disgusting philosophy. I don’t think human beings lose or gain personhood depending on their physical and mental capabilities. I think it sets up the world to be even more inhumane and cruel to those who have had unfortunate circumstances in their lives that have caused them damage. If we can rank very young humans and their worth on what they can do and think, there’s no reason not to do it to older humans. Maybe even you? Or me?
I’m really “tired” so I’m probably kinda rambling, but you get the gist.
Jill, thank you so much for taking a stand on this! I was thrilled to see that liberals actually had the research on laws with rape exceptions which our pro-life leaders have not gathered. They did us a huge favor! I agree with you that someone is not really pro-life if they think I deserved the death penalty for the crimes of my biological father, but I don’t say that to their face when I’m working to change their heart. If I’d said that to Gov. Rick Perry, I never would have changed his heart on this issue. But it’s good for the pro-life movement to understand it, and we must not be giving out PAC endorsements to those who aren’t (yet) really pro-life. But when you set the standard and educate them, it’s amazing how quickly they do step up to become 100% pro-life. We have the BEST pro-life legislators here in Michigan because RLM has done such a great job of setting the standard and educating! Thanx!!!
Yeah, the ‘quote’ thing seems to be a site thing. I’ve been jumping them in via draft emails so I can delete the strings which seem to attach themselves.
“I do think the reasoning is often poor when people justify the abortion of post-viability fetuses” – as I said A seven month fetus may well be viable but the fact is the the gestational process has not been completed as intended, so apart from the development which has taken place the basic criteria is the same as for a seven week fetus. – but you don’t find that universally profound or of vast significance.
fetus – personhood?
post-birth – personhood?
accident or disease – personhood?
Time to spend some time with some fellow martians.
there is a transition from the gestational process via the woman to separation and the associated factors such as independant breath taking and ingestion.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Sage on a different thread and maybe you will answer.
What, if anything, do you think should be done to a woman who stabs her child in his cranial soft spot while he is being birthed before he is fully out of her body and before he takes his first breath?
“reality” to Thomas. – “Oh dear, Thomas R.” I am certain tmeister that you are referring to the following part of a sentence in my comment on Last Democrat’s sarcastic response to your nonsense: “Would you advise such a woman to kill her children because they remind her of the abuser. I know that tmeister would but…”
You are pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia. I just reviewed all commentary on the Woman leaves baby to die thread and I interpret your silence as being pro-infanticide. Tell me if I am wrong? It is not a stretch that you would recommend what I suggested above. The only theme from you on this blog can be summed-up as: KILL, KILL, KILL.
Jack: thanks for pointing out that Last Democrat is pro-life, just made a mental note to pay more attention.
Last Democrat: thanks for being pro-life. You have my courtesy and respect.
But my analysis on Last Democrat’s sarcastic response to tmeister hopefully rings valid.
God bless you Rebecca!!!
Your story is amazing!!
Anyone want to type a comment for Rebecca? She is right here. Conceived in rape and yet here and alive and fighting AGAINST rape/incest exceptions.
Any of our proabort trolls want to explain to Rebecca why she should have been killed in the womb?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
And Jack the bodily argument gets even weaker when you consider that up to the point of viability the fetus is so small that it really does impact a woman’s bodily autonomy at all. She can work and do everything a non-pregnant woman can do. The bodily argument is just a crock when you actually assess a woman’s bodily restrictions up to the point of viability.
Yes some women experience cramps and morning sickness early in the pregnancy but rarely does an early pregnancy prevent a woman from working, school, or otherwise accomplishing her dreams. Just because a baby may cause a woman to throw up shouldn’t allow her to terminate a pregnancy and end the life of her child.
Opps,
And Jack the bodily argument gets even weaker when you consider that up to the point of viability the fetus is so small that it really rarely does impact a woman’s bodily autonomy at all.
The bodily argument also demeans pregnant women by describing them as second class citizens and not fully functioning women.
One of the main questions in the abortion debate that is rarely asked is whether there are any significant risks to the life of the Mother if she carries the baby to term and births her child, and if any of these risks may be reduced and/or managed by monitoring her pregnancy.
Modern science has made it so that the risks to pregnant women are extremely low. The fact that abortion was legalized in the age of modern science is seriously stupid and backwards.
“Abortion” is the ultimate shaming method. Basically, it tells women if you get pregnant unexpectedly we are going to force you to choose between killing your child and keeping your child. “Abortion” really tries to force the option of adoption out of the picture. “Abortion” advocates, by not more vocally supporting birth and adoption, are effectively saying, “We want you to kill your own child because we don’t want to bear the cost of raising your child and we don’t think it is fair if you try to pass the burden of parenting your child onto another person.”
Abortion treats pregnant women like dogs, bringing them back to the place where they piddled and forcing them to sniff it.
I like your statement in your video, Rebecca:
“Some people say I was lucky. I wasn’t lucky. I was protected.”
Thanks so much to you and others for speaking out.
Abortion misses the whole point of modern medical science: to reduce suffering.
What is the point of modern medical science if we are just going to kill people anyway?
Abortion is the biggest face palm in the history of face palms.
Interesting that Reality and other anti-lifers have nothing to say to sweet Rebecca. Their silence speaks volumes to their character and cowardice.
Any of our proabort trolls want to explain to Rebecca why she should have been killed in the womb?
People who are prochoice don’t think that Rebecca should have been killed or should not have been killed. They think that not everything is about Rebecca.
The truth of the matter is, is that it is all about what LisaC wants. If she wants a baby, she will have one. If she doesn’t, she will pay to have one killed.
Abortion Rage by those who chose abortion towards those who survived abortion.
Your right, Lisa. It’s not all about Rebecca. You’ve made it all about you. I bet you remember what day you had your abortion, don’t you? The dark day it was all about you.
Huh?
Exactly Kassy!!!
http://oogenhand.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/saving-the-1-pro-life-bills-lose-the-rapeincest-exception-lifesitenews-com/
Solution: hand the baby over to the rapist or his family and friends; patrilinearity. Christianity again believes in patriarchal matrilinearity.
The christianphobes have entered the building.
LisaC, you may want to check out Miracle-Ear.
oogenhand, what on Earth are you talking about?
Patrilinearity: child belongs to the father, matrilinearity: child belongs to the mother.
Most Muslims and Jews would abort after rape.
A lot of Muslims are pro-life, it depends on the denomination. A lot of liberal Jews are pro-choice, true, but the more orthodox sects tend to not like abortion.
Luckily, in this day and age no one “owns” children, children are human beings with their own civil rights to be protected and are not their parents property. Pro-lifers wish this to be extended to unborn children as well as born children, pro-choicers generally don’t.
I would want to know why she did such a thing in the first place Praxedes.
“I am certain tmeister that you are referring…” – your assumption is inaccurate.
“I interpret your silence as being pro-infanticide. Tell me if I am wrong?” – you are wrong.
“The only theme from you on this blog can be summed-up as: KILL, KILL, KILL.” – wrong again, such histrionics!
“Interesting that Reality and other anti-lifers have nothing to say to sweet Rebecca. Their silence speaks volumes to their character and cowardice.” – Rebecca is as entitled to her position as anyone else is. It’s not all about her.
LisaC, you may want to check out Miracle-Ear.
Well, I’d need hallucinogens to remember the day I had the abortion that I didn’t have.
Ten to one there’s now twaddle about Post Abortion Stress Syndrome coming up.
I don’t think it’s okay to accuse people of having abortions without proof, I’m sorry if your feelings were hurt Lisa.
Not hurt at all, Jack. Thank you.
Reality, I expected a more thoughtful and sensitive reply. Why won’t you show some compassion to Rebecca and those people who have had their lives threatened by abortion? Don’t their feelings count? Isn’t her story important too? Perhaps it is just me, but I found your reply very cold for someone who cares about women.
Where is her thoughtfullness and sensitivity towards women who would be doubly traumatised by being forced through gestation and birth after being raped? Yes, I do care about women, that’s why I don’t believe Rebecca’s position alone should impact on the choices of others. It’s not all about her.
Reality, I appreciate that you perceive that giving birth to a child conceived in rape is an imposition on raped women. However, being forced to give birth is not an imposition that is imposed by the State even when the State law protects preborn children. The imposition is the result of a biological process. And further this biological imposition on the raped woman cannot be separated from the preborn baby him or herself. Indeed, the biological imposition creates and therefore is united with the developing preborn child.
I think that the trauma a raped women may feel towards giving birth to a baby is due to the correct negative image society has of her rapist. However, society, along with many raped women, incorrectly project the hatred of the rapist onto the child who is merely another innocent victim of the rapist. I find it sad that you don’t see that the preborn baby, people like Rebecca, are victims of the rapist as well. I think it is our responsibility as a society to change our view of children conceived in rape. If we can open our heart to these people we will have included more people into the circle of people to whom we show compassion. By not hating people like Rebecca, people conceived in rape, we will empower victims of rape by giving them the ability to affirm the life of the other victim of the rapist. That is just my two cents.
“I appreciate that you perceive that giving birth to a child conceived in rape is an imposition on raped women.’ – it’s not what I perceive that matters. It’s all about the woman concerned.
“However, being forced to give birth is not an imposition that is imposed by the State even when the State law protects preborn children. The imposition is the result of a biological process.” – rape and enforced gestation is simply a biological process now?
“And further this biological imposition on the raped woman cannot be separated from the preborn baby him or herself. Indeed, the biological imposition creates and therefore is united with the developing preborn child.” – well that’s your version of events.
“I think that the trauma a raped women may feel towards giving birth to a baby is due to the correct negative image society has of her rapist.” – what, nothing to do with the fact that the woman didn’t want sex, didn’t want to get pregnant, didn’t want to go through a pregnancy and didn’t want to give birth?
“However, society, along with many raped women, incorrectly project the hatred of the rapist onto the child who is merely another innocent victim of the rapist. I find it sad that you don’t see that the preborn baby, people like Rebecca, are victims of the rapist as well. I think it is our responsibility as a society to change our view of children conceived in rape. If we can open our heart to these people we will have included more people into the circle of people to whom we show compassion. By not hating people like Rebecca, people conceived in rape, we will empower victims of rape by giving them the ability to affirm the life of the other victim of the rapist.” – I think you give this too much weight.
Reality, Thank-you for your response. I will think about what you have said.
Oh of course. It’s not about Rebecca. She just happens to be here commenting and none of you have the guts to talk to her.
Those that are proabortion are all good with abortions done in the cases of rape and incest.
Which is why they would have been fine had Rebecca K. been killed in utero. Or Juda Myers. Or any of the others that were conceived in rape and are now speaking out.
Own what you promote, support and applaud!!
Abortion on demand for any reason. Any reason.
Reality and/or LisaC,
I would want to know why she did such a thing in the first place Praxedes.
Okay, Reality, I will give a few scenarios in the hopes that you may tell me what, if anything, should be done to each individual woman below who stabs her child in his cranial soft spot while he is being birthed before he is fully out of her body and before he takes his first breath?
Why did she do it?:
1. She did it because her boyfriend left her.
2. She did it because her bf beat her and threatened to kill her it she didn’t.
3. She did it because her husband threatened to leave her.
4. She did it because she was raped.
5. She did it because she lost her job.
6. She did it because the baby had a cleft lip.
7. She did it because she was just accepted into med school.
8. She did it because she already has two sons and the baby was a boy.
9. She did it because her friend refused to drive her to and from PP.
10. She did it because she wanted to keep the money that she would have paid the abortionist to buy an entertainment center.
11. She did it because she decided she did not want to parent.
After you answer the scenarios above, could you answer what, if anything, should be done to a woman and her neighbor if the woman pays her neighbor to stab her child while he is being birthed and before he is fully out of her body and before he takes his first breath? If you want to know why she did such a thing in the first place, use the same scenarios above.
“Which is why they would have been fine had Rebecca K. been killed in utero. Or Juda Myers. Or any of the others that were conceived in rape and are now speaking out.”
You mean capitalizing on the pain and suffering of others for gross personal gain? All right.
Ah bluevelvet megan is back!!
Speaking out about their own personal experiences. Just like I do about my own abortion. Just like you do when you talk about your abortion bvm.
And you too would have been fine had Rebecca been murdered in utero. After all, her father was a rapist. She was conceived in rape. And you support abortions done for rape/incest?
Answer the question.
PS Since when does abortion bring pain and suffering? Hmmmmm. It brings joy and empowerment. Come on Megs. Stick to the script.
You mean capitalizing on the pain and suffering of others for gross personal gain?
BV, If a women speaks out about her abusive dad who raped her friend (but had never raped her mother), is she capitalizing on the pain and suffering of others too? What if she writes and profits from a book about her experiences? Surely, you don’t think rape and rapists should be protected, do you? Sounds like you expect women who are raped or know others who were raped to keep their mouths shut. Your wanting to cover up rape and shaming women for talking about it, only enables rape to continue at higher rates.
It just irks you to no end that there are women who have endured and survived terrible circumstances and did not “need” to kill their child. As it is, they serve to make your choice to abort your child to look as selfish as it truly was.
Also, feel free to jump in and answer the scenarios above, too! The more the merrier.
And you support abortions done for rape/incest?
She doesn’t just support abortions done for rape/incest. I believe, that if the rape victim/mother is under a certain age, BV supports mandating an abortion. I could be thinking of someone else, so correct me if I am wrong, BV.
“Own what you promote, support and applaud!!” – support, yes. Promote, not so much. Applaud, no.
Your scenarios are simplistic and lack full details of each situation Praxedes.
Of course a woman who has been raped should have the choice to terminate if she doesn’t want to be pregnant or give birth.
Of course a woman who has been raped should have the choice to terminate if she doesn’t want to be pregnant or give birth.
What if she doesn’t mind pregnancy or childbirth but just doesn’t want the child?
Your scenarios are simplistic and lack full details of each situation Praxedes.
Why did I know you would say this?
“What if she doesn’t mind pregnancy or childbirth but just doesn’t want the child?” – then she can give it up for adoption.
“Why did I know you would say this?” – I dunno, is it what you set out to achieve?
Let’s address the first scenario.
1. She did it because her boyfriend left her.
When did he leave her?
Why?
How did she feel about it?
How does she feel about it?
How has it impacted on her state of mind?
Has she been under some sort of medication because of it?
What events transpired during delivery and all the possible elements around it that may have had an impact?
What were her original plans regarding the pregnancy?
Her original feelings towards it?
What facilities and options were/are available to her?
What is her mental and physical health history?
I’m sure there are other questions any investigation would pose when looking at what happened, why it happened and how it should be dealt with.
Shorter Reality – Why yes, if a woman desires to then she should stab her child in his cranial soft spot while he is being birthed before he is fully out of her body and before he takes his first breath, consequence free. It’s her right.
Your little ‘offering’ Lrning, is so far removed from what I have said I have to wonder what made you say it. Care to explain?
What, you want to now deny that you fully support a woman’s abortion choice for the full nine months of gestation and even can understand the questioning of whether a newborn should be afforded the right to life, Singer-style? As long as it’s legal, of course. Is it illegal for a women to stab her child in the cranial soft spot while giving birth? Must she pay an abortionist to do it for her?
“What, you want to now deny that you fully support a woman’s abortion choice for the full nine months of gestation” – not in the least.
“and even can understand the questioning of whether a newborn should be afforded the right to life, Singer-style?” – I have said I understand the reasoning. I haven’t said that I agree with it to any extent or at all. Although, as I have also stated, the more some of you say the things you do, the more rational I find the concept.
“As long as it’s legal, of course.” – of course.
“Is it illegal for a women to stab her child in the cranial soft spot while giving birth?” – I’m not 100% sure of what the legal implications might be. Are you? Hence the questions I asked which could impact on such an event.
“Must she pay an abortionist to do it for her?” – depends on what the laws are, how that are applied and the circumstances involved.
Now that we’ve got that out of the way, are you going to explain your ‘Shorter Reality’ claim?
– then she can give it up for adoption.
Ah, you haven’t heard the proaborts whine that they can’t bear to give up a child for adoption (it would be too painful for them to know someone else was raising their child) so they therefore HAVE to abort?
Where have you been? LOL
I have regularly listed adoption as a valid option Praxedes. Quite clearly.
Perhaps the only reason any pro-choicers rail against adoption (not that I’ve seen many examples of it) is in response to the strident, uncompromising stance of anti-choicers.
“not in the least”
That’s what I thought. So cut through the crap. You support a woman’s abortion choice through the moment of birth and maybe someday beyond if it could be legalized. Your list of questions as a smoke screen of thorough consideration and reasonableness is b.s. Does that adequately explain the shorter comment for you?
Whose crap?
Yes I support a woman’s choice right up to birth and I also see reasons to consider the options beyond birth.
But when it comes to a woman stabbing a fetus through the head during delivery, that’s not quite de rigueur. There are much better ways of achieving the desired outcome.
Therefore, far from being a smokescreen, my questions were in fact pertinent consideration and reasonableness.
So your ‘shorter’ comment is rather short on accuracy and relevance.
Whatever you say Reality. Keep writing, you’re proving my point splendidly.
“They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear…”
“Yes I support a woman’s choice right up to birth and I also see reasons to consider the options beyond birth”
Ugh.
If a woman is trapped with a controlling husband and a colicky infant she doesn’t want to feed, would you support her choice to let the child die or otherwise neglect that infant?
Seriously, now even newborns don’t have the right to not have their parents kill them for whatever reason? That’s really gross. I get where people are coming from with body autonomy and decisions even if I don’t agree, but I’m always going to find this whole “a woman’s choice is worth so much more than your life, if you inconvenience her at all” stuff disgusting.
Reality, there are just literally thousands of people who will take her baby “after birth” or even at eight months gestation if they induce early if she really, desperately didn’t want to be pregnant anymore that badly. I can’t imagine a single circumstance where it’s remotely acceptable to even 99% of pro-choicers to “choice” some poor baby after birth. The baby doesn’t have to be the mother’s problem anymore!
Perhaps if you responded to what I said rather than what you wish I had said for your own purposes you would find it a little easier Lrning.
“Keep writing, you’re proving my point splendidly.” – careful what you wish for ;-)
Jack, if you read the things that Singer, and others such as Tooley and Reiman, have actually said on this topic you’ll find that they don’t actually advocate the position that some claim for them. They espouse what philosophy and ethics throw up as potential viewpoints and explain their reasoning. Beyond that, Singer has only really said that infanticide is worth considering if great deficiencies are found post-birth.
If you are referring to the killing during delivery scenario Jack, as I demonstrated, we simply don’t know why such a thing may occur.
Are you aware of such an event ever taking place?
Oh, I am responding to what you say. You are just blind and can’t see it. I can’t help you there. You think stabbing a baby in the head during delivery “is not quite de rigueur” and that there are “better ways” of achieving a dead baby. I find great deficiencies in you, post-birth. I still would never support anyone in thinking it’s okay to take your life.
“Jack, if you read the things that Singer, and others such as Tooley and Reiman, have actually said on this topic you’ll find that they don’t actually advocate the position that some claim for them.”
I actually HAVE read what Singer has said on the topic (haven’t I talked to you for a long time, do you really think I’d just parrot what people here think? Lol). I don’t know who Tooley and Reiman are or what they have said. I do know that Singer was mostly focusing on disabled children, but he did explicitly say that newborns are not considered people. He also used hemophilia (a manageable condition) as an example of an infant he could justify killing. He explicitly doesn’t really find anything morally wrong with killing an infant, it’s just wrong if it harms other people (killing a loved baby is wrong because it hurts the parents, killing me as an infant probably would have been fine because my mother would have been happier most likely).
“We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant. If the parents want the newborn, it is wrong to kill the baby because the act deprives them of happiness.”
“When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”
I wasn’t referring to the killing during delivery scenario, Reality. It’s pretty obvious you’d rather the baby’s death be less stressful on the poor mother.
“You think stabbing a baby in the head during delivery “is not quite de rigueur” and that there are “better ways” of achieving a dead baby.” – you think stabbing in the head is better then do you?
“I find great deficiencies in you, post-birth.” – what you ‘find’ is neither relevant or applicable. If the necessary circumstances should ever arise I’m confident the relevant trained, qualified and rational people will know what to do. :-)
As you have demonstrated Jack, Singer has proposed a number of positions and explained why. He hasn’t advocated for them. He talks ideas and concepts, not what he demands. His aim is to make people think and discuss things. No one need agree with what he conjectures and I’m quite sure the ‘powers that be’ won’t act on it.
My concern is always for the woman Jack.
Are you sure that the “powers that be” won’t act on them? Maybe not in the US, now. But in the Netherlands “childhood euthanasia” isn’t legal for people under 12, but as long as a certain protocol is followed prosecutors will not seek charges. Physicians groups in the UK want to talk about whether “active euthanasia” (as opposed to removing treatment and providing palliative care to sick infants) is something that should be considered.
It seems like people take other people’s right to life not very seriously, as long as their parents have a different idea.
“you think stabbing in the head is better then do you?”
b.l.i.n.d.
“My concern is always for the woman Jack.”
Of course it is. Who cares about her kids?
When do the kids become a concern for you? Only the females, and only when they go through puberty and have the capability of being pregnant?
Obviously I’m exaggerating, but I don’t know about you sometimes man.
“b.l.i.n.d.” – that’s funny, I don’t think you are typing in braille and I’m certainly not reading in braille.
“When do the kids become a concern for you?” – the ‘kids’ become a concern for me once they are born. And my concern doesn’t end when they are beyond diapers.
I don’t know about a lot of people Jack.
“the ‘kids’ become a concern for me once they are born.”
Unless, shortly after their birth or during the birth, the mother can’t stand the though of raising a cleft palate baby, or a Downs Syndrome baby, a girl, or simply a baby she doesn’t love?
You’re arguing all over the place. You’ve mentioned that you can see some positions for “options” after birth for the mother (what about the father, btw? can he have the kid killed if he’s stressed out too?), but you’ve not clarified them.
“And my concern doesn’t end when they are beyond diapers.”
What a coincidence, mine doesn’t either! I’m not sure who this is directed at.
Jack says:
September 1, 2013 at 4:57 pm
A lot of Muslims are pro-life, it depends on the denomination. A lot of liberal Jews are pro-choice, true, but the more orthodox sects tend to not like abortion.
– See more at: https://www.jillstanek.com/2013/08/saving-the-1-losing-the-rapeincest-exception/#sthash.3RX16ZKh.dpuf
AFTER RAPE, most Muslims would abort.
“Unless, shortly after their birth or during the birth, the mother can’t stand the though of raising a cleft palate baby, or a Downs Syndrome baby, a girl, or simply a baby she doesn’t love?” – I haven’t been even remotely involved in anything even remotely like this so all I can say is that I would still be concerned for the new-born but as you have shown, it would most likely be a collective decision. Have you?
And as you are aware, every situation is unique. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to such events. Hence my questions in response to Praxede’s scenario.
“You’re arguing all over the place. You’ve mentioned that you can see some positions for “options” after birth for the mother (what about the father, btw? can he have the kid killed if he’s stressed out too?), but you’ve not clarified them.” – what I have said is that I see some reason in the positions that Singer has put. I didn’t say I agreed with them or supported them. But again, some of the arguments that some people here put sometimes actually lead me to increasingly conclude that he may be right.
Hmm, oogenhand, I think that might have to do with the sect and culture. The one Muslim woman I’ve ever spoken to about these matters says that in her sect (I think she was Sufi maybe? Can’t remember) abortion is a sin, but in conservative countries women will sometimes get clandestine abortions because their lives are literally ruined forever if they have a child out of wedlock, even if the child resulted from a rape. She says that Muslims in western nations tend to be more anti-abortion because the women don’t have quite as much social pressure and danger from carrying that baby to term. I don’t have any sources for this, it’s just what I was told by a Muslim woman and her perceptions of the matter.
“I haven’t been even remotely involved in anything even remotely like this so all I can say is that I would still be concerned for the new-born but as you have shown, it would most likely be a collective decision.”
Well, I’m glad you would have some concern for the newborn! That’s a relief. What do you mean by “collective decision”.
I haven’t been involved in that situation as an adult, no. I’d probably call child services or attempt to get her some type of mental health assistance (as well as offering to care for the infant until authorities could do something) if a mother of an infant told me that she couldn’t stand her child and wanted them dead or gone. I was involved in it as an infant though (obviously I’m not dead, my mom didn’t get her way because other people decided to care for me), which is why I find it disturbing people put so much emphasis on what the mother (and father) wants instead of the infant’s right as a citizen and human to, you know, not be killed. Somehow I just don’t find parental wants that important if they override their child’s welfare.
“And as you are aware, every situation is unique. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to such events. Hence my questions in response to Praxede’s scenario.”
Well there is no size fits all, every family needs different assistance and every situation is different. There are basic rights that all humans should have though. Your life is your own, no one has the right to take that from you without your permission (I can see the justifications for assisted suicide and don’t have too much of a problem with it, though I think it’s tragic). I do think every child, no matter what situation their parents and family are in, has that basic right regardless of what else is going on.
“what I have said is that I see some reason in the positions that Singer has put. I didn’t say I agreed with them or supported them. But again, some of the arguments that some people here put sometimes actually lead me to increasingly conclude that he may be right. ”
That’s kinda weird in my opinion. I don’t like how people degrade animal’s lives when they act like animals have no perception of pain and other things like that, but that doesn’t make me a more extreme animal rights believer. I don’t see why what your opponents say should change your opinion.
“What do you mean by “collective decision”. – the woman should receive the best advice, support and availability of options.
What we need to remember is that very little in life is black and white, cut and dried. Every situation si different, driven by different reasons and causes. And can have a variety of effects and impacts. So the answers may sometimes be yes and sometimes they may be no.
“the woman should receive the best advice, support and availability of options.”
Tell me why a woman should be allowed to kill a child just because she gave birth to him or her. Why? If everyone’s all cool with her decision, that’s fine with you? If she gets plenty of support and advice, and she’s like “yeah, it would be best if he dies” you don’t have compunction with that? I don’t understand this way of thinking at all, it’s horribly cold.
Until what age is a child’s right to live dependent on their parents (mother) instead of their own rights? At one point does the “collective decision” switch over to “we should protect this child from this person who wants to harm him”? How can child abuse really be wrong at all if your worth as a human is mostly dependent on what other people think?
I’m sorry, this is just an awful philosophy to me.
Every situation is different, yes. But we do need guidelines, we do need to decide what’s acceptable as a whole if we’re all going to live together in a society. And I simply can’t see any good coming out of a society that allows children to be killed on their parents say so.
Q – “Tell me why a woman should be allowed to kill a child just because she gave birth to him or her. Why? If everyone’s all cool with her decision, that’s fine with you?”
A – “But we do need guidelines, we do need to decide what’s acceptable as a whole if we’re all going to live together in a society.”
Remembering that no situation is abundantly clear, if a new-born is seriously bereft of viable life then extinguishing its death is probably a valid option. If there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with the new-born yet the woman concerned wants to terminate it then the reasons are obviously far more complex. But I’m not aware of any woman wishing to do so whilst in a safe, supportive and caring environment, are you?
Well there are some really cold people, and there are stupid people, and irrational people, and scared people, and all different scenarios that you can come up with. I’m sure there’s some mother somewhere that even with a very loving and supportive environment simply didn’t care about her perfectly healthy infant and wanted it dead. I doubt it’s common but I’m sure it’s happened. But I don’t really care what her circumstances are (well, I do care, as in I want her to get help and support, I don’t care as in think it justifies anything), I still think that her child has rights of his or her own. Even if the child’s disabled, or she’s way too poor to raise him, or if she’s not ready to mother but she doesn’t want to adopt him, all the other scenarios don’t change what I think should happen to that child (I do think it changes what people should do to help the mother).
I think we come at it from different angles, and we’re obviously not going to agree.
Reality, I do have some questions for you. How do you reconcile the fact that modern medical science can now provide adequate care, often excellent care, to a pregnant woman at all points during her pregnancy with the misuse of this ability in patient care to facilitate abortion? In other words, why should the advances in medical science be pressed into the service of abortion? Who does abortion benefit, when adoption is an option?
Please try to back up the claim that abortion saves physical lives of women or somehow reduces maternal deaths,
A slight rephrasing of one of the above questions:
In other words, why should the advances in medical science and patient care be ignored simply to permit abortion?
Infanticide isn’t black and white, but it’s always wrong to deny an abortion to a woman that wants one…
9_9
tmeister/”reality” to Jack: “the ‘kids’ become a concern for me once they are born.”
Since I joined this blog, I have been exposed to tmeister advocating for abortion with a passion unsurpassed. And now he makes this statement???
Who are you fooling “reality?” How can one be concerned for the kids once they are born if one attempts to push the woman into a “choice” to abort before this opportunity? You contradicted yourself big time comrade…
But I’m not aware of any woman wishing to do so whilst in a safe, supportive and caring environment, are you?
I’m not certain how “safe, supportive and caring” this woman’s environment was, but she wanted to, and did. And I don’t think this little boy deserved such treatment.
Well, I don’t know Xalisae, what was her situation? I mean, there are variables at work here.
Yes, we need to remember that infanticide is not black and white.
Ater all, maybe her boyfriend left her. When did he leave her? Why? How did she feel about it? How does she feel about it? How has it impacted on her state of mind? Has she been under some sort of medication because of it? What events transpired during delivery and all the possible elements around it that may have had an impact? What were her original plans regarding the pregnancy? Her original feelings towards it? What facilities and options were/are available to her? What is her mental and physical health history?
Or maybe Ms. Hein was in the middle of an awesome conversation about world wide wresting and had an even more awesome shot of Tequila waiting for her and didn’t want to be interrupted by a newborn,
Who are we to judge? It was a parenting decision.
“How do you reconcile the fact that modern medical science can now provide adequate care, often excellent care, to a pregnant woman at all points during her pregnancy with the misuse of this ability in patient care to facilitate abortion?” – it’s not misuse.
“In other words, why should the advances in medical science be pressed into the service of abortion?” -because some women do not wish to proceed with pregnancy and it makes abortion even safer.
“Who does abortion benefit, when adoption is an option?” – women who do not wish to proceed with a pregnancy, those who are at risk and when the fetus isn’t viable.
“Please try to back up the claim that abortion saves physical lives of women or somehow reduces maternal deaths,” – various sources of data demonstrate that the maternal death rate for abortion is significantly lower than that for full term delivery.
“In other words, why should the advances in medical science and patient care be ignored simply to permit abortion?” – they aren’t ignored. Do you think doctors tell women ‘no no, we can’t give you the best care available for your pregnancy because abortion exists’?
“Since I joined this blog, I have been exposed to tmeister advocating for abortion with a passion unsurpassed. And now he makes this statement???” – you haven’t been paying attention then have you.
“Who are you fooling “reality?” How can one be concerned for the kids once they are born if one attempts to push the woman into a “choice” to abort before this opportunity?” – one does not attempt to push women into choosing abortion. One attempts to prevent self-appointed, self-righteous, unjustified and patriarchal fundamentalists from not allowing women to have a choice.
“You contradicted yourself big time comrade…” – indeed not, as you would know if you had been paying attention.
You are privy to all the detailed circumstances, causes and events surrounding the case are you xalisae?
“Yes, we need to remember that infanticide is not black and white.” – exactly.
“Who are we to judge? It was a parenting decision.” – ooo, I think that is a very narrow defining of the factors involved.
women who do not wish to proceed with a pregnancy, – this is too vague.
those who are at risk – at risk of what? Modern medical science has already made it a very rare event where the health or life of the mother is threatened due to a complication from a pregnancy. Protecting and saving the life of a mother has been the goal of modern science. In reality, the goal of modern science has been to make abortion unnecessary – for both mother and child!
and when the fetus isn’t viable. – If the fetus isn’t viable the mother’s bodily autonomy is not impeded so why is the mother seeking an abortion?
various sources of data demonstrate that the maternal death rate for abortion is significantly lower than that for full term delivery. –this is simply unsupported statement. Will never get the right numbers abort the number of maternal deaths due to abortion because of biased political climate surrounding this issue.
they aren’t ignored. Do you think doctors tell women ‘no no, we can’t give you the best care available for your pregnancy because abortion exists’? – Sorry, I think you misunderstood my question. Doctors won’t reduce their care for pregnant women but by performing abortions doctors will implicitly not be using their modern skills and knowledge to reduce suffering and protect human life.
“this is too vague.” – what, you don’t know the reasons why women have abortions? They don’t want to go through a pregnancy. They don’t want to give birth.
“at risk of what? Modern medical science has already made it a very rare event where the health or life of the mother is threatened due to a complication from a pregnancy.” – rare but not never. There is also the factor that a woman may have to undertake procedures or restrictions that she does not wish to due to the pregnancy being unwanted.
“Protecting and saving the life of a mother has been the goal of modern science.” – yes, isn’t it wonderful.
“In reality, the goal of modern science has been to make abortion unnecessary” – it’s always been the goal. It’s just that perfection has not yet been reached so abortion still exists.
“If the fetus isn’t viable the mother’s bodily autonomy is not impeded so why is the mother seeking an abortion?” – are you kidding? What are you trying to say?
“this is simply unsupported statement.” – ah, the anti-choice wishful thinking.
“Will never get the right numbers abort the number of maternal deaths due to abortion because of biased political climate surrounding this issue.” – except that even the data from countries where it isn’t subject to a ‘biased political climate’ show that abortion is significantly safer than childbirth.
“Doctors won’t reduce their care for pregnant women but by performing abortions doctors will implicitly not be using their modern skills and knowledge to reduce suffering and protect human life.” – well that simply isn’t true. Access to abortion and the use of the best medical skills and knowledge in its provision are important in reducing suffering and protecting human life.
what, you don’t know the reasons why women have abortions? They don’t want to go through a pregnancy. They don’t want to give birth. - A woman’s desire to not have a baby or go through a pregnancy are not sufficient reasons for a mother to be allowed to abort her child. Reality, I thought you had stronger arguments than this argument based on the desire/will of the mother. Like I said, it abortion advocates who are taking us back to the dark ages and not prolife advocates.
There is also the factor that a woman may have to undertake procedures or restrictions that she does not wish to due to the pregnancy being unwanted. – I have no idea what you are talking about here – please explain.
it’s always been the goal. It’s just that perfection has not yet been reached so abortion still exists. – Abortion still exists because some the US Supreme Court did not acknowledge the advances in medical science when they overruled the law that protected preborn human beings. Abortion still exists in spite of advances of medical science not because of them. Abortion still exists because some people refuse to see how modern medical science has made abortion completely unnecessary in all cases for all women.
are you kidding? What are you trying to say?– I am saying that your argument that says abortion is legitimate based on a woman’s right to bodily autonomy is faulty and does hold up under scrutiny. A pregnant woman never loses her bodily autonomy – a pregnancy does not interfere with a woman’s bodily autonomy to any significant degree – and when or if it does modern medical science now makes it possible for that woman to give live birth to her baby and to place that baby up for adoption. Modern science has made the need for an abortion obsolete.
Ireland had the lowest maternal death rate in the world and it was a prolife country. So your argument that abortion lowers the maternal death rate is faulty.
Reality, please identify all of the situations where an abortion is medically necessary?
Reality, for example if we take Ms. Thomson’s violinist analogy we would have to say that the violinist would only need our assistance for 1 month at most (the last month of the pregnancy) before we could be safely unplugged. However, even in the ninth month of pregnancy most Moms are still able to work and do stuff so their bodily autonomy is not largely impeded. Indeed, given the advances in medical science it appears that we would never be required to be “plugged in” in order to help the violinist. It appears, that modern medical science has developed other methods for saving the violinist.
It seems again and again that logic trumps your commentary “reality.” All here have been paying attention to your calls for abortion and you cannot escape from that. So stop feeding us this BS that you are concerned for the kids once they are born. If you believe the statement you made is valid knowing your deeply rooted pro-abortion stance, than you are just full of it. In other words, a person concerned for babies once they are born would want them to be born. But you support “choice” to abort. Can you see how dishonest you are?
Very few women will carry a pregnancy to term and place for adoption.
What if adoption could be done pre-natally?
Would many women be willing to have an embryo transplanted from their wombs to other women’s wombs?
“A woman’s desire to not have a baby or go through a pregnancy are not sufficient reasons for a mother to be allowed to abort her child.” – that is self-evidently quite untrue.
“Reality, I thought you had stronger arguments than this argument based on the desire/will of the mother.” – I have given some of the other reasons, do you choose to ignore them? Not wanting to go through a pregnancy and childbirth is of itself sufficient.
“Like I said, it abortion advocates who are taking us back to the dark ages and not prolife advocates.” – ha ha, funny.
“I have no idea what you are talking about here – please explain.” – some of the care/treatment some pregnant women need to undertake require procedures or restrictions. That’s all well and good for a woman who wishes to complete a pregnancy and give birth. Not so much for women who do not wish to complete a pregnancy and give birth.
“Abortion still exists because some the US Supreme Court did not acknowledge the advances in medical science when they overruled the law that protected preborn human beings.” – despite the advances, pregnancies can still be risky. And in some cases the fetus simply isn’t viable. You cannot wind back womens rights.
“Abortion still exists in spite of advances of medical science not because of them.” – well, that may be relatively correct but the advances in medical science which will see the introduction of better contraception and drugs such as RU486 will see surgical abortions reduce in number. You cannot wind back womens rights.
“Abortion still exists because some people refuse to see how modern medical science has made abortion completely unnecessary in all cases for all women.” – again, that is self-evidently untrue.
“I am saying that your argument that says abortion is legitimate based on a woman’s right to bodily autonomy is faulty and does hold up under scrutiny.” – you may be saying it but that doesn’t make it accurate.
“A pregnant woman never loses her bodily autonomy – a pregnancy does not interfere with a woman’s bodily autonomy to any significant degree” – are you serious?
“– and when or if it does modern medical science now makes it possible for that woman to give live birth to her baby and to place that baby up for adoption.” – so you do support forced gestation and childbirth.
“Modern science has made the need for an abortion obsolete.” – yet again, this is self-evidently untrue.
“Ireland had the lowest maternal death rate in the world and it was a prolife country. So your argument that abortion lowers the maternal death rate is faulty.” – you really don’t understand the causes and comparisons here do you.
“Reality, please identify all of the situations where an abortion is medically necessary?” – I have mentioned some. And medical necessity isn’t the only valid reason.
“It seems again and again that logic trumps your commentary “reality.” – keep talking.
“All here have been paying attention to your calls for abortion and you cannot escape from that. So stop feeding us this BS that you are concerned for the kids once they are born.” – again you display your complete and utter ignorance of the various forms of assistance I have provided over the years and have spoken of here on a number of occasions.
“If you believe the statement you made is valid knowing your deeply rooted pro-abortion stance, than you are just full of it. In other words, a person concerned for babies once they are born would want them to be born.” – strange logic. Women really don’t come into it for you do they.
“But you support “choice” to abort. Can you see how dishonest you are?” – I am honest about what I support and what I do, and why. How about you?
Well, Reality, I am satisfied that you no longer have any real arguments to defend your support for abortion. You no longer have the crutch of your bodily autonomy argument so why don’t you become pro-life. It is clear to me that you are remaining pro-choice out of pride.
Despite your wishful little bubble of fantasy, I have demonstrated that bodily autonomy is but a part of the valid reasons for abortion. Which we already knew.
The claim that advances in medical science negates the need and the reasons for abortion is nothing short of delusional.
It is clear to me that your denial of the various needs and reasons amounts to ignoring the facts.
Reality, I am not following your argument. I apologize for that. I find your cut-and-paste style of responding difficult to follow. Perhaps if you wrote your arguments in paragraph format I will be able to follow. You could start by identifying and explaining what non-medical justifications for abortion that you find persuasive. You could follow-up by explaining why you think the claim that advances in medical science negate the need for abortion is delusional. If you do this I may be able to understand your reasons for remaining pro-choice.
Truthfully, Reality, I am having trouble identifying what your argument is.
Given your somewhat contradictory and selective responses, that’s quite obvious.
You claim that advances in medical science have rendered abortion obsolete. The advances in medical science leading to abortion not being a medical necessity impacts on a minority of abortions.
How you come to the conclusion that this also negates claims for bodily autonomy or any of the other reasons women choose to have abortions makes no sense.
Reality, are you going to try to answer either of the questions I posted at 8:40 pm?
Now that I’ve seen them, yes.
“You could start by identifying and explaining what non-medical justifications for abortion that you find persuasive.” – that a woman does not wish to go through an unwanted pregnancy and give birth. For a myriad of personal reasons. Including rape and incest.
“You could follow-up by explaining why you think the claim that advances in medical science negate the need for abortion is delusional.” – ‘advances’, not ‘perfection’. Not all potential problems and risks have been eradicated. And as I have already said, if a fetus is simply not viable many women do not wish to journey all the way through a pregnancy and delivery for nothing but additional risk and trauma. And again, a woman simply may not wish to undertake pregnancy and childbirth.
Just so I can follow your argument more closely, could you name one personal reason that would justify abortion in your opinion?
I think you are using the word viable in non-technical sense. Viability in the sense I use it refers to the baby’s gestational age. Perhaps, you can explain what you mean by viable with a concrete example or definition. I think your definition may be too broad and vague to be useful or helpful. For example, under the guise of “viability” consider Downs babies to be non-viable. Basically, when the word “viability” in this way we are engaged in eugenics. I don’t think you want to be know as a person who supports eugenics. I don’t think our society should be engaged in eugenics.
I think you are using the word viable in non-technical sense. Viability in the sense I use it refers to the baby’s gestational age. Perhaps, you can explain what you mean by ‘viable’ with a concrete example or definition. I think your definition may be too broad and vague to be useful or helpful. For example, under the guise of “viability” some people consider Downs babies to be non-viable. Basically, when the word “viability” is used in this way we are engaged in eugenics. I don’t think you want to be known as a person who supports eugenics. I don’t think our society should be engaged in eugenics. Finally, eugenics is something done in the early 20th century – we live in the 21st century.
“I think you are using the word viable in non-technical sense.” – I think you are wrong :-)
“Viability in the sense I use it refers to the baby’s gestational age.” – really? So at what stage of gestation does a fetus transition from unviable to viable?
What I mean when I say a fetus may be considered unviable is that it will die before, during or shortly after birth. It may be missing a brain or some other necessary organ or it may have half an arm where the nose is meant to be.
Down’s syndrome etc. is a much less clear area. What is the problem? What are the impacts? Likely quality of life? How are those factors viewed by those involved.
“Finally, eugenics is something done in the early 20th century” – is that what you think?
Viability was defined in law and medical journal and is dependent on technology. It used to be 24 weeks, but now is around 20-22 weeks.
In the cases you mentioned the “viability” of the fetus or the lack thereof is never conclusive so having abortion is not medically necessary in these cases. It is a choice. If the fetus dies and is then removed – that is not an abortion. Abortion is only the direct killing of the fetus (young one).
Ultimately, using the word “viable” in this manner means you are engaged in eugenics. I don’t see how this conclusion can be avoided. I am surprised to find out Reality that you support eugenics.
2.
Physiology .
a.
physically fitted to live.
b.
(of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
I’m guessing that would relate to the scenarios I described. It ain’t just about weeks.
“In the cases you mentioned the “viability” of the fetus or the lack thereof is never conclusive so having abortion is not medically necessary in these cases.” – well that’s not accurate. A missing brain or significant organ is a missing brain or significant organ.
“If the fetus dies and is then removed – that is not an abortion.” – indeed.
“Abortion is only the direct killing of the fetus (young one).” – and if it is shown that the fetus will die before, during or shortly after birth there is no reason not to proceed with an abortion if requested.
“Ultimately, using the word “viable” in this manner means you are engaged in eugenics.” – to classify terminating an unviable fetus rather than persisting with gestation as eugenics is an extreme position. It is not the targetted removal of a specific group. It is not about killing a viable human. It is one woman preferring not to undertake further risk and trauma.
“I don’t see how this conclusion can be avoided.” – then perhaps you should try harder.
“I am surprised to find out Reality that you support eugenics.” – I’m surprised – but only a little bit – that you would make such a ludicrous claim.
and if it is shown that the fetus will die before, during or shortly after birth there is no reason not to proceed with an abortion if requested. - Yes there is a reason not to have an abortion. The baby is alive and we are no position to decree that something should be killed. The fact that the fetus is deformed or unformed in some way doesn’t mean we should kill it – that is eugenics. The definition of viability that you provided is too broad and is misleading people. We don’t kill people because they are not viable when placed in orbit, similarly we shouldn’t kill the preborn because they are not viable to live outside the womb for the length time we deem appropriate.
to classify terminating an unviable fetus rather than persisting with gestation as eugenics is an extreme position. It is not the targetted removal of a specific group. It is not about killing a viable human. It is one woman preferring not to undertake further risk and trauma. – who decided the fetus was unviable? Obviously the fetus is somewhat viable because it has died yet. This definition of viable simply is about predicting a shorter lifespan for these individuals. By the definition of viable, none of us are truly viable given that we all die outside the womb. It is just a matter of time.
I believe your thinking is illustrative of the slippery slope thinking that has led some in the public to be complacent about the legality of abortion.
So Reality what allows a rape victim to abort a fully viable fetus?
“The fetus is alive and we are no position to decree that something should be killed.” – ‘alive’ yes, but to what extent. And evidently we are in a position.
“The fact that the fetus is deformed or unformed in some way doesn’t mean we should kill it – that is eugenics.” – or mercy, for the woman as well as the fetus.
“The definition of viability that you provided is too broad and is misleading people.” – you’ll need to take that up with these folk then http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/viable
“We don’t kill people because they are not viable when placed in orbit” – their lack of viability is not due to their own physical deficiency.
“similarly we shouldn’t kill the preborn because they are not viable to live outside the womb for the length time we deem appropriate.” – why not?
“who decided the fetus was unviable?” – people who know a heck of a lot more than you and I.
“Obviously the fetus is somewhat viable because it has died yet.” – ‘has died yet’? ‘somewhat viable’ – you might want to give that a little more thought.
“This definition of viable simply is about predicting a shorter lifespan for these individuals.” – a response which only addresses part of the situation isn’t very convincing Tyler – “if it is shown that the fetus will die before, during or shortly after birth there is no reason not to proceed with an abortion if requested.”
“By the definition of viable, none of us are truly viable given that we all die outside the womb. It is just a matter of time.” -dear me, reeeeaaaaching.
“I believe your thinking is illustrative of the slippery slope thinking that has led some in the public to be complacent about the legality of abortion.” – it is those who are not complacent who ensure the legality of womens freedoms and reproductive rights. The complacent ones allow the anti-choicers to drive pernicious agendas.
“So Reality what allows a rape victim to abort a fully viable fetus?” – I thought we covered this one. You already know but let me know if you still want me to elucidate for you.
Reality, there is no need to explain your view. Obviously, you don’t care that much about what happens to preborn children so I won’t press you into explaining yourself. It would be pointless.
Nonetheless, I still hope that one day you will change your view.
Tyler: strongly held views are only subject to change under very specific conditions. I have seen many with strong belief systems, crumble when a tragedy striked and one marked by proximity to them. “reality” is not proximal to any tragedies. He is an abstract thinker who is not attached to any tangible elements that would antagonize his current worldview.
Although he did mention his son once. This leads me to wonder how anyone who has a child (a very fine 32 year old as I remember “reality” putting it) would – undeterred by the humanity of his own offspring – promote abortions? My head is spinning…
I remember Reality mentioning his son once as well.
Other than that, he is pretty tight lipped about his personal life — upbringing, schooling, siblings, parents, past and current relationship with son and others, hobbies, work, volunteering, etc.
All I have really picked up from him is that he likes wine and walking around his home and deck naked. Oh and that his passion is keeping abortion legal and he believes infanticide is not a black and white issue.
“Obviously, you don’t care that much about what happens to preborn children” – I do care about fetuses Tyler, I just care about women a whole lot more. If a woman wants to complete a pregnancy and give birth I will give her just as much support as I give a womsn who doesn’t.
“Nonetheless, I still hope that one day you will change your view.” – I have held my view for 40 years. It has been reinforced, not changed, by all the arguments.
“reality” is not proximal to any tragedies.” – really? You know this how? Have you read my non-existent biography or autobiograhy have you? Or are you just making it up as you go along?
“He is an abstract thinker who is not attached to any tangible elements that would antagonize his current worldview.” – it is the observation of over five decades which has formulated my worldview. Observation of the ‘tangible elements’ of people, how they behave and why, what impacts on them and what influences their thinking.
“Although he did mention his son once. This leads me to wonder how anyone who has a child (a very fine 32 year old as I remember “reality” putting it) would – undeterred by the humanity of his own offspring – promote abortions? My head is spinning… ” – is that what your problem is! And after all the differentiations I’ve explained to you.
Thank you for the demonstration of your observation and retention abilities Praxedes. I have actually mentioned aspects of the topics you list over my time here.
“All I have really picked up from him is that he likes wine and walking around his home and deck naked.” – I think that tells us more about you than about me ;-)
“Oh and that his passion is keeping abortion legal and he believes infanticide is not a black and white issue.” – yes, like so many things in life.
I just care about women a whole lot more.
Maybe you could try to love them both.
If you have said more about your personal life (other than you have a son, you drink wine and like to hang out nude) please fill me in. I know it may be hard for you to believe but I don’t read everything you write.
Have you ever talking about those things I listed — your upbringing, schooling, siblings, parents, past and current relationship with son and others, hobbies, work, or volunteering?
The fact that I remember you talking about your drinking and walking around nude by yourself is because I picture you as a lonely, crotchety, self-centered, drinking wine from a box nightly thinking you still got it going on.
It’s about more than love.
You don’t read everything I write – which is fair enough – yet now ask for personal details.
I can’t recall what I may have said about my upbringing. We were poor. I was bright but my peers demeaned those who stood out so I did less well than I should have.
Sunday school, and later church, were regulars from the age of three until the age of 16. I’m sure I’ve mentioned this ended because I found no god.
Some time back I mentioned that my parents were beaten at catholic schools for being left-handed. My mother is grand. My father was very severe.
My son lives thousands of miles away. We are in touch by various means on a constant but ad hoc basis. He is indeed a fine young man.
I was married for many years. Then I was in a long term relationship. I am currently avoiding women because they make my baggage and issues seem like the lightest luggage one could carry. Toooo much trouble.
My hobby is motorcycling.
I have had a few jobs. I had a fairly high level position at one stage. I am now self-employed in a relaxed and poorly paying manner.
Even recently I spoke of how I give and have given time, money, skills, food and goods to those in need. Including young single mothers.
By the start of the 21st century I owned a very nice home, had a well endowed pension fund, drove new cars and lived very well. I lost a good chunk of this because my ex-wife had a much better lawyer than me and through the financial crisis. I ended up giving the rest away. I rent a house, live frugally and relish my environment and lifestyle.
I am not lonely. I have friends and my clients become fairly friendly too. I enjoy the freedom of living on my own. I’m not crotchety – although I do mutter at the television when certain people are on it, I still help others when and how I can and I drink wine from a glass which is filled from a bottle.
Got what ‘going on’?
I think that’s more than enough information. I’m sure some will accuse me of whatever simply for answering your questions but I’m used to that :-)
Thanks for the info, Reality. It helps to understand a bit about where you might be coming from. I don’t remember you talking about any of this other then I think I remember you saying you donated some furniture or something to a family recently.
I’m sorry your dad was very severe. ):
I believe I have mentioned most if not all of the above information over the course of time. I don’t expect anyone to have taken notes though.
No need to be sorry. He was no different to many fathers back then. He wasn’t actually abusive.
The boy across the street used to score a blood nose from his father now and then and no-one thought much of it.
I was not after any of your personal info “reality.” You shared from the time I joined this blog information that you have a son. A fault of mine is that I tend to think that anyone who has children would not ever tell them that “had your mother decided to abort you I would have supported her a hundred percent.” And that is what I truly wanted to convey to you Sir. Can you tell your son while looking into his eyes that you would have supported aborting him had your ex-wife asked for it? “Well you know son you are a fine 32-year old but…. ”
This dilemma affects children in the manner I just applied to your situation and so this to me is the crux of pro-abortionists’ message to kids (their own kids often). Living human beings, not just preborn children, are a part of this discussion.
If you look at how being pro-abortion affects your own offspring perhaps you will understand what I am conveying to you.
I apologize for using your son to illustrate my point…
And yes, that is why my head is spinning….
Reality, if may ask a personal question, were you ever personally involved in an abortion?