Open Thread: Public Abortions

Today’s the day my Speech kids compete at the Regional tournament against 10 other schools… the top 4 in each event make it through to the next round. My kids are talented. I’m a nervous wreck.

Anyway, while I’m busy with that all day, I leave you this video from anti-choice activist Lila Rose, in which she expresses her desire for all abortions to be done in public… until we all get so sick of them that we would “do away with them” altogether:

Comment away!

(Thanks to Joe for the link)

  • Christopher

    Hmm, I bet she wouldn’t be happy if I suggested the same thing be done for all animals that are to be slaughtered for meat for her and everyone else to eat.

  • Gordon

    Public abortions would offend me less than public prayer – assuming they were still done in safe sterile conditions.

    Sounds what she wants are literal back alley abortions and dead women – all in the name of “life”

  • Naomi

    That was terrifying.

  • Sarah

    “Maybe then we’ll hear angels sing when we ponder the glory of conception.”

    Um… What? And what exactly does she hope having abortions performed in public will accomplish? I’m sure if open heart surgeries were performed in the public square people would get sick of them too. Is that supposed to be a valid reason to illegalize a medical procedure?

  • Per

    Then I would suggest that circumcisions also be done in public!

  • jose

    So, essentially, what she’s saying is we should ban abortion because she finds them icky.

    Not impressed, folks.

    The angels bit is funny though.

  • Anonymous

    Okay then, here you go!

    PBS Frontline “Abortion Clinic” – 1983
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/twenty/watch/abortion.html

  • http://www.youtube.com/aajoeyjo Joe Zamecki

    By her logic, any medical procedure that involves cutting into someone, is an evil procedure. Because it’s gross. Fundie logic.

  • Grimalkin

    Yes! Public abortions! Great idea!

    In fact, we should perform all medical procedures in the public sphere, just to be fair. Imagine what a blessedly wonderful and caring society we would have if we regularly witnessed the butchery of street-corner heart surgery!

    And when this lovely lady wishes to get her pap smear…

  • http://jetson.wordpress.com Jetson

    So, we all get to stand around and watch a woman swallow a pill, followed by her period?

  • Derek Clevidence

    She’s just publicly aborted her mind.

  • Kari

    I like the idea of slaughtering animals in public in retribution. Ooooh! What about the little bunnies that are to be made into coats? They can skin them right in front of her.

  • Carlie

    So I assume “doing away with” abortions means comprehensive sex education starting in schools before puberty hits and providing free open access to contraceptives of all sorts to anyone of reproductive age? Because that’s the best way to make sure abortions don’t need to happen. Of course, that would still leave all the women who have life-threatening problems in pregnancy and who have fetal deaths that don’t spontaneously expel (and also threaten a twin if present) and fetal abnormalities that would cause indescribable suffering and death out of luck, but hey, a few thousand deaths of women and the like are a small price to pay for not thinking about ickiness.

  • Dan

    The anti choice people never seem to be interested or take into account all aspects of the issue, as carlie above suggests. They just keep screaming “outlaw all abortions” and don’t have any interest in discussing how best to reduce the need for abortion. I for one would like there to be no need for abortion through education and birth control being made easily available, but I would never deny a woman her legal right to choose. If the other side would be willing to work with pro choicers in this realistic way, I think we could move forward on this, but as long as their position remains 100% against all abortion, we continue down the current path.

  • http://atheistyogi.wordpress.com Mikel

    Humm, Would she also approve that all pap-smears and prostate exams be done in public as well?

  • Riccardo

    I think one would be sick even witnessing simple childbirth in public.

    Should we outlaw childbirth?

    Because it’s gross?

  • Rhodent

    I’m willing to make her a deal: all abortions will be done in public as long as all acts that could result in needing an abortion are also done in public.

    Hey, it makes as much sense as her suggestion does…

  • Drew M.

    Good luck to you and your students at regionals today, Hemant!

    I do love this comment on the video, it’s better than anything I could come up with:

    Young, pretty, white, and supported by a very wealthy conservative group…is there? anything else about her that screams out that she really shouldn’t be commenting on abortions? She just isn’t in a position to ever NEED anything.

  • http://therearethornstoo.blogspot.com/ Denise

    I’m fine with public abortion at her demand…if she agrees that her pap/pelvic exam is likewise conducted in the public square for everyone’s enjoyment.

    Can we say “medical privacy” and “HIPAA”, you stupid little girl?

  • http://jetson.wordpress.com Jetson

    This is another attempt to draw attention to the “horror” of “murdering” an unborn human life. Anti-abortion groups go out of their way to focus on the “needless murdering of unborn children”.

    Abortion is necessary, and these anti-abortion groups can’t stand it.

  • Anon

    “horror” … “murdering” … “needless murdering of unborn children”.

    Using scare quotes may ease your guilty conscience but it doesn’t change the truth.

    Abortion is necessary

    According to Hitler, kidnapping, torturing and murdering Jews was “necessary”.

  • Vas

    This may sound bizarre but, if I could insist, as long as it is legal in America all hemorrhoid treatment would be done in the public square. Until we were so sick and tired of seeing them that we would do away with the injustice all together. Maybe then we would value the hemorrhoidal asshole just as we value the unblemished pucker. Maybe then we would hear angels sing as we ponder the glory of assholes.

    Hey pondering Lila Rose just now, I think I heard angels singing!

  • slantrhyme

    I like Jetson. Cowardly “Anon” gets nothing.

  • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

    Wow, only 19 comments have been posted and Godwin’s Law comes into play.

    I’ve served as an escort at several abortion clinics, I’ve worked on a state campaign to maintain abortion rights, and I’ve accompanied several friends who were in need of the services of these clinics.

    I am proud of the support and work I have done around this issue and I feel zero guilt over my actions. Call me a Nazi and an accomplice to murder. I do not care. If you see an equivalence between murder, genocide, and a woman deciding when to bring a child into the world, you are beyond reason.

    Anon, if you want to trade volleys of name calling, well, I strongly suspect you are a misogynist. So there. I’m a Nazi and you’re a misogynist.

    Next…

  • Robert W.

    She was obviously making an exaggerated suggestion to make a point. But I am not surprised that you are intentionally missing the point she was making because it is consistent with the thought that you don’t want to be reminded that abortion is killing a baby. That is why Planned Parenthood and other pro choice groups fight legislation for women to be shown ultrasounds of their babies before the procedure, pictures of a developing baby, etc. They want that part hidden because it would be too traumatic for the lady to have clear understanding of what she is actually doing.

    I am in agreement with Claudia that all pro life supporters should also be for comprehensive sex education and should be providing the support necessary for adoptions and other help to raise these children. That is a comprehensive support of life.

    Gordon,

    All I can say about your comment is that it is sick.

  • Drew M.

    Heh. I wasn’t expecting a Godwin so soon.

    ETA:
    *shakes fist at timberwraith*

    I guess I should’ve refreshed before hitting submit.

  • Tony

    According to Hitler, kidnapping, torturing and murdering Jews was “necessary”.

    The difference is that Hitler was wrong. Just. Like. You.

  • Josephine

    Conservatives never take into consideration that abortion covers a lot of territory. If a pregnancy endangers the health of the mother, such as a tubal pregnancy, sometimes abortion is necessary or the child would die anyway along with the mother. Or if a mother discovers she has cancer and the only way to proceed with treatment is an abortion. Or a dangerous mix of blood-types of the mother and child. Sometimes women who have abortions are older, married, and desperately want children. Abortion covers a lot more than young women who got pregnant accidentally (which wouldn’t happen nearly as often with proper sex-ed) and decided they weren’t ready for a child.

  • Drew M.

    Ooh. I missed Gordon’s post. thanks Robert W! that’s good stuff.

    I see Ms. Rose is a Catholic. Ironic that a pedophilia supporter also wants all pregnancies to come to term.

  • http://thegreenwizard.blogspot.com/ G Wiz

    Well that didn’t take long Mr Anon

  • http://reanhouse.blogspot.com Sarah

    So a toilet in a public place (made of glass perhaps?) so that we can watch a woman menstruating after taking an abortificant?

    Or perhaps a glassed in operating theatre with cameras so that when a woman is on her back with her legs in stirrups everyone could get a good view of her vulva while the doctor suctions out the unwanted material?

    Seems a bit misogynistic to me. Perhaps we should just let women make their own choices and deal with the consequences themselves, in private. A bit extreme I know but what can I say, I’m a radical!

  • http://reanhouse.blogspot.com Sarah

    Oh, and also. Considering people get grossly offended at the sight of a breast they’d have aneurysms at the site of a vulva.

  • BlueRidgeLady

    good old Robert W coming into the abortion thread and telling women what’s best for them AND that they don’t really know what an abortion is. LOL.
    Thanks again, privileged misogynist dude.

  • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

    BlueRidgeLady, as a straight person, RobertW has also devoted quite a bit of verbiage in telling LGBT people which form of romantic and sexual intimacy is best for them. He features prominently in several discussions of LGBT issues here at Friendly Atheist. At least he’s consistent in waving his privilege around.

  • Kaylya

    Over 50% of abortions occur by the 8th week, at which point the fetus is about 1/2 inch long and hardly recognizable as human. Nearly 90% occur during or before the 12th week, at which point it is about 2 1/2 inches long and admittedly a fair bit more recognizable as human.

    I don’t think the vast majority of abortions would be nearly so horrifying to watch as she seems to think.

  • Steve

    @Josephine

    If a pregnancy endangers the health of the mother, such as a tubal pregnancy, sometimes abortion is necessary or the child would die anyway along with the mother.

    There have been cases of so-called “Christian” hospitals where they refused to treat the mother. Or where the doctors and nurses had the good conscience to perform an abortion, but where then excommunicated (of course the man who got an 10-year old girl pregnant wasn’t).

    I guess it makes sense to them given their sick and twisted theology. For them, child birth is the appropriate punishment for women, since a woman was allegedly responsible for getting mankind kicked out of paradise. And if one dies in the process, so much the better.

  • Robert W.

    BlueRidgeLady,

    I know exactly what an abortion is. What is interesting is those that try to claim it is something less then killing an unborn child. which it is, regardless of the stage of development. The only difference is time.

  • bob42

    I mentioned on a conservative political blog that when a group of high schoolers that used to hang out at my home started pairing up, I started keeping condoms in the guest bathroom.

    Most gave me a verbal lashing. I don’t understand why social conservatives are so hung up on sex.

  • gwen

    If you make abortion illegal, all you get are illegal butcher clinics like the one that was shut down last week. Women who want an abortion WILL get one, one way or the other. And women will risk dying AGAIN to avoid having a child they do not want. These self righteous assholes so willing to damn women for having an abortion are not interested in helping them after the child is born. Nor are they interested in adopting the children in our orphanages or foster homes. They are hypocrites.

  • ckitching

    To those who would support an abortion ban and say that abortions are murdering unborn children: What punishment do you believe would be appropriate for a woman who sought and obtained an abortion? Yes, this is a loaded question. Tread carefully. On one side lies hypocrisy, and on the other an utter disregard for life that makes a mockery of the self-selected moniker “pro-life”.

  • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

    @Steve

    Genesis 3:16
    16 To the woman he said,

    “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
    (NIV translation)

    Actually, the punishment for Eve and her female descendants entails painful childbirth and sexist oppression. The bible is full of fun little stories like this.

    It’s also a funny coincidence how a male dominated legislature restricting abortion rights fits right into that biblical scenario.

  • The Captain

    I’m getting real sick of how my fellow pro-abortionist (yes I use that term) are handling this debate. Mostly because they refuse to have the same argument the anti-abortionist are having.

    This argument of “pro-life” versus “pro-choice” gives into the anti-abortionist position right from the start. It’s not “pro-life” versus “pro-choice”, it’s “pro-life” versus “It’s not alive, and you have no right to force that stupid belief on me or my family”.

    Th pro-abortion crowed need to start loudly asking anti-abortionist, why do you think a pile of goo with no brian is a human with rights, and why do you think you get to force me to accept your belief? Anti-abortionist usually have a childish definition of what a “human life” is (let alone a “baby”), one that usually would mean that family members could not pull the plug on brain dead relatives, if used in all cases not just fetuses. And they tend to have a very, very hard time defending that belief. It usually boils down to “because I say so” and that is not how we govern.

    Or it’s a religious one. An if their definition of “human life” comes from their religion then they also have no right to force someone else to practice their religious belief here in the US. Either way it will counter the meme that the right has been building that a clump of cells is a human with full voting rights that has actually seeped into the minds of people who have not really thought such things out. I’ve seen too many kids I know throw their lives away because they buy into the anti-abortionist simpleton definitions and slogans that have gone unchallenged by the rest of us for so long.

  • http://hauntedtimber.wordpress.com/ timberwraith

    For anybody who wants insight into the horrors that existed before abortion was legalized, read The Story of Jane by Laura Kaplan. The book describes the experiences of a group of women in Chicago who ran a feminist, underground abortion service when abortion was still illegal. It describes in harrowing details what it was like to be a woman with an unwanted pregnancy during those years.

  • http://H Noelle Bowles

    I understand why someone would be against abortions, but preventing women from having access to a safe, legal procedure is not the way to lower abortion rates. Many women already feel that they don’t have a choice, because it is so difficult to care for a child when you are young and uneducated.

    Undead of outlawing abortions, maybe conservatives should consider making birth control in multiple forms accessible to everyone, for free or at a very low cost. In addition, if here is some kind of contraceptive failure, there should be government subsidized daycare, paid maternity leave, and free healthcare. In France, they send a government-paid nanny to help you around the house when you have a baby. They reward those who choose live birth, instead of punishing them by withholding government help.

    Conservatives have got to realize that they are going to have to dish out a little money for those babies once they’re born. Why is a baby only a precious miracle when it’s in the womb? Why is there no sanctity in life that has already been born? I’m fine with family values, but for everyone’s sake, practice what you preach.

  • MV

    According to the lifespan development text I am currently studying, about 70 percent of zygotes fail to survive to birth. The difference between a zygote, fetus and a baby is definitely not just time.

    It’s interesting that those opposed to abortion seem to ignore spontaneous abortions. One could conclude that they were being dishonest.

  • Vas

    timberwraith said…

    …as a straight person, RobertW has also devoted quite a bit of verbiage in telling LGBT people which form of romantic and sexual intimacy is best for them. He features prominently in several discussions of LGBT issues here at Friendly Atheist. At least he’s consistent in waving his privilege around.

    Thanks for the heads up, (I already knew) this should be a standard post when Robert the resident troll rears his ugly head. Also it’s worth pointing out that Robert the troll is also a chump and if you fancy a bit of troll baiting he is an easy mark. Toss him any loaded question to expose his vile nature and he will blindly take the bait, although he will stop if you let him know he has been suckered after the fact. Robert the troll might even be a POE. Sadly it seems for Robert it is not enough to be in a privileged class, he like to rub peoples noses in it as well. A “let them eat cake” attitude ends with a head on a pike Robert, you might want to stop lobbying for the oppression of others.

  • mr.fibble

    the god squad use medicine logic like bible logic ie its ok in so long as its something that they want ie they would not have an abortion so no one esle should the same way they interpret the bible to fit in with what they think regardless of the fact the bible probably states teh exact opposite somewhere else. another thing is they think its perfectly ok to “save a life” as thats god decision not ours but then think its perfectly ok to have a heart transplant rather than just dying so I guess its ok it disagree with god when it suits you

  • Noelle

    Although I am a firm believer in choice, I can understand why someone would be anti-abortion. But, what I will never understand is why someone would be so anti-abortion that they are willing to set back women’s rights.

    If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one.

    The solution to bringing the abortion rate down is not making safe, legal procedures inaccessible (or only available in public). The solution is to make them the less desirable option. If conservatives are so concerned with the sanctity of life, perhaps they should put their money where their mouths are, and dish out a little cash to help new mothers. Subsidize daycares, allow paid maternity leave, and for goodness’ sake, at least give free healthcare to them. Why is a child only important when he or she is in the womb?

    I am so tired of the “give it up for adoption” argument, too. There are plenty of children out in the world already who are looking for loving homes, and who may never find one. There is no reason why a country our size should not be able to provide care for new mothers and their children. Our total GDP is $14.256 trillion. We use less than 17% of that on social spending. It’s time to amp it up. If a country as tiny as Denmark can do it, then we have no excuse. It’s true that they have a population the size of Maryland, but they use 50% of their $313.825 billion (USD) GDP on social spending. Just imagine if we spent 50% of our $14.256 trillion on healthcare, education, childcare, and more. We could truly be the great land that we keep advertising ourselves to be.

    I am all for family values, but if you don’t practice what you preach, then your so-called values are totally worthless.

  • http://www.noforbiddenquestions.com NFQ

    In my AP Bio class in high school someone did a final project (after the AP exams were over) where they shadowed a surgeon and presented about it. She had watched a rhinoplasty (nose job) and she brought a poster full of photographs of it. It was one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen.

    I imagine most medical procedures that involve any amount of blood would disgust us if we had to watch them all the time. That’s not a reason to outlaw them, as others have already said. Just adding my +1.

  • Cortex

    Actually, if they were all done in public, they’d become just another mundane part of everyday life. This is even true of legitimately tragic sights, like homelessness.

    I suppose angelic choirs would be a nice improvement over peeing on a stick, though.

  • Flecha

    My opinion? Anyone who has no part in putting that fetus in my womb has any business telling me what to do with it.

    Her ignorance is simply staggering. Oh, to be 21 and so influenced by others to where she believes her opinion is her own. SO out of touch with having her own uterus involved!

    Rich, white and protected. Easy for her to be what she is.

  • Steve

    I imagine most medical procedures that involve any amount of blood would disgust us if we had to watch them all the time.

    Nah. Unless you have an aversion to blood, you get used to it.

    The most disgusting thing is necrotic tissue or bacterial infections. Not so much because of the look, but the smell. Truly horrible and breathing through the mouth doesn’t help one bit.

  • Bob

    @RobertW:

    Calling a fetus an ‘unborn child’ does not change the fact that the fetus is not fully developed and cannot survive outside of the mother’s womb.

    Beyond which, Ms. Rose is associated with a ‘undercover’ hack job – the taping of PPA personnel and editing the video to make it seem like they’re butchering babies.

    So if you’re going to defend ‘fact’ and ‘truth’ – well, you need to keep better company and/or choose better role-models.

  • Cortex

    I don’t see RobertW as a troll. I see him as the grain of sand that agitates this blog-community into a beautiful pearl.

  • Nicoline

    Let us first do all we can to make abortion unnecessary and THEN we’ll talk, OK? Meanwhile, maybe we should consider having public dentistry, like in the Middle Ages, so no one will want to go to the dentist, or public stomach banding surgery, so no one will want to get morbidly obese. How about public pap smears or mammograms? Public child birth might help, too. Or perhaps public executions… wait, didn’t the Taliban have those?

  • http://askanatheist.tv/ pinkocommie

    I love the pro-lifers response – She used a gimmick on the video to make a point, but you guys are paying too much attention to the gimmick! For shame! Hahaha.

    If only we would watch the video, have it affect us the way you’d like and have it change our minds the way you’d hope – but we just keep stubbornly not doing that.

    Must be because we love killing babies.

    Riiiight.

    (Also for no reason – Hitler)

  • http://anthropogenesis.blogspot.com/ anthropogenesis

    It is very easy to speak about other people’s lives without ever having to experience the situation. I hope she never gets to need an abortion, in a disastrous moment as that would be she wouldn’t like to do it in public.

  • http://pinkydead.blogspot.com David McNerney

    If “The only difference is time”, then when a woman who fight off a rapist is killing a potential child – given not much more time.

    The only real difference, however, is our perception of what the fetus/unborn child is. The fetus itself doesn’t care – and any argument that says that they would care if they were allowed to develop is a philosophical flight of fancy.

    The important thing is what it is – not what it might be. It might be a lot of things.

    (Of course, what it is very often is a desperately wanted child for the mother – but if it’s not, it’s not.)

  • RT Butte

    @anthropogenesis

    Whenever I see or hear someone talking about “doing away” with abortion, deep down I hope she gets pregnant and needs an abortion, because I know that she’ll go and get one, just like every other pro-lifer. She will go and get an abortion, because her Circumstances are Just So Very Special, and She Really Needs an Abortion, but it’s still Wronger Than Hitler.

  • http://Kellyinjapanese.wordpress.com Kelly

    Why don’t we just have all medical procedures done in public? Then when people get sick of watching, we can just pray really hard instead of actually doing something constructive.

  • Noel

    “I know exactly what an abortion is. What is interesting is those that try to claim it is something less then killing an unborn child. which it is, regardless of the stage of development. The only difference is time.”

    Understand the inherent contradiction in the term, “unborn child.” Perceive the overriding value you place on that entity over the actual bearer of that mass of cells whose extence is absolutely, objectively, far more important, far more valuable, than said unborn child.

    The contention isn’t around that it’s killing. It is that it’s murder. We kill insects, cattle, and terrorists all the time.

    Time is not the “only” difference. Time is THE meaningful difference. Not all life is instrinically precious and equal and deserving of the same treatment.

    Actual life, the value of Man qua Man, supercedes the potential, latent value of a fetus. That is the rational standard. Everything else is mystical, intrinsicist nonsense.

  • ButchKitties

    I know exactly what an abortion is. What is interesting is those that try to claim it is something less then killing an unborn child. which it is, regardless of the stage of development. The only difference is time.

    No, the only difference is development. DNA does not an instant person make, unless you believe in magic. Identical twins are not the same person – and it’s their development that makes them separate people, not their DNA. A chimera is not two people, and it’s development that makes that distinction. Life and death are not exact moments. They are cyclical processes. Which isn’t to say there aren’t important thresholds. In the case of death, the permanent cessation of cerebral cortex activity is a significant threshold. It’s moral to remove life support in such a case, even if the brain stem and heart are still operational, because the part of the brain that contains the personality is gone. In the case of a first trimester abortion, the part of the brain that contains the personality doesn’t exist yet. (And no, the cerebral cortex does not start functioning at 40 days gestation. That myth is based on what is basically a typo in a 50 year old opinion paper.) When it comes to abortion, the threshold that matters the most is birth.

    When there’s a blood shortage, the blood bank might call me and promise me free t-shirts and concert tickets, but nobody tells me that I have to donate. If a child is sick with leukemia, nobody forces his deadbeat dad to donate bone marrow. If a child needs a new heart and a suitable match just died in the ER, nobody takes the heart from the corpse without permission from his family or written directives. We have ruled over and over that from a legal standpoint, one person’s right to life does not override another person’s right to bodily autonomy. Even if a fetus is a person, which I do not believe it is, it has no to live in a woman’s uterus without her permission.

    If you really think a blastocyst is a person, I have to ask you this hypothetical question. You are in a burning fertility clinic. You have time to save one, but not both, of the following options. Which do you choose?

    1. You can run to the clinic’s daycare area and save the 8 year old child who is waiting for his mother there.

    2. You can run to the clinic’s lab and wheel out a self refrigerating unit containing ten frozen embryos.

    If abortion is killing an unborn child, then surely you would choose to save ten unborn children over one born child, right?

  • Hugh

    Damn, I hate it when a hot chick is also an extreme-right nutjob – I felt the same way about Christine O’Donnell.

  • http://annainca.blogspot.com Anna

    What I find interesting is that these fundamentalists seem to have the notion that abortion is an invention of the 20th century. Safe, surgical abortion has indeed been a product of the last century, but women have been terminating (or trying to terminate) unwanted pregnancies since antiquity. The uproar seems odd to me, considering that Christians have never unanimously deemed abortion immoral. Not now, and certainly not centuries ago.

  • Victoria

    You know how I know this theory wouldn’t work? Conservatives have been spouting off shit like this in public for quite some time, and a rather large group of people are pretty damn sick of them…but they still haven’t gone away/been done away with. Just sayin’.

  • Steve

    There is in fact nothing whatsoever in the Bible that calls for that position. On the contrary. What little there is, shows that little value was placed on unborn life.

    As with a lot of other issues, Judaism has much more sensible and practical positions than Christianity here. Embryos are only life after 40 days. So before that abortions are fine, depending on the circumstances. Abortions are also clearly allowed when the mother’s life is in danger – even under strict interpretations.

  • altar ego

    And I suppose that when IVF is performed and most of the fertilized eggs…er…PRECIOUS BABIEZ are removed from the uterus, that should be in public, too? Because, you know, these silly women just don’t know what they’re doing when they make a choice to have an abortion.

  • altar ego

    @ Noelle–have you read “The Girls that Went Away”? It is an excellent book about young (mostly white) women in the ’50s and ’60s giving their babies up for abortion. It provides a whole new perspective to the “just” give them up for adoption bit.

  • Bobby

    I am not against all abortion. If a woman is raped, or her life is in danger, fine, go ahead. However, if her and her partner knew going in that having sex without contraceptives had a chance of getting her pregnant, she should not be allowed to get an abortion. They chose to have unprotected sex, and so should have to deal with the consequences, both the male and the female. It is not a matter of morality, it is a matter of taking responsibility for your actions. I understand that this view may make me unpopular, however, the same people arguing for the right to choose are also usually the people who want people to own up to their misdeeds. I know a lot of people who are pro-choice who also condemn criminal suspects as guilty right away and say they deserve to be punished for what they supposedly did without even giving the person a chance to prove their innocence. A lot of the debate can be traced to people who don’t want responsibility, and people with religious prejudice. Not all, but a lot. So think about what side you’re on.

  • altar ego

    @ Bobby, I understand your point, I really do. But if people (teenagers, mostly) were truly educated about the risks of unprotected sex, and had access to condoms and birth control, then how many would really run that risk? Especially since the stigma on abortion is so high?

    I also think that “owning up to your responsibility” is bad for the child. How fair is that to the children that are unwanted? I am pro-choice partly because I am pro-life; I believe that every child should come into the world wanted, not as a punishment to irresponsible people. If they’re really that irresponsible in the first place anyway, how are they going to care for a kid?

    I am on the side of the woman. Always. We’re not stupid; I promise. Trust me–as much as abortion/pregnancy/babies!/contraception gets publicized, it reminds us that our reproductive systems and rights are constantly under debate. And at least for me, that makes me take sexual decisions very seriously because I know that if I get pregnant, I begin to lose rights.

  • alex

    this stupid stupid girl, whats the bet shes been to a christian hell house, and expects the doctor to suck out a living breathing baby and cut its head off? Speaking from experience its nothing like that. I will NEVER listen to a pro lifers opinion on abortion until they have actually sat down with a few women who have experienced it and have gone though a clinic, then maybe ill listen to what you have to say about it. But you can just stuff right off if youve never had any experience with the matter and you get on the television preaching about pro life, SHUT THE HELL UP you dontt know what youre talking about! As you can tell having a personal experience with abortion this gets me fired up.

  • http://www.phoenixgarage.org/ cr0sh

    RT Butte:
    Whenever I see or hear someone talking about “doing away” with abortion, deep down I hope she gets pregnant and needs an abortion, because I know that she’ll go and get one, just like every other pro-lifer. She will go and get an abortion, because her Circumstances are Just So Very Special, and She Really Needs an Abortion, but it’s still Wronger Than Hitler.

    “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion”

    When the Anti-Choice Choose

    By Joyce Arthur

  • http://H Noelle Bowles

    @ alter ego: I am up for reading any new books. I’m not sure if you are just recommending a good read that aligns with my statement, or trying to refute what I said. Either way, I will read it. I do want to make it clear that I think giving a baby up for adoption is just fine, but should not be used as a reason to outlaw abortion. As another commentor said, every baby should be brought into this world already wanted. And for those mothers who do want a child, there should be good resources to help them raise it.

  • MikeW

    Great idea. Let’s also make all appendectomies public too, until people get sick of them!

  • Kawaikunai

    Yeah, and I’m sure that their side’s crazy protestors would leave the women having abortions in public in peace.

  • elricthemad

    Okay first the tongue-in-cheek response to the silly notion of requiring abortions to be public. Will menstruation and male masturbation have to be public also? Those are half unborn babies; millions of them in the case of masturbation. Is every sperm sacred? Every egg?

    On to my more serious comment now. While i realize not all (perhaps not even most) anti-abortion activists are Catholic, i still wonder how many of them realize that abortion was not forbidden by the Vatican until the nineteenth century. More recent than the US Civil War. I got this from Fighting Words by Robin Morgan (pg 78) so if this is not in fact true, someone please let me know.

    One last thought. Global climate change, dwindling fossil fuel, wars over resources and many many other issues facing the world today are a direct consequence of over population. Forcing women to bring unwanted pregnancies to term does not help this situation. Neither does the quiver full movement, but that is a separate rant.

  • http://atheistweb.org Chris

    Lila Rose is sick.

  • Bronco

    Noelle is bang on the button. Conservative US (it’s all rightwing) is the worst country in the first world to have a child. No paid maternity leave, no government help and if you don’t have health insurance, good luck; if you do, you have 48 hours before they kick you out. Rightwingers talk a lot but they don’t act because the net profit US Inc makes by not giving social benefits is more important than any life.

  • Cortex

    @Bobby,

    Why should they have to deal with those consequences? We have the technology to remove the consequence, so why shouldn’t they be able to use it as they see fit?

    I suppose if I forget to wash my hands, I shouldn’t be allowed to take antibiotics if I catch some infection from a doorknob somewhere. I must take responsibility for my actions, after all.

    The fact that you directly compare a consensual act of sexual intercourse to a crime is telling. You want to punish people for having sex, a woman’s basic right to autonomy over her own body be damned.

  • Brian

    Ask any thinking fetus if it wishes to be birthed into this kind of nation. Ask any thinking adult if it would live its useless, stupid, empty life again. Women who love CHILDREN abort their fetuses. Anyone who loves children would never demand they live through this awful life.

  • Robert W

    Bob,

    Calling a fetus an ‘unborn child’ does not change the fact that the fetus is not fully developed and cannot survive outside of the mother’s womb.

    So what difference does it make that it is dependent on its mother for its continued development. That will be the same for the child for years after it is born that it will be dependent on others for survival.

    Noel,

    I am truly saddened that you value life differently depending upon the potential it may have. That raises all sorts of moral questions about who has the right to decide who determines what life is valuable. Is an adult more valuable then a child? Is a younger adult more valuable then an older one with disease? Start going down that path and you are in for a sick society.

    The bottom line is what the speaker was alluding to and which has been borne our in your comments. For all the talk in liberal circles about caring for the vulnerable, the innocent, the down trodden, the discriminated, all of that evaporates when you are talking about the unborn child. Because you choose completely illogically and solely for the purpose of convenience to claim that this unborn child is not a life so we can do with it what we want. It is sad and frightening.

    Now before the responses I might receive and in response to others already here, I am all for attempting to stop unwanted pregnancy through education and contraceptives. I am also all for and actually personally support care for the young girls who get pregnant. However, most abortions are not by these young girls that you use as examples. Most of them are by fully adult women who have previously had abortions and who have other options. They are not doing it because they were raped,or because their life is in danger or because they are too young. A large percentage are married. They do it for convenience. And in those instances I say that life, even the potential for life outweighs a lady’s desire for convenience everyday.

    Bluderigelady,

    You claim that I am privileged and sexist because I am pro-life. You don’t know me or what I do but I can tell you that this assessment if very wrong. Regardless, I don’t care about your opinion and will continue to be vocal to protect the unborn. But I am curious, if all males that speak out for pro-life are sexist, what are the women who do so?

  • Robert W

    Cortex,

    Why should they have to deal with those consequences? We have the technology to remove the consequence, so why shouldn’t they be able to use it as they see fit?

    Why should the innocent pay for the mistake of others?

    Brian,

    Ask any thinking fetus if it wishes to be birthed into this kind of nation. Ask any thinking adult if it would live its useless, stupid, empty life again. Women who love CHILDREN abort their fetuses. Anyone who loves children would never demand they live through this awful life.

    I seriously doubt this. And life doesn’t have to be senseless or worthless. I can see where that comes from the atheists worldview where we are just a random group of atoms that arrived here by chance, but it isn’t the case. God created us with destiny in our hearts. We have a sense of purpose and he need to find it. If you are feeling worthless and that life is senseless, there is another way.

  • http://geo-geek.blogspot.com Rachael

    One reason I do not currently want to have children is that I’m very aware that I live in a country where I have fewer rights if I’m pregnant. I’m aware that I live in a country where quite a few people think the existence of a zygote is more important than a life I’ve already put thirty years in to. And that I live in a country where many people think I’m too stupid to be able to make difficult decisions or understand what is best for me and for my family. And Lila Rose (and Robert W, it seems) is just another sign of that awful truth, that there’s a large number of people that seem to think a woman’s uterus is public property that others should be allowed to control.

    Children should be a choice. Children should be loved and wanted and not a punishment.

    And Robert W, men who speak out against women’s rights are misogynists. And so are women that speak out against women’s rights. There’s a starting number of women that also believe women shouldn’t be trusted, that women are simply vessels to carry fetuses to term, that the life of a woman is less valuable than the existence of a zygote or fetus, and that children are an appropriate punishment for sexual behavior that they disapprove of. It’s a sad world we live in.

    I’ve volunteered to help out a friend of mine, working with children from high poverty and violent families from time to time. I find it sad that all the energy directed toward “protecting” the “unborn” evaporates when those children are born and living in horrific environments that sometimes render them completely unable to function as adults in normal society. For some bizarre reason, the plight of a child who had his legs thrust into a pot of boiling water by his meth addict father is far more real and pressing to me than that of a zygote falling out of my uterus after the application of the morning after pill.

  • Cortex

    RobertW,

    Why should the innocent pay for the mistake of others?

    Embryos are not participants in society, therefore they do not have social qualities. Where there is no potential for guilt, innocence is meaningless.

  • Cortex

    Brian,

    I don’t know you, and maybe you’re just joking, but that is some pretty messed-up stuff, there. If that’s how you really feel, there are people who can help.

  • Robert W.

    Rachael,

    Children should be a choice. Children should be loved and wanted and not a punishment.

    I agree, but I disagree that once they are here, even if they were not wanted that they deserve to be killed. It is admirable that you help with abused children. That is horrible when that happens. But unlike you, i think that killing a child who isn’t born is just as bad as abusing and harming a child that is born. I don’t make the distinction that you do in that regard.

    Cortex

    Between the three people involved, the man, the women and the child, who is innocent? It is be belief that the person who had no choice in the matter is innocent and shouldn’t face the penalty for t hose who did have a choice.

  • Bob

    So what difference does it make that it is dependent on its mother for its continued development. That will be the same for the child for years after it is born that it will be dependent on others for survival.

    Robert -

    There’s a distinct difference between a baby, that can be fed and raised and educated by any number of humans … and a fetus.

    A sperm and an ova in a petri dish are not a child, no matter how much you wish it to be so.

    Secondly, stay the fuck out of my wife’s uterus.

  • Cortex

    RobertW,

    How do you define “person?” What criteria must an object meet to be considered a person?

  • bernerbits

    However, most abortions are not by these young girls that you use as examples. Most of them are by fully adult women who have previously had abortions and who have other options. They are not doing it because they were raped,or because their life is in danger or because they are too young. A large percentage are married. They do it for convenience.

    Robert,

    I certainly hope you’re prepared to back this assertion up with a credible source.

  • The Captain

    This is exactly why I wish more pro-abortion advocates would confront anti-abortionist about their views in public. Too often the pro-abortion side frames their arguments in “personal choice” and “women’s rights” without directly confronting the anti-abortionist on their ridiculous beliefs, and lies. For instance.

    Robert W said

    “I am truly saddened that you value life differently depending upon the potential it may have. That raises all sorts of moral questions about who has the right to decide who determines what life is valuable. Is an adult more valuable then a child? Is a younger adult more valuable then an older one with disease? Start going down that path and you are in for a sick society.”

    Well apparently Robert thinks Robert is the one to tell others what life is and is not valuable, or he would have no opinion on abortion in the first place. And second… we already live in a society that does that! Seriously, have you never heard of the phrase “women and children first”. Well now we can see the kinds of ideal society people like Robert want, one in which the women and children do not get on the lifeboats first on a sinking ship, because you don’t want to “value” them more than the men. Now THAT is a “sick” society.

    But all of that is secondary to the fact that a fetus is not a human “life” in the first place.

  • Robert W.

    Bernerbits,

    Here is a good summary. The data comes from the CDC.

    http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/

    Cortex,

    There is no need to get into that discussion. Anything after conception is arbitrary. For example, a lady who miscarries a pregnancy in the fifth week or the twentieth week will mourn the loss of a child, not the loss of a zygote or a fetus.

  • Cortex

    RobertW,

    So the personhood of a fetus is determined by the mother’s feelings? I think we’ve found a point of agreement. If the mother decides it’s a child, it’s a child. If she doesn’t, then it’s not.

  • Robert W.

    Captian,

    Way to miss the point. All life, born and unborn is valuable and should be treasured. To classify unborn life as “not life” or not worthy of life because it is just potential is where the harm is because you are making judgment calls on the value of life. How you got that out of that people who value all life would not put women and children in a life raft first is beyond me. They would because they are trying to protect the more vulnerable and because men would theoretically have a better chance of survival.

  • Robert W.

    Cortex,

    No i don’t think we are in agreement. How said that the worth of a life is dependent upon the feelings of the mother. My point was simply that setting a particular point any time after conception is arbitrary. If you say its brainwaves, then you are at about 6 to 8 weeks, if you say a heartbeat you are less then 10 weeks, if you say working organ you are at about 12 weeks, if you say viability you are at about 23 weeks. At either point it is an arbitrary line to justify other actions.

  • The Captain

    Robert

    I got that from your direct quote “That raises all sorts of moral questions about who has the right to decide who determines what life is valuable. Is an adult more valuable then a child?”

    Like I said we already do that. Women and children are saved from disasters first. That IS the determination of who is more valuable. Who has the better chance of survivability in many disasters is not a concern. Many, many times those involved know they will die. But they still attempt to save the women and children first… because they value them more. Or do you think the men on the Titanic though they where going to swim to Newfoundland?

    Also you need to define “life”, and why I should be legally forced to follow YOUR definition of it. A cow is “life” and it is not “treasured”. It’s on a plate.

  • The Captain

    “. My point was simply that setting a particular point any time after conception is arbitrary. If you say its brainwaves, then you are at about 6 to 8 weeks, if you say a heartbeat you are less then 10 weeks, if you say working organ you are at about 12 weeks, if you say viability you are at about 23 weeks. At either point it is an arbitrary line to justify other actions.”

    arbitrary |?ärbi?trer?|
    adjective: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

    The use of criteria such as “brain waves” “heart beat” “viability” to determine what is a human life may or may not be correct, but the very use of those criteria to set up a system that is not random to determine such things is the exact opposite of “arbitrary”!

  • cortex

    Of course it’s arbitrary, RobertW! Personhood is a social construction!

    In your vain quest to remove arbitrariness from your definition of a person, you have simultaneously removed from your definition everything that gives the human person value. The capacity for thought, and for exchanging thoughts with others; the ability to grant or deny affection; being a participant within a community – when you equate a being possessing these qualities with something that simply exists and contains a full set of human genes, you actually make human life seem less valuable, not more.

  • bernerbits

    Robert,

    I’m glad that you linked to a site that posted links back to the reporting organizations, a research group funded by PP and the CDC. But you seem to be digging yourself into a hole.

    You:

    Most of them are by fully adult women who have previously had abortions and who have other options.

    The CDC:

    Abortion ratios were highest for adolescents aged <15 years (764 per 1,000 live births) and lowest for women aged 30–34 years (140 per 1,000)

    The Guttmacher Institute:

    half have had at least one previous abortion

    You:

    They are not doing it because they were raped,or because their life is in danger

    I found no basis for this in either of the reports linked by the site you gave me. Where is your evidence for this?

    You:

    or because they are too young.

    The CDC:

    Abortion ratios were highest for adolescents aged <15 years (764 per 1,000 live births) and lowest for women aged 30–34 years (140 per 1,000)

    Less than fifteen years, Robert. Are you really suggesting a 13-year-old who gets pregnant should be forced to carry a fetus to term?

    You:

    A large percentage are married. They do it for convenience.

    The CDC (same quote as above):

    the highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were known to be unmarried (81%),

    Robert, I really sympathize with the plight of pro-life people. I understand that you believe with great conviction that a fertilized ovum is a human with rights and I understand why you would fight so fervently to protect it.

    What I don’t understand is why pro-life supporters lie all the damn time about abortion statistics. You only weaken your case when you do this.

    How said that the worth of a life is dependent upon the feelings of the mother. My point was simply that setting a particular point any time after conception is arbitrary. If you say its brainwaves, then you are at about 6 to 8 weeks, if you say a heartbeat you are less then 10 weeks, if you say working organ you are at about 12 weeks, if you say viability you are at about 23 weeks. At either point it is an arbitrary line to justify other actions.

    I think the problem lies in attempting to draw a line in the sand at all. However, saying that because there’s no clear, obvious dividing line between a cell cluster and personhood, that an ovum one microsecond after fertilization is every bit as much a human life as a fully developed newborn, is the same as saying it’s every bit as much daytime at 12:00 Midnight as it is at 10:00 in the morning because there’s no clear, obvious dividing line between day and night.

  • Michael

    Honey, you should be f**ked in your ass in the Public Square……

  • bernerbits

    Also you need to define “life”, and why I should be legally forced to follow YOUR definition of it. A cow is “life” and it is not “treasured”. It’s on a plate.

    Hey, cows are certainly revered in some religions. But that sort of proves your point.

  • http://twitter.com/alexandra_opny Lexy

    Hey guys I just wanted to say that watching men stick up for women’s rights and straight people stick up for LGBT rights is the reason I’m so fucking happy I’m an atheist!

  • Tina S

    What do these people think abortion is?! I am so sick of this! Do they have no comprehension that birth control fails? Not even sterilization is 100 percent effective? She is 21. She knows nothing.

  • Eliza

    Robert W. wrote:

    Anything after conception is arbitrary. For example, a lady who miscarries a pregnancy in the fifth week or the twentieth week will mourn the loss of a child, not the loss of a zygote or a fetus.

    Is this one of your usual approaches? Speaking as someone who has had (in the past 26 years) 2 miscarriages, 1 abortion, and 1 full-term pregnancy resulting in a live birth, I can assure you that you do not speak for “ladies” in describing what YOU think they/we feel or should feel.

    Women who choose abortion are typically RELIEVED to have the pregnancy end, not that this feeling may not also be tinged with regret for what might have been, had the situation been different. Women who have miscarriages have a RANGE of responses, from relief to sanguine acceptance to remorse and despair. But those who mourn after miscarriage (or abortion), no matter how intense that mourning, are reacting to the loss of a possibility, a POTENTIAL child, which MIGHT HAVE resulted from that pregnancy if things had gone differently.

  • Anna

    The majority of abortions are done early and with an injection, not surgery. Just goes to show how these people don’t know what they are talking about.

  • http://~ AxeGrrl

    Carlie wrote:

    So I assume “doing away with” abortions means comprehensive sex education starting in schools before puberty hits and providing free open access to contraceptives of all sorts to anyone of reproductive age? Because that’s the best way to make sure abortions don’t need to happen.

    You nailed it Carlie.

  • http://~ AxeGrrl

    Vas wrote:

    …when Robert the resident troll rears his ugly head. Also it’s worth pointing out that Robert the troll is also a chump and if you fancy a bit of troll baiting he is an easy mark

    I feel the need to speak up here ~ I almost always disagree with what Robert W says, but I don’t classify him as a ‘troll’. I’m convinced that he sincerely believes everything he says and doesn’t post just to ‘stir things up’ ~ in that regard, I think he partcipates in good faith….

    Even if (as I said), we’re almost always on opposite sides of an argument.

  • http://~ AxeGrrl

    Steve wrote:

    … Judaism has much more sensible and practical positions than Christianity here. Embryos are only life after 40 days.

    Ok, I’ll ask the question….

    What’s the “sensible” reason behind the ’40 days’ determination?

  • http://~ AxeGrrl

    Lexy wrote:

    watching men stick up for women’s rights and straight people stick up for LGBT rights is the reason I’m so fucking happy I’m an atheist!

    Hey Lexy, given your comment, it sounds like you’d really be interested in a great interview with Greta Christina titled “Being an Atheist in the Queer Community”

    Her insights are interesting and somewhat unexpected :)

  • Indigo

    “Honey, you should be f**ked in your ass in the Public Square……”

    Can we please not inject this kind of thing into a discussion about women’s rights? Actually, can we not ever suggest that rape or rough sex is an appropriate “punishment” for women saying something we disagree with?

  • http://criticallyskeptic.blogspot.com Kevin, Critically Skeptic

    I used to be “pro-life” but now I understand the reason for pro-choice thinking. Women die for choice, and this is despicable. To treat a woman as less important than anyone else, to slut-shame and to deny her bodily autonomy is disgusting. “Pro-life” is really an anti-woman stance. It’s funny how people say “the couple should take responsibility” without realizing the only person who will have to suffer the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy is the woman. If the pregnancy goes through, then the child will suffer the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. If by some miracle, the father is still in the picture, then that would be fine, but as mentioned above, the majority of women having abortions are really young or unmarried – and the chances a man (or boy) would stay in such a relationship are really, really slim.

  • Robert W.

    Bernerbits,

    I think I was accurate with maybe the exception that a large percentage are married ( although this is 18% which is significant). The statistics reveal that less then 1% of abortions are for young ladies under 15, 47% are for women who have already had an abortion and most importantly that the vast majority are done for convenience, not because of rape or to save the life of the mother.

    Eliza,

    But those who mourn after miscarriage (or abortion), no matter how intense that mourning, are reacting to the loss of a possibility, a POTENTIAL child, which MIGHT HAVE resulted from that pregnancy if things had gone differently.

    That maybe what you mourned, however, when my wife and I experienced our miscarriage we mourned the death of our child, not our potential child.

    Axegirl,

    Thank you for the kind words. Yes I do believe what I say. I am trying to give you guys a different perspective on these topics from a Christian point of view.

  • Steve

    @AxeGrrl

    What’s the “sensible” reason behind the ’40 days’ determination?

    The time limit itself is arbitrary and doesn’t make that much sense. But the practical consequence of it is a much more compassionate and humane treatment of the whole issue. It simply leaves room for options without resorting to extremist positions like in Christianity.

  • stogoe

    What’s the “sensible” reason behind the ’40 days’ determination?

    To be fair, Steve did say “more sensible…than Christianity”. ’40 days’ is more sensible than ‘NEVER EVER EVER (unless I need one, but never for the rest of you)’ in the same way that ‘The earth is a perfect sphere’ is more correct than ‘the earth is flat’. While they’re both wrong, there are degrees of wrongness at work here.

  • Mike

    “I’m willing to make her a deal: all

    abortions will be done in public as long as all acts that could result in needing an abortion are also done in public.

    Hey, it makes as much sense as her suggestion does…”

    Actually, it makes more sense. At least bystanders could say, “Hey buddy, here’s a condom…”

  • bernerbits

    The statistics reveal that less then 1% of abortions are for young ladies under 15, 47% are for women who have already had an abortion and most importantly that the vast majority are done for convenience, not because of rape or to save the life of the mother.

    Robert. You made a bunch of false assertions about abortion statistics, linked me to a site that cited studies which completely undermined your statement, then when I called you on it, you re-asserted your claim.

    The 47% statistic doesn’t say anything except that women who are likely to seek an abortion are women who are likely to seek an abortion.

    The statistics also said that while less than 1% of adolescents under 15 received abortions, 76% of adolescents under 15 who got pregnant did receive them. It also puts 43% of all abortions between the ages of 15 and 24, and well over half in young women in their twenties. The age statistics show that abortions increase with average age of first sexual experience, but they also decrease as women get older and more mature.

    You also conveniently left this one out:

    Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).

    These findings are all pretty damn consistent with both young couples being flaky with birth control due to poor educational standards, and older couples being better equipped to raise a child as they become more established.

    The statistics also show that while 1% of abortion cases are rape cases, half of abortions are performed on at-risk mothers:

    About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[1,9]

    Finally, I assume you’re getting your “done for convenience” statistic from this paragraph:

    The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

    In other words, rather than let the data speak for itself, you chose to give us your interpretation of it. The vast majority of abortions are done by women who know they are ill-equipped to raise a child. For those women, choosing to complete a pregnancy is irresponsible.

    And does the fact that there are relatively few young teenagers and rape victims seeking abortions really mean it’s OK to force that “insignificant” minority to carry their pregnancies to term, just because you don’t think the majority has an excuse?

  • http://criticallyskeptic.blogspot.com Kevin, Critically Skeptic

    @Robert W:

    Of course some people who have a miscarriage are going to mourn. They seriously wanted the child. Just because they may happen to be pro-choice and in another situation may have wanted to abort doesn’t mean they have the same feelings about every one of their pregnancies.

    This is the thing. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion (as The Captain seems to be claiming.) I would be happy if the only abortions done were those that were medically necessary, but not because I’d ban all others, but because contraception and sexual education are both available freely and without fear of harassment.

    I’m pro-choice because I believe an adult woman has perfect claim to be able to decide what she can do with her body. If that choice is to remove an unwanted zygote from her uterus, so be it. If that choice is to carry the child to term and have a baby, so be it. No one should get in the way of what she wants to do, anyone saying otherwise is truly anti-woman.

  • Drew M.

    @cr0sh

    That was an interesting article. One of my college friends was anti-abortion until she got too drunk at a party and was raped. After a lot of soul-searching, she decided that her situation warranted an abortion.

    Unlike the women in that article, however, she was honest enough to become pro-choice afterwards. Of course, she wasn’t a picketer in the first place – I think it takes a few loose marbles in the noggin to do that.

  • Robert W.

    BernerBits,

    I stand by what I said. The statistics bear out that the vast majority of abortions are by adult women not the young teenage girl that gets used as the example. They also show that less then 1% are for rape and that although you include women at risk, those are for social reasons, not health reasons. They also show that 47% of the women who have abortions have already had one.

    There is not doubt that women, particularly poor women who find themselves pregnant need help and support. I just disagree that the option should be to kill their unborn child.

  • Steven

    Though I perceive a real sincerity in Robert W’s anti-abortion views it doesn’t change the fact that neither he nor anyone else has the right to take away a person’s rights in regards to their own body. Like Robert,I know what it is like to lose a child and it can be difficult to understand how anyone could decide to terminate a pregnancy for anything other than medical reasons.
    It really doesn’t matter whether an ignorant 14-year old girl or a 30-something wife and mother is involved – the choice of whether or not to continue a pregnancy must belong to the woman. It has always been clear to me that if it were us (men) who could get pregnant then there probably wouldn’t be any issue. This call to ban abortions is not about protecting the unborn, it is about controlling women and punishing them for some imaginary sin.
    In a perfect world, every baby would be wanted and welcomed into the arms of a loving caregiver, but we don’t live in a perfect world. Outlawing abortions will simply force them underground – why not spend one’s energy trying to reduce the need for them by fighting for comprehensive sex education in our schools and better health care for new mothers and their children?

  • bernerbits

    They also show that 47% of the women who have abortions have already had one.

    And how do multiple abortions indicate “convenience?”

  • http://www.bluefrogdesignstudios.com/thebluefrogsays/ The Big Blue Frog

    The same could be said of any routine medical procedure. If colonoscopies were done on street corners at busy intersections, people would be outraged.

  • Freemage

    The problem is not that RobertW. does not know what an abortion entails. The problem is that RobertW. is completely clueless on what a pregnancy entails. Even the most ‘convenient’ pregnancy is nothing less than a massive sacrifice on the part of the mother–a sacrifice of her physical health, her mental health and her financial well-being.

    To force someone to undertake that sacrifice against their will is unconscionable and obscene. The trick is to understand that abortion, even if one accepts the pro-life definition of fetus = human, is not “killing a child”–it’s “choosing not to run into a burning building to save a child”. That’s not something I would ever hold against anyone.

  • ButchKitties

    @Bobby

    You say you aren’t making a moral statement, and that women who get pregnant should have to deal with the consequences. Trouble with your argument is: Getting an abortion IS dealing with the consequences. There are many ways of dealing with the consequences of a pregnancy, and abortion is one of them.

    I think you mean to say that women should deal with the consequences in a way you deem acceptable, and that is a moral stance, whether you can admit it or not.

  • Indigo

    So, Robert W, you interpret any abortion not performed on a rape victim or a woman in immediate danger of dying as “convenient”, and then declare that a majority of all women who abort do so out of convenience (the implication being “those lazy irresponsible sluts that they are”). Apparently, you think pregnancy is just an inconvenience.
    A badly-timed red light is an inconvenience. A broken pipe is an inconvenience. Your cell phone running out of minutes is an inconvenience. Pregnancy is a life- and body-changing nine-month event that screws with your physiology, costs thousands of dollars and interferes with your ability to work.
    Please tell the pregnant fourteen-year-old, or the mother of three she can barely feed already, or the scholarship student who needs to maintain an A average to stay at school, or the minimum-wage-earning young woman whose boyfriend just left her, that because of a broken condom or a missed pill or one moment of poor judgement, they’ll just have to deal with the “inconvenience”, probably for the rest of their lives.
    And if you can do that, you’re a worse person than most.

  • ButchKitties

    Robert, if you really think a blastocyst is a person, I have to ask you this hypothetical question. You are in a burning fertility clinic. You have time to save one, but not both, of the following options. Which do you choose?

    1. You can run to the clinic’s daycare area and save the 8 year old child who is waiting for his mother there.

    2. You can run to the clinic’s lab and wheel out a self refrigerating unit containing ten frozen embryos.

    Personally, I’m going to save the 8 year old, and I won’t feel the slightest bit of hesitation. That’s how I know that I truly believe that an embryo is not a person.

  • Deepak Shetty

    @Robert W
    Since you believe that any abortion is killing an *innocent baby* – do you believe the mothers are guilty of murder?

    @Cortex

    I don’t see RobertW as a troll. I see him as the grain of sand that agitates this blog-community into a beautiful pearl.

    I was thinking more along the lines of manure and flowers.

  • R.T.

    Robert

    What happens in and who uses a woman’s body is up to her. Her choice, not the choice of rabid dominionists who think they have rights to other peoples bodies, not YOU.

    The fact that you justify you sick attitude to others’ bodily autonomy with bronze age goat-herder myths is so repugnant, so evil, that you make the world a worse place by just existing.

    You turn life for others into the hell featured in your fantasy book.

  • Robert W.

    Freemage,

    The problem is not that RobertW. does not know what an abortion entails. The problem is that RobertW. is completely clueless on what a pregnancy entails. Even the most ‘convenient’ pregnancy is nothing less than a massive sacrifice on the part of the mother–a sacrifice of her physical health, her mental health and her financial well-being.

    I know exactly what it entails on both accounts. I have children. I know the toll on my wife’s body and the cost involved.
    Do you have children? If you do then you know what it entails as well. So what is the point? Nobody ever said that having or raising a child was easy. That really isn’t the point.

    To force someone to undertake that sacrifice against their will is unconscionable and obscene. The trick is to understand that abortion, even if one accepts the pro-life definition of fetus = human, is not “killing a child”–it’s “choosing not to run into a burning building to save a child”. That’s not something I would ever hold against anyone.

    No, its like saying I may start a fire that will burn the children, but don’t hold me responsible for starting the fire and if I do I’m not going to save them. If that was done in any other setting you would hold the person responsible and say they killed the child. Only in this context do you jump through mental gymnastics to reach a different conclusion.

    Indigo,

    Please tell the pregnant fourteen-year-old, or the mother of three she can barely feed already, or the scholarship student who needs to maintain an A average to stay at school, or the minimum-wage-earning young woman whose boyfriend just left her, that because of a broken condom or a missed pill or one moment of poor judgement, they’ll just have to deal with the “inconvenience”, probably for the rest of their lives.
    And if you can do that, you’re a worse person than most.

    So if you tell these same women, go ahead and kill your baby, then you are a better person? Death of the unborn child is a more moral choice then the nine months of problems and inconvenience until the unwanted child can be adopted? All of you ignore the other option of adoption, options which include alot of support to the pregnant lady until the baby is born.
    Understand that saving the unborn is not punishing the lady nor should it be viewed as such. But the child is innocent and is paying the cost for a mistake or careless behavior, or even an accident which is 100% preventable. In every other aspect of life this is not accepted, yet it is here.

    Butchkittie,

    This analogy is not consistent with abortion.

    Deepak,

    Since you believe that any abortion is killing an *innocent baby* – do you believe the mothers are guilty of murder?

    I believe that they are killing an innocent life intentionally so yes I consider it murder. In this country it isn’t. But ironically, a doctor who killed babies that happened to survive an abortion attempt after they were born is being charged with murder and his patients aren’t.

    R.T.,

    The fact that you justify you sick attitude to others’ bodily autonomy with bronze age goat-herder myths is so repugnant, so evil, that you make the world a worse place by just existing.

    So fighting for the life of the innocent is evil and is strictly the moral value system of the Christan Bible? It’s not.

  • R.T.

    Robert

    Again you assert that there are such things as “innocent” people whose rights trumps those of the “non-innocent” according to the Jewish heresy which is the Christian Bible.

    There are no such people, and what you are “fighting for” is the power to dictate what happens in a woman’s body without her consent or even consideration of her as a human being.

    Her choice; never yours.

  • Robert W.

    R.T.,

    Again you assert that there are such things as “innocent” people whose rights trumps those of the “non-innocent” according to the Jewish heresy which is the Christian Bible.

    Where else in our society are children not considered innocent? Even from a humanistic viewpoint, if the unborn child is considered a life it is worth saving and would be considered an innocent victim of the circumstances. Don’t read that to mean that their has to be a guilty party. I am using innocent in the terms of vulnerable and without power to protect itself.

  • Deepak Shetty

    Robert W

    I believe that they are killing an innocent life intentionally so yes I consider it murder

    And because this murder is premeditated and usually planned , the woman is guilty of first degree murder , correct? Since the punishment in first degree murder cases is usually permanent loss of freedom (and in some states the death penalty) that’s what you would like to see implemented?

  • bernerbits

    No, its like saying I may start a fire that will burn the children, but don’t hold me responsible for starting the fire and if I do I’m not going to save them. If that was done in any other setting you would hold the person responsible and say they killed the child. Only in this context do you jump through mental gymnastics to reach a different conclusion.

    This is the crux of it, I think.

    We already know Robert views any homosexual acts and any sexual activity outside of marriage as immoral, but from this we know he views regular sex, between any two people who are not able to raise a child together and would consider abortion an option, and regardless of any contraceptive precautions taken, as not just irresponsible but sociopathic, because he just compared it to arson.

  • Robert W.

    Bernerbits,

    We already know Robert views any homosexual acts and any sexual activity outside of marriage as immoral, but from this we know he views regular sex, between any two people who are not able to raise a child together and would consider abortion an option, and regardless of any contraceptive precautions taken, as not just irresponsible but sociopathic, because he just compared it to arson.

    No I consider it playing with fire and occasionally you get burned and need to face the consequences.

  • bernerbits

    All of you ignore the other option of adoption, options which include alot of support to the pregnant lady until the baby is born.

    Adoption is a fine choice, Robert, but it still comes with potential risks to the child. There is no guarantee that the adoptive parents will raise the child in a happy, nurturing environment. And you seem to think that a healthy, supportive environment negates all the difficulties inherent to pregnancy.

    And you still haven’t answered the question of why a spermatozoon and an ovum are not human beings with rights, but the combination thereof one microsecond after fertilization is. Yet you call any other definition arbitrary. Pot? I believe you know my friend Kettle.

  • bernerbits

    No I consider it playing with fire and occasionally you get burned and need to face the consequences.

    No. You compared it to someone intentionally lighting a fire and leaving the victims inside to die.

    If I accidentally start a grease fire in my kitchen and it sets the apartment building on fire, I am not liable for murder if I don’t run back in to save the other tenants.

  • Robert W.

    Bernerbits,

    I never said the fire was started intentionally. The analogy aside, people who have sex, even protected sex, understand that one of the risks, along with others is that they could create a baby. They are playing with fire, yet if the fire starts they don’t want to face the consequence in a manner that will protect the innocent victim of their choice.

    Once an egg is fertilized it has all the components it needs for life given the nourishment and time to develop barring a natural problem or an intentional stop to that development. To say that life doesn’t begin until some point after that is making an arbitrary choice in my opinion.

  • Freemage

    RobertW: You do realize that your “playing with fire” commentary directly contradicts your claim that you aren’t attempting to punish women for having sex, right? You want women to “suffer the consequences” for their actions–that’s called “punishment”.

    And it is precisely ‘the point’ that bearing a child is ‘not easy. A large portion of your earlier posts claimed women who got an abortion did so out of a desire for ‘convenience’. You’re deliberately using language that detracts from the immense sacrifice a woman makes when she does choose to bear a child to term (whether it’s then given up for adoption or raised by her is another irrelevancy–this is JUST about her right to not be cannibalized for another person’s well-being againt her will).

    As others noted, every time you use the stove, you’re running the risk (even if you’re being careful) of having something go horribly wrong and causing a fire. Yet we use the stove because it gives us a wider array of options to eat (you could always just live on chicken salad and some fruits, after all). It requires no act of malice for the fire to occur, any more than it does the pregnancy.

    Yes, the fetus is innocent. The innocent die all the time. Have you registered your DNA with the bone marrow registry, to help children suffering from leukemia? Offered to donate a kidney or portion of your liver? Hell, do you even donate blood regularly?

  • bernerbits

    Once an egg is fertilized it has all the components it needs for life given the nourishment and time to develop barring a natural problem or an intentional stop to that development. To say that life doesn’t begin until some point after that is making an arbitrary choice in my opinion.

    And in my opinion, it’s just as arbitrary. A seed in soil has all the necessary components for life given the nourishment and time to develop barring a natural problem or an intentional stop to that development. But it’s still not a tree.

    That’s the thing. There is no exact point where a developing zygote transforms instantly into a person. It’s like a transformation from night to day. Defining any one second as the exact moment nighttime becomes daytime is completely arbitrary. Yet it’s certainly nighttime at 12:00 AM, and it’s certainly daytime at 12:00 PM.

    Do you understand? Just because there is no discernible moment where something that’s an A becomes a B, does not mean that the B was never an A, or that the B was always a B, or that Bs and As are the same thing. To say otherwise is to commit the Continuum Fallacy.

  • bernerbits

    They are playing with fire, yet if the fire starts they don’t want to face the consequence in a manner that will protect the innocent victim of their choice.

    Once again. If I accidentally start a grease fire in my apartment and flee, am I or am I not personally liable for the innocent victims of my choice to use my stove instead of taking the much safer, and more responsible, option of ordering Chinese?

  • ButchKitties

    Butchkittie,

    This analogy is not consistent with abortion.

    I never said I was making an analogy to abortion. I presenting a hypothetical situation to make you look at whether you really believe an embryo is a person. Now answer the question.

  • The Captain

    @Kevin, Critically Skeptic

    Please do not misunderstand, I do not think that to be “pro-choice” is to be “pro-abortion” many people can hold the position that they are against abortions, but for others right to have them. That’s fine. I’m just stating my position is one of people should have the choice, and that they are perfectly fine and more people should have them. I use the terms “pro-abortion” and not “pro-choice” since for me the argument needs to be made that abortions are not a “’necessary evil” as many in the “pro-choice” crowed think, but are in fact perfectly fine and should be encouraged.

    I do have to admit that I find the “pro-choice” but “against abortion” stance to be a bit annoying and frankly unhelpful to the goal of keeping abortions legal, since your claiming that there is something wrong with abortions in the first place. Well if you convince enough people there is something wrong with it, they will eventually act to stop it. That’s why I believe in making the argument that they should be legal, and there in nothing wrong with it.

  • Robert W.

    Freemage,

    You do realize that your “playing with fire” commentary directly contradicts your claim that you aren’t attempting to punish women for having sex, right? You want women to “suffer the consequences” for their actions–that’s called “punishment”.

    Its not punishment for people to live up to their responsibilities and the consequences of their actions. I hold the man equally responsible. I hate that men think they can just walk away and all too often do. I would never let my son do that.

    You’re deliberately using language that detracts from the immense sacrifice a woman makes when she does choose to bear a child to term (whether it’s then given up for adoption or raised by her is another irrelevancy–this is JUST about her right to not be cannibalized for another person’s well-being againt her will).

    Having a child is a sacrifice before and after it is born. You are only focusing on the sacrifice during the pregnancy. Do you think that a mother who has a child has the right to say you can’t eat today, this is my food? Or I will let you starve child, because I don’t want you to eat my food? You would call that child endangerment and would want the lady prosecuted. But, as long as that child is unborn, that is what you are saying the mother has the right to do.

    And by the way, I do donate blood and am an organ donor, however the analogy doesn’t work. I didn’t place those innocent sick into that position and cause their demise. But I see your point. I also care for orphans and needy children around the world, particularity in Africa so this just isn’t lip service.

    Bernerbits,

    I understand what you are saying about arbitrary. I agree with you. Any point after conception is arbitrary. There is not point before that to choose from.

    Yes, if you acted irresponsibly and cased a grease fire in your apartment you could be held responsible for the consequences. There is a standard of care that you would be held accountable to uphold otherwise you would be negligent or even criminally negligent depending upon the circumstances. In this instance, it isn’t a god analogy from a legal standpoint on how blame is assessed and that is not my point to assess blame. All I am saying is that between the two who made the choice to engage in conduct that could lead to this result and the product of that conduct, the child is clearly the least responsible yet it bears the ultimate responsibility.

    Butchkitte,

    Of course you trying to tie that question to abortion. You are attempting to get me to say that an embryo is not a life worth saving to justify killing it through abortion. I don’t agree with that and believe that an embryo has the same right to life as a young child.

    If I could only save one I would save the child and would mourn those that I could not save. Not because I don’t think that unborn children aren’t worth fighting for, but because of the circumstances you raise.

    Now let me ask you a question- Do you agree that partial birth abortions are killing a child?

  • Lesa

    I got most of the way to the end of reading the comments before I had to interject on Robert W. misinformed comment.

    Abortions are not convenient.

    In fact, in terms of cost, difficulty finding a provider, lack of social support and the overwhelming sigma involved–I’d have to say that abortion is one of the most inconvenient medical procedures to attempt to undergo. Having gone through a similar medical procedure (though not an abortion) allow me to assure you it is also whole-heartedly unpleasant and not in the least bit, in any way shape or form, done for “convenience.”

    Lastly, Robert W., you may strongly feel that life begins at conception or thereabouts. But there is no more evidential or logical support for your view than that life begins after 40 days, or after birth, or a month after birth.

    This is because life is cyclic, as anyone who’s studied biology knows (if you doubt me, check out “life cycle” on wikipedia for examples). In sexual reproduction, different individuals go through the life cycle, but with organisms that produce asexually or pathenogenically, the same genetic individual goes through the life stages multiple times–usually going through haploid and diploid stages.

    Let me give you an example–sperm is (usually) required for a secondary oocyte to continue it’s stalled development, but the oocyte can, in the presence of alcohol, electric shock, or certain enzymes begin development spontaneously, even developing into a fetus with a beating heart and forelimbs (a point at which most pro-lifers scream “it’s a baby!!”) before dying because of an apparent deficiency in the placenta.

    Kinda throws a wrench into “life begins at conception” and “all life is sacred.” Really? Because if my oocytes can develop into an “unborn child” without your sperm, then do my eggs require protection? Should we mandate all women be put on birth control as soon as they enter puberty to prevent ovulation so as to protect the potential though inevitably fruitless life that may come of zapping my womb with a fork in a socket? No. Why? Because it’s logically ridiculous and legally unacceptable. As is your position.

    The amazing thing about science and biology, is biology doesn’t give a damn about your moral unease. Life is amazing, but at its core it is a combination of well-timed chemical reactions mediated by a variety of enzymes within a lipid bilayer. Period. When personhood begins is a matter of great debate–but since reasonable people can come to different decisions on that, it’s not the place of the law to decide for us. I believe the fetus is a parasite until it can survive on its own without substantial medical intervention–around six or seven months. Other people may feel differently. But it’s personhood we’re talking about, not human life. Human life is a cycle that is in constant development and change, and there is no place to draw the line. So stop talking about saving human lives. You’re not, unless you’re going to mourn every period I will have (and with my luck, there will be hundreds).

  • ButchKitties

    Robert, the scenario is not meant to mimic abortion, and your saying otherwise does not change that. The scenario is meant to examine whether you believe an embryo is really a person, by presenting a twist on the classic trolley scenario of saving one person vs saving multiple people. If you really believe embryos are people with the same right to life as a child, why would you choose to save one child instead of ten embryos?

    By choosing to save the child, you admit that deep down you don’t really believe that embryos are people. In the trolley scenario (would you choose to make an out of control trolley switch tracks so it hits one person instead of ten), people are virtually unanimous in choosing to save ten lives at the expense of one life.

    I consider partial birth-abortion to be a woman exercising her right to bodily autonomy. Whether I think it’s the killing of the child or not is ultimately immaterial. The right to life of one person can never be allowed to override another’s right to bodily autonomy. We don’t force parents to donate organs or tissues to their children after they are born. We don’t take organs from dead bodies without permission, even if someone will die without that organ. Banning abortion would mean women have less of a right to bodily autonomy than we give corpses.

  • bernerbits

    Any point after conception is arbitrary. There is not point before that to choose from.

    THIS. Right here. This is the continuum fallacy. If you don’t realize why this is a fallacious argument I’m not going to waste any more breath on this because I very clearly explained it three times already.

    The lack of a spontaneous transforming moment from embryo to baby does not mean that an embryo is a baby. Conception is just as arbitrary, and saying it isn’t just exposes your prejudice.

    Yes, if you acted irresponsibly and cased a grease fire in your apartment you could be held responsible for the consequences. There is a standard of care that you would be held accountable to uphold otherwise you would be negligent or even criminally negligent depending upon the circumstances.

    Yes, Robert, but sometimes fires start despite our most careful precautions. This is not a reason to hold everyone who accidentally starts a fire accountable for the resulting deaths assuming that the person practiced common sense.

    In this instance, it isn’t a god analogy from a legal standpoint on how blame is assessed and that is not my point to assess blame.

    It’s not an analogy, Robert, and yes, it was your point to assess blame. In fact, it was a direct response to this statement:

    If that was done in any other setting you would hold the person responsible and say they killed the child.

    I gave you a clear counterexample to that statement, and now you’re backpedaling.

    All I am saying is that between the two who made the choice to engage in conduct that could lead to this result and the product of that conduct, the child is clearly the least responsible yet it bears the ultimate responsibility.

    Just like between the person who made the choice to cook on his stovetop, knowing it could lead to a building fire, and the innocent co-tenant who perishes in the fire, the co-tenant is the “least responsible yet bears the ultimate responsibility.”

    What you’re doing is saying the person who started the grease fire should take responsibility for his choice to use the stove, and go back into the burning building to rescue their co-tenant. Maybe they should, but due to the risks involved, you shouldn’t hold it against them if they don’t.

  • bernerbits

    I consider partial birth-abortion to be a woman exercising her right to bodily autonomy.

    “Partial birth abortion” a conservative framing term. It refers to performing D&X on a healthy, viable fetus, an arguably despicable practice. It’s a deliberately loaded term because elective third trimester D&Xs are against regulations of every single medical association in this country. Almost no doctors will consent to performing an elective third trimester D&X.

    The rallying cry against so-called “partial birth” abortions is a boogeyman scare tactic. And a dangerous one too, because now, due to the current ban, when late term abortions are medically necessary, the doctors now have to abort the baby by lethal injection, which is extremely dangerous to the mother, before performing D&X on the dead body.

    It is a bald-faced lie propagated shamelessly by pro-life leaders, and their constituents believe it without evidence.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba1.htm

  • Freemage

    Having a child is a sacrifice before and after it is born. You are only focusing on the sacrifice during the pregnancy. Do you think that a mother who has a child has the right to say you can’t eat today, this is my food? Or I will let you starve child, because I don’t want you to eat my food? You would call that child endangerment and would want the lady prosecuted. But, as long as that child is unborn, that is what you are saying the mother has the right to do.

    Actually, the mother now has the post-conception option, in most states, of taking an infant to the nearest safe shelter and dropping them off, no questions asked. She has no comparable option to protecting her health for the seven months between realizing she’s pregnant and actually giving birth.

    And I would call a woman who chooses to carry to term a child she is planning on giving up in this fashion heroic, on the order of the aforementioned burning building, precisely because it’s a risk to herself being taken on behalf of, essentially, a stranger.

    And by the way, I do donate blood and am an organ donor, however the analogy doesn’t work. I didn’t place those innocent sick into that position and cause their demise. But I see your point. I also care for orphans and needy children around the world, particularity in Africa so this just isn’t lip service.

    That’s great. Next question–would you support a law that required all men to join registries on their 18th birthday to be subject to mandatory marrow and redundant organ donation, as well as periodic mandatory blood donation?

    Oh, and to respond to one of your questions:

    In the case of post-viablity D&X procedures on a healthy fetus, I’ll support making them illegal if it is legal for the woman to go in, get an induced labor, and then leave the newborn in the custody of the hospital, per the aforementioned Safe Haven laws.

  • ButchKitties

    Berner, you’re right. I shouldn’t have legitimized the term by responding to the question. On top of being a dishonest scare tactic, it’s extremely hurtful to women who really want to carry the pregnancy to term, but due to medical problems that can’t be reliably diagnosed until later in the pregnancy, have had to make the heart-breaking decision to terminate.

    http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/book/companion.asp?id=20&compID=39

  • ButchKitties

    And by the way, I do donate blood and am an organ donor, however the analogy doesn’t work. I didn’t place those innocent sick into that position and cause their demise.

    Actually, the analogy does work. If I drive recklessly and cause a car accident that damages another person’s liver to the point that the person needs a transplant, guess what? I might go to jail, but I won’t be forced to donate a lobe of my liver. The fact that the transplant is needed as a direct result of my actions does not matter.

  • Robert W.

    Lesa,

    Abortions are not convenient.

    I never said abortions are convenient. I said they are done for convenience. There is a difference. The procedure is viewed as more convenient then the pregnancy or giving the baby up for adoption.

    As for fertilizing your egg without any outside help such as sperm, then call the Vatican because that would be the second immaculate conception in history.

    Bernerbits,

    THIS. Right here. This is the continuum fallacy. If you don’t realize why this is a fallacious argument I’m not going to waste any more breath on this because I very clearly explained it three times already.

    The lack of a spontaneous transforming moment from embryo to baby does not mean that an embryo is a baby. Conception is just as arbitrary, and saying it isn’t just exposes your prejudice.

    I know what the fallacy is, however I don’t think it applies until after conception. At that point there is a ongoing change of conditions. However, there is nothing that could reasonably be considered life prior to that point. After that it is arbitrary.

    Yes, Robert, but sometimes fires start despite our most careful precautions. This is not a reason to hold everyone who accidentally starts a fire accountable for the resulting deaths assuming that the person practiced common sense.

    I don’t disagree with this, however later in the post you get to the crux of the issue. If you started the fire, even being as careful as you could be and you could, with no more risk then millions of others face everyday (pregnant women are healthy and give birth everyday all over the world) and instead you didn’t help them and in fact took active steps to make sure the co-tenant perished, then you would hold some responsibility for those deaths regardless of how careful you were in
    starting the fire.

    Bernerbits and Butchkitties,

    My point in asking that question was not whether you agreed with them, the question was do you consider it killing a child? Please answer that question.

    Freemage,

    And I would call a woman who chooses to carry to term a child she is planning on giving up in this fashion heroic, on the order of the aforementioned burning building, precisely because it’s a risk to herself being taken on behalf of, essentially, a stranger.

    I agree completely except that of course instead of giving up a stranger they are giving up their baby which is actually tougher. These women are heroic and God Bless them.

    That’s great. Next question–would you support a law that required all men to join registries on their 18th birthday to be subject to mandatory marrow and redundant organ donation, as well as periodic mandatory blood donation?

    I don’t know. That might not be a bad idea. However, there is a distinct difference in the analogy. I may not be contributing to help strangers or even people I know if I refuse to donate blood, however I did not create a life that all of our laws and society except when it comes to abortion, dictate that I am responsible for legally and morally and can be held criminally and civilly responsible for injuring.

  • bernerbits

    My point in asking that question was not whether you agreed with them, the question was do you consider it killing a child? Please answer that question.

    See in the more recent thread. Yes, I believe a post-viability abortion is ending the life of a person, and should only be performed when there is a direct threat to the mother’s health. I also know that they are the vast minority of cases.

    I know what the fallacy is, however I don’t think it applies until after conception. At that point there is a ongoing change of conditions. However, there is nothing that could reasonably be considered life prior to that point. After that it is arbitrary.

    You are still missing the point. First of all, it’s all life at every point, even before conception.

    Second, saying that the heap fallacy doesn’t apply because nothing before conception can reasonably be called a person is the same thing as saying that the heap fallacy doesn’t apply to heaps because nothing before the first grain of rice can reasonably be called a heap. You’re using your presupposition that personhood is acquired at conception to prove that personhood is acquired at conception.

    If you started the fire, even being as careful as you could be and you could, with no more risk then millions of others face everyday (pregnant women are healthy and give birth everyday all over the world) and instead you didn’t help them and in fact took active steps to make sure the co-tenant perished, then you would hold some responsibility for those deaths regardless of how careful you were in starting the fire.

    You’re still getting the analogy wrong. The pregnancy is the fire. The risk to the woman is huge, both during and after the pregnancy. The fact that pregnant women give birth every day doesn’t change the severity of the risk. Choosing to have an abortion is being compared to choosing to escape the fire at the expense of the co-tenant. Choosing to carry the pregnancy to term is compared to choosing to remain in the fire until the co-tenant can be brought to safety.

    We have argued in circles for days now and done nothing but make each other frustrated. Clearly we are at an impasse. I am done arguing this. If you allow me to regard you as totally ignorant of the importance of reproductive freedom, you may continue to regard me as tacitly complicit in the mass slaughter of the unborn.

  • Robert W.

    Bernerbits,

    We have argued in circles for days now and done nothing but make each other frustrated. Clearly we are at an impasse. I am done arguing this. If you allow me to regard you as totally ignorant of the importance of reproductive freedom, you may continue to regard me as tacitly complicit in the mass slaughter of the unborn.

    Regard me as you would like but I will not regard you that way. I will view you as a fine and sincere person with whom I have a strong disagreement regarding this issue.

    And by the way i did understand the analogy. I understand that the fire is the pregnancy and that the tenants are the baby. But whether you leave the fire or go back in to save them is not the issue. The issue is that you can save them at no unreasonable risk and yet you choose not to.

  • bernerbits

    The issue is that you can save them at no unreasonable risk and yet you choose not to.

    This is the heart of the misunderstanding then. We disagree on how reasonable the risk is.

    Regard me as you would like but I will not regard you that way. I will view you as a fine and sincere person with whom I have a strong disagreement regarding this issue.

    You have put me in my place, Robert. I spoke out of anger and you responded in kindness. Thank you.

  • Robert W.

    BernerBits,

    No problem. You are consistently polite and I enjoy our discussions.

    Have a great day.

  • http://www.sarahtrachtenberg.com Sarah Trachtenberg

    I am sympathetic to where anti-abortion people are coming from, but I think this woman just isn’t thinking. Do the angels sing when a zygote is conceived during rape or incest?
    I wrote about the current abortion climate on my own blog.

  • Andrea

    I assume she was exaggerating but I find this incredibly offensive. I would conclude that she has never been pregnant or if she has, she has never been in a position where she may consider abortion. She’s lucky.

    I’m pregnant.

    I have been scouring online threads about abortion all day today hoping for…idk what. Maybe a chance to say what I’m feeling because being pregnant is not always the glorious blessing people think it to be.

    First off I find that the majority of people who post on any abortion thread have never had an abortion and have never been in a position to consider it. I was once just that. I was very pro choice because no one owns a woman’s body and she has the right to do with it what she will. Men have no say because they physically can not carry a baby for nine months in their nonexistent uterus and then deliver it.

    I also find that the majority of thought that is pro life is from a religious stand point. But this country decided long ago to have separation of church and state. And what if woman doesnt subscribe to that same religion? Should she be forced to have a baby because someone else’s religion says she should?

    Once upon a time believed that I would never have an abortion myself. I was wrong. I am not completely decided yet but I can say that I am considering this option far more than I ever thought I would. And I can confidently say that I would punch anyone in the face that tried to take that choice away from me or tell me I am a horrible human being for choosing that route.

    You really can not tell person what to do about such a sensitive and INCREDIBLY PERSONAL matter until you have walked in their shoes. Well I am there now. This is my first pregnancy and has been the worst experience of my life both physically and emotionally. I am still on the fence but I now know for certain that every woman should have both sides of the fence to fall on if she chooses.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X