No 5k for the biggest killer — so does anyone really believe it’s a killer?

October is a busy time of year for those who hit the streets for charity.

This month, in my area, there’s a 5k for multiple myeloma, a walk for breast cancer, a 5k AIDS run, a 5k for Lupus, a 5k for juvenile diabetes, a 5k for carcinoid, two separate 5ks for kids with cancer, a 10k for multiple sclerosis, a 5k for ALS and a 5k for children with physical disabilities.

Name a disease and there’s a charitable research foundation committed to finding a cure, and for just about every such foundation there’s a corresponding 5k race or walkathon, lemonade stand, bake sale, golf tournament, banquet, concert, gala or festival to raise funds.

But for the biggest killer of them all, there’s nothing.

No 5k or 10k. No walkathon. No foundation promoting research. No research.

The deadly scourge that claims half of all human lives ever conceived is completely ignored.

Here’s Jonathan Dudley discussing this killer in his book Broken Words:

Due to hormone imbalances, genetic anomalies, and a number of unknown factors, between 50 percent and 75 percent of embryos fail to implant in the uterus and are passed with the monthly menstrual flow. If we agree with pro-life advocates that every embryo is as morally valuable as an adult human, this means that more than half of humans immediately die. This fact provides pro-life advocates with an opportunity to follow through on their convictions. Surely, a moral response to a pandemic of this magnitude would be to rally the scientific community to devote the vast majority of its efforts to better understanding why this happens and trying to stop it. Yet the same pro-life leaders who declare that every embryo is morally equivalent to a fully developed child have done nothing to advocate such research. … Even if medicine could save only 10 percent of these embryos — and we don’t know because no one has cared enough to ask — it would be saving more lives than curing HIV, diabetes, and malaria combined. One could say that this massive loss of human life is natural, and therefore, humans are under no obligation to end it. But it is not clear why the same argument could not be used to justify complacency in the face of AIDS, cancer, heart disease, and other natural causes of human death.

For anyone who genuinely believes the pro-life argument that “every embryo is morally equivalent to a fully developed child,” the sort of research Dudley describes ought to be an inescapable obligation.

And yet there are no charitable events to support the foundations funding such research. No such foundations exist to be supported. No such research exists to be funded.

That suggests one of two things. Either these pro-life advocates are complacent monsters every bit as callously unconcerned with saving unborn babies as those they oppose. Or else, just like those they oppose, these folks do not really believe that “every embryo is morally equivalent to a fully developed child.”

Perhaps there is some third explanation. There must be, right?

I mean there are millions of Americans who insist that every embryo, from the “moment” of conception, is a human person — the full moral equivalent of any other human person. That belief, more than any other, shapes our national politics, frames our national elections, and determines our national government. Because of that belief, millions of Americans will vote for Mitt Romney, regarding it as unthinkable to do otherwise.

Millions of votes will be cast based on this belief. Tens of millions of votes have been cast based on this belief. But there has not been even a glimmer of a notion of a thought in the direction of the sort of human-life-saving research that Dudley describes above.

Why not?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Unless you are willing to commit armed insurrection against your government to stop abortion, take up arms and shoot down abortion doctors in the streets, you are lying.

    If abortion is a “holocaust” then nothing less than taking up arms is called for. So if you don’t believe that taking up arms and murdering those who don’t believe in enslaving women, then you don’t actually believe it’s a “holocaust”.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Fetus in utero != child in world. But since you seem to believe the contrary, what are you doing to prevent the deaths of the many zygotes that die without so much as implanting in the uterus?

  • Bakakurisu

    I absolutely support the effective and humane strategies you listed…. I presume you support these strategies as well, and not the cruel, vindictive idea that children deserve to be punished by being ripped to pieces and sucked through a tube because they were conveived in the wrong place at the wrong time..

    …At what point did I say anything about punishing mothers?

  • Bakakurisu

    Getting an illegal abortion is elective. Being aborted is not. Think about it. A few hundred years ago, slaves were forced to work out on plantations under the bullwhip. Now they’re traded in seedy back alleys under the gun. Should we bring slavery back so it can be “safe” again?

    I would suggest giving the child up for adoption. Homicide is not the solution to a life that MAY be less than perfect.

    I believe that the circumstances of one’s inception, whether boon or burden are irrelevant; it is one’s own right to determine one’s own self-worth.

  • Bakakurisu

    Once again, you’re insisting that since some humans die of natural causes, it should be OK to slaughter them. Why does this not apply to people who have been born?…And yes, conception DOES equal “in the world”…. You’re not one of those idiots that think that a human being magically comes to life when Baby-Mama’s darn good ‘n’ ready, are you? Here… Let me educate you:”Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.”- The official Senate report from Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981
    Background on the Committee testifiers:A group of internationally-known biologists and geneticists appeared to speak on behalf of the scientific community on the subject of when a human being begins. They all presented the same view and there was no opposing testimony. Among those testifying:
    Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical SchoolDr. Jerome Lejeune (“Father of Modern Genetics”)Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of TennesseeDr. Alfred Bongiovanni, Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania School of MedicineDr. Richard V. JaynesDr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the “Father of In Vitro Fertilization”Professor Eugene DiamondGordon, Hymie, M.D., F.R.C.P., Chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, RochesterC. Christopher Hook, M.D. Oncologist, Mayo Clinic, Director of Ethics Education, Mayo Graduate School of MedicineThere’s plenty more where that came from. Just ask if you need more. ;)

  • Carstonio

    Making abortion a crime most definitely punishes women who don’t desire motherhood. It’s wrong to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, and this is very compatible with a belief that abortion is wrong. 

    The goal of reducing abortions cannot be accomplished by treating it as a criminal justice issue – that prevents almost no abortions. It cannot be accomplished by treating it as a matter of women making choices one doesn’t agree with. Any woman’s reasons for considering abortion need to be taken seriously regardless of one’s stance on abortion itself. Criminalizing abortion merely turns women and their wombs into wards of the state. 

    As an analogy, I’ve never smoked marijuana and I never intend to smoke it, and I still think it should be legalized, because the prohibition approach has been a colossal failure.

  • Bakakurisu

    So, you are certain that I don’t know for a fact that legalized abortion is a holocaust because I’m not reacting the way you would? I am pro-LIFE. If I start slaughtering people that I disagree with, I’m no better than the people I’m fighting against. Yes, it’s VERY frustrating to have to fight beuracracy, red tape, politics, and egregious willful ignorance and stupidity of the general public to get people to stop killing children, but I will not be baited into murder.

    …And by the way:
    hol·o·caust
    /ˈhɒləˌkɔst, ˈhoʊlə-/ Show Spelled [hol-uh-kawst, hoh-luh-]  noun 1.  a great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire. 2.  a sacrifice completely consumed by fire; burnt offering. 3.  ( usually initial capital letter ) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually preceded by the ). 4.  any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Sure, lots of women will die, but hey, you have to have moral values, right? And those values are: Women are slaves, their uteruses belong to the state. Their suffering means nothing. They have no freedom, are not real people.

    When you don’t advocate the torture of women, we can have an adult conversation, until then: fuck you, you monster.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     You’re not pro-life. You’re pro forcing-women-to-give-birth. On a scale of “pro life” to “anti life”, you’re down at the Darkseid end.

  • cyllan

    What is with the zombie abortion threads?  Is there any way of funneling all of these zombies into a kill-chute so we can deal with them all in one place? 

  • AnonymousSam

    Not interested, thanks. The fact that pregnancies happen whether the mother is “good ‘n’ ready or not” is why abortion needs to remain legal (that and when and where it’s illegal, you start seeing incidents like what I linked above — men start prosecuting women whenever they fail to give birth for any reason). We also tend to run into the issue of pregnancies which are genuinely wanted, but impossible due to birth defects which place the lives of fetus and uterus-owner in jeopardy — and it being illegal to do anything about it, so both die needless deaths instead of one dying an inevitable death and the other being able to try again or adopt.

    Or, for that matter, scenarios such as Rosa Hernandez’s daughter, who (due to living in an area where abortion is illegal) was unable to receive chemotherapy for her leukemia until it was too late to be effective. The Dominican Republic laws were interpreted that chemotherapy would be an abortificiant, so she just had to make do without. To the obvious conclusion.

    You’re conflating human identity with human tissue, when an embryo has more in common with a teratoma than a baby. The life of tissues does not equate to human identity by any definition more meaningful than philisophical. Philosphical meaning can be poignant, powerful — I’m not sold on the potential of a baby being worthless myself, but it doesn’t supercede the existing identity and rights of the uterus-owner. (If this phrasing seems awkward, it’s because not everyone with a uterus can or should be considered female.)

    No one’s happy with abortion, but the alternative is monstrous. Consigning an unconscious mind to oblivion is merciful compared to the stress placed upon the pregnant person’s body, the threat to their livelihood and sometimes life, and the cruelty of bringing an unwanted child into the world.

    Trying to ban abortion by fiat doesn’t work. The only way to get rid of abortion is to eliminate the need for it in the first place.

  • Bakakurisu

    Wow… You pro-aborts are painfully stupid…
    child (chīld) n.
    A person between birth and puberty. An unborn infant; a fetus. An infant; a baby. One who is childish or immature. A son or daughter; an offspring.

    The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical DictionaryCopyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.So… Because you THINK I’m not doing enough to preven death by NATURAL causes, I have no place to try to illegalize HOMICIDE?Nice try, Moron.

  • Bakakurisu

    Here’s a question… Who’s forcing women to conceive children? If we’re not forcing women to conceive children, then we’re not forcing them to carry any pregnancy to term, now are we?

    Abortion is NOT just a “choice” that some people don’t agree with, it is homicide. Your defense for abortion could just as easily justify slavery or rape. Abortion isn’t just some frivolous non-issue like gay marriage here, it ends the life of a human being. Laws against abortion won’t make a woman’s womb into a ward of the state any more than laws against rape make men’s penises wards of the state.

    I support marijuana as well, and I smoke it on occasion. I support one’s right to do what they want with their OWN body. *GASP!*

    Now… If I saw someone blowing marijuana smoke into a child’s face, I’d have a serious problem with it. Do you get it now?

  • Bakakurisu

    Wow… So… Because I want to end the legal, brutal slaughter of 1.2 million innocent children every year… I’m a monster who wants to enslave women???

    When you don’t advocate a holocaust and back it up with stupid bumper sticker slogans, we can have an adult conversation. Until then, fuck you, retard.

  • Bakakurisu

    How is he calling anybody “the fuck out”?

    So… Because we’re not doing enough to prevent natural causes of death, we have no position to illegalize the deliberate slaughter of innocent children?

    Does anyone who doesn’t donate to women’s charities have no position to oppose rape? Does anyone who doesn’t donate to childrens charities have no position to oppose child abuse?

    You pro-aborts just love to make up arguments for the pro-life side, because all you really have is bumper sticker slogans to support yourselves. You erect armies of strawmen, and refuse to acknowledge facts or logic.

    Sorry to “call you the fuck out” like that… But you really need to be put into your place.

  • Bakakurisu

    Even more advocates of life support empowering women and giving them what they need to support their children. Have you ever heard of Crisis Pregnancy Centers? They give women contraceptives, pregnancy tests, prenatal care (vitamins, medicine, doctor referrals, checkups, etc.), counseling, help in getting financial assistance (welfare, financial aid for education, employment assitance, etc), adoption referrals, baby care, etc… These are run by pro-life people, and they outnumber your abortion mills by nearly 5:1 in this country.

    I know you guys like to vilify us as bible-thumping women-hating rednecks because that’s something simple and stupid you can stand against… The truth is, WE are the ones that history will remember favorably. Our numbers are growing, and we’re placing more and more restrictions on this holocaust.

    You are on the wrong side of morality, the wrong side of human decency, the wrong side of human compassion, the wrong side of logic, the wrong side of facts, and the wrong side of history.

    Posterity will be ashamed of you.

  • Bakakurisu

    Yes… Because I’m TOTALLY forcing women to conceive childeren.

    I’m “anti-life” because I’m making it illegal to slaughter innocent children.

    Ya got me, Kid.

  • Bakakurisu

    Could you guys PLEASE stop making arguments on our behalf, and just listen to reason?

    What you’re saying is that since people die of natural causes, we have no grounds to try to illegalize homicide against unborn children.

  • Lori

     

    You are on the wrong side of morality, the wrong side of human
    decency, the wrong side of human compassion, the wrong side of logic,
    the wrong side of facts, and the wrong side of history.

    Posterity will be ashamed of you.
     

    This is 100% true. The problem is that you don’t realize that it’s true of you, not of Carstonio.

  • Bakakurisu

    OK, let’s drop the bumper sticker slogans and rhetoric, and look at this LOGICALLY.

    What this little blog is saying is that since you don’t FEEL that we’re doing enough to end NATURAL causes of death, we have no ground to illegalize homicide against the unborn.

    Do you all run 5k’s to help cystic fibrosis? Then you have no grounds to oppose ANY homicide.

  • Lori

     

    Here’s a question… Who’s forcing women to conceive children? 

    Sometimes rapists. Sometimes bad luck. Sometimes bad judgement.

    None of those things mean that a woman doesn’t own her own body.

     

    I support marijuana as well, and I smoke it on occasion. I support one’s right to do what they want with their OWN body.    

    This argument is so painfully dumb, but you went there, so I’ll play along. The clump of cells you erroneously call a person can do whatever it wants with it’s “body”. It just can’t live in or suck nutrients out of mine.

    Do you get it now?

  • Carstonio

    I make no defense or criticism of abortion itself, partly because I’ve never owned a womb. My point isn’t about whether the woman’s choice is right or wrong, but about others making the choice for the woman. Outside control of her body equates to outside control of her life.

    Legal personhood for fetuses (which is the real issue, not whether a fetus is biologically a human being) would render personhood for women null and void, because they would very likely be criminally liable for any actions that risk their health. Criminalization of abortion would seriously damage OB/GYN practice, with doctors leaving the discipline rather than deal with themselves and their patients being suspected of planning abortions.

    And after all that, criminalization would do nothing to actually stop abortions. So it makes no legal, ethical and moral sense to pursue a law that would not accomplish its stated objective, while causing needless harm to women and their doctors. Cases like Savita Halappanavar’s, where women die after being denied abortions for nonviable pregnancies, happen frequently in Catholic hospitals here. One can oppose abortion and still condemn the horrific injustice of such policies.

    If we’re not forcing women to conceive children

    That’s slut-shaming. Women should be able to pursue sex without wanting to become mothers. Consent to sex doesn’t equal consent to pregnancy. The claim that a woman should only have sex if she wants to become a mother – that’s simply a variant of motherhood being the only natural or proper role for women.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Bakakurisu, I’ve got a series of questions here which I’ve yet to see any anti-abortion commenter give direct answers to.

    Case #1: A single mother has become pregnant while working two jobs to support herself and her child. She found out too late that her now ex-boyfriend sabotaged her birth control. She has no insurance, and lives in a country without universal healthcare. She can’t afford pre-natal care, and if she takes too much time off, she could lose one or both jobs. How does restricting abortion benefit her?

    Case #2: A teenage girl has become pregnant due to acquaintance rape. She knows that proving the assault would be extremely difficult, especially as she failed to go for a rape exam afterwards. She does not want to submit to the further humiliation of having her personal life pored over at a public trial, or of being called a liar by her community. She has told her family that having a physical reminder of her trauma is tearing her apart psychologically, and that she just wants to put the experience behind her as thoroughly as possible. How does restricting abortion benefit her?

    Case #3: A teenage girl lives in a strict religious community which insists on abstinence-only sex education. Because she and her boyfriend were not given proper sexual information, she is now pregnant. Her family is likely to abuse her, or throw her out of the house, if they find out. How does restricting abortion benefit her?

    Case #4: A woman must take strong prescription drugs to stabilize various medical conditions. On the drugs she functions well, succeeding at her job and her relationships; off them, she can barely take care of herself. In order to have a healthy pregnancy, she would have to stop taking her medications for six months before even trying to conceive; therefore, she has chosen to remain childless. Now her contraception has failed. How does restricting abortion benefit her?

    Case #5: A mother has been secretly putting money aside so that she and her children can leave her abusive husband without risk of being tracked down. She knows that her pregnancy will deplete the physical and financial resources she needs to make a clean escape, and she also realizes that pregnant women are under twice as much risk from abusive partners. How does restricting abortion benefit her?

  • Lori

    It’s tough to deal logically with someone who thinks that typing in all caps makes their argument better.

    Also?

    Do you all run 5k’s to help cystic fibrosis? Then you have no grounds to oppose ANY homicide.  

    You need remedial logic lessons. There are a couple of good podcasts I can recommend if you’re interested.

  • Bakakurisu

    You pro-aborts sure love to romanticize abortion, and ralley behind the baseless claim that if it’s illegalized, every woman in the world will die a horrible, screaming, gurgling death in a back alley with a coathanger sticking out of her vagina. Here are the FACTS:
    __________________
    Research indicates that 98% of all abortions are related to issues of “personal choice.” The primary reasons women give for having an abortion include not feeling emotionally capable (32%) or financially capable (25%) of raising a child, and concern that having a child would drastically alter her life (16%).

    The three most frequently cited “hard cases” in which some argue abortion might be justified are rape, incest and protecting the life of the mother. However, women rarely report that they are seeking an abortion for any of these reasons:
    Rape: 0.3%
    Incest: 0.03%
    Protection of mother’s life: 0.2%
    In other words, out of 1,000 women procuring abortion, only three cite rape as the primary reason, and only two cite protecting her life as the reason for the abortion. Out of 10,000 women procuring abortion, only three cite incest as a reason.
    Sources:
    Guttmacher Institute. 2008, July. Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html.Johnston, Wm. Robert.
    Reasons given for having abortions in the United Stateshttp://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html._____________________If you want to keep it legal in the EXCAPTIONALLY rare circumstances of the need to save the mother’s life  you have my support.

  • Bakakurisu

    My post was truncated.

    That last line is supposed to read:
    “If you want to keep it legal in the EXCAPTIONALLY rare circumstances of the need to save the mother’s life you have my support. “

  • Lori

    That’s mighty big of you.

  • Lunch Meat

    The primary reasons women give for having an abortion include not
    feeling emotionally capable (32%) or financially capable (25%) of
    raising a child, and concern that having a child would drastically
    alter her life (16%).

    So you think money is just an issue of personal choice? You think that someone who wants to be able to feed, clothe and house their family is just being selfish? You think someone with a difficult mental or emotional background who doesn’t trust themselves to take care of a fragile human being without hurting it just wants what’s convenient for them? That’s incredibly rude and dismissive of you.

    What this little blog is saying is that since you don’t FEEL that we’re doing enough to end NATURAL causes of death, we have no ground to
    illegalize homicide against the unborn.

    You have missed the point so dramatically it’s shocking. The point is not that you don’t have “grounds” to advocate against abortion. The point is that when you act so horrified and saddened about abortion but dismiss natural miscarriages completely, it makes it pretty obvious that you’re lying about your motivation.

  • cyllan

    My new word of the day is EXCAPTIONALLY.  It must always be typed in all caps and means “a way of making a non-supported and non-supportable argument sound impressive by typing words in ALL CAPS.”

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     You believe that fetuses are human beings, right? So you believe that one human being has the right to, by force of law, require that another human being give up her liberty and use her very body to provide without compensation and against her will resources purely for their own benefit, at the cost of permanent changes to the woman’s body and risk to her physical health, mental health, and future fertility.

    How do you define slavery? And what would yoiu call someone who likes to torture and enslave women like that?

    Can I cut you open and take your kidney? Then stay the fuck out of the uteruses of people I love.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     No, monster, we’re saying that since you have no right to force another human being to become an enslaved life support system for another person, then you have no grounds to illegalize a medical procedure on an adult woman which does not murder a person, even if a fetus were a person, still would not murder them, just evict them and make it their own look out if they die or not.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    I find it weird that this guy thinks that the huge umbrella of “personal choice” somehow doesn’t mean that women will be willing to put themselves at risk to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.  History just doesn’t bear out that view.

    I guess he also hasn’t heard about stuff like unreported sexual assault, or birth control sabotage.

  • AnonymousSam

    You “pro-deaths” are painfully limited in rhetoric and basic consideration of others, which is a point you should be ashamed to be hearing from me, a diagnosed sociopath. You’re spouting tired arguments which fail to address the scope of real world scenarios. A fetus, to you, is an abstract and lofty concept which you imbue with purity and significance well beyond actual people. What does a fetus have which a grown human does not? Why should its genetic impetus (the same impetus shared by parasites, cancer, viruses and government) be given priority over the life already in progress?

    Congratulations, you found a dictionary which agrees with you. Up until relatively recently, the DSM defined homosexuality as a mental disorder. Now it does not. Within a few years, it is very likely that other sex-related disorders will be declassified as the stigma against them is reduced from de jure to merely de facto, and gradually not even that.

    I see a parallel.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    “abortion mills”?

    Are you seriously for real?

  • EllieMurasaki

    You…do realize that the very first definition you give not only supports my point but contradicts the one you wish me to use, yes?

    I am not in any way pro-abortion. I am pro-the-mother-of-three-not-having-to-be-a-mother-of-four. I am pro-the-teenager-not-having-to-be-a-parent. I am pro-the-person-scared-of-pregnancy-not-having-to-be-pregnant. I am pro-the-person-endangered-by-pregnancy-not-having-to-be-pregnant. (I am most emphatically pro-someone-who-wants-to-be-a-mother-being-a-mother; in the Texas case I recently heard about in which a teen is suing her parents for trying to force her to have an abortion, I’m on the teen’s side, and I hope a pro-choice Texas organization will join the pro-life Texas organization that’s funding her lawyers.)

    What do you plan to do to ensure that a mother of three does not have to be a mother of four unless she is able and willing to be a mother of four, that a teenager does not have to be a parent unless she is able and willing to be a parent, that someone scared of or endangered by pregnancy does not have to be pregnant?

    Don’t say ‘don’t have sex’. That is a method of avoiding pregnancy that any person can ethically use and can ethically require their potential sex partner(s) to use but cannot ethically force on a third party, and incidentally doesn’t always work because rape is in fact a thing.

  • EllieMurasaki

    What penalty do you wish imposed on someone who gets an abortion in a jurisdiction where you have successfully ensured that abortion is legally murder?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Yeah, there’s a certain amount of ‘put your money where your mouth is’. Waived on an individual level because individual circumstances vary, but when a WHOLE POLITICAL MOVEMENT is talking up saving fetal lives but putting their money in forcing pregnant people to give birth (instead of ensuring that they never become pregnant people if they don’t want to be regardless of whether they’re having penis-in-vagina sex, or that pregnant people have the resources to be parents if they want to be, or, crucially, in research into preventing the deaths by miscarriage of half of all fetal lives ever), then there’s a question to be asked about why the movement as a whole is not in fact putting its money where its mouth is.

    What’s your point?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Crisis pregnancy centers. You mean those places that use all means necessary to pressure pregnant people into not having an abortion and cease to give a shit once the baby’s born? Or has literally every first-hand account of such places I’ve heard (and I have heard many) been a lie?

    Define ‘abortion mill’. I’ve never heard of such a place outside pro-forced-birth fantasy.

  • EllieMurasaki

    So you admit that being pro-life is actually being pro-punishing-women-who-have-sex-without-wanting-to-be-mothers.

  • EllieMurasaki

    No, what we’re saying is that since people who oppose legal abortion are nearly all also vehemently opposed to measures that would reduce the number of people needing abortion, and since these people also do not en masse support measures that would reduce the incidence of miscarriage, it looks really convincingly as though people who oppose legal abortion are doing so out of a desire to punish uterus people who have sex with penis people while being unwilling or unable to give birth and/or raise a child. The ‘innocent life’ thing looks like a smokescreen.

    Nothing you have said has dispelled that impression.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I run 5Ks for ovarian cancer. Does that give me the street cred you require in order to listen to me when I call bullshit?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Silly ShifterCat–the fetusbaby is the only actual person in any of those scenarios! Unless we’re counting the babydaddies.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Which means Savita Halappanavar and those like her suffer while the doctors debate whether this abortion is actually necessary to save her life, and then she dies anyway and the doctors belatedly realize that yes it was.
    No. We will not play that game. Abortion legal in all instances that the pregnant person feels a need for it, and it is no one’s fucking business but the pregnant person’s and the pregnant person’s doctor’s why there’s a need for it. If you want to reduce abortions, reduce the incidence of reasons people feel the need for abortions.

    I have yet to see any indication that you give a flying fuck about any method of reducing abortion bar instructing uterus people not to have sex with penis people.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I love how he doesn’t seem to think someone emotionally or financially or really in any way unprepared for parenting might be someone ill-suited to become a parent.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     If we’re moving to this level of specificity, I think perhaps it might be better to say that a pregnant person shouldn’t be in the position of “feeling the need for” an abortion; rather, a pregnant person would feel the need to stop being pregnant, and their doctor would be responsible for coming to an agreement with the pregnant person about the best medical way to make that happen, and the law is involved only insofar as assuring that the techniques and practices involved are subject to necessary standards of safety and best medical practice. Which is pretty much how the whole rest of medicine works.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Good point.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X