Anti-choice Says “Women Not Human”

[Donnachaidh]

http://my.firedoglake.com/revauntieadrian/2011/01/21/anti-choice-says-women-not-human/

I must admit I have always had a hard time with much of the “pro-life” logic and explanations.

Abortions have to be made illegal because human life is sacred and must be protected from the moment of conception. OK, this woman is going to die if she stays pregnant and tries to carry this child which probably won’t survive either. Can she have an abortion which will save her life and give her the chance to have another child she can carry? Absolutely not. The child has to be given a chance, no matter what. Human life is sacred. Obvious conclusion: The pregnant woman is not human, but the fetus is. The ability to bear children removes humanity and human rights.

Human life is sacred. That’s why we need the death penalty. Is this an oxymoron? Or do you give up your humanity if you do something the right-to-lifers don’t like?

:snip:

I guess, whether you’re referring to fetuses, felons or foreigners, whether human life is sacred or not depends entirely on your definition of human. I wonder how many pregnant, or potentially pregnant, women know the anti-choice people think they’re not human?

More at the link --

[Th1onein]

1. I think that's an extreme point of view when it comes to being anti-abortion, or "pro-life"

I am anti-abortion and I think that it should be made illegal in MOST cases, but not all. I think many, many people feel this way, but each side tries to define the other as THE most extreme example of their respective sides. I think that we should be reasonable about this issue and try to understand each others' viewpoints instead of characterizing them in this way. Unless we can come together on these "wedge" issues, we will remain divided and those who seek to profit from those divisions, ie., corporatists, will win. Demonizing those on the other side of the issue by defining them as the extreme is both divisive and destructive.

[cali]

3. Yes, it's extreme, but it exists and it's not that small a group of people who believe along those l

and sorry, I can't "be reasonable" about people wanting to take my rights away.

[Demoiselle]

6. No one in this country is FORCED to have an abortion.

That is the point of "Choice."

[uppityperson]

7. +1

[The Straight Story]

8. No one in this country is forced to go to bar that allows smoking - but others think restricting

choice is OK for them.

Either people are for choice or against it - I find it sad that so many here are against it on some things but not others - and while I am sure there will be people jumping in to say this is all about smoking in bars and such it is really about a principle that I believe in and want to see exercised across the board - either someone really believes in that principle and it's applications or they don't, and if they believe in it then they should always seek to defend it.

[Boojatta]

9. What is the principle?

You invoked a principle without formulating it.

Suppose some person who currently doesn't work in a bar is willing to work in a bar for fifty-five hours per week before getting the overtime rate of pay. If nobody is forced to go into a bar that permits smoking, then in particular nobody is forced to work in a bar that permits smoking. So nobody would be forced to lose the advantage provided by the usual overtime pay policy. After all, you could receive money and then bargain it away in any number of ways. Why not allow people to bargain away the entitlement to receive the money?

[Bunny]

10. You can't possibly be equating the right to reproductive autonomy

with smoking in bars.

[Boojatta]

11. I think you are correct.

It seems rather obvious that DU member The Straight Story is claiming that there's a general principle that can be applied to both topics. I don't see how you can use anything The Straight Story wrote to support the claim that the two topics can be equated. The Straight Story isn't equating and cannot be equating the two topics.

[Maru Kitteh]

21. Oh yes he can. Every fucking thing in the world is about SS's victimhood and oppression as a smoker

The world will not be free until he is allowed to smoke cigarettes in the operating room of your grandfather's open heart surgery.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. +1000

[uppityperson]

27. He is. eom

[Starry Messenger]

44. Oh yes indeed.

Because putting a burning stick of vegetable matter in one's cakehole is *just like* having an abortion. (It's his whole shtick).

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Yes he is

[EOTE]

57. So, are you entirely for choice, or entirely against it.

Do you think that people should have choice in every issue in their lives or do you think they should have no choice? I don't think this issue is as cut and dry as you think it is. Me? I'm pro-abortion. As in, I believe in relatively unrestricted abortion rights. I think that pro-choice is a rather misleading term to use in that regard. Not so long ago, many states believed that it was their right to decide whether or not a person could own another person.

[LanternWaste]

109. Then if I believe it's not an inherent choice of mine

Then if I believe it's not an inherent choice of mine to beat the crap out of a co-worker, I'm not pro-choice?

Or (and I find this much more ethically consistent) do we apply context, collective safety and a series of standards based on social mores to Choice?


I'm going for curtain number two myself... but then again, I tend to get bemused when the standards of an Apple are applied to those of an Orange. :shrug:

[LeftishBrit]

148. However, others' choice is restricted in the situation you describe

If all bars permit smoking, then those who don't want to be, or feel ill when they are, around tobacco smoke, cannot go to a bar at all. Or work in one, which restricts job opportunities.

So it's not choice vs. non-choice, but which group has their choice restricted.

However, I don't think that in EITHER direction it is remotely as important as the anti-abortion phenomenon.EITHER being unable to smoke in a bar, OR being unable to go to the bar because everyone else is smoking there, is a relatively small restriction compared with the very fundamental issue of reproductive choice.

'Either people are for choice or against it'.

Not as simple as that. Supposing it's someone's choice to drive 100 miles an hour in the wrong direction on a one-way street in a residential area- should this be equated with reproductive choice?

[StarsInHerHair]

134. but how many are forced to have a baby? whether through rape or...?

nt

[immoderate]

14. It's so simple. The woman decides.

Unless she's shown to be incompetent, the woman decides what happens to her pregnancy -- it's her body.

Letting the government decide will NEVER lead to a better outcome.

--imm

[TBF]

24. You bring up one of the interesting points about the abortion debate -

women want the government to keep the hell away from their bodies. Conservatives normally feel that government should be less intrusive so why do they insist on regulating this one thing?

[immoderate]

26. Because it's the one thing that least needs government regulation!

Hard to imagine any situation where outside judgment would be better than the pregnant woman. :shrug: That of course, assumes available and competent clinical care.

--imm

[Mushroom]

15. Such hateful violent talk n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

156. It is hateful, it promotes a view that brings violence against women and healthcare providers.

[we can do it]

16. Against Abortion, Fine DON"T HAVE ONE. MYOFB

the point is women are not valued as much as tissue blobs are to Anti-choicers.

[MattBaggins]

17. Sorry making it illegal is extreme.

The only thing that matters at the core of any side is the simple fact that it isn't anyone's decision but the woman involved and the people she chooses to include.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. So if it's made illegal what should the penalties be?

Here in AZ we have a law still on the books that calls for one to five years in jail for the woman and her doctor. Roe v Wade obviously supersedes it but if it's ever overturned that's what goes into effect. Is that acceptable to you?

[Maru Kitteh]

22. So your idea of "coming together" is basically the same as the Catholic church? Making almost all

abortions illegal?

Or did you have something else in mind when you say "coming together?"

[Th1onein]

38. Yes.

n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

144. That isn't "coming together" - that's you declaring yourself the abortion pope

and I don't think you understand the function of n/t.

[Mojeoux]

119. The Catholic Church said aborted souls go to Limbo, Now the pope said there is NO Limbo.

Limbo was a bummer because, unlike Purgatory, you can (ahem) NEVER leave. It's not Hell, but there was no future in Limbo.

[Maru Kitteh]

145. So, Limbo was in Scranton? Did the pope tell God he had to move it or what?

How does that work? Does the pope call God in his office and tell God he's going to have to scrap one of his biggest projects and streamline his operation, or else?

[Mojeoux]

164. I'm curious as to where the pope thinks the residents of Limbo are now!

Limbo was a hallmark of the dogma. Seems pretty flippant for a pope.

[uppityperson]

28. In which cases should it be legal? Serious question.

Talk with me, let's try and come together and discuss this. I won't snark.

[Th1onein]

29. I think it should be illegal...

In all cases except where the health of the mother is at stake. I don't think that the mother should be put in jail, but that the doctor should lose his license to practice medicine. I also think that you can't just put these laws into effect without balancing them with other laws--for instance, birth control should be taught in our schools, and be freely available to all females, no matter their age. And their privacy should be protected. I also think that we should give the women who carry these children to term everything they need in order to either keep their baby with them or adopt the baby out, and follow them through the system to make sure that they do not suffer because they had the child.

This, to me, is a culture of life. I don't think that people have abortions because it's a fun thing; in most cases, it is a heartrending decision, forced upon them by life's hardships. Take away those and there is no reason to have an abortion. They should be protected, just as the life that they carry should be protected.

FWIW, I also am against capital punishment, and war. I think that these views are consistent with each other.

[Mushroom]

40. The velvet glove shows itself once again. n/t

[Th1onein]

55. I'm not sure what that means?

Care to explain?

[Mushroom]

131. It means whatever you would want it to mean.

[EOTE]

60. Do you believe that this would cause a decrease in deaths?

Or a decrease in the amount of unwanted children in this country? Are you concerned with what will happen to women who decide to pursue back-alley abortions in this scenario? Who would get to decide when the health of the mother is at stake? What if there are conflicting opinions? What happens when a woman is forced to give birth against her will and she dies during the process? In my opinion, these questions need to be addressed before you could call what you support "a culture of life".

[Th1onein]

63. I think we should set a goal to make decisions like Roe v Wade moot in this country.

And, of course, I'm concerned about women who decide to pursue back-alley abortions. And all of the other issues that you raise. This is not an easy issue, that's for sure. But we need not let it divide us. NO ONE wants to have an abortion; this is not an easy decision for any woman, no matter how legal abortion is. We can come to an agreement on that. The only thing that you need to decide, after you've agreed on that, is how to stop the abortions? How to lessen the amount of them? How to save what many people believe are children, at conception? There are so many things that you can do, to move towards that goal, instead of demonizing others on the other side of the issue, OR criminalizing the act.

[EOTE]

68. But I thought you said you DO want to criminalize the act.

That is what I strongly object to. If you don't support the criminalization of abortion, I think you might want to reword your post above. I certainly agree that no one wants an abortion and I certainly agree that much should be done to limit abortions as in providing for family planning clinics. I don't know what you mean by saying Roe v. Wade should be moot, but if you don't believe that abortion should be illegal in most cases, we don't disagree.

[Th1onein]

78. I think it is important to be pragmatic if one is to reach a goal.

We could fight a hundred years over this issue, framing it as women's rights on one side, and the unborn's rights on the other. Would criminalizing it change that? No. It would probably make it worse. In a perfect world, where everyone agreed, abortion would be illegal; and probably should be illegal.

But we don't live in a perfect world. And we have to come together on this issue, if we are going to come together at all. The trick is to "Get 'er done," as they say. Make it so that pregnant women have more incentive to have the child, as opposed to disposing of it. Create an environment where abortion is only acceptable socially, morally, and personally, if the mother's life is at stake. We have a long, long way to go towards that, but at least it is a solution that we can aspire to; whereas the issues framed as women's rights, or unborn rights is leading nowhere and can serve no purpose other than to polarize the electorate.

And, the electorate doesn't win when it's divided. Moreover, in this day and age, of inflammatory political rhetoric, this issue is often used to distract us from other important issues, particularly those involving our financial well-being. This is how the corporations win.

It is a pragmatic way of looking at things, but sometimes you have to be pragmatic, to get the job done.

[riderinthestorm]

82. But it's not "women's rights" v the "unborn's rights", it's ALL American's right to privacy.

It's in the secular Constitution that governs all of us, regardless of our religious beliefs (thank gawd!)

We don't have to "all come together" on this. It's already settled law. The inflammatory political rhetoric about abortion appears to come from the right who call those who have had an abortion, will get an abortion, or who perform an abortion "homicidal".

[Th1onein]

83. You do not see the post that started this thread?

Do you really believe that everyone who is against abortion actually believes that women aren't human? Come on.

[PeaceNikki]

101. Indeed. The poster you're replying to is on ignore.

Because of this issue, BTW. People who think there should be justification fail to see that is the exact reasoning behind the Roe v Wade ruling.

Privacy.

[EOTE]

87. You still have stated multiple positions on this issue.

You initially said that you think that abortions should be illegal in all cases but where the mother's life is at danger. Then you seemed to take that back. Is that how you feel or no? If it's not how you feel then we're in complete agreement. Of course abortion is horrific to go through and we should do our best to limit the incidences of abortion. But forcing women to sacrifice their lives through back-alley abortions is not the way to go about that.

[Th1onein]

89. I think that abortion should be illegal, but we have already crossed the line of that slippery slope

with Roe v Wade. I don't think it would serve any purpose, except in an idealistic world where there was perfect birth control methods available to all. And, then, one probably wouldn't need to make it illegal, anyway.

I started on this thread by answering the original post. I remarked that demonizing the other side is pointless, useless, and detrimental to the well-being of the electorate.

[EOTE]

91. Then you are wrong, we DO need to be very divided on this issue.

And it seems rather odd that you'd write "There are so many things that you can do, to move towards that goal, instead of demonizing others on the other side of the issue, OR criminalizing the act." So apparently you think that criminalizing the act should take priority.

What you advocate would not only be a huge blow to personal privacy in this country, but it would cause for a hell of a lot more dead mothers and a hell of a lot more unwanted babies. I have no problem demonizing that viewpoint. You may be well-intentioned, but your way has been tried already. To say it failed miserably would be an understatement.

[Th1onein]

92. You seem to be confused as to what I wrote.

Oh well.

[EOTE]

93. You wrote that you wished for abortion to be illegal in most cases.

I asked you three separate times to clarify, and that's what you've stuck with. This has been tried before in the past. Not only was it a serious affront to constitutional rights, but many, many people died as a result. It didn't work. Going back to "the good ol' days" would be an awful thing for the country.

[Th1onein]

106. I don't think that you can go back and make it illegal, without doing some things that make it less

likely to happen. Now, do you understand?

[EOTE]

112. Yes. That you believe abortion should be illegal.

None of the wiggle words you use change that.

[Th1onein]

132. Nobody's using wiggle words, kiddo.

I think I've stated my views quite clearly.

[EOTE]

141. Yes, that you believe abortion should be illegal.

But you don't believe making abortion illegal will help with anything, so it shouldn't. Yep, perfectly clear.

[uppityperson]

152. Indeed. Abortion should be illegal. The fertilized egg has more rights than the woman.

You have been very clear and have proven the OP's point.

[uppityperson]

100. Yet you are fine with shoving your morals down others, with legislating them.

"Create an environment where abortion is only acceptable socially, morally, and personally, if the mother's life is at stake".

[PeaceNikki]

102. Can I also get hovershoes and unicorns in this fucking utopia, please?

:eyes:

[Maru Kitteh]

146. AND he calls it "coming together" on the issue? Ain't that a hoot?

Kind of like how the old Soviet Union and the Eastern block countries "came together."

[LeftishBrit]

160. But that is imposing your view of morality, which is not universal, on everyone

Some people believe that it is wrong to eat meat and that everyone should be vegetarian. They don't eat meat, and may try to persuade others not to eat meat. But they don't demand *laws* against meat-eating (at least none whom I know do).

Most of us on this board think that right-wing policies are dangerous, and in many respects immoral, and that people should vote for left-of-centre parties for their own good and that of their country. But to make it *illegal* to vote for a conservative would be totalitarian and more fundamentally RW than the conservatives.

Why is it OK to be totalitarian about abortion?

[uppityperson]

99. "In a perfect world, where everyone agreed, abortion would be illegal"?

Again, false. In a perfect world, where everyone agreed, abortions would be safe, legal, and accessible.

The trick is to: "Create an environment where abortion is only acceptable socially, morally, and personally, if the mother's life is at stake."? What. The? No, far from that. The trick is to make sure that women who need an abortion can get one, NOT to shove your moralizing down their throats, to make them feel guilty for the choices they have made or had forced upon them.

"We have a long, long way to go towards that, but at least it is a solution that we can aspire to." You aspire to legalize your morals, to force them on everyone? No, it is in no way a solution that we can aspire to. Indeed, inflammatory rhetoric such as "Create an environment where abortion is only acceptable socially, morally, and personally, if the mother's life is at stake" and then saying you are trying to work together is asinine.

[PeaceNikki]

103. .

:puke:

[EOTE]

142. Thank you.

I've been trying to put into words how that poster has incensed me. You've done it better than I could have.

[StarsInHerHair]

135. what about RAPE, INCEST that ultimately led to pregnancy? where do u stand?

nt to theone1n or whatever the name is.....

[Scout]

73. "this is not an easy decision for any woman"

for some women, it is.

[PeaceNikki]

98. So what if it is? Abortion is a moral and positive choice

that liberates women, saves lives, and protects families.

[Maru Kitteh]

151. Exactly! Not every woman gets all twisted into shameful knots, worrying about a zygote!

For many, it is quite a simple matter. Don't wanna be pregnant. Done.

[uppityperson]

97. "The only thing that you need to decide, after you've agreed on that, is how to stop the abortions?"

No, you are very wrong. The other thing is how to make the abortions be as hygienic and safe as possible for the pregnant woman. How to save women who have no choice but to go to a back alley abortionist. THAT is the big question.

[PeaceNikki]

105. Anti-abortion laws kill and injure women, violate their human rights and dignity,

impede access to abortion, and obstruct healthcare professionals. All abortion restrictions are unjust, harmful, and useless because they rest on traditional religious and patriarchal foundations. Only when abortion has the same legal status as any other health procedure can it be fully integrated into women's
reproductive healthcare.

From a wonderful paper by my favorite author on this topic: http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/ocrabortlaw13.php">Repeal all abortion laws

[Lucian]

30. Why would you think abortion should be illegal in most cases?

I think a woman should get an abortion 10 times a week if she wants. It's HER body. Not your's. Not mine. Fetuses aren't alive. They haven't had time to let people love them, get to know them, work with them. The woman has.

Your opinion is the worst opinion I have seen on this subject outside of FR.

Edit: Provide me with a rational answer on why you think abortion should be illegal in most cases. Don't give me any emotional crap.

[riderinthestorm]

34. But you've been quite explicit that you believe anyone who gets an abortion is a murderer.

You also believe that any doctor that performs an abortion for any reason is also a murderer. I remember our previous discussions very well and I don't trust your words now about being "reasonable" in this conversation.

[Th1onein]

37. "Murder" is a legal term. Reasonably, it should not be used in

a world where abortion is legal. I think "homicide" is the better word.

And, please, don't turn this discussion into a personal attack. I don't do that to you; and I don't expect it to be done to me; it has no place here.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[riderinthestorm]

47. Homicide. Murder. Semantics.

And I've attacked your words, your ideas, not you personally.

You are the one trying to insert your personal self, your personal beliefs, your personal agenda into a private decision that rests between the woman involved and her doctor. Period.

[Th1onein]

56. Another attack. Geez.

Can't we discuss this without attacking each other? There are a large group of people who believe along the very same lines as I do. Should we attack them all? Or try to understand where they are coming from? Personal attacks have no place in reasonable discussions.

We all have our points of view. You have yours, I have mine. I don't come here, though, and stage a personal attack against you because of your views. When one uses words such as "You are the one...." it is invariably a personal attack.

The nature of a wedge issue is that it is not black and white. When one or the other side couches things in black and white terms, it is bound to cause a problem. I spoke with Skinner in reference to the "murder" thing, and he is right. It does not apply, and it is inflammatory, in the case of abortion. It IS a black and white term; a moral judgement against those who stand for the other side of the issue. The things that you are saying are a moral judgement, as well. Please refrain from using these terms. They are considered a personal attack.

By the way, murder is a crime; homicide is not, necessarily.

[riderinthestorm]

66. Then alert on my post if you think this is a personal attack on you.

This is a discussion board and "attacks" on another's views are exactly what DU happens to be about. You can call it attacks but for the rest of us it's a discussion.

You want to call anyone who has an abortion, or wants an abortion, or performs an abortion "homicidal". It's Skinner's website and if he's okay with you actually calling DUers (and there are more than a few who have spoken up about having an abortion on this website), "homicidal" instead of "murderers", then it's not my place to quibble. You've definitely put your views out there for everyone to see and discuss. You used to use the term murder, and now it's homicide. Okay.

FWIW, I am not making any moral judgement. I am disputing your moral judgement with the facts of law and science.

By the way, do you think Terry Schiavo's husband had the right to determine his brain-dead wife's fate? Do you think he committed a murder or a homicide? If he did not have the right to determine his wife's fate, who did? Was it the government's role to step in and try to dictate what that family should do?

[Th1onein]

81. In the case of Terry Schiavo, I think they should have erred on the side of life.

So, no, I don't think that they should have starved her to death. In the end, she had really no brain left, but they couldn't tell that until she was already dead. Her parents, from what I could gather, were willing to pay for her care, instead of starving her to death. It was a little whacky, I admit, that they were willing to have all of her limbs amputated in order to keep her alive, but what difference would limbs make to a person that has no brain function anyway?

I did not alert on your post as a courtesy. However, I did think it was important to point out to you that it contained a personal attack. If I receive another personal attack from you, I assure you, I will alert on that post.

I understand that you are disputing my moral judgement; as I dispute yours, on the same grounds. Not a problem as long as it's not a personal attack, or couched in those terms.

As you might notice: I am not the one, in this thread, who brought up murder. In fact, I explained to you why the term does not apply, in my opinion.

[riderinthestorm]

85. The mods will delete if it contains a personal attack.

Frankly, you don't even have to alert on it if it's crossed DU lines. So there's that but thanks for the courtesy.

Again, I reiterate, this isn't my moral judgement. It's yours. My position is settled law under our secular Constitution. And I only brought the murder vs. homicide rhetoric because I remembered you from previous discussions and you used to use the word murder in relation to those who got or performed abortions. Now it's homicide. So be it.

I brought up Terry Schiavo to illustrate your support for government intervention in private family medical decisions, and see it as a good analogy for those reading this discussion. Terry Schiavo's husband was the only person authorized to make medical decisions about her fate, and the law agreed (as would most progressives nay, most people). A fully grown woman is also the only one who medically gets to make the decisions for her body. These are private decisions that are between the doctor and the relevant, legal entities involved. Nobody else gets to interfere, regardless of how strongly they think gawd has instructed them otherwise.



(just have to add, jayzus christ on a trailer hitch... those who were involved in the Schiavo threads will get it....)



ETA: I'm off for the night. I've got chores to do and my dad just had emergency triple bypass surgery last night. I'm due back at the hospital to be with him right after I get done in the barn. Not sure if I'll get back on tomorrow. If not, peace out.

[Scout]

74. "There are a large group of people who believe along the very same lines as I do"

that doesn't matter one good god damn bit.

your beliefs do not justify interfering in a woman's decision about abortion. they just don't. you can whine and kick your heels all you want, but it does not matter what you think. you don't get to control women.

[Th1onein]

84. Not a good argument.

Sorry.

[StarsInHerHair]

137. then join the Tea Party, they all share similar beliefs, why not? It's your

"logic". Same with /creationists, just because ANY group believes something THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGITIMATE. look at white power groups for comparison.

[Scout]

143. scuse me but you're the one with no argument

your beliefs are not sufficient justification to interfere with my medical decisions.

[uppityperson]

104. "Create an environment where abortion is only acceptable socially, morally, and personally, if the..

"Create an environment where abortion is only acceptable socially, morally, and personally, if the mother's life is at stake."

I do not agree. You are the one who posted that. (oops, does this make this a personal attack? no?)

You post things like "Create an environment where abortion is only acceptable socially, morally, and personally, if the mother's life is at stake" and cannot understand why we do not agree. Does working together, trying to understand each other mean we must agree with you that the best thing to do is to work towards making any abortion (except in the case of mother's life at risk) socially, morally, personally unacceptable?

HOW is this trying to understand or work together.

[Th1onein]

108. How is it not?

n/t

[uppityperson]

110. If you can find the personal attack there, more power to you. I don't see it.

point it out.

[Mojeoux]

122. God Loves Pregnant Woman as much as Men or Babies.

All of us are alive. Life is sacred. Why would the creator rig the human race against the female?

Half the planet believes in reincarnation, if anyone gets to come back,the tiny souls come back or go on to another mother.

Fully grown Pregnant Women are sacred, they are human.

[StarsInHerHair]

138. then give ground, THAT is working together

nt

[Maru Kitteh]

147. You don't seem to have a good hold on what a personal attack is. Allow me to explain.

Example of a personal attack:
"TheOnein is one stupid-ass motherfucker who needs to keep his nose out of other people's crotches."

Example of a discussion point without a personal attack:
"Your idea is wrong." "Your idea is outdated," "Your idea has been tried and failed," even "Your thinking on this matter is stupid" is an attack on your ideas and not a personal attack, even if you do find it less than civil.



This ends your PSA for the morning.

[uppityperson]

153. Those are good examples. There is a difference between

personal attack and being argumentative or uncivil. One attacks the person, the other the idea.

[StarsInHerHair]

136. how can it be homicide when the fetus is an unfinished body that wouldn't

survive long outside the uterus? What ever happened to the Christian belief that only upon taking a breath does a body gain a soul, based upon Genesis and God breathing into Adam to make him alive?

[xxqqqzme]

50. It is only a 'wedge' issue

because the religious radical right has manufactured it as such. It is very simple to me - either a woman has a right to private medical care or she does not. Once I walk into doctor's exam room, no one else has any right to know what is discussed or decided.

[Th1onein]

58. I think that there are a lot of people who are not of the religious right who are against abortion.

It is very simple to us, too -- life begins at conception. And, if that is true, then the rights of the unborn life begin as well. And where one's rights enter, the others' rights are curtailed. I don't have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, because although I have the right to free speech, that right is curtailed when the rights of others, to be safe, begin.

I think that Roe v Wade was a compromise, and as in the case of most compromises, both sides are unhappy. Maybe the best thing to do is "rev" up the help that women who carry these unwanted children have access to, and make it so that abortion becomes almost unnecessary, in most cases, if not all.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

107. You seriously believe a woman who wants an abortion should be sterilized?

"And, for those women, you do not think sterilization is a better way to go?

Abortion and sterilization are both surgical procedures. Why shouldn't we have this available for those who just don't want to have a child? It seems much simpler than doing something after the fact, and killing an unborn child."

Seriously? If a woman wants an abortion "some women just don't want to be pregnant and give birth no matter who will be stuck raising the kid", you say sterilize her instead?

[girl gone mad]

123. That sentiment is so bizarrely hypocrtical.

A woman might have an abortion before she is prepared to start a family, then later go on to give birth to many healthy, happy children.

Instead, this jerk would sterilize her so that she can never give birth.

It can't be any more obvious that this supposed love of human life is a weak facade for a personal desire to control and punish women.

[uppityperson]

126. Indeed.

I was glad I reply in 1 window while having the main message open in another as could copy/paste. It is incredible.

Sterilize a woman who doesn't want to give birth early. That'll teach her!

[girl gone mad]

120. It's your opinion that life begins at conception.

That's a personal and religious judgment. Some religions believe that life begins well before conception. Some believe life begins at birth. The Supreme Court decided that constitutionally protected life begins in the third trimester of development. You don't get to force your personal beliefs on the matter onto others any more than Kabbalahists who believe masturbation is murder get to force their beliefs onto you.

[PeaceNikki]

121. Beyond the obvious controversy of this statement,

there is a second and more subtle error here. And that is that human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there nonetheless.) The correct question is not "When does human life begin?" but "When does personhood begin?"

[Th1onein]

129. The same goes for the pro-choice view, girl gone mad.

Anti-abortionists believe that they are forcing their moral views on the unborn child, resulting in the death of an innocent.

However, my view that life begins at conception has NOTHING to do with religion. I have no religion. I realize that there are people who DO base their views, in terms of this issue, on religion, but I resent being accused of it especially when I've provided no evidence to support that conclusion.

[girl gone mad]

159. It doesn't really matter why you believe what you do.

Whether your belief is based in religion or not, the point is that you've selected an arbitrary event (conception) at which you deem protected human life to begin. The top courts in the land disagree with your arbitrary determination.

[LeftishBrit]

161. Yes. There are indeed other reasons besides religion for being strongly anti-abortion

For example, some secular leaders want to increase population for nationalist reasons and oppose abortion and sometimes birth control for those reasons (Ceausescu was an extreme example). Others have an absolutist view of embryo rights which is not directly related to any religion.

But whatever the reasons for making abortion illegal, especially in the extreme form where the embryo is treated as having full existence and right to life from the moment of fertilization, it represents an unacceptable authoritarianism when it is imposed on people with different views.

[StarsInHerHair]

139. what about rape or incest?

nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Since NOBODY is forced to have abortions...

and in a few cases yes. women who have carried on an ill advised pregnancy have died... as well as the baby.

The most extreme wants to return this country to an age where backyard abortions with coat hangers will be new normal.

I have transported young women who engaged in these practices since abortion is ilegal in their country... and in fact two of them died in the back of my ambulance. One from uncontrolled bleeding, the other from generalized sepsis...

Both could have had a child later in life, if they were allowed to have a safe abortion.

So yes, I do get the point of the OP, very well indeed.

[HockeyMom]

2. Ectopic pregnancy in a fallopian tube

will not survive anywhere near the point of "delivering" a viable baby. The tube, with EMBRYO, will burst with internal hemmoraging to the woman. There are NO CHOICES with this one. One way or another, there will be a dead baby. If you let nature take it's course, you will have not only dead baby, but dead woman too.

Many times, depending on where in the tube, it will burst long before the woman even knows she is pregant. My tube burst at 5 weeks. NOTHING, they, or anyone else could do about it. Yet, they say there are NEVER any instances where an abortion is necessary to save the life of a mother. Yeah, right. Tell me about it.

[Citizen Worker]

4. My position on abortion has always been, if you don't believe in it don't have one but don't force

your beliefs on the rest of society. It is and should remain a woman's choice.

[Solly Mack]

5. k/r

[Capitalocracy]

12. So, what if the fetus is female?

Then is it OK to abort? You know, as long as the male sperm source is OK with it, of course.

[RedCloud]

13. Why doesn't God give men and women like three sperm cells and three eggs each?

That would sure make evolution look stupid. Otherwise God is letting lots of sperm and eggs "die" needlessly.

I mean why start at the fertilized embryo which the Good Lord aborts over 75% of the time anyway?

If it were so immaculate and holy. conception would not be a crap shoot.

[girl gone mad]

124. That would make God the biggest abortionist of all.

I've read that conception ends in spontaneous abortion up to 90% of the time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. "If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament" Old bumper sticker.

Forcing women to conceive or give birth is a violation of basic human rights at it's crudest.

[mainer]

20. what if the fetus is just another second-class female?

maybe then abortion would be okay for them.

[MellowDem]

23. That's how it works...

in many third world countries.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. .

http://www.in-gender.com/XYU/Gender-Preference/#SexSelection

[alphafemale]

25. Most Catholics are opposed to abortion AND the death penalty

I've got to give them a few points for at least being consistent on that pro-life thing.

Most Protestant religious people are pro-fetal life and that's about it. Once they're here you can bomb the hell out of all the little brown babies you want. You can taze a 5 year old. You can inflict the death penalty on a retarded teenager. You can crush the testicles of an Iraqi child in front of his father. It will keep us safe...you see.

But hands off those fetuses!

[DirkGently]

33. The Church is opposed to the death penalty. Catholics themselves ... not so much.

At least that's not my personal experience. And quick search found some old 2005 poll suggesting Catholics favor the death penalty by about 66%.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/gallup-poll-who-supports-death-penalty

[DirkGently]

31. "Pro-life" sentiment has always struck me as more "anti - woman" than anything.

There is a distinct undercurrent among anti-abortion adherents that women must be shamed and punished and controlled in the arena of sex. Abortion, and even birth control, threaten that. It's not empathy driving the anti-abortion movement; it's a lack thereof. Thus, it doesn't matter if the pregnancy is ill-advised or a threat to the mother or the future child in question. Whether the "father" is a rapist or a pedophile. Or even whether the fetus is viable, or in some cases, already deceased. It's harsh, physical control of women these people seem to be after, and they are often willing to kill for it, which further undercuts the idea that "the sanctity of human life" has anything to do with things.

[hamsterjill]

67. Well put!

And right on in my opinion.

[jtown1123]

80. Yes. I was disgusted by the men in particular

I saw at the right to life march rally in D.C. yesterday. First of all, men who don't have uteruses have no effin right to mandate what I can and can't do with my body. Secondly, this creepy punishing and shaming of women has got to stop. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Better yet, support cheap and universal access to birth control for women. Also, stop punishing minority women who lack the education and access to birth control. YOu force them to carry and raise these unwanted children then whine and complain when they need to go on welfare since they cannot afford childcare and can't get a job. These people make me really sick.

[dembotoz]

32. mid third trimester, wife became quite leukemic

my wife
my
dear
dear
wife

our first child

we were lucky, tests showed lung development was adequete, a very quick c-section took place.

chemo began, she lived about 2 and a half years longer. Son grew up and now has a wife and child of his own.

We faced that decision. Had lung development not been good??? I would have chosen to save my wife.
Do i love my son?? Yes with all my heart. Light of my life, etc etc.

I still would have been in favor of the abortion. A no brainer.

Had some fucking priest or politian tried to stop it????

I still would be in jail.

[Th1onein]

39. I think any reasonable person would have made the same decision.

The attempt to demonize any person who is against abortion divides us. We need to be able to talk about these things together, without throwing stones at each other.

[REP]

43. There is no point to discussing anything with anyone who wants to take rights from women

The only thing worth saying to them is NO.

[Th1onein]

45. It surprises me that you are bothering joining in the discussion, then.

n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

149. No, insisting we should all adopt the standards of the Catholic church, wrenching away womens rights

while calling it "coming together" divides us. It's a fundamentally dishonest approach you take.

[Initech]

35. Logic clearly escapes many so-called pro lifers.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spike89]

36. Pro choice, but it isn't a simple thing

Among smart, caring, and honest people there can be very different answers to the question, when does a fetus become a person? I have my opinion, but others have different opinions. The reality is there is no fact...the progression from zygote to newborn is a spectrum. Current law (Roe vs. Wade) basically hinges on a definition loosely based on viability. Of course, viability is a moving target and quite arbitrary.
The entire discussion about the mother's health risks is beside the point in that it is much easier to take a stand that an established life outweighs a "potential" life (and of course, you're really putting both lives at risk in many cases).
As I see it, liberal philosophy insists on society being responsible for the protection of everyone, especially the weakest. The big question really is, when does that "thing" become a "person". That is where people disagree and where the hard liners on either side tend to stop talking.

[snooper2]

46. It is pretty simple

when it can exist outside the womb on it's own..

[Spike89]

49. You and I seem to agree on that, but...

honestly, when is that? And of course it can be said that no newborn is self-sufficient, but what about respirators, incubators, etc.? Many full-term and near term infants require some assistance, sometimes for weeks or longer...and the same technology has been moving the point of viability back. Is the earliest day any premmie has survived the last day any abortion should be allowed? If a hospital somewhere manages to keep a 4-month-old premature delivery alive, how does anyone know that 3 months and 29 days isn't also theoretically viable? What happens when we inevitably are able to bring a fetus to term in the lab? What level of assistance tips the scales to viability?

For a ton of reasons, I'm staunchly pro-choice, but I personally see the issue as very complicated.

[snooper2]

51. 5 months sounds reasonable..

20-21 weeks..


from this site-
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/609258

"Our Son was born on 10th Dec 2007 weighing 1lb 9oz at 24 weeks gestation, we was told to expect the worse as the figures arnt favorable. 15-20% survival at 24 Weeks, 0-3% at 22 weeks, 5-10% at 23 weeks. Retrospectivly I found that late 26 week and 27 week babies tend to have a 50/50 chance."


"James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada) was the earliest premature baby in the world. He was 128 days premature (21 weeks and 5 days gestation) and weighed 1 lb. 6 oz. (624 g). He survived and is quite healthy.

Amillia Taylor is also often cited as the most-premature baby. She was born on 24 October 2006 in Miami, Florida, at 21 weeks and 6 days gestation. At birth she was 9 inches (23 cm) long and weighed 10 ounces (283 grams). She suffered digestive and respiratory problems, together with a brain hemorrhage. She was discharged from the Baptist Children's Hospital on 20 February 2007."

[riderinthestorm]

48. Anti-choicers try to make this issue about personhood when its really about privacy issues.

Don't buy into the Rethug position. It's fallacious. This is a privacy issue, a medical decision that is between a doctor and her patient.

And actually we DO have facts, as they are known now, that the zygote, blastocyst, fetus etc. are not human persons... yet. Viability and a body's fate are long standing legal issues that have precedent on who gets to decide what is going to happen to them. A brain dead fully grown human being gets their fate decided upon by a family member or guardian for example. Why would you think that a fully grown woman doesn't get to decide the fate of the (not yet neurologically developed) blastocyst within her own body?

[Th1onein]

59. Because I believe that life begins at conception.

And so do many people; not just the religious right.

[riderinthestorm]

64. Your beliefs don't trump my right to privacy. nt

[Th1onein]

65. You are framing the issue as having to do with your privacy rights.

Pro-lifers, or anti-abortionists, don't agree with that right trumping the right to life.

[riderinthestorm]

71. Yes because its the only just, fair and logical basis upon which to make the decisions.

As you and others have stated, when life begins has cultural and religious overtones that are ambiguous. On the other hand, our Constitutional right to privacy is clear and unambiguous.

Some religious texts believe that women are inferior to men. Should we consider that when we make legal decisions? Or should be leave religious beliefs out of it? Or do we only listen to your religious beliefs?

[Th1onein]

86. No, it is not the only fair, just or logical basis upon which to make decisions.

I disagree. I believe that life begins at conception. Not because the Bible tells me so, but because that is the beginning of life, according to how I interpret the science available to me. It has NOTHING to do with religion.

If one believes, whether because of religion, or science, or anything else, that life begins at conception, the notion of the right to that life (and that's in the Constitution, too) trumps the right to privacy.

[uppityperson]

127. What is "life"? What is "personhood"?

[Th1onein]

133. I think it is real simple: life begins at the beginning.

When the egg is fertilized. You disagree. That's fine. But to characterize all anti-abortionists as hating women is just, well...stupid. It serves no purpose except to alienate the other side. It solves no problems.

[Lars39]

140. A fertilized egg won't continue to develop unless the host is willing.

To equate and or elevate a fertilized egg to that of a grown woman is wrong.

[uppityperson]

150. Does a fertilized egg have the same rights as a woman?

Here are 2 pictures for you. In your opinion, the first have more rights than the second:
1) Larger than life sized
.



2) Smaller than life sized

[Maru Kitteh]

154. "I think" = your OPINION. Your OPINION does not trump my ESTABLISHED rights. Period.

See? We already "came together" on this issue.

[Mushroom]

158. hahahahahaha

Oooooooh don't alienate the right-wing lunatic fringe. They're really high-vibrational gentle oracles and stuff.

:silly:

[PeaceNikki]

125. The fetus becomes a person when the woman carrying it decides it does.

It has rights when it's viable, as ruled by SCOTUS.

[hamsterjill]

69. +1!

n/t

[Boojatta]

70. At conception, there is a single-celled organism.

Don't you believe that a human being is a multi-cellular organism?

[Scout]

72. so what? it's inside someone else's uterus, whatever it is, whatever you call it....

doesn't change the fact that it is inside a REAL person's body.

[Th1onein]

62. Maybe pro-lifers should frame the issue differently....

I know the women's rights thing is important to them. And I can understand why they feel this way. But if we want this issue resolved, perhaps the best thing is to take all of that vitriol and energy, from both sides, and put it on making it so that abortions are very unlikely, instead of criminalizing them?

[Scout]

76. "But if we want this issue resolved"

it IS resolved, Roe is the law of the land.

it's the anti-choice misogynist assholes that are the only ones who think it's not resolved.

[Th1onein]

88. It is NOT resolved as long as it divides us.

n/t

[Scout]

157. it doesn't divide true progressives n/t

[Boojatta]

77. Might there be a technological solution?

I encourage you to post a reply to this DU thread. It seems that your contribution would express a view quite different from and more optimistic than the majority opinion on that thread.

[Th1onein]

90. Thanks.

I posted there. And, yes, I'm more optimistic. But, I think, too, that you can either fight about it, or do something about it. You always lose with the first one, and you do stand a chance, at least, with the second.

[Boojatta]

94. Thank you.

:)

[kgnu_fan]

79. Woman is the Nigger of the World - John Lennon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P91_H690z4

[mstinamotorcity]

95. The only thing that pisses me off

is who in the Hell died and made anybody the Womb Police????? People need to mind their own business about a women's uterus. Men especially. They don't have one ( probably jealous, or control factor)therefore,its not their opinion that counts. Women who choose life, then its your blessing and glad you chose to share it with the world. But for those who choose not to enter the path of Motherhood well maybe they must have good sense. Because it is one of the Hardest things in this life to do. And for someone who doesn't want the job they should be very careful not to fill out the application of pregnancy. Most people use the term life is sacred and begins at conception, they just forget to tell you it could end with a guilty verdict or a stray bullet from a gun lover. They believe one thing until sacred life does something to one of them. Like run away from slavery. Those sacred lives ended up in a noose. Oh yea sacred lives of free men were convict leasing at its infancy.

[PeaceNikki]

96. Anti-choicers are scum.

The lot of them. There's no reasonable discussion to be had with them.

Ever.

[REP]

111. As the kids say, +eleventybillion

[smokey nj]

113. People who want a say in whether or not a complete stranger carries

a pregnancy to term give me the creeps.

[PeaceNikki]

114. Or that they should ever have to justify a decision.

We can trust women to exercise their sensible moral judgment; we can trust doctors to exercise their professional medical judgment, and that's all we need to regulate the process.

Ever.

[uppityperson]

115. However, there do need to be rules, guidelines, laws to prevent things like Gosnell

atrocities. Back alley abortionist parading himself as a "doctor". Ok, he was a MD, but was also a back alley abortionist murderer.

[PeaceNikki]

117. Indeed. And clearly I refer to laws that restrict or criminalize the procedure.

If you've never read this piece, I highly recommend it: http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/action/repeal.pdf (PDF)

[uppityperson]

118. Yup and good summation.

I wanted to post it before someone jumped in and said "but...".

[slackmaster]

116. Male supremacists

:argh:

[seabeyond]

128. anti choicers are not the only ones to insist women are not humans. nt

[Th1onein]

130. I've never heard, except for the current OP, that anti-choicers believe that women are not human.

That is what I replied to, in fact. That kind of characterization of the other side is counter-productive, at best.

[uppityperson]

155. If you believe the fertilized egg has more rights than the woman, you do believe women are less huma

less deserving. That is what OP is about.

Here are 2 pictures for you. In your opinion, the first have more rights than the second:
1) Larger than life sized
.



2) Smaller than life sized

[LeftishBrit]

162. I don't think it's a denial that women are human. But it's a denial of rights.

[PeaceNikki]

163. Yep. All men in a society are automatically exempt from anti-abortion laws.

Basic human rights are violated when half the population is given a privileged legal status with more freedom and power, simply due to their gender. An essential element of a democracy is that legislators who pass laws must be subject to those laws, just like any other citizen.