To convince people to support abortion rights, you need to talk about foetuses, not about women.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

Nearly all the discussion of abortion on DU frames the issue in terms of women's rights.

This... isn't wrong, exactly - nearly all the claims like "it's a private decision affecting my body and no-one else's, so it's no-one else's business" are actually reasonable. But it takes the actual point of disagreement as an axiom, rather than proving it, and so it's of no use whatsoever when talking to people who don't agree with you to start with.

The main point of disagreement is *not* about the status of women, it's about the status of foetuses.

If you want to convince someone to support abortion rights, you need to convince them of (at least) one of two things:

1) Women should have the right to kill people
2) A foetus is not a person.

Most opponents of abortion rights don't believe either of these things is true, so you need to attack one or the other.

If you talk to them about women's rights, rather than about foetus's lack of rights, then you're in essence trying to convince them that 1) is false. And you're almost certainly going to fail, and quite right too: if foetuses were sentient people capable of pleading to be allowed to be born, abortion would be murder and should be outlawed except where necessary to preserve the mother's life. So at best you'll get no-where, and it's likely that you'll just harden their prejudices about supporters of abortion rights.

But, of course, foetuses aren't people.

The defining characteristic of a person, and the thing that makes them valuable and deserving of rights, is their sentience/self-awareness/consciousness/whatever you want to call it - their mind, that is.

Until the mind comes into being, a foetus is not a person, it's just a lump of living tissue with the capacity to become a person, the same as a sperm and an egg. As such, until that point, deciding to have an abortion is a *private* decision - that is, one which doesn't affect any *people* except the women making the choice, and so it's no-one else's business.

The way to rebut pretty much any analogy opponents of abortion rights present - violinists on life support, killing babies and so on - is to say "no, that has a mind, and is therefore a person with rights, whereas a foetus does not have a mind".



If you try to base an argument for abortion rights on discussion of sexism and the rights of women, without discussing the difference between a foetus and a person, you're only going to get anywhere if you really can justify the right of women to kill people, and I very much hope that a) you won't be able to convince people of that, and b) you don't support it yourself. But convincing people that women should have the right to kill lumps of living tissue with the potential to become people, but no minds and hence no personhood at present, while hard, may occasionally be possible, and is also logically and morally sound.

[etherealtruth]

1. WTF?

The argument is about whether women are free and equal human beings with autonomy over their bodies and their sexual reproduction.

Women do NOT lose their equality (as human beings) and autonomy the moment they become pregnant ... or begin ovulating ....


(I do understand your points and your post ... I am simply offended by it)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. No, it isn't. It's about whether or not *foetuses* are equal human beings with autonomy and rights.

The answer is "no", and unless you can make that case convincingly, you're very seldom going to get anywhere, I suspect.

[etherealtruth]

14. Your implication is that women are merely vessels

... for the fetus. That the "arguments" need to be made with the "fetus" as the subject ... relegating women to the less than primary focus in any abortion discussion.

Again, I clearly understand your points ... again, I am offended by them.

[tblue37]

29. But that is exactly how the anti-choice crowd DOES view women.

Their entire focus is on the poor, precious "baby" the woman is carrying--and to them it is already a baby, even if fertilization occurred only moments ago. That's why they hate birth control methods that prevent a fertilized egg from implanting itself successfully.

The OP is NOTiadvocating that absurd position. He is just recognizing that that us what anti-choicers typically believe and suggesting that if we could get them to understand hiw wrong that premise is, we might make more progress, especially since women's rights are not something most rightwingers consider a priority.

He isn't saying that a woman's right to control her own body is not the issue. He is just saying that argument won't have any effect on anti-choicers, but getting them to realize thata foetus is NOT a person might help some of them to become less unreasonable and extreme in their position.

Until the 20th century, even the Church generally accepted the traditional notion of "quickening," which was the idea that until the woman could feel the foetus move inside her, it was not ensouled. The quickening was believed to be the point at which a soul entered the foetus. (That occurs sometime in the second trimester, usually in month 4.)

The current anti-choice position that a fertilized egg is a person would have seemed ludicrous even to the Church until fairly recently.

Of course, even the idea of quickening deprives the woman if ownership if her own body after about the middle of the 4th month of gestation, so I would not encourage the anti-choicers to accept that notion. I just want to point out how recent and how EXTREME is their notion that personhood begins at conception.

[etherealtruth]

34. I understand the posts and remain offended by them.

The anti choice crowd doesn't view women as autonomous equal beings. The posts insinuating that we should accommodate that world view (they don't see women as equal humans so we need to to change our argument to fit their skewed beliefs) is OFFENSIVE.

The argument IS that women are autonomous human beings that have the right of self determination.

[bettyellen]

70. thank you, thank you, thank you.

[Scout]

102. + a fucking gazillion n/t

[ismnotwasm]

111. Exactly

[elehhhhna]

116. it's still a maybebaby vs. notavirgin

In judgyworld, the maybe baby ALWAYS wins

[elehhhhna]

115. you make a good pont which is somewhat obscured by

your manspaining talkdowntoyouladies style in the OP

[GreenEyedLefty]

39. +1

[elehhhhna]

114. Hey, let him manspain about abortion to us little ladies, mkay?

[etherealtruth]

117. I keep screwing this up ...

I somehow came to believe that I was an equal autonomous human being (foolishly I extended this belief to cover all women) ... Mercifully, I had this post to set me straight!

[bunnies]

2. "Women should have the right to kill people"

I totally agree.

[dkf]

6. Bad argument right?

[bunnies]

7. Totally.

edit: In fact, theres really not much in the entire OP that makes sense to me.

[Squinch]

3. So the rights of the woman shouldn't be the issue here. Got it.

The key to success is to pander to the people who see the fetus as more important than the woman. Check.

[bettyellen]

10. Kind of mind blowing that he feels the need to sweep that issue aside, eh?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. If by "pander to" you mean "refute" then yes... N.T.

[etherealtruth]

15. Refute what ...?

A woman's right to autonomy?

Dear god, your posts on this subject are becoming more and more offensive.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. The belief that a foetus is more important than (or, indeed, as important as) a person of either sex

[etherealtruth]

19. Actually, you argument implies that "the fetus" is what the discussion is about ...

The discussion is solely about a woman's autonomy ... a woman's right to make reproductive choices bases solely on her needs.

[Squinch]

27. Your OP is not about refuting that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

36. OK, *read* the OP, please.

It's exactly about that. What on earth did you think it was about?

[Squinch]

62. OK, *I did.* Your OP forwards your opinion that the way to fight opponents of abortion

is to sweep aside any mention of the rights of women, and focus solely on the rights or non-rights of the fetus.

[bettyellen]

71. somehow, this escaped his notice.

and this is why he needs a year or two stuffing envelopes at Planned Parenthood before offering to "help" again.

[gollygee]

61. Holy crap, I know.

I am stunned by this OP.

[Squinch]

66. Not surprised. This weekend seems to have a trend: all the smart men are telling

us the correct way to fight for our rights. As expected, the correct way boils down to two simple rules:

1. Don't raise your voice. Be sweet and polite at all times. Also, be ladylike. Because no man likes a woman doing a screed.

2. Don't, at any time, imply that you have intrinsic rights. You must sidestep this issue, because no one is going to respect that assertion. Duh. So you have to try something else. You know, something that makes sense.

Well, maybe three simple rules: If we want to really get attention for our little causes, we should show our boobs to reporters.

[gollygee]

79. I guess

that I'm glad I've been busy this weekend. Yikes.

[treestar]

4. Number one could be better put

Women have the right to kill fetuses of their own body. Right wingers think there is a right to kill in some circumstances - the death penalty, self defense. Add to that women's right to kill their own offspring when still a fetus - then you at least make the right winger deal with the issue they don't want that. They have to explain their opposition in those terms - hard for them to do without admitting where they truly come from, which is - women should not have that kind of power.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. I don't think that's at all correct.

The thing is that I can point out one relevant difference between a foetus and a murderer already - one has not done anything that deserves punishment, the other has.

And that's such a blindingly, glaringly obvious distinction that overlooking it is going to fatally undercut anything else you say, I fear.

I think your final line is, in essence, why so much pro-abortion-rights advocacy is so ineffective: because pro-choicers cling to comforting myths like the one you state, rather than admitting that most opposition to abortion is motivated by concern for foetuses.

[treestar]

47. Is it?

There's a lot of thought that the real reason for their opposition is wanting to have more control over women.

[mathematic]

26. I agree with you

I'd put 1) as "Women have the right to kill a person if that person is a fetus in their own body." I think this way captures the idea that the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. (Also, the ideas would be clearer if 1) was stated after 2)).

DU's unsurprising but still disappointing kneejerk outrage reveals people suggesting both 1) and 2) to support their own pro abortion rights position. (I think they're just objecting to the idea that they need to even convince anybody of anything.) When people say things like "her body her choice" and cite privacy, they're essentially saying the personhood of the fetus is irrelevant. That's the re-worded, more precise version of 1). When people say things like "it's just a bunch of cells" they're saying 2), that the fetus is not a person.

Personally, and contrarily to the OP, I think 1) is the stronger position and it's the one I agree with. What a "person" is is so vague that its easy to find definitions to fit whatever conclusion you want to find, even if you're not religious.

[dkf]

5. Ugh. I am pro-choice but your characterization of lumps of cells with no personhood is distressing.

Nope that doesn't work for me.

Are you sure you aren't making the argument for pro-life?

[MattBaggins]

93. They are lumps of cells

So am I
So are you
So is my dog
and the tree outside my window.

[dkf]

94. True.

[Avalux]

8. Is this satire?

I can't determine if you're being serious or not, and I don't really want to convince pro-lifers of anything. They can't be convinced.

Abortion is a safe medical procedure and every woman, if she chooses, has a right to undergo this procedure. There should be no moral qualifier or debate over whether or not a fetus is a person. There should be no law based on religious beliefs which restricts this right.

[bettyellen]

9. wow, perhaps you should read more about the issue before you make suggestions?

just a thought. There are some really good tips on this thread already. And lots of great information already out there that obviously, you have missed out on. Good luck to you.

[Ohio Joe]

17. There are times when I just can't believe what gets allowed here...

This is one of those times.

[etherealtruth]

21. No doubt ... this is very distressing

Perhaps the next post will be about framing Gay rights in terms of what is important to heterosexuals ... offensive/ yes ... so is this. Jeeze oh Pete

[dsc]

54. In a sense gay rights have made major strides precisely because

of the self evidence that granting gay rights doesn't impair the rights of non gays. It was when MA and other states permitted gay marriage and the sky didn't fall that we started winning large victories.

[etherealtruth]

68. It is unfortunate that this had to play into it

... rather than the argument of basic human rights and equality for all.

In the early days of feminism and "the right to choose," this came in to play as well (that was 40-50 years ago).

With Gay rights and women's rights it is back pedaling to pander to opposing elements on these levels

The likely truth is that those that oppose "Gay rights" (equal rights for all) and women's rights to autonomy (right to choose) are not going to be swayed by these arguments ... they are set in their stance. It is a stance not based on reason, evidence or science ... it is based on personal bias and or religious belief. No "arguments" counter religious beliefs related to these serious matters.

Posts such as the OP are very regressive and minimize what women have gained and re-open the conversation to side arguments that have been closed in the past.

It is about women's autonomy and rights of self determination, just as Gay rights are (simply put) basic human rights extended to all.

[Vashta Nerada]

18. So, your argument is saying ignore that a woman has any control over her own body

and that a lump of cells has more power over it than she does.

How is this supposed to be a pro-choice argument?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Wait, what?

I didn't say anything like that, and I'm puzzled as to how you even got to there. Would you mind clarifying what you mean please?

[Recursion]

20. I don't know. I think an embryo is a human life from conception, and that's irrelevant

The state has no power to force one human to keep another human inside her body.

[treestar]

48. That's the bottom line

Both sides try to dodge that issue.

[zazen]

55. I completely agree n/t

[msanthrope]

84. That's what people miss about Roe and its progeny. The argument is not that it is not a human

life, but what interest the State has in it.

[Sheldon Cooper]

22. Eww what stinks?

Oh I know! It's this OP. What a big steaming pile.

[pipi_k]

24. Actually,

I've always found the opposite to be true.

I've seen arguments about when an embryo/fetus becomes viable go on forever. Everyone has his/her own set of "facts" to support his/her opinion.

The only thing nobody has "facts" they can use to justify their opinion is this...

"It's none of your goddamned business what I do. You don't want an abortion, don't get one. And don't deny that right to anyone who doesn't believe what you believe".

I mean, how can anyone argue with that?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. Viability is irrelevant, what matters is sentience.

Sentient people have the right to the protection of the state; non-sentient lumps of tissue do not.

[pipi_k]

43. Viability or

sentience...it's the same with regard to the use of "facts".

Ten people could have ten different opinions...or sets of "facts" on exactly when a fetus becomes sentient.

And the argument goes on ad infinitum.

The only (IMO) rational point of discussion here is that it's nobody else's business. Period

[Donald Ian Rankin]

44. There's a fairly hard lower bound on sentience.

The biological structure needed for a brain to support a mind doesn't develop until about the third trimester. It's possible that it doesn't develop til later, but we can be confident that it can't be much earlier.

[pipi_k]

85. "We can be confident..."

Is not a good enough argument.

Some people might say sentience starts much earlier.

Some might even say it doesn't start till a few months postnatal.


And again, as I stated before, ten people are sitting there quoting their own sets of "facts", and there is never a clear resolution.

The only resolution is the statement:

"It's none of your business. Nothing to see here....go away".

Because anti-choice people are NOT going to be convinced by any other argument. I don't even care if they're convinced or not. Our job here is to keep electing Pro Choice politicians, and to hell with what the Anti-Choicers think.

[The Straight Story]

91. Because the very premise is not one upheld by many on both sides of the aisle

"It's none of your goddamned business what I do." - say people who want to ban certain sodas, smoking, what you are allowed to own, who you can drink with, etc and so on.

We make a lot of things our business when it should not be - would that we held to that ideal across the board on issues.

[duffyduff]

25. The abortion "debate" has NOTHING to do with fetuses

It has to do with what people believe should be women's roles in society. Arguments against birth control follow the same line of reasoning.

Your post shows no understanding of what the abortion issue is.

I have followed this issue since I was a teen in the late 1960s, so I DO know what this issue is about fundamentally.

[etherealtruth]

35. I am so heartened to read your post

"Your post shows no understanding of what the abortion issue is. " ----EXACTLY!!!!!

[bettyellen]

56. poor guy had a revelation and thought it was a new and original approach.

I think he is well intentioned, but just has no clue WHY this issue is so important to all women, and his approach so offensive. None.

[steve2470]

28. I'm going to assume you're serious with this and not trolling the entire board....

If you're trolling, then my mistake.

The arguments undergirding "pro-life" are, at their root, religious ones that completely deny the right of women to control their own bodies. Fetuses are potential lives, not living breathing human beings. Being alive from the moment of conception is a fundamentally Catholic Church position, and not one based on science. Until X weeks of pregnancy, a fetus cannot survive outside of the mother's womb. I forget the number of weeks.

There is absolutely nothing that can convince the pro-life crowd. It is a set of arguments based on religion. You cannot argue with religious fanatics, they will simply dismiss you as a "baby killer" or atheist or sinful or whatever.

[Zorra]

58. +1 And!

I'm starting a new religion where only women are allowed to hold positions of authority, to whom all men are subordinate.

We are going to decree that life begins in the sperm, then forbid men to masturbate, and work to make male masturbation illegal.

Men may only ejaculate into a woman's reproductive system, otherwise, it will be considered murder by The Holy Apostolic Church of Mary Magdalene of Latter Day Authoritarian Female Control Freaks.

[steve2470]

60. excellent point

SPERM is potential human life also via its potential to fertilize eggs. If we follow the pro-life argument to its logical conclusion, then we need to outlaw all masturbation that doesn't result in the sperm being inserted, somehow, into a uterus.

You either believe the religious arguments or you don't. Human life DOES NOT begin at conception. Period. The "babykiller" epithet has no grounding in science or logic.

[Squinch]

67. May the Deity bless you, Mother Zorra.

[Zorra]

81. Pele Juju Be With You, Sister Squinch.

[KittyWampus]

69. what is the name of your religion? I'd like to reference it, because it makes a good point.

[Zorra]

86. The Holy Apostolic Church of Mary Magdalene of Latter Day Authoritarian Female Control Freaks.

Our first ceremony is ordained to be on the next Equinox. We plan to sacrifice the Ancient bull of the Patriarchs at midnight.

[LAGC]

95. ...

[HereSince1628]

96. I don't see how your argument is supported by basic biology.

You (and the Catholic Church) skate into violations of pretty fundamental aspects of modern biology as I know it, protected only by highly parsed meanings of what it is to be alive. My PhD is in the area of population biology, and so, the ravages of age and illness not withstanding, I have some passing understanding of this topic.

Your approach distorts fundamental biological understanding upon which cell theory and ultimately evolutionary theory are based.

The Catholic Church is wrong about when life begins as well, because life on earth began eons ago and has continued since then producing members of generation after generation in an unbroken chain. Biology clearly believes that being alive does not begin at the time the mind comes into being during development or when a Homo sapiens first breath is taken.

Science holds the position that life on earth began some billion years ago, and (recognizing that individuals and lineages have been extinguished along the way) has continued uninterrupted, living cells giving rise to living cells, ever since.

Cell theory flatly states that living cells come from living cells. Evolution clearly rests upon the notion that life begets life in an unbroken chain and not through special creations of each individual.

From a biological perspective, germ cells of Homo sapiens are living. Those germ cells give rise to gametes that are alive, some of those gametes unite to form zygotes, which are alive, and so on through human embryonic and fetal development and into adulthood where gametes produced during embryological development and maturation into adulthood once again produce more gametes so that the cycle of life can continue.

Biology doesn't speak to legal personhood under US law and it doesn't matter if an advocate choses conception, first heart beat, first movement, capacity for pain, etc as the necessary quality to assign personhood.

The use of 'special definitions of life/personhood' that violate biological tenets can't be seen as scientific. They are semiotics chosen by those who make arguments, and perhaps get those arguments into legal, religious, or other non-biological canons of belief

[steve2470]

98. are you talking to me ? I don't agree with the OP whatsoever

If you are pro-life, then we agree to disagree.

[HereSince1628]

99. I'm pro-choice but your argumentation still seems wrong

You say "Fetuses are potential lives..." As a biologist I'd say fetuses are MOST CERTAINLY ALIVE.

You then criticize the Catholic Church position as not based on science. I agree that Catholic Church position violates biological understanding of the meaning of living.

However, the implication of your dismissal of the Catholic position is that somehow pro-life/pro-choice arguments should be based on or conform to science...probably some discipline within or incorporating biological science.

Your argument about fetuses being only potential lives can't be justified within biological science.

Your position rests upon an appeal of a special meaning of "living, breathing human" which isn't biologically sound with respect to meeting any -necessary- quality within biological definitions of being alive. The combination of post-partum independence and breathing is prima facia -sufficient- evidence that an individual Homo sapiens is alive, but those traits are not biologically necessary qualities for being alive. And, imo, that is where your thinking goes awry. Your argument either dismisses or simply overlooks biological understanding of cell theory, meiosis, the details of haploid-diploid mammalian life-cycles and their relevance to a Homo sapiens fetus being a living thing as part of an unbroken evolutionary lineage (of life) going all the way back to the origins of life on this planet.

In short suggesting post-partum ventilation as the necessary biological requirement for 'actual' vs 'potential' human life, requires dismissal of books-full of biological concepts.

Most importantly it requires the interjection and consideration of parsed special meanings (i.e. potential human vs actual person) that really have nothing to do with biology or necessities needed to identify the presence of something with the biological qualities of being alive.

[steve2470]

101. sigh..of course sperm and eggs are alive

If American society starts uniformly declaring, via legislation or judicial decree, that fertilized eggs are "living human beings", then that leads logically to the "abortion is murder" argument, which I reject. Of course embryos and fetuses are alive. I just don't consider them to be "living human beings" until they reach that stage of development where they can grow and develop outside the mother's womb. I admit, I am not a biologist or embryologist, so I do not know the scientific debate on precisely when "human life" begins.

I'm very pro-choice. I will accede to your superior understanding of biology. I think we are on the same page basically. I don't think you are declaring a newly-created fertilized egg to be a "living human being", correct ? I think we both agree that eggs, sperm, and fertilized eggs are all alive.

[Scout]

103. perhaps you meant to say something more along the lines

of a fetus is potentially viable, not a potential life?

[steve2470]

108. yes, that works for me nt

[HereSince1628]

104. In a rhetorical sense, I see 'living human being' as potentially being very weaselly

In as much as that phrase means something that in biologically important ways is much like me, I do see that "it" and I can be considered in ways that enable us to belong to the same class of things. In as much as that's a legal phrase, I don't know what that means because advocates twist the meaning to fit their need. If you mean an intrauterine life doesn't have the same legal claim to make decisions on maintenance of a pregnancy as the woman in whose body the pregnancy is occurring. I completely agree with that. "Roe" is still enforce, it's sufficient. But, imo, a woman has the right to be secure in her body and to have dominion over all other persons concerning reproductive decisions regarding her body.

I do understand the inflammatory emotional capacity of words. Personally I'm not hung up on nesting abortion among various forms of legitimized homicide. American society endorses lots of homicide. I do understand why and how the emotional baggage of 'homicide' and or 'murder' move discussion into the irrational. But I see abortion as residing within a class of legitimate homicides that includes self defense and home defense (aka stand your ground/castle doctrine).

I do understand the why some advocates of choice choose to 'dehumanize' intrauterine life and to use anxiety extinguishing euphemisms to avoid the conflict and to not discourage women from seeking abortion.

I also understand the flip side, and why trying to emotionally humanize and emphasize the innocence of intrauterine life is seen by many anti-abortion advocates as essential to ending abortions.

I think I get this in all it's thorniness.

[lumberjack_jeff]

106. This is an obviously incomplete ethical frame

If life is simply an uninterrupted chain, then there's no ethical difference between killing a gamete and killing anyone.

In fact, taken to a logical conclusion, the only important ethical practice is doing what it takes so that the chain of life continues as many generations into the future as possible.

As an advocate for people with disabilities, I know how this story ends.

[HereSince1628]

110. I don't think that's true. I think there is an issue of resolving values in conflict

Last edited Mon Sep 30, 2013, 03:22 PM - Edit history (1)

I am aware of the threat that abortion presents to the disabled and their advocates. It's not my area of expertise but it is an area of expertise of my SO. The morality of abortion relative to knowledge of sex, genetics, or presence of discernible anatomical deviations brings a variety of issues into conflict.

As I said above I get this in all it's thorniness. But, I'll give you my reply to your position, you've undoubtedly encountered it before...

In the case of pregnancy, a woman has the capacity, and, I believe, the constitutional right, to make decisions that make her secure in her own body. A gamete hasn't that capacity (as far as I know) to make or to act upon a decision it originates. As as far as I can tell, haploid individuals have no rights under American law.

The freedom of movement of gametes, for example, are legitimately limited by condom use. Gametes may be spilled upon the ground (bed covers, towels or hygienic tissue, etc) with lethal outcomes, and gametes may be restricted by surgical closing of the fallopian tubes. Moreover, the life of gametes (which as a biologist I would recognize as individual haploid Homo sapiens), can be terminated by spermicides etc. Nothing that I know of in American law protects the rights of gametes, although I suspect that lawyers for fertility clinics have engaged and written on this topic.

If a woman has dominion over all other persons-as well as the state/church/social institutions- concerning decision making about her reproduction, then, a woman is empowered to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy. Her position has power over all others including a developing diploid individual in her reproductive system...at least, with regard to outcomes that follow decisions she makes about maintenance of her pregnancy.

A legal dominion based upon control of her reproductive system must end when her pregnancy ends because the life of her child no longer involves her dominant decision-making position regarding her reproductive organs. Rather, all decisions move into a domain that considers the ethics of moral correctness of the application of such things as abuse/neglect, etc, contributing to deformation, death, outright murder, or euthanasia.

Consequently, what emerges -is- a difference of rights available to gamete and diploid adult compared to the rights of a woman/pregnant person. The 'right' of a mother to dominant decision making over haploid homo sapiens, embryonic/fetal diploid homo sapiens and post-partum homo sapiens changes, and is contingent upon the position of the mother and offspring within the course of the human life-cycle. A woman is free to 'kill' or interfere with the life of gametes, she has dominion over the decision to maintain her pregancy which is a function of her reproductive organs, but she does not have the right as a woman, based on issues concerning her body's internal reproductive function, to decide to neglect, abuse or terminate the life of a post-partum offspring.


on edit: I do get that there are thorninesses involving things like fetal alcohol syndrome and vertically transimitted disease.

[Squinch]

30. Blech. Another man telling us all how to "fight the right way".

Suggesting that I need to "prove" that I have rights to my body presupposes that there is any question that it is true. I simply will not engage in trying to prove to anyone that I am the one who decides what happens in my body.

[lunamagica]

31. newborns aren't self aware/sentinent. nt

[Squinch]

33. Have you ever met a newborn? They are very self aware and sentient.

[bettyellen]

37. Another screed from a man warning women not to talk about "women's rights"......

Why do you think a woman's right to her own body is not worthy of discussion and consideration?


How do your arguments do to help the fight the radicalized religious factions that are leading the fight against abortion? Not seeing it at all.

Why do you think you know better than women who have fought this battle for years? Strange assumption to make.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

41. To answer your questions one by one:

> Why do you think a woman's right to her own body is not worthy of discussion and consideration?

Because the people opposing abortion don't think that that's what's under debate; they think that abortion is a woman doing something to another person's body, not just her own. If your goal in an argument is to convince people to change their minds, the only arguments worth advancing are ones that will convince them to do so; if it isn't, why are you wasting your time arguing with them.


> How do your arguments do to help the fight the radicalized religious factions that are leading the fight against abortion? Not seeing it at all.

They help because they're a chain of reasoning *starting from things that some of them believe to be true* and syllogising from there, rather than taking something they don't believe to be true as axiomatic; if you do the latter then no matter how strong your chain of reasoning is it won't convince anyone.

> Why do you think you know better than women who have fought this battle for years? Strange assumption to make.

Observation. Moreover, the really strange assumption is that how long someone has been saying something has much to do with whether or not it's likely to be right. And more generally still, ad hominem attacks are no substitute for refutation.

[bettyellen]

50. so, because opponents have a wrong headed idea about what is under debate here, we should just go

with their erroneous assumptions, build on their lack of understanding- instead of educating them on the importance of the issue? The right to control your own body and reproduction is a very important issue to women that extends way beyond abortion - apparently you have never considered that- and we do not plan to abandon it.

Pandering to people with obsessions over the viability of fetuses is not some brilliant new idea you had- it's one that has been attempted and largely discarded. It is not an attack on you to inform you of this, even though it appears you are taking it that way. When you ignore history - and dismiss the priorities of thousands of women who primarily fight these battles, this is what happens. Your novel and *new to you only* suggestions are rejected because we have heard it before, and some tried it before. That is not an ad hominen attack, it's just the truth.

If you had more back round on the subject, you would know this. If you had more experience discussing this with women- you'd also know dismissing the issue of their right to control their own body is not something they are willing to take off the table. It is central to, and an essential part of, the discussion.

[Squinch]

120. ^^^^^THIS!^^^^^^

[Quantess]

38. Steaming pantload du jour.

Served up hot & stinky. This one is a real stinker!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

42. And full of that nasty unpalatable "logic" stuff.

No wonder you can't digest it...

[Quantess]

45. This latest OP of yours is so awful, it's almost good.

It really is that much of a stinker! It's awesomely terrible. Congratulations!

[Squinch]

121. Is this an example of your superior debating skills? So glad you're here to instruct us.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

123. No, that's an example of my getting pissed off with a fool.

The OP is an example of my superior *reasoning* skills, but it's also an example of my inability to communicate with stupid people, which sadly is probably a more important life skill than logic.

I've fallen into very much the same kind of trap I describe in the OP - the goal of an argument should be to convince the people you're talking to, not to make sense in its own right. And I don't really know how to change the minds of people who aren't good at thinking and reasoning, sadly - all I can do is set out a logically valid argument, that would carry the vulcan vote, but evidently not the DUer one.

(And yes, the assumption that it's the people who disagree with me, rather than me myself, who are not good at reasoning, is supremely arrogant. But it's also fairly clearly accurate).

[Squinch]

126. No, dear. It's only accurate in YOUR head. That doesn't mean it's accurate.

YOU characterize your OP as superior logic that is unappreciated by all the poor inferior people all around you.

It is not that. It is actually an example of your stunning ignorance of history and of the activities surrounding this question for a generation now. You are simply astonishingly uninformed.

You say that your lack of success in convincing ANYONE here is due to your "inability to communicate with stupid people." It is not that. It is actually your monstrous hubris making you unable to communicate. Full stop.

What has happened here is not you falling into a trap. It is you simply being incapable of self reflection and any understanding of the topic at hand. It is your ego getting in the way of any sense you might have.

[Quantess]

128. Interesting and revealing that you responded to my comment but

you ignored the more thoughtful and better written responses.

I fully admit that I did not offer any substantial arguments, yet you zeroed in on the low hanging fruit. Tsk tsk. Are other people's better formulated counter-arguments too intimidating for you to respond to?

This statement makes me suspect you are trolling:
"The OP is an example of my superior *reasoning* skills..."

[LittleBlue]

40. We've done a pretty good job convincing people

There are just strongholds in religious/conservative parts of the country that are probably not winnable currently. Those areas are a generational thing, it isn't possible to convince people whose ideology has already been hardened by religion and age. It will take decades of hard work to change that.

[dsc]

51. that is actually a pretty hard case to make

Most large legal changes that have granted rights to minorities have greatly increased in popularity over time. No serious politician would run directly against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or equal pay for women, or delegalizing sodomy. Abortion, not so much. A large part of that, I think, is the sincere belief among many abortion opponents that a fetus is tantamount to a live human. The generational shift in support for say marriage equality is literally decent double digits, while those for abortion are barely outside the MOE of polling.

[LittleBlue]

53. Undoubtedly, it is a difficult issue

Because there is no way to divorce the concept of fetus with baby. Everyone knows that while not every fetus will become a person, every person was once a fetus. Which is why so much guilt is involved on this issue.

We have some great strongholds to start from, though. In most liberal states (like mine) this isn't even a contentious issue. The right comes in and tries to make it an issue, but it fails completely. We've made their states the battlegrounds. As long as we stay on the offensive with young people and emphasize choice, I think we will eventually prevail. But that could take 50 years.

[dsc]

57. I think the OP's point is that battle would become vastly easier if the notion that a fetus

was tantamount to a baby was discredited. The main problem with that is that it is a matter of faith largely for those who believe in it, and I don't see how one argues with faith.

[bettyellen]

64. and the OP is so new to the game as to be unaware that this is an old, discarded approach....

for exactly the reasons you stated. But, you know the idea just popped into his head, so it must be smarter than what women who have been involved on working on this for years are doing. I think he would benefit from a year stuffing envelopes for Planned Parenthood before sharing any more helpful ideas.

[Quantess]

75. This topic is an old saw for the OP, actually.

He's not "new to the game", he just listens only to the dialogue in his own head on this topic, I think.
I agree with your comment about stuffing envelopes for P.P., but in any case, this OP is so awesomely bad it's good. He kind of outdid himself.

[bettyellen]

78. you know, when I talk shit about subjects where I am completely out of my depth, I expect getting

served back my head on a silver platter. Especially on the net. But calm rational questions to the premise of the OP are labeled attacks. Very easily bruised feelings, it seems. But he should have expected this chilly reception.
What a bizarre and offensive OP.

[JEFF9K]

46. Another point of attack when dealing with Rapture Republicans ...

... is to mention that their brand of Christianity isn't traditional but was invented in the 1800s by John Nelson Darby.

Then tell them that abortion isn't in the King James Bible and that anyone who "adds" it are subject to punishment, as explained on the very last page of the Bible.

[GreenEyedLefty]

49. On this issue, women's rights are paramount...

The basic human rights of women supersede the rights of any occupant of their bodies. There is no other argument.

[bettyellen]

52. Sad to see that someone would try to convince us that control of our own bodies is a "non starter"

Or that you can use scientific logic on the religious right. Now THAT is the non starter here. Silly and offensive in one OP.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

59. One suspicious recommendation.

[UTUSN]

63. Funny how wingnuts love fetuses so much yet slash help for infants, tots, teens, and women n/t

[randr]

65. It was the breath of God that gave Adam life

and it is the ability to breath life that makes a fetus a human. mho

[loyalsister]

72. I can see the value of talking about the fetus

My argument is that a fetus has no quality that makes it a potentially valued life unless it is truly wanted. It is not wanted unless the woman cares if it is a boy or girl. And begins to think about names, etc.
If none of those things apply, how can this fetus that can not live without the support of a woman's body be considered a living person?

[GreenEyedLefty]

74. This is why abortion is so intensely personal, and should remain so.

I know of a few women who found out through testing that their much wanted and loved babies would die before, or shortly after, birth. These women opted to terminate.

When it's in her body, a woman gets to feel however she wants to about a fetus. It is not for the rest of us to impose our feelings or beliefs on her.

[loyalsister]

77. Exactly

On the flip side of my argument, telling someone who is thrilled to be pregnant despite not making the choice that they should not be happy is equally offensive.

[uppityperson]

73. It IS about women's rights because all women already have access to abortions. They do. Plz read....

If you pay enough, you can get an abortion. It is that simple. All women have always had access to abortions. However, poor women or women without enough power did not.

Roe V Wade gave equal rights to women regardless of financial or power status. It is that simple and very misunderstood.

"The main point of disagreement is *not* about the status of women, it's about the status of foetuses. " No. It is about the status of women.

You got money or power? No problem. You don't? Sorry. You don't get to have an abortion. Are you married? Sorry, have to tell your hubby. You a minor? Your parents get to decide. You female? Well, we need to make sure you really really really know what you are doing so look at these pictures, then come back next week.

Throwing in viability, that is a tactic used to take away the rights of women since the vast majority of abortions take place before that, long before that. I know of very few people, including abortion providers after viability, that agree with late term abortions on demand.

Dealing with abortions pre-viability, especially in the first 12 weeks? It IS about women's rights, restricting access to those without power, money or with partners, parents or simply by being an ignorant female.

[HockeyMom]

76. Forget fetus, ask an embryo,

Or better yet, ask a living and breathing 3 year old child, like my daughter. "Mommy, Mommy, I don't want you to DIE". FACTUAL statement, not putting words into a mouth of a mindless fetus or embryo. Do you want your Mommy, or a cute little brother or sister? I don't have to even ask that of my daughter who is now 34 years old. She would have told you the same thing at 3 years old.

[Starry Messenger]

80. We can all go home everyone.

Donald figured it all out because it was too taxing to our ladybrains.

[uppityperson]

83. Beware driving though. Don't want to rotate your pelvis or dry up your ovaries.

Bless those men's little hearts

[pipi_k]

87. Yeah, because...

the human race is quickly going extinct due to all us selfish women driving ourselves all over the place.

[Starry Messenger]

88. Even typing here on DU is probably putting them at risk.

Would it be unwomanly of me to point out to the OP that most "pro-lifers" get abortions for themselves all the time?

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml

<snip>

Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981[1] found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally." A 1994/95 survey[2,3] of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians. Many of these women are likely anti-choice. The survey also showed that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic.[4]

<snip>

Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique -- not like those "other" women -- even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons. Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory). Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call "sluts" and "trash." Or if they do, they get angry when other patients in the waiting room talk or laugh, because it proves to them that women get abortions casually, for "convenience".

<snip>

The problem isn't framing, it's lack of empathy.

[Humanist_Activist]

82. Foetus's don't have a right to use another person's body to sustain themselves...

This is not much different than people refusing to give blood, tissue, or organs, even to close family they face no legal repercussions for refusing, nor should they.

[etherealtruth]

89. I will accept that you intended no malice ...

... and did not intentionally post something that would be perceived as offensive as this has been.

I ask that you step away from your intentions while posting the OP (I am not assigning any nefarious INTENTION in posting the OP) ... and your feelings r/t the topic at hand.

Read through the vast majority of comments with an open mind (we all become defensive, but try to set that aside). The more open you are (and probably detached from your OP) ... you may begin to gain some insight into why so many women have been offended by the post. I ask you to do this and really try to re-evaluate the OP and your own beliefs.

We all need to look at our selves and our beliefs

[derby378]

90. Sorry, but I'm not feeling this

Women are human beings.

As such, they are deserving of human rights, just as men are.

We tend to consider access to quality, evidence-based healthcare one of those human rights.

I do not believe in creating one set of healthcare laws for men and another set for women. Sounds like Jim Crow to me.

If you haven't already caught on by now, the teahadists are driven by ideology and groupthink, not by science.

PS: Wendy Davis.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. Most Americans are already Pro-Choice.

[Control-Z]

118. The March for Women's Lives!

Washington, DC - April 25, 2004

The 2004 March for Women's Lives was, and remains, the largest DC protest event in U.S. history. With 1.4 million participants, its size was nearly double that of its predecessor, the 1992 March for Women's Lives (which drew approximately 750,000 participants).

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/ig/March-for-Women-s-Lives/

(In case someone doesn't recognize the pic!)

[Warren DeMontague]

119. Yep. I was one of those 1.2 million people.

It was nuts.

[Control-Z]

122. It was so great, though.

One of the best events of my life!

[Warren DeMontague]

124. Indeed.

The media tried very hard to ignore it, but I think it sent a powerful message that was sorely needed at the time. Even though Karen Hughes tried to compare us to "the terrorists".

[TBF]

97. It's about women and choice. Period. nt

[LostOne4Ever]

100. Absolutely not.

It about a woman's right to her own body!!! Misrepresenting that as saying women have a right to kill is flat out wrong. Its about the woman not wanting to lose control of HER OWN BODY and having her autonomy taken away.

If we could, we would find a way to both allow the woman not to have an unwanted pregancy and keep the fetus alive at the same time. But until the point of viability (the standard we use in the USA currently) that is not possible. The fetus dies because it simply can not live without the woman, or as a result of the measures needed to remove it from HER BODY.

Point being the woman's right to herself supercede's all other concerns. Its paramount.

Self-ownership and autonomy are the cornerstones of rights based democracy. We hold these rights to be paramount because if you don't even have the right to your own body how can you assert a right to live? Your life would not be your own if we held it any different.

This is why we don't force people to donate spare organs or blood even though it would save lives.

[center]...[/center]


Also, its not murder either way. You are using a right wing defintion of murder that does not exist anywhere but in the minds of anti-abortion activists.

[center]...[/center]

Personhood arguments envitably fall into the trap of different people defining personhood differently and each person setting up their own arbitary standared. You set the bar at self awareness, and they could set it at the moment of heartbeat.

Further, by focusing semantic issues and whether a fetus is or is not human or a person you run the risk of sounding callous and repelling people who would otherwise agree with you.

I am not saying that there are not arguments to be made here, because there are, but that this should be supplimental to one's argument rather than the crux of it.

[center]...[/center]

Anti-abortion activist are going to disagree with you either way. They will say its about life, but the vast majority of them really only care about punishing women for having sex. They won't listen to either argument.

I strongly feel, the best strategy is to focus on the woman, her rights and wellbeing, and then bring up that the questionable "status" of the fetus as a person supplimentally. No argument should be abandoned, as limiting ourself in the ways to defend our position is not logical; but, the woman and her rights should always be the main focus.

[ismnotwasm]

105. A fetus is what an individual woman says it is

If she says it's her wanted and loved baby-- fine, great, much congratulating is in order. If she says it's the equivalent of a parasitic life-altering/threatening tumor and she wants rid of it, I got her back 100%, and I agree.

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. Roe v Wade is about the conflict between the interests of the fetus and the mother and her doctor.

It acknowledges that society has interests in both parties wellbeing.

In the first trimester, before the fetus is viable, the inferred right to privacy (both of the mom and the doctor) tips the balance to defeat any state interest to interfere in mom's decision. As the fetus becomes a viable baby, the state becomes more invested in the wellbeing of the (baby/unborn child/viable fetus/) pick one.

I find this an easily defensible position. The fetus is definitely a human life. The question is how to balance society's interest in it vs society's interest in mom's wellbeing. As the pregnancy progresses, the factors involved in that judgment change.

If someone were to invent a fetus teleporter with which a fetus could be removed from the woman's body and brought to viability without medical risk to mom, then society's interest in the wellbeing of the baby would override.

The only remaining question at that point is collecting child support.

[ismnotwasm]

109. That's why I find arguments whether a fetus is life

Egregious. Of course it's life. And viable or not, every pregnancy carries risks to health and well being of the pregnant woman, girl, what have you. Some are at much greater risk than others, but that doesn't change the fact every pregnancy is risk, deaths and disability occur every day.

The attempt to divide the debate as fetus against the pregnant person has always bothered me. It leads to fallacies as to which life is of greater worth. Roe did the best job it could in establishing abortion rights at the time, but as time went on, and "viability" became earlier and earlier because of medical advances, this division and the fallacies that accompany it became clear.

Women should have total body autonomy. Women should be trusted to make medical decisions.

The OP is actually restating a old philosophical argument, and one I didn't expect to see on DU.

[LeftyMom]

112. Religious nutjobs reject science and facts that contradict their theology.

Embryology, they keep insisting, is "a lie from the pit of hell."

These are people who think the world is 6,000 years old.

They are fucking crazy.

[athena]

113. Why, then, do anti-abortionists not favor forced organ donation?

It would be easy enough to set up a lottery that randomly selects a donor every time an organ is needed. Such a system would save countless lives -- lives of thinking, breathing, conscious individuals with dependents and loved ones who want and need them to stay around.

The reason anti-abortionists wish to force women to give birth against their will but will not even consider the question of forced organ donation is that the latter threatens the bodily integrity of men as well as women.

According to anti-abortionists, women are not human beings. To them, a woman dying during child birth is not a person dying; it's a vessel dying. That is a disgusting world view, one that does not belong in this century. It's ridiculous to suggest that we must accept such a world-view as a premise in order to argue against it. On the contrary: the central problem of forced child birth is the woman; not the foetus. If you accept that women are not truly human, then you simply cannot argue that abortion should be legal. You might as well attempt to make civil rights arguments based on the premise that some races are superior to others.

The opening post is deeply offensive to women. It is not nearly as clever as the poster seems to think it is.

[SomethingFishy]

125. I have an idea.. How about all the people without uterus's shut the fuck up

and those with can make informed decisions without the help of the people who really have no clue what it means to be pregnant.

[Myrina]

127. Nope. You need to talk about individual choice

Because that's what it comes down to. If s government can tell you you HAVE TO have a baby, a (different) government - like China - can also tell citizens they CANNOT have babies and MUST abort. When you put it to the fundes that way - "wait til the other party's in power & say goodbye to YOUR freedom of choice" - every once in awhile a light goes on.