When Life Begins

[Madspirit]

The abortion issue is often framed around "when life begins". People need to understand that this is totally irrelevant to the issue. It doesn't matter when life begins. A fetus IS alive. No one doubts that. The point is, for this particular life to exist it requires the USE of MY body, ergo it HAS to be up to me.

I am not a slave; I am not a vessel; I am not an incubator. If for YOU to exist, a fully actualized human, you had to crawl inside MY body, it would still HAVE to be up to me, not you. Otherwise I have been relegated to slavery. I cannot be required to donate or give up my body for the use of any other living being, UNLESS I choose to. My uterus is NOT a democracy. This is most certainly a human rights issue. The fetus requires the USE of MY body. I am not it's slave. It HAS to be up to me and NO ONE else or women are no more than chattel.
Lee

[trotsky]

1. I certainly understand, appreciate, and support your argument.

However, the rabid anti-choicers will argue that you gave your consent to the fetal use of your body when you had sex. I don't for a moment believe that argument has merit, but that's what they'll argue.

[Madspirit]

7. ...well, not correct...

Yes, I suppose they will but poo on them...<g> It's not true.
Lee

[JuniperLea]

28. Oh, but it is...

If you dance to the music, you must pay the piper.

If you have unprotected sex, and you get preggers, you asked for it.

If you play with matches, and you burn your fingers, you asked for it.

If you dance in a ballroom that has a sign posted stating there's a cover charge...

[niyad]

83. and if you had protected sex? or if you were raped? can YOU get pregnant? if not, do you do

everything in YOUR power to make sure your partner never has to make such a decision? are YOU willing to pay for ANY child that YOU create--until it graduates from college?

if not, have YOU made sure you are sterile?

[JuniperLea]

116. Get a grip

And read what I wrote!!!! WE ARE ON THE SAME FUCKING SIDE!!!

I'm merely stating that certain arguments are a no-win and should be avoided at all cost!

And for your fucking information, I did have that child! And he is a fucking chemical engineer now! I was on the table, ready for the abortion, and I chose NOT to have it! That is my right. I had the right to choose!! And that is what I'm fighting for!!!

All these asinine arguments don't do us any good at all.

[Maru Kitteh]

239. dial back a little, a wee less caffine may be in order.

and do, get a grip.

[gollygee]

51. I only consent to sex when I have sex

My body doesn't stop belonging to me at any time.

[iverglas]

241. 100%

I mean, if you consented to pregnancy, not to mention delivery and parenthood, well, how come it didn't happen?

And btw (re the post you replied to): who the fuck cares what the rabid right wing will say about anything? It seems to me that this is the only subject on which I see such air time given to the rabid right wing ... over and over and over ...

[angstlessk]

2. I like that anaology...if you have to crawl into my body to live 'I' must

choose whether I want you to...not YOU or some political entity!

[Kelly Rupert]

104. The counterargument, of course,

is that by engaging in sexual intercourse, the parents have quite literally placed it there themselves. Of course, this does not hold for nonconsensual sexual activity, but few would deny abortions for those cases.

[iverglas]

242. uh, read reply #1

The ugly right wing has already had its air time tonight.

I really don't know what point is made, or purpose served, by repeating its lies and demagoguery over and over and over in a discussion among honest people of good will.


The counterargument, of course, is that by engaging in sexual intercourse, the parents have quite literally placed it there themselves.

Uh, yeah. Quite literally indeed. It's just so odd that so many people engage in so much sexual intercourse, and nothing at all gets put anywhere at all so very often.

Damn. Somebody should have told all those people paying so much for IVF and international adoptions and the like how very, very easy it all really is.


Of course, this does not hold for nonconsensual sexual activity, but few would deny abortions for those cases.

Yeah, funny thing, that. The "life" in question apparently didn't begin at all. Never can figure that one out myself, but I guess somebody here will probably take on the job of proxying for the vicious stupid right wing and tell us.


Really. Really. What is the point of responding to something by a DU member in a DU forum with "but the right wing will say ..."?

I don't care. She doesn't care. Do you care?

[annabanana]

3. aspiration = breath and spirit. .

Traditionally, the first breath brought the spirit into the body.

[sandnsea]

4. A fetus is on life support

It is not alive until it can survive outside the womb, in my opinion.

Nobody would save 10,000,000 blastocysts over 1 newborn. That says it all.

People can have different opinions of when the fetus is a viable life. That's the reason it has to be up to the woman.

[FloridaJudy]

105. I disagree with one statement

"Nobody would save 10,000,000 blastocysts over 1 newborn". Bush and company would. The prohibition on stem cell research that could potentially save thousands of newborns shows how little regard they have for logic, science or compassion.

Bush's "culture of life" only seems to apply to fetuses and patients in persistent vegetative states. It certainly doesn't apply to soldiers, disabled vets, consumers harmed by defective products, natural disaster survivors - the list goes on ad nauseum.

[sandnsea]

112. If there were a fire

And there were a newborn infant and an ice tray full of blastocysts - nobody would run out of the building with the ice tray. Literally, not figuratively. That's what I meant, I heard somebody use that argument on tv recently and thought it was excellent.

Oh man, the tv taught me something... aaaarggh! hehe, kidding.

[lostinacause]

217. To take your last statement to logically comparable substitutions

it seems that we would be saying things that we shouldn't. The obvious extension of this idea is taking replacing fetus with a person and looking at murder.

[AndyA]

5. Our government needs to get out of our bedrooms.

What goes on there is none of their business.

They have a lot of other things that do need their attention: corruption, government waste, irresponsible spending of tax money, cronyism, etc. That should keep them busy for a while.

[Christa]

8. I so agree with you

The whole abortion issue has its roots in religion; and as far as I know state and religion are seperated in the US.

[Madspirit]

15. Could have fooled me

I agree totally but one really wouldn't know that by looking at America now...with it's Theocrat as POTUS.
Lee

[Christa]

25. I have to keep reminding myself as well

I find it so hard to believe.

C

[niyad]

6. absolutely agreed. want to really make some anti-choicers foam at the mouth? I generally use the

"fetus is biologically a parasite" argument. after all, the basic definition of a parasite is something that lives off of, and cannot exist without, its host.

[Madspirit]

10. ...and technically...totally accurate!

That IS the definition of a parasite. People cannot take the sentimentality out of this issue. ...and most of the ones who cannot aren't even the carriers of babies. One thread had one guy tell this long, long story about falling in love the moment he saw the sonogram. Bully for him. He still cannot dictate what I do with my body because HE fell in love with a sonogram. What a crock.
Lee

[niyad]

14. I think I would have pointed out to him that most abortions are performed long before he actually

could see anything on the sonogram.

[SteppingRazor]

26. Actually, that's not the definition of a parasite.

A parasite is something that lives off of something else to the detriment of the host creature. That's separate from the pregnant woman/fetus relationship in two ways:

1) The relationship isn't parasitic, it's commensal — that is, the fetus benefits, the woman neither benefits nor is harmed.

2) The fetus is genetically linked to the mother. In a symbiotic relationship — whether parasitic, commensal or mutual — the assumption is that the two creatures are not phylogenetically linked.

As I said below in response to a similar argument, I'm certainly pro-choice — unwaveringly so — but I don't think our cause is helped by referring to fetuses as "parasites."

[Madspirit]

53. haha

What a crock...and I dare you to say it to some woman standing there puking her guts out, now also anemic and considering suicide. What a crock. It is a parasite by all definitions. How the hell do you think it nourishes itself.
Lee

[SteppingRazor]

60. I double-dog-dare you to say it! Nyah!

Yes, clearly, this whole pregnancy thing is a scourge on humanity. I mean, it's amazing we've lasted this long with such a plague.
:P

[annabanana]

62. I'd like to see YOU do it!. . . . n/t

[Madspirit]

71. NO ONE SAID THAT

...but not having a choice is a scourge on humanity. ..oh wait, that would just be on women.
Lee

[SteppingRazor]

73. Oddly, no one said women shouldn't have a choice either

What were we arguing about again? :shrug:

[JuniperLea]

135. I'm sure she doesn't know

She can't even see that some people agree on the pro-choice issue!

Those arguments do the cause no good whatsoever.

We should stick to pro-choice for pro-choice sake and leave the "life begins" arguments for the RWNutJobs.

[Nederland]

115. The woman benefits--she gets to REPRODUCE

So long as we are pure talking biology here, don't you think it's important to acknowledge the importance of passing your genes on?

[Chulanowa]

215. A fetus absorbs nutrients the mother needs

Pregnancy causes a breakdown of abdominal muscles to accommodate an expanding womb, and hormones cause the bones of teh pregnant woman to lose integrity so that calcium can be provided for the developing fetus. Prior to childbirth, the mothers' stores of body fat begin to burn off to produce milk. All this is in addition to hormone-based mood swings, mild self-destructive behavior (Knew a girl who had cravings for cigarette butts, and a whole host of other infirmities, all tied around acquiring the energy, nutrients, and building materials for the developing organism.

[RC Quake]

280. So pregnancy is basically like...

Menopause. I say we get rid of the detrimental hormonal imbalances altogether! Pump 'em up with testosterone and let's move on.

[Morgana LaFey]

216. Baloney, on both counts

1) The relationship isn't parasitic, it's commensal — that is, the fetus benefits, the woman neither benefits nor is harmed.

Not 100% true at all. It changes the woman's body, and NOT for the better. Also, even the healthiest and most trouble-free pregnancies still erode the mother's health and stamina, if only slightly. I know of no possible BENEFITS, but there are definitely downsides even for healthy pregnancies. AND, let's not forget, women still die in childbirth.

2) The fetus is genetically linked to the mother. In a symbiotic relationship — whether parasitic, commensal or mutual — the assumption is that the two creatures are not phylogenetically linked.

Balderdash. We already dispensed with the "commensal" shit, but I'd just like to make it explicit: Symbiotic mean both benefit. That's not at all true here.

[iverglas]

243. agreeing in principle, not on the details

the fetus benefits, the woman neither benefits nor is harmed.

That simply isn't accurate. So, if I could borrow your phrase, "I don't think our cause is helped" by denying or minimizing the effects of pregnancy and delivery, sometimes serious and sometimes fatal, on women.

However I do completely agree that it is inaccurate and pointless to refer to a fetus as a parasite, since it truly does not meet the criteria.

And I do agree that it doesn't help the cause, because the overtones of "parasite", a thing that is generally not a nice thing to have, and a metaphor for someone intentionally draining resources from someone else and doing nothing for him/herself, are that we or the pregnant woman bear animus toward the fetus.

Women don't terminate pregnancies because they hate fetuses, or their fetus.

A fetus doesn't have to be "like" something else. It is a fetus. It is like a human being in some ways, like a parasite in others, like a graft in yet others. It has characteristics that distinguish it from all of those things. It is a human fetus. In a woman's body. That's all that need be said.

[geniph]

37. I fell in love with a picture of John Lennon when I was 10

That didn't give me the right to tell HIM what to do with HIS life, either.

[stirlingsliver]

9. Fetus = Parasite

You've got it exactly correct, Madspirit.

A fetus is alive (who doubts that?).

But a fetus is little more than a parasite.

It draws its life from the woman who carries it.

And no sane person would ever require a woman to live with a parasite inside her -- unless the woman CHOSE to do so.

Women are NOT slaves to parasites.

[niyad]

11. two great minds!!

[SteppingRazor]

22. That's a touch inflammatory, no?

First off, it's not even true. Fetuses are symbiotic, certainly, but they're not parasitical at all. The relationship is commensal, not parasitic.

There's also the negative connotation of "parasite" to consider, but I don't think that's as meaningful as the fact that the term isn't even an accurate descriptor of the relationship.

I'm just as pro-choice as the next DUer, but the cause isn't served by referring to fetuses as "parasites." Sheesh.

[Warpy]

29. The woman derives no benefit from a fetus

and the fetus has the potential to kill her.

The parasite always derives benefit from the host.

In symbiosis both benefit.

This is not symbiosis by any stretch of the imagination.

[SteppingRazor]

33. Actually, in mutualism, both benefit.

Symbiosis covers parasitism, mutualism and commensalism. The relationship is commensalist — one benefits, the other neither benefits nor is harmed.

Yes, the potential for harm with the fetus is there, but it's not the nature of the relationship. You can't say that a woman will definitely be killed — or have her health adversely affected by — a pregnancy.

I reiterate, calling the pregnant woman/fetus relationship parasitical is both inflammatory and incorrect.

[Warpy]

35. I reiterate, it is purely parasitical

There is significant risk to the woman and maintaining that risk must be voluntary on her part.

Period.

[SteppingRazor]

39. Yes, yes, you're right. Words don't matter and can be redefined.

Did I mention ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery?

[JuniperLea]

44. That is absurd!

Pregnancy is a natural thing! There's no way you can say that pregnancy is a significant risk to women! That is just dumb! Women have been having babies for thousands of years and living to have more, and more, and then living to a ripe old age!

I have three, and not one was a risk. My great-grandmother had 15 between 1917 and 1932, and she lived to be three months shy of her 100th birthday!

Where the hell do you get such rubbish?

This does nothing to help the cause! This kind of idiotic argument HURTS the cause!!!

[Warpy]

67. How nice for granny

However, continuing a pregnancy to term has six times the fatality of complications from abortion. That doesn't even include the disabilities incurred.

Only a man could possibly think childbirth is risk free.

Again, it must be voluntary.

[JuniperLea]

119. I'm a woman!!!

And childbirth for me was textbook perfect three fucking times!

That's not the point!!!

Yes, it must be voluntary! Get a fucking grip! And read for understanding! We are on the same side!!! I'm just saying these arguments do not help us in the cause!!!

[Nederland]

141. Amazing isn't it?

Sometimes I think the greatest threat to abortion rights is idiotic pro-choice rhetoric.

[JuniperLea]

155. Well said!

We need to dispense with the rhetoric and keep it simple! A woman deserves the right to choose, and her reasons are no one's business! There are a lot of very good reasons, and no woman should be forced to tell anyone why she wants an abortion.

[oregonjen]

172. If having a textbook childbirth was not the point, why state it?

Doesn't make any sense to write that you and your Grandmother had perfect pregnancies because according to you, "the cause" would be hurt. I suppose any health issues, positive or negative should be eliminated for your arguement to make any sense.

[JuniperLea]

176. Elementary

People here are speaking as if ALL women are at risk. No, they aren't. Samples cited.

No woman should be forced to keep a pregnancy she didn't want, and likewise, no woman should be forced to state a reason for wanting an abortion.

[oregonjen]

182. In your first set of replies, it would have been perhaps easier for you

to state "no woman should be forced to state a reason for wanting an abortion." Actually, all women are at risk during a pregnancy. During a pregnancy, a complication can occur anytime, maybe during an accidental fall. Just because your body may be healthy at conception, does not mean you are not at risk. We are at risk our entire lives. A cut can turn into a life threatening infection, etc.

[JuniperLea]

186. The female human body is made to have babies

There are risks in walking down the street. Paper cuts are a risk. Some women aren't healthy enough to have babies. Breathing city air is risky too.

I'm just saying it's not a good argument and it doesn't prove anything.

I was at far less risk of something happening to me or my baby while I was pregnant because I was ultra careful of everything. I was healthy, my babies were healthy, so for me, there was virtually zero risk. All I had to do was let my body work like as it was designed.

The main point is, women should have the choice. And they should not be forced to tell anyone why they made one choice over another. All of these arguments do not help the pro-choice cause.

[iverglas]

245. paper cuts are a risk

So ... was someone compelling you to play with paper against your will?

The fact that "X" is a risk does not mean that anyone may be compelled to do "Y".

[loudsue]

93. Tell that to my best friend, whose favorite sister DIED in childbirth...

like so many women have throughout the centuries, and still do in the U.S. and throughout the world.

Having babies CAN kill you. It's a fact, and I know people who have died as a result.

:kick:

[JuniperLea]

114. Good God!

NOT ALL PREGNANCIES ARE A RISK!!! It's just not a good argument! We shouldn't have to say this is a reason or that is a reason! There are some people who should not have babies and that fact isn't known until they actually become pregnant. If there's no legal abortion, these people are out of luck.

We are on the same fucking side! READ!!! THINK!!!

[iverglas]

246. READ!!! THINK!!!

NOT ALL PREGNANCIES ARE A RISK!!!

Just a word of advice. Before you go strewing all those capital letters around, do some of that READ!!! THINK!!! stuff yourself.

There are some people who should not have babies and that fact isn't known until they actually become pregnant.

Actually, a post partum haemorrhage isn't generally known until, well, post partum. To call women who haemorrhage post partum "people who should not have babies" is a little, well, dumb, I'd say. And that's just one example.

You're right here, though:

If there's no legal abortion, these people are out of luck.

As is any woman who wants an abortion simply because she doesn't want stretch marks, and then haemorrhages post partum ... or ...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_13_40/ai_n16520099
(emphases mine)

Stroke is a rare but potentially devastating occurrence during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Maternal mortality is reported to be as high as 26%, and survivors may face long-term neurologic sequelae. Associated fetal mortality and morbidity also remain high. Although stroke is not preventable, early intervention can be key to saving lives and preserving brain function in some patients.

... It is important to recognize that stroke occurs in young women of childbearing age at a rate of 10.7 per 100,000. Some have postulated that the risk is elevated during pregnancy for a number of reasons, including hypercoagulability, venous stasis, and blood pressure fluctuations. Indeed, some estimate that the risk of stroke is 13-fold higher in pregnant than in nonpregnant women, although the rarity of the condition makes the true prevalence a matter of debate.

The risk of stroke in the postpartum period is almost certainly higher still.

... Cerebrovascular events may be associated with drug ingestion, infection, neoplasms, or trauma, as well as with metabolic factors. Researchers have been unable to determine the etiology of stroke in 23%-32% of cases.

Got any more capital letters you'd like to fling around?

Me, I'd say that the state compelling me to do something that increases my risk of stroke BY A FACTOR OF 13 is pretty much violating my rights.

And I don't really see the point in pretending that any of these facts aren't facts.

[niyad]

95. pregnancy NOT a risk? what planet are you ON?????? look at the stats for maternal deaths worldwide

for pity's sake!! are you aware, for example, that approximately ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED WOMEN DIE EACH AND EVERY DAY FROM COMPLICATIONS FROM PREGNANCY? (look at the UN stats, for pity's sake)

in the meantime, explain how eclampsia, toxemia, gestational diabetes, stroke, etc? are NOT health risks?

do yourself a favour, and do some reading on a subject about which you have just demonstrated that you have absolutely NO knowledge.

[JuniperLea]

123. You have just demonstrated that you cannot read

for comprehension! I never said never! I was cautioning others to never say never!

I had three textbook perfect pregnancies! NOT ALL PREGNANCIES ARE PROBLEMATIC! NOT ALL PREGNANCIES ARE COMPLICATED!! NOT ALL PREGNANCIES ARE FULL OF RISKS!!!

I know full well what pregnancy is all about. You should know as much about reading.

All I'm saying is that these arguments do not do the cause any good whatsoever! They should be avoided at all cost.

Abortion should remain legal and women should have a choice. Arguing these stupid points has never and will never help the situation.

[in_cog_ni_to]

106. Many women DIE in childbirth. My Grandmother died giving birth to my mom. 515,000 women die every

year! 99% of those in the developing world. You call 515,000 deaths per year RUBBISH? and ABSURD? And yes, I think about ALL WOMEN of the world when I defend the right to privacy. This article is only 5 years old. I'm sure not much has changed since the 'abstinence only' crowd took over our country.:(

Every Day, Every Minute, A Woman Dies Giving Birth

NEW YORK, 8 March, 2002 - Every minute a woman dies while pregnant or giving birth, the United Nations Children's Fund said today, calling for the world to do more to prevent maternal mortality - one of the few measures of human progress to remain virtually unchanged since 1990.

"It is unacceptable that in the year 2002 so many women die in the basic act of giving life," said UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy. "As we mark International Women's Day, we must commit ourselves to addressing this fundamental aspect of the gender gap: keeping prospective mothers healthy and alive."

UNICEF said maternal mortality ratios vary widely between the developed and developing world, demonstrating that with proper attention and investment, women's lives can be preserved. While a woman who gives birth in a developing country faces as high as a 1 in 13 chance of dying, in industrialized countries that risk falls to 1 in 4,100. It is estimated that 515,000 women die every year as a result of pregnancy and childbirth. More than 99 per cent of these deaths occur in the developing world.

"There has been no significant decline in maternal mortality ratios since the early 1990s, and that's a tragedy," Bellamy said. "We know how to prevent most of these deaths. Political commitment, and the resources that follow, have just not developed on this issue. We have to see that as part of a broader tableau of discrimination against women. And it must come to an end." <snip>

http://www.unicef.org/media/media_18896.html

[JuniperLea]

124. You need to learn to read for comprehension

I'm pro-choice!

I'm just saying there are far better ways to argue for pro-choice than these stupid points that have never helped the situation at all.

[nashville_brook]

150. you may be pro-choice, but the hysterical tone of your posts on this thread is off-putting

not every sentence requires an exclamation point. this isn't a shouting match. folks might not agree with you on this particular issue, but that doesn't make them idiots.

dial it down a notch and you might find some common ground here.

[JuniperLea]

158. My response is in keeping with the tone of the accusations

I am merely stating that there is common ground, and I'm getting pummeled for it.

If I'm hysterical, it's because idiocy is so damn frustrating.

[in_cog_ni_to]

163. Now we're idiots because we don't agree with you? n/t

[JuniperLea]

167. Some of you are, yes.

Not just because you don't agree with me. But because some of the things you are saying are so stupid.

[in_cog_ni_to]

154. Oh, I read your post and understood it PERFECTLY.

I just pointed out how wrong you are. 515,000 women dying PER YEAR...is NOT Rubbish and Absurd. It's a FACT. Pregnancy is a significant risk...to AT LEAST, 515,000 women a year.



Juniperx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon May-07-07 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. That is absurd!

Pregnancy is a natural thing! There's no way you can say that pregnancy is a significant risk to women! That is just dumb! Women have been having babies for thousands of years and living to have more, and more, and then living to a ripe old age!

I have three, and not one was a risk. My great-grandmother had 15 between 1917 and 1932, and she lived to be three months shy of her 100th birthday!

Where the hell do you get such rubbish?

This does nothing to help the cause! This kind of idiotic argument HURTS the cause!!!

[JuniperLea]

157. It's not a significant risk to ALL women!

The argument helps no one. It certainly doesn't help the cause.

[in_cog_ni_to]

161. BUT, that's not what you said in your "That is absurd" post. You said "to women" Period.....

Pregnancy is a natural thing! There's no way you can say that pregnancy is a significant risk to women! That is just dumb! Women have been having babies for thousands of years and living to have more, and more, and then living to a ripe old age!

[JuniperLea]

166. That's exactly what I said!!!

Women, in that sentence, means all women... they are made to have babies... and babies are not parasites.

It's procreation. A parasite is a totally different being! A tapeworm in a human body is a parasite. A heart-worm in a dog is a parasite. The female body is MADE for procreation, among other things. You cannot be a parasite to an organism that was made to house you! If you were pregnant without benefit of a uterus, then you might have something there.

[in_cog_ni_to]

203. NO, you did not. IF you meant "There's no way you can say that pregnancy is a significant risk to

ALL women." That's what you should have posted.....There would be little argument with that statement. Because not ALL women have complications with their pregnancy. Instead, YOU posted, "There's no way you can say that pregnancy is a significant risk to women!" Which is flat out WRONG. 515,000 women DIE every year from complications with their pregnancies. That's the point.

You didn't post about "parasites" in that post. I wasn't talking about that at all. I was talking about your wrong statement that pregnancy is not a significant risk to women...when it is. (emphasized below)

Juniperx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon May-07-07 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. That is absurd!

Pregnancy is a natural thing! There's no way you can say that pregnancy is a significant risk to women! That is just dumb! Women have been having babies for thousands of years and living to have more, and more, and then living to a ripe old age!

I have three, and not one was a risk. My great-grandmother had 15 between 1917 and 1932, and she lived to be three months shy of her 100th birthday!

Where the hell do you get such rubbish?

[JuniperLea]

204. Sorry

Didn't realize you needed a picture drawn. I thought most people here understood basic English.

To say that pregnancy holds a significant risk to women is false. If the poster had said "to some women", that would have been correct. I painted with the same broad brush with which said poster painted. Only this time, I was correct... and you are wrong. There is no way that you can say that pregnancy is a significant risk to women. To do that, you would have to prove that it's a risk to ALL women.

[MrsMatt]

212. actually, pregnancy does incur risk physical and mental

to any woman, statistically speaking. The physiological changes affect every person differently. The fact that your grandmother had successful pregancies and deliveries (and you as well) speaks more toward genetics than statistics.

My term pregnancies were very normal (one at 38 weeks, the other at 41). However, my one sister had two pre-term births (both at 35 weeks).

Risk is not the same as outcome. Many women suffer through pregnancy. It is irresponsible to claim that just because women are physically able to bear children, that they are not negatively affected by the condition.

[JuniperLea]

226. That's what I'm saying!!!

Good Lord!

All I've ever said here is never say never, and never say always!

I merely stated my position and gave my anecdotal evidence to support the fact that we are all different!

Not all of us are affected in a negative way with pregnancy! A physiological change is not always a bad thing!

If I have nine babies and am pregnant with #10, I'd say the chances are I'm going to do just fine!

Honestly! People get all bent out of shape because they can't understand we are saying the same damn thing using different words!

[iverglas]

248. I'm probably just too damn late, but I'll try spelling it out for you

I thought most people here understood basic English.

It ain't the words that are your problem, from what I can see. It's the concepts. And some impermeable membrane that seems to prevent them from getting through.

To say that pregnancy holds a significant risk to women is false.

Well, it kinda all depends on what you mean by "significant risk".

Risk is a two-edged thing.

First, there is the likelihood of a particular event occurring.

Second, there is the seriousness of the event that might occur.

Now, if there is a very low probability that your child will die if infected by measles, will you voluntarily infect your child with measles? Will you agree that the state may compel you to infect your child with measles?

Well why the hell not?? Measles are a mere inconvenience for a few days for an overwhelming majority of people. What's your problem?

Seeing it at all? The probability of a particular adverse outcome may be low ... but the outcome in question may be pretty damned nasty.

When we assess risk, we tend to consider both elements: the likelihood of the risk materializing, and the harm that will occur if it does.

It really isn't up to you to do that assessment for other women. No more than it is up to the state.

[iverglas]

247. Ahhhh

there are far better ways to argue for pro-choice than these stupid points

Perhaps you could mention one.

[JuniperLea]

130. SOME!!! NOT ALL!!!

[iverglas]

244. you're kind of up the creek without a cause, I'm afraid

Pregnancy is a natural thing! There's no way you can say that pregnancy is a significant risk to women! That is just dumb!

Yes, well, you could tell that to my sister, who would pretty certainly have died during attempted delivery because of the (undetected on ultrasounds) enormous head of her fetus, had she lived 50 years earlier. Or the woman in the room next to her, who would very probably have bled to death from her epiosotomy had she lived 50 years earlier. Or my friend's niece in Cameroon, who did bleed to death from a post-partum haemorrhage about 2 years later.

People who either don't know what they're talking about or don't care about making accurate statements should not run around calling accurate and true things that other people say dumb.


This kind of idiotic argument HURTS the cause!!!

Here's the problem.

Without a reason why the state cannot compel a woman to continue a pregnancy, the state can, well, compel a woman to continue a pregnancy.

That privacy business strikes me as a shaky foundation for a right this fundamental.

And while I'm not thrilled with the white/male/liberal rights, when left on their own -- life, liberty, speech -- they're what we have to work with at present.

A woman who is compelled to continue a pregnancy against her will IS compelled to accept a risk to her life and to accept adverse health effects on herself, and IS compelled to relinquish her liberty. And if women are compelled to continue pregnancies against their will, some women WILL die, others will be disabled, and many will endure months of ill health and/or a lifetime of other physical consequences. Just sticking to the physical aspects.

When the state wants to compel people to assume those risks, and suffer those outcomes, it needs to have a really damned good reason for doing it.

If pregnancy were really something women barely noticed for 8.5 months, aside maybe from a little heartburn, and if all women delivered with ease and went back to working in the fields, the state would really have a much better leg to be standing on in trying to compel women to do it, since women's fundamental interests -- life, liberty -- would not really be in play. But that really and truly is not what pregnancy and delivery are, and women's fundamental interests really are at stake.

Trivializing what pregnancy means to women one doesn't know doesn't do much for the cause, either.

[JuniperLea]

181. Not a parasite... period.

It's procreation. A parasite is a totally different being! A tapeworm in a human body is a parasite. A heart-worm in a dog is a parasite. The female body is MADE for procreation, among other things. You cannot be a parasite to an organism that was made to house you! If you were pregnant without benefit of a uterus, then you might have something there.

[mudesi]

198. It's tough to get them to agree

You are, of course, completely correct. Clinically, semantically, logically, you have posted something irrefutable. Good luck trying to convince the "fetus = parasite" crowd, though.

This is why I'm all for the pro-choice/pro-life DU groups. Both sides can then go to their respective groups where they can agree on the preposterous nonsense that is their agglomeration of talking points and rhetoric.

[JuniperLea]

201. I know...

I must be hard-wired to uphold truth:) Like women are hard-wired to lactate when a baby cries, and men are hard-wired to hit walls with fists when they think their woman is cheating and their territory has been compromised:)

I'm happy to see someone else who understands, in any case!

:toast:

[momster]

222. Okay...you lost me

I was kind of seeing your point of view...though the whole 'women made for baby-making' thing was a definite 'are you nuts?' moment...until this.

Not all women lactate when a baby cries (I didn't and don't).

Stupid men hit things when their emotions are in turmoil.

And -- imagine Big Effing Print here -- his territory's been compromised? WTF? You think any woman is some man's territory? No wonder you have a problem with the fetus as possible parasite idea. Evidently you don't think a woman belongs to herself first and forever. I am nobody's property. Not my husband's, not my child's, not my parents'. Not even my government's. I am myself. What I choose to give to other people is my decision and mine alone. That makes what I choose to give all the more precious to me and to those around me.

[JuniperLea]

225. Oh. Good. God!!!

If you can't see the over-simplification of animistic behaviors, the brain stem functions, the auto-responses we are hard-wired for in that diatribe, I'm at a loss. No one is saying you are actually the property of anyone else! That is completely absurd! I'm talking about biological brain function here. If you have ever even paid cursory attention to psychological studies on the furthering of human seed, you'd get it... I would hope.

If you have actually breast fed a baby, and your milk doesn't let down when you hear a baby cry, I can only surmise that your knee-jerk, basic maternal instinct, in that regard, is different from the rest of us who experience these things. It is such a basic reflex that it has even been used in poetry, movies, etc.

[momster]

228. Oh, well, if it's poetry, it must be true!

Figure out yet that not every human being reacts in the same way as you do. And you are the one who was talking about men's 'territory'. If that doesn't mean in your context that 'woman belongs to man' then you have problems with basic English.

[JuniperLea]

229. Of course... because you are clearly infalible...

:eyes:

[momster]

230. Well, no pope here, but I can spell...

infallible.

[JuniperLea]

231. Gosh! And you can type better too!

:eyes:

I hope that further made you feel superior... because it makes you appear supercilious.

[Nederland]

100. So a child is worth nothing?

In the end the fetus develops into a child, which most people on this planet consider a great joy and a considerable benefit to one's own happiness.

Good Lord, it's no wonder we lose so many elections.

[JuniperLea]

139. This is precisely why...

Those stupid "life begins at..." arguments, or the "pregnancy risk" argument do the pro-choice issue no good at all.

Yes, there are some who have problems with pregnancy. Yes, there are some unborn children who have birth defects and will never have a quality life. But using those arguments thinking it somehow boosts the pro-choice side of the issue is moronic. Some of us feel that babies are worth the regular, every-day, run-of-the-mill risks of pregnancy... and some of us feel it's worth higher risks too.

I'm pro-choice, but all the stupidity in this thread makes me wonder if SOME women have enough sense to make that choice! Honestly! Just because someone doesn't agree with their point, we're somehow hurting the cause!

[iverglas]

249. nah, that's not why you lose elections

Democrats (and the left in Canada) lose elections because they just haven't got real good yet at making their opponents look like monsters, while their opponents have got that bit down pat.

But hey, with you on their side --

So a child is worth nothing?

-- the Democratic Party's pedagoguery quotient should go up rapidly.

[stirlingsliver]

31. Pregnancy Is A Health Hazard

So what if "fetus = parasite" is inflammatory?

If it wakes people up to the reality of the situation, then GOOD.

And a fetus IS a parasite.

A fetus is NOT there for the "benefit" of the woman.

It ONLY draws things away from the woman.

Plus, pregnancy is a risk to a woman's health -- ALWAYS.

[SteppingRazor]

34. I'm not arguing that a fetus is there for the benefit of the woman.

I'm arguing the relationship is commensalist, not that it's mutualist. That is, the fetus benefits and the woman neither benefits nor is harmed. Therefore, it's not parasitic.

And I certainly grant you that a pregnancy can be a risk to a woman's health, but it's certainly not the nature of the relationship.

And as I mentioned in a subthread above, even beyond all this, a relationship between genetically linked creatures is, by definition, not parasitic. So, there's also that.

[Jax]

41. "the fetus benefits and the woman neither benefits nor is harmed"

What bs!!!!

You have NO IDEA what harm a fetus does to a WOMAN or can do to a woman.

Jesus where am I? This is DEMOCRATIC Underground right????

Parasite is absolutely correct.

You are flat out wrong.

[SteppingRazor]

46. No, I'm really not wrong.

Yes, a fetus can harm a woman, but it's not the nature of the fetus' relationship to a woman. What you're suggesting doesn't make any sense — that a fetus, which needs the woman to survive even after birth, would kill or do irreparable harm to the woman. I absolutely grant that it's possible that a pregnancy can have complications, but it's just a fallacy to suggest that it's always true or even that it's true the vast majority of the time. Human beings are pretty amazing animals — believe it or not, we've had the capacity to reproduce for, like, hundreds of years, at least! :P

[Jax]

52. Yes really you are wrong. n/t

[JuniperLea]

54. That ignorance doesn't help the cause at all!

If it were so dangerous to have babies, our species would have never grown!! Think a little about what you are saying! This isn't helping us to sound smart and informed! Good God! Think!

[Lars39]

208. You need to delve into a nursing book on the subject of childbirth.

Study some anatomy and physiology pertaining to the subject.

[JuniperLea]

227. Excuse the hell out of me!

My mother and aunt are both retired RN's! They were my coaches for all three of my babies, and I was a coach for five of their collective grand-babies! I sincerely doubt I'm lacking in that regard, as much as I sincerely doubt two very capable, experienced and dedicated RN's would suggest I come anywhere near their grand-babies if I didn't know a thing or three about birthing and caring for the same!

On what do you base this nonsensical suggestion?

[SteppingRazor]

55. Oh yeah?! Well you're a stupidhead!

:P

[Jax]

59. Grow a uterus

and your opinion might matter to me.

Personal attack all you want, won't help your 'cause' a bit.

[SteppingRazor]

70. I was just trying to remain as mature as circumstances allowed.

Besides, your disparaging my personal attack is kinda ironic, what with "grow a uterus" being a perfect example of one kind of ad hominem logical fallacy — you do realize that, by your logic, only soldiers are allowed to have an opinion on the war, only legislators an opinion of our laws, etc.?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[Jax]

76. None of your business ever.

Despite the apples and oranges strawmen you throw out.

You are wrong. It is a parasite.

[JuniperLea]

162. You are wrong

It's procreation. A parasite is a totally different being! A tapeworm in a human body is a parasite. A heart-worm in a dog is a parasite. The female body is MADE for procreation, among other things. You cannot be a parasite to an organism that was made to house you! If you were pregnant without benefit of a uterus, then you might have something there.

If you want to think of yourself as a parasite that grew in your mother, go right ahead.

[JuniperLea]

159. I have a uterus

And I disagree with you too.

I'm pro-choice, but I am not pro-stupidity arguments, which is what most of these posts are.

[Nederland]

160. Might want to rethink that position

Men are more likely to be pro-choice than women:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

[JuniperLea]

49. I've had three

And I'm healthy as ever... my great grandmother had 15 and she lived to be 99.75 years old.

Tell me again what the harm is?

Absurd.

[oregonjen]

110. Just because you had 3 pregnancies, with no complications

doesn't mean that everyone else will have zero complications. Sorry. There are many women that face life threatening issues during their pregnancies. My employer just suffered a miscarriage, with complications that put her in the hospital with a serious infection. She was in the hospital for over a week and will be on antibiotics for awhile to come. I have many more friends who have had problems during their pregnancies, including myself. I was on bed rest for over two months with my second child years ago because I was dilating early. Had I not sought regular medical care, I, along with my son, would quite possibly have had medical complications.

I'm glad you were lucky and nothing serious happened to you, but for many women, complications occur.

[JuniperLea]

129. I NEVER SAID THAT!

All I'm saying is that some arguments do the cause no good whatsoever. Please read what I've written then show me where I said ALL PREGNANCIES ARE PERFECT!!!

Honestly. I couldn't possibly be more frustrated at the lack of comprehension I'm finding here.

[nashville_brook]

152. you implied it.

[JuniperLea]

156. I implied nothing!

I clearly stated my stance many, many times in this thread!

[JuniperLea]

183. No, you are wrong

It's procreation. A parasite is a totally different being! A tapeworm in a human body is a parasite. A heart-worm in a dog is a parasite. The female body is MADE for procreation, among other things. You cannot be a parasite to an organism that was made to house you! If you were pregnant without benefit of a uterus, then you might have something there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. Using that logic, one could make a case for legalizing rape.

After all, the rapist benefits, and the woman neither benefits nor is harmed any more than, say, giving birth.

[SteppingRazor]

82. But that argument's completely fallacious...

for any number of reasons. Not the least of which is that the woman certainly is harmed a lot more than merely "giving birth," especially when one factors in psychological issues. One could then, of course, counter that pregnancy can also be psychologically damaging, but I hope you would concede that it's also fallacious to compare pregnancy as a result of consensual sex to being a rape victim.

In any case, I'm not trying to posit the morality or ethics of pregnancy. I'm talking about the biological relationship between a fetus and a pregnant woman. That's it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. Yes, it's completely, utterly, ridiculously fallacious.

That's my whole point.

"Not the least of which is that the woman certainly is harmed a lot more than merely "giving birth," especially when one factors in psychological issues."

Which do you think is easier to push through a vagina, a penis or baby? Which do you think is more psychologicaly harmful? A penis that you don't want passing through your vagina, or a baby that you don't want passing through your vagina?

"I hope you would concede that it's also fallacious to compare pregnancy as a result of consensual sex to being a rape victim."

I hope you would concede that forcing a woman to give birth is the moral equivalent of forcing a woman to have sex.

[SteppingRazor]

88. No where, in a single post I've made on this thread, have I said a woman should be forced to carry..

In fact, I've said several times that I am unwaveringly pro-choice.

[Madspirit]

235. Bornagin is right

I'm really mad at him right now...<g>..but he's right. Forcing...FORCING a woman to give birth is no less than a rape.
Lee

[JuniperLea]

40. Not always

Never always. That kind of argument dooms you and is best avoided.

[Madspirit]

58. Physically a woman gains NOTHING

It is not symbiotic. A fetus takes from the woman and gives nothing back. It IS a parasite. Sorry if the term offends your sensibilities.
Lee

[annabanana]

64. lol. . years of worry.. THAT'S what it gives back. . n/t

[SteppingRazor]

66. But if one creature benefits and the other neither benefits nor is harmed...

that's not parasitic. Oy. It's a very simple biological definition here. I don't know why I have to keep explaining this.

[UNCLE_Rico]

72. Ok, then try this one on for size...

What if the woman DOESN'T WANT to be forced to carry the fetus to term.

The idea of doing so causes her GREAT stress and anxiety. What if this stress affects her health?

Lets be real, here, being *forced* to carry to term could cause someone major mental anguish, perhaps even to the point of suicide.

IN THIS CASE, your 'commensal' argument fairly falls apart, wouldn't you admit?

Perhaps we can all agree to this: To a woman who DOESN'T WANT to be pregnant, the fetus can be fairly described as a parasite.

I think that definition should please all sides in this little debate, no?

[SteppingRazor]

74. Suits me. n/t

[Madspirit]

107. It does

It does harm the woman and it derives nourishment from her body. She gains nothing, physically. It does. That IS a parasite.
Lee

[smoogatz]

164. Your problem here is that you're trying to be rational

in the middle of a discussion about abortion. You've probably figured out by now that that project's going nowhere.

[BlackVelvet04]

168. In webster's definition

of parasite there is no qualification that the parasite must harm the host:

2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

[JuniperLea]

191. Procreation is not a parasitic situation

It's procreation. A parasite is a totally different being! A tapeworm in a human body is a parasite. A heart-worm in a dog is a parasite. The female body is MADE for procreation, among other things. You cannot be a parasite to an organism that was made to house you! If you were pregnant without benefit of a uterus, then you might have something there.

A parasite takes from the other organism. When a woman is pregnant, her body compensates so the baby isn't feeding directly off her. There are some, of course, who do not take care of themselves, so neither baby or mother does well.

[Nederland]

113. Physically the women gains OFFSPRING

And that has value. Immense value, to most parents.

From a purely genetic perspective, reproduction is our very purpose in life. There is more to life than genetics of course, but you can't discount the fact that most people consider children to be very important.

[JuniperLea]

200. That's why sex feels good

We are hard-wired to have babies.

Women want men who will stick around, that's why they hate the thought of their men having an emotional affair. Men don't want to dilute their territory, so they are more concerned with their women actually having sex with another man. Everything boils down to the furthering of the seed.

Oh, I'm a romantic at heart, but all these things are purely biological... dammit!

[Madspirit]

210. ...and that would be relevant

If we were discussing post birth of babies people want. We were talking about the effects of pregnancy on women.
Lee

[Nederland]

278. Response

Perhaps the the original point should be amended to say that for women who do not wish to have a child, the fetus is equivalent to a parasite. However, given that a significant majority of women who do get pregnant do not feel as though the fetus is a parasite, but rather view at as the early stages of something that will eventually give them great joy, it is an error to make the blanket assertion FETUS == PARASITE.

[iverglas]

281. ah, here we go again;

... a significant majority of women who do get pregnant do not feel as though the fetus is a parasite ...

And the one and only owner of my cat, moi, feeeels that my cat is the Queen of Romania. I know, you thought his sex would have disqualified him, but you're wrong; I feeeel as though he is.

Feelings do not determine facts. A fetus is indeed not a parasite, but it is not inaccurate to say that it is parasitic in many of its characteristics.

The effects on a woman's body, and the risks a woman runs, in pregnancy and delivery and post partum, are really and truly not determined by how she feels about her fetus. Really and truly.

You get to decide whether to suffer those effects and run those risks. Presumably, if you decide to, it is because your fetus is of some value to you that outweighs the effects and risks. Good show.

You get to decide that, and act on your decision. So does everybody else.

Is this really unclear? Is there something about it that is so plainly and indisputably RIGHT that you can't deal with it other than by twisting yourself into all these knots to try to evade it?

[Nederland]

298. No, feelings do matter

Here's why:

The statement FETUS == PARASITE is true if and only if the fetus has no value. Whether or not the fetus has value is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion--opinions based upon that individual woman's feelings.

[iverglas]

251. "And that has value."

To most parents, you say. Whatever.

The point is that producing offspring has value to some women (and at some times, in some circumstances). Those women are, of course, then free to assume the risks associated with achieving the goal.

There are other women to whom it does not have value. Not enough value to outweigh whatever the negative aspects of pregnancy, delivery and parenthood are to them.

Those negative aspects may be the risk of death, the loss of employment, or the inability to wear last year's bikini to the beach. It's of no never mind.

YOU don't get to assign the value of another woman's fetus. Let alone decide that it outweighs the value of what she is risking or losing as a result of pregnancy, delivery or parenthood. It's her fetus, and its value is exactly what she says it is.

you can't discount the fact that most people consider children to be very important.

And they're free to consider their own fetuses to be very important, and to consider other people's children to be very important. Once they're children, that is, you see. Until they are, what other people might think about them is of the most supreme irrelevance.

[Nederland]

277. As usual, you totally miss the point (nt)

[JuniperLea]

194. Let's see...

My nails are thicker and stronger, my hair is thicker and stronger and healthier, I'm physically stronger, emotionally stronger, and I'm better at making quick decisions. Oh, yeah, and I no longer have to take the thyroid medication I took all my life. For some strange reason, when pregnancy hormones kicked in, everything else went to normal.

Pregnancy did wonders for me!

[RC Quake]

284. Let me add a wrinkle.

Some women DO benefit from a fetus. I am one case of many. An infertile woman that never conceived, now being forced to have a hysterectomy. If I had gotten pregnant and delivered just one baby, my chances of losing my reproductive organs would have decreased tremendously...if not completely.

For me, the benefits greatly outweighed any possibility of complications.

[niyad]

90. of COURSE it is a touch inflammatory--but then, I have been dealing with the woman-hating anti-

choice lunatics for decades, so I can be as inflammatory as I like.

do you think, for example, that those dreadful "pictures" of "aborted feti" that they post at the clinics, or on the trucks that are now running around the country, are NOT inflammatory? do you approve of them?

do you think that blowing up clinics is NOT inflammatory? sending anthrax letters? MURDERING doctors and other clinic workers?

when you have spent as much time as I, and others, have on the front lines with the anti-choicers, then talk to me about how inflammatory I am.

[SteppingRazor]

101. Oy vey. Of course I don't approve of bombing abortion clinics. Sheesh.

You're not dealing with "anti-choice lunatics" here. You're dealing with your fellow DUers. You can ameliorate your tone depending on whom you're having a conversation with, no? I've tried — at least in the beginning of my participation in this thread, and to some degree throughout — to be as concilliatory as possible here, and it seems silly to have a shouting match with someone who agrees on the larger issue anyway. We're both pro-choice, after all.

[niyad]

108. apparently you missed the part where I said I used the "parasite" argument SPECIFICALLY

against the anti-choicers with whom I have to deal on an almost daily basis.

and, please note, that just because we are on DU does NOT mean that everyone here shares the same values. At this point, I do not need, nor do I choose, to ameliorate my comments anywhere. the pro-choicers GET IT, the anti-choicers can be as incensed as they like. and please don't tell me about "offending" people--at this point, after all these decades, I don't give a DAMN who is offended by my comments. those who choose to be offended by the truth are of no interest to me whatsoever.

[SteppingRazor]

118. Duly noted. Thank you.

So, from what you're saying, calling a fetus a parasite is just something you say to cheese off the loonies?If that's the case, how come so many people here are so insistent on the usage? Why is it defended so vociferously? Why, when I offered that it's not really the most accurate of terms, was I shouted down with "Of course it is!" and not simply instructed, "Yeah, yeah. But it sure makes the blood go shooting out of the eyes of the fundies." If you really don't believe this, why defend it to the death?

And, I certainly have to admit, I haven't specifically dealt with you as much as a few other people in this thread, so, granted, your view may not be the same as theirs.

[JuniperLea]

202. I'm pro-choice... and I don't get you at all

It's procreation. A parasite is a totally different being! A tapeworm in a human body is a parasite. A heart-worm in a dog is a parasite. The female body is MADE for procreation, among other things. You cannot be a parasite to an organism that was made to house you! If you were pregnant without benefit of a uterus, then you might have something there.

Using this, or any like argument, does us no good at all.

We should simply demand that our right to choose remain, and we need give no reason whatsoever as to why we may choose abortion. It's no one's business.

[Nederland]

137. Dumb analogy

Name another parasite that some people pay tens of thousands of dollars to acquire.

[JuniperLea]

180. No, it isn't...

It's procreation. A parasite is a totally different being! A tapeworm in a human body is a parasite. A heart-worm in a dog is a parasite. The female body is MADE for procreation, among other things. You cannot be a parasite to an organism that was made to house you! If you were pregnant without benefit of a uterus, then you might have something there.

[shenmue]

12. Birth.

Until then, the fetus does not have the ability to survive on its own.

[Nederland]

125. Question

Are you somehow under the illusion that the fetus can survive on it's own after birth?

[iverglas]

255. and one for you

Are you somehow under the illusion that the fetus can survive on it's own after birth?

Do you sincerely believe that someone out here doesn't know your game?

[Horse with no Name]

13. A couple of things here

I support your position 100% and I will get back to that.
But did you notice at the bottom of your post, there is an ad that asks if you are a slacker mom?:wtf:
Anyway--in some weird way, I find that almost humorous.
I, too, love your analogy of crawling up inside your body--that is 100% true.
IF these anti-choice people are serious, then the government should pay child support at the point of conception to the mother who may or may not want the occupant. Since they want to take the choice away, it should cost them.
Also...eviction should be made illegal everywhere abortion is illegal. If I can't evict someone from my body that I don't want to be there, then most certainly nobody should be allowed to evict anyone.

[Madspirit]

16. I LOVE the way you think...HWNN....n/t

[Ezlivin]

17. Implicitly it begins at birth

Otherwise we would calculate our age based upon something other than our "birthday."

I've yet to meet an anti-choice person who added the time in the womb to their age.

And I've never met a woman who wanted to add even a few months to her age.

[Raven]

18. There was a huge argument about this when Roe v. Wade was

decided. I don't think the question has ever been answered to a scientific certainty. Conservative Catholics and others believe that life begins at conception and that if a woman has sex she should be prepared to be preganat and carry the child to term. Then there was the issue of contraception and the conservatives argued that it was abortion even if the pregancy was terminated in the first few days before it attached. Then they argued that the act of contraception was akin to abortion because it prevented human life from beginning. So, it comes down to this in my mind abyway: if a woman wants to abide by all of the above, she should abstain from sex...if a man wants to abide by all of the above, he can happily have sex and his partner bears the consequences...literally and figuratively.

By the way, we are not so many years removed from a "chattel" society. When I tried to vote in Alabama in the 70's in the country where we lived but not where my husband was registered, I was told by the election official that I couldn't register there because I was a chattel of my husband.

[Forkboy]

19. We can discuss this in the new Shitferbrains Dem Forum.

:hi:

[Madspirit]

61. Hey Forkboy!

I do hope if Skinner does form the new Anti-Women's Rights forum he names it, "The Shitferbrains Dem Forum". I like it...<g>
Lee

[Madspirit]

20. self-kick!...n/t

[TahitiNut]

21. An individual enters the BODY politic upon issuance of a Certificate of Live Birth

At that point, a human being becomes an individual and is afforded the civil protections and obligations of the civil authority.

[JuniperLea]

42. Ahhh... but people have been charged with double murder

When the mother and unborn child have been killed.

I think we should avoid all mention of keeping abortion legal that has to do with a date certain when life begins, or any mention of anything that could be even loosely construed as wanting to keep abortion legal for birth control reasons.

Our biggest, hardest arguments are abortion when the woman's health or life (not the same thing) are in danger, or that the unborn child has birth defects and would have no quality of life.

[Madspirit]

56. It should be On Demand

No restrictions, no guilt.
Lee

[JuniperLea]

111. That's what I'm saying!!!

And I'm saying that all this argument on finer points does not help the cause one iota! It hurts the cause more than anything and it should be avoided at all cost!

All of those issues can be argued. The fact that women should have a choice cannot.

There are many, many very good reasons a woman might consider an abortion. If that right is taken from us, all the good reasons will make no difference. To argue when life begins or that a baby is a parasite that can harm the mother ( absurd! this is a natural human function! ) only fuels the fire of the opposition. We should not allow ourselves to be drawn into this kind of conversation.

[joshcryer]

133. Are you advocating full term elective abortions?

WTF?

[Madspirit]

214. If it's truly full term

Then it's called "birth". Don't be dense on purpose.
Lee

[joshcryer]

263. Full term means 37 weeks, not 'birth.'

People have had babies after 37 weeks. But you knew that. Nice attempt at avoiding the question.

[iverglas]

256. and people have been charged with no murder at all

when women and people of colour and poor people have been killed. What's your point?


Ahhh... but people have been charged with double murder
When the mother and unborn child have been killed.

Have you actually read how those "fetal homicide" laws are written? Or is this just one more of the things you're blathering on about without a clue?

Fetal homicide laws (in one version, in the US; they actually don't exist anywhere else) specifically recognize that fetuses are NOT human beings. They do this by making special provision for causing the death of fetuses, as distinct from causing the death of human beings. They don't make special provision for causing the death of mothers-in-law or five-year-olds or people with Lou Gehrig's disease; this would be because all of those people are human beings. And fetuses are not. And yet the ultimate, most serious charge, and most severe punishment, otherwise reserved for causing the death of human beings, is applied to causing the death of fetuses.

They also apply to only some people who cause the death of only some fetuses. Some people (like doctors who perform otherwise legal abortions, and women who cause the death of their own fetuses) get off entirely scot free, while other people get the full weight of punishment for murder. Hmm. Ever read your constitution? Note the Fourteenth Amendment thereto: the equal protection of the law. People charged with "fetal homicide" aren't quite getting that equal protection, when other people doing the exact same thing are not treated like murderers by the law.


I think we should avoid ... any mention of anything that could be even loosely construed as wanting to keep abortion legal for birth control reasons.

Good lord. What do you imagine the reason for abortion is? It controls birth, by preventing it. Just like the pill does, and the IUD does, and condoms do ...


All of those issues can be argued. The fact that women should have a choice cannot.

I'm going to try again, gently.

"Women should have a choice" appears to be your opinion. In order for it to be of any value in political discourse, you need to demonstrate that it is based on the common values of the society.

I might hold the opinion that "pink socks should not be banned". I'm not going to get anywhere, in arguing that pink socks should not be banned, if I stop there. I'm going to need to show at least some foundation in the fundamental rules of the society -- its constitution, in our cases -- for the proposition that pink socks may not be banned. If I can't, my sock-wearing preferences are at the mercy of the majority.

If you can't demonstrate a foundation for "women should have a choice", in relation to their pregnancies, in your constitution, women's ability to exercise reproductive rights is at the mercy of the majority. I wouldn't leave my right to counsel if I'm charged with a crime, or my right not to be deprived of life without due process, or my right of free speech, to the majority to decide whether to respect or not. I don't know why women would want to leave their reproductive rights in that very precarious location.

The best protection for an individual or minority right, in a constitutional liberal democracy, is a constitutional rule. Why would you object to efforts to establish that there are constitutional rules that protect women's reproductive rights?

[JuniperLea]

23. I am firmly pro-choice

But I think your arguments only bate the flame and have no real merit.

Your argument seems to say you have no responsibility to keep yourself from becoming pregnant, and that abortion is a form of birth control.

Yes, we should have a choice. Period. To argue this point or that serves no purpose but to fan the flames. We should have a choice and there are many, many valid (non-birth control) reasons why a woman should be allowed to end a pregnancy. To argue any finer a point is to invite trouble and to make us sound crass and heartless.

[Deep13]

27. Does negligence in getting knocked up...

...waive the fundamental right to control ones own body? I personally don't think it does. As a side note, I agree that the best course is to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.

[JuniperLea]

30. No, read again...

I'm saying we should not argue the finer points of this, but to fight to keep abortion legal because there are so many very good reasons to have an abortion. An abortion for birth control reasons, no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig, is a heinous act of selfishness when one considers how easy it is NOT to become pregnant in the first place.

[Warpy]

32. It's ridiculously easy not to break your left leg

In fact, I've gone through many decades without breaking either leg.

However, if people have chosen to break their legs, should we just leave them where they are without trying to help them heal?

When you find a birth control method that is 100% effective for all of us, let me know.

[JuniperLea]

36. That's not what I'm saying at all

Your analogy doesn't even fit what I'm saying, not even close.

Of course some people will use abortion as birth control! What I'm saying is it sounds pathetically horrid to use that as an arguement! There are so many other very valid reasons to have an abortion without bringing abortion as birth control into the picture.

[BlackVelvet04]

179. Maybe I missed it....

but I didn't see anyone arguing abortion as birth control. What I am seeing is the argument that why a woman has an abortion is nobody's damn business. A woman's uterus is her uterus and how it isn't or isn't used is her decision PERIOD. And I think that should be the argument....my uterus, my decision.

[JuniperLea]

189. You must have missed it...

there are all sorts of arguments here... that babies are a parasite... that pregnancy is so risky... on and on.

What I'm saying is exactly what you just said. My uterus, my business. There's no need to go into detail, no need to explain to anyone the reasons why. All the arguments can be countered, and they have no bearing anyway... so they only serve to weaken the pro-choice stance.

[BlackVelvet04]

193. I was going to come back and correct myself.....

I just hadn't gotten to some of the arguments. My apologies.

It certainly is ridiculous that women have to fight the government for control over our own bodies.

[JuniperLea]

196. It truly is ridiculous... no harm, no foul... no apologies necessary

I cannot stand the thought of a baby being born less than whole, or less than wanted. And if a woman can't tolerate pregnancy, that risk shouldn't be taken. But those are all reasons a woman should only discuss with those she chooses. If we start putting all sorts of reasons out there, how long before someone starts a checklist? And how many things do I need to check before I can get an abortion? And who all will know my business?

Best to just keep our mouths shut, be pro-choice for pro-choice sake, and leave it at that... IMHO.

[BlackVelvet04]

197. I agree.....

of course the right doesn't have a lot of respect for privacy as evidenced by their acceptance of wire taps, etc.

[Deep13]

24. When life begins: 4 billion years ago.

It is a continuous process. Apropos of a specific pregnancy, it never began per se. Best guess, it ends in about a billion years.

I have advanced the slavery argument in the past and have largely been greeted with skepticism. The standard response seems to be one of assuming the risk. Assuption of the risk is a defense in personal injury cases. The plaintiff knew he was playing football. He assumed the risk of being crushed by a bunch of 300 lb. dudes. The problem is that assumption of the risk does not waive fundamental rights. Likewise, consent is too specific to apply here. Consent to sex is not necessarily consent to pregnancy. Even if it is, consent can always be withdrawn. If someone agrees to be a partial liver donor, does that mean he cannot change his mind after signing the consent form. Can the donee force the donor to have the surgery? Unlike an abortion situation, a person really will die without the procedure. I don't think any of those Common Law tort defenses apply here.

[JuniperLea]

47. If you put your hand in fire

There's a chance you will get burned.

If you have sex without birth control, there's a chance you will become pregnant.

I think all these arguments hurt the cause rather than help. There are so many very good and very valid reasons for abortion to remain legal.

[Madspirit]

50. At Any Point

Whether fetus or liver part...a person has a right to rescind consent. It IS MY FUCKING BODY. I am not obligated to keep someone else alive at my own expense.
Lee

[Deep13]

68. exactly

I completely agree, in case there was any misunderstanding on that.

[etherealtruth]

38. Forty

[etherealtruth]

43. "People need to understand that this is totally irrelevant to the issue"

For me the issue is soley a woman's right to control her own body ... the answers are different for every person ... it is up to that person's judgment what she will or will not do with her own body.

[musette_sf]

45. K&R n/t

[damntexdem]

48. When does a person become a person?

It cannot be before there is a functioning brain, actually functioning, as typically occurs around the 22nd week of gestation. Is there a person then? We don't know. But what we DO know, is that the MOTHER IS A PERSON. Thus, the allowance of greater restrictions on abortion, as countenanced in Roe v. Wade, may have some reasonable bases; but the life, health, well-being, and autonomy of the mother must ultimately have priority.

[BlooInBloo]

57. 10:43 am.

[kineneb]

126. and only after consumption of appropriate amounts of caffeine n/t

[BlooInBloo]

128. (grin)

[Madspirit]

63. Who's Going to Be

...the fifth recommend? <g>
Lee

[etherealtruth]

77. Ooooh .... I was #6

[EFerrari]

65. If rape is illegal, so should enforced pregnancy be illegal.

My body is not at your disposal.

[Deep13]

69. #5

:kick: :thumbsup:

[milkyway]

79. Madspirit, how do you respond to the argument that you made your choice when

you chose to have unprotected sex? Your post sounds as if someone forced you to become pregnant and you had no say in the matter. If a person (both men and women) chooses to have unprotected sex, knowing that it could result in pregnancy, they understand the consequences of their actions.

I'm very much pro-choice (and very much pro-sex just for the fun of it!), but I knew a lot of guys when I was growing up who didn't use condoms simply because they didn't like the way they feel. If the girl got pregnant, hey, she could just have an abortion. This country needs to become much more adult about sex--some people need to understand that it's a basic human desire that cannot be restrained or regulated by an institution, and other people need to understand that sometimes when you have sex you create another human being. Abortion should be a choice left solely to the woman, and it's a choice she should make only after much contemplation.

[Deep13]

86. A few points speaking for myself.

Birth control is not fool-proof.

Assumption of the risk or other tort law defenses really do not apply to fundamental constitutional rights. Did the Freedom Riders assume the risk of battery or murder because they knew that exercising their Constitutional rights might result in violence?

The fact is only one of the partners has the burden of becoming pregnant requiring her to stay that way is fundamentally unfair to her. As a policy matter, women can never be equals in our society if they cannot control their own reproduction.

A fetus is not a person in any meaningful sense and therefore the state has no rational interest in intervening. People only think it is a person because they think it has a soul. There are no souls and public law should not assume the existence of things based solely on religious belief. We are choosing to draw the line at birth, when the mother's interest in bodily integrity is no longer at issue, but throughout history infanticide was regularly practiced. A newborn was not thought to be a person.

[Rosemary2205]

89. IMHO that argument is invalid

"you made your choice when you have unprotected sex"

IMHO when others make that argument it's invalid because

1. Many birthcontrol methods fail to some extent. Not all pregnancies are the result of "unprotected sex".

2. The right to make a personal choice doesn't require a woman to justify herself to anyone else -- meaning it's no one else's business whether or not she used birth control.

3. Abortion is in itself a method of birthcontrol. Not an ideal one but one none the less.

4. Not all sex is consensual. Sometimes women do have the choice to use birth control.

Give me time I'll think of others but I'm sure the OP can put it much more eloquently. :)

[Madspirit]

91. The Price to Pay

The price to pay for a bad decision should not be slavery. Forcing a woman to carry a child IS slavery.

...and no, that did not happen to me. I am actually a lesbian and 53. I HAVE been pregnant and I HAVE had an abortion. Lesbians are also raped and incested and sometimes just make mistakes, so this is our issue also.

...but I wasn't raped or incested. I was with a really abusive woman. (I am now with a wonderful woman. We've been together for 15 years.) Anyway, I was with a really really physically abusive woman. Yes, we have that issue too. Not as much as our straight sisters and lesbian abuse rarely ends in death, unlike hetero abuse but we do have the problem too. So I would run away some times. I have a LOT of straight guy friends, despite the sissy boys over here who claim I am a man hater because THEY can't handle strong women. Actually, most of my closest friends are straight men.

Well, I ran away and this straight guy friend of mine got kicked out by his wife, the same day his dog died and he got laid off from his job. I know, it sounds like a country western song. We got together to commiserate; we got drunk and I woke up pregnant. Dang. I had an abortion in the first trimester.

Anyway, irresponsibility is not a reason to carry a child to term if the child is NOT wanted. My body is not a baby vessel.
Lee

[milkyway]

120. I wasn't speaking in a legal sense, I was speaking more on the level of personal

choice. I'm a straight 50-yr-old guy, and my main point was that too many people (mostly guys) I knew acted like getting an abortion was like running out to the store for a six-pack. Abortion is a choice that is completely up to the woman, but it is a serious choice to make. I think it's best to try preventing having to make that choice.

I am married with two teenage sons, but we have a lot of friends here in NYC that don't have children. I think that is absolutely the right choice for anyone who is not committed to raising a child. Far too many people have kids when they really don't want them.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that this happened to you. I was just continuing your language (use of the word "I") in your original post.

And you're right, that would make a great country & western song! (I lost my job, lost my wife, lost my dog, got drunk, screwed a lesbian, and now she's pregnant and we're gettin' married.)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

92. you can get knocked up even while using protection. you can get pregnant from rape.

[Bunny]

98. Maybe you should ask all the millions, yes millions, of people who became pregnant while using birth

control? Why on earth would you assume that every pregnance results from choosing to have unprotected sex?

[milkyway]

131. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I was not speaking of all the possible circumstances that can result

in pregnancy; I was only speaking of a pregnancy that results from two people knowingly choosing not to use birth control. And I was not speaking in a legal sense, but only on a personal level of how one conduct's their life and the choices that they make.

[nashville_brook]

153. people who knowingly don't use BC are generally TRYING to have kids

if you are looking for a test of a "legitimate" unwanted pregnancy -- an observation can be made of the woman's response to the question: "do you want a child at this time."

if she says "no," it's an unwanted pregnancy.

[BlackVelvet04]

184. Choosing to have unprotected sex

does not equal choosing to be pregnant.

[lostinacause]

219. Just as choosing to drive drunk does not equal choosing to murder

someone? While pregnancy is not certain anyone with half a brain knows there is a risk of becoming pregnant.

[BlackVelvet04]

221. Of course it's a risk......

but just as in most things most people think it can't happen to them. That's just the way people are.

[lostinacause]

233. Is that reason not to hold people legally responsible for their actions?

[BlackVelvet04]

236. It's not up to me to hold people legally responsible for actions that

are a matter of conscience and personal choice. I'm pretty much a live and let live kind of person. I have no desire to be the moral authority for anyone else. I don't understand people who worry about what everyone else is doing. My life is too busy and too full without that burden.

[kwolf68]

80. The problem

as I see it is if we grant personhood to the fetus then society has obligations to save that fetus under all circumstances.

So, IF A WOMEN was having a natural abortion (termed miscarriage) then do we begin trying to save it? Do we employ doctors and spend billions to try to prevent this?

And then you have the issue of rights. You have the 'right' to do anything as long as it does not infringe on 'my right'. By giving personhood and thus rights to the fetus, then the 'rights' of the women carrying the fetus would be violated and there is no way to get around it.

For a long time I had a problem with abortion because I felt the only objective time-frame for the beginning of life had to be considered at conception, but as some have said, this argument is not relevant. Giving the fetus the 'right' to life could potentially negate the women's 'right' to life as well. What happens in those cases where abortion is needed to save the mother?

Further, no women should ever be made to have a child that she does not want. EVER. And spare me the adoption bullshit, there are already millions of unwanted babies all around this entire earth who could use a good family.

[Madspirit]

81. Well Put KWolf...n/t

[milkyway]

94. Do pro-lifers consider miscarriages an abortion done by God? There are surely

many more miscarriages than abortions. Why would Gold murder so many millions of babies?

I've never heard the phrase "natural abortion" before, but it makes sense, and it also could be used to turn the pro-lifers' language against itself.

[Kelly Rupert]

117. The medical term is 'spontaneous abortion.'

"Abort" simply means "to stop," after all.

[Gregorian]

97. So does the fetus have equal rights as the mother?

We both posted this about the same time.

But I am approaching it from a position that up until the baby is breathing air, the mother's rights supercede the babies rights.

But I am saying that if the mother intends to not have the child, terminating the fetus (notice I'm no longer using the word "killing") is acceptable. But if the mother intends to give birth to the baby, injuring the fetus is not ok, since the fetus is intended to have the same rights, eventually, as the mother.

And I'm still not sure this really addresses what I was trying to say in my post. I think there is something deeper. Maybe.

[Kelly Rupert]

287. It, again, depends on whether the fetus is considered a person.

If you consider it a person at moment of first breath, then yes, you are correct. If you consider it a person at conception, the pro-lifers are correct. Either way, abuse is unacceptable, because, as you say, you are causing damage to a person, even if it doesn't yet exist.

[iverglas]

294. it really doesn't have to do with "you"

If you consider it a person at moment of first breath, then yes, you are correct. If you consider it a person at conception, the pro-lifers are correct.

And it just doesn't matter what any individual "considers" a fetus to be, or a person/human being to be.

Those concepts are defined by human beings collectively. By us. Not by me, or "you".

The anti-choice brigade is not correct, because they are asserting something that is contrary to what human beings collectively, over space and time and culture, have decided. A human being (person in law) exists when there is a born, alive, human entity.

The anti-choice brigade might want "human being" to mean something else. And I might want "Queen of Romania" to mean iverglas. It doesn't, and it doesn't, and it doesn't matter a hoot what I might consider to the contrary.


Either way, abuse is unacceptable, because, as you say, you are causing damage to a person, even if it doesn't yet exist.

And that's a tough one. But to the extent that the "abuse" consists of something done by a pregnant woman to and with and in her own body, it is her right to do it.

If we don't draw the line, we're left on a side we might not want to be on.

A parent of a child may not deny the child life-saving medical treatment. If a pregnant woman may not "abuse" her fetus, why would she be able to deny it medical treatment to prevent it being born with debilitating disabilities? Which treatment would, of course, involve slicing her open.

And then there are all the little niggly things that my "liberal" friends around here like to point out in other scenarios. In fact, hundreds of women in the US have been prosecuted in the last few years for things like "delivering drugs to a minor" because they used narcotics while pregnant. And yet ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070504.cover05/BNStory/National/
(only available on line til Friday; worth reading)

“Reports in the 1980s described crack cocaine as the next thalidomide,” recalls pediatric toxicologist Gideon Koren, who is the director of the Motherisk Program at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

... In fact, research so far suggests that crack may not even be as harmful to a fetus as half a pack of cigarettes a day — which can be bad enough, causing stillbirths and sudden infant death syndrome, but doesn't raise the same alarms.

... They found no strong evidence that prenatal cocaine exposure causes adverse developmental consequences in children up to the age of 7.

... A controversial charity called Project Prevention — also known as Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity — offers $300 (U.S.) to any drug user who agrees to be sterilized or use birth-control implants.

As well, since 1985, more than 300 women there have been arrested under child-endangerment laws for using drugs or alcohol while pregnant. At least 100 were, at some point, cocaine users, says Lynn Paltrow of New York's National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

Science may show that such Draconian measures are out of proportion to the danger, though it's still early to say.

And meanwhile, women have been the guinea pigs -- imprisoned for allegedly harming their fetuses. Oddly enough, this being the point I started out to make, overwhelmingly poor, African-American women.

Is there justification for interfering in the liberty of pregnant women in ways that we could not possibly interfere in others' liberty -- preventive detention, imprisonment for doing something to their own bodies? Is there justification for this kind of punitive action against women who are plainly victims themselves for the most part? Is it even productive, or is it perhaps counter-productive, to take this approach? It would have to be pretty damned good justification, and some pretty predictably good results (and very bad results absent the measure) would have to be demonstrated.

[Gregorian]

84. But we wouldn't tolerate abusing the fetus.

I want to address something that may be critical in opening a door to phrasing this more accurately.

Having said what you did about the fetus being inside you and part of you, there is another facet to this entire picture.

It has to do with making a decision about life or death versus injuring a life. I honestly believe that under certain circumstances killing is acceptable. That's a pretty blunt statement. And when one operates out of fear, like conservatives, it would be totally unacceptable. But the reality of life is, it is acceptable. Just like stealing a loaf of bread in order to survive is not stealing.

If a mother were to purposefully injure a fetus, it would not be acceptable. Although I don't think the chances of that happening are very high. But it is part of the discussion to frame this issue in a clear and meaningful way. Although for some of us it is none of anyone's business, and is self-evident.

So the question is, why would it be ok to end the life of a fetus but not ok to cause harm to a fetus?

The answer to that question might help this discussion.


Edit- I think part of the answer is that harming a fetus implies that the intention is to let it live. So injury would be part of that person's life. Whereas there would be no life in the event of killing the fetus.

I think there's something important here. Something I myself am not getting. And also I find this subject really hard to talk about, for several reasons.

[SteppingRazor]

87. I think Kwolf, above in post #80, did a lot to answer this question already.

It goes back to rights. Carrying a fetus to term can, conceivably, impede on the rights of the mother — hence the option to abort. But damaging the fetus while still keeping it alive in no way redresses any rights the mother may have lost.

On edit: There's also a similar argument to be made from health. That is, carrying a fetus to term can, conceivably, impede on the health of the mother — hence the option to abort. But damaging the fetus while still keeping it alive in no way solves any health problems the mother may have due to pregnancy.

[Madspirit]

99. I Had An Abortion

Yet while I was pregnant I did not smoke or drink or do anything to cause it harm. I am not a sadist. I ended it's life and that was that. It was either end it's life or commit suicide, thus ending both lives.

If the woman...THE WOMAN...chooses to keep her baby, that confers rights to it. It's ALL up to the woman carrying it and how SHE considers the fetus inside her. No one has a right to abort my fetus against my will. No one has a right to make me carry it. My uterus is NOT a democracy. I am the supreme ruler of it. I am The Decider of my body and it's contents.
Lee

[Gregorian]

103. Of course.

The problem as I see it is, there are a bunch of mostly men who are telling us what we can and can't do. That's what these kinds of threads are about. How are we going to find a way to definitively knock these asses out of the picture. There is an argument that will stop this discussion. I don't know what it is. Certainly it is the mother's choice. Sometimes I wonder what convoluted garbage runs through the heads of these supposedly intelligent judicial figures.

I met a girl many years ago who was in need of an abortion. I brought her to the clinic and supported her. That's not saying much. But at least you know where I stand on this issue.

[joshcryer]

144. You can't have an abortion, someone has to *perform* one on you.

It is up to those performing the abortion as to whether or not they'll do it, otherwise you're SOL.

[Rex]

96. You're terminating a lifeform that depends on you to survive.

Which is your choice and I totally support it.

[Nederland]

121. The same is true of infanticide (nt)

[Kelly Rupert]

122. The same is true of antibiotics.

it all comes down to personhood.

[Nederland]

127. Yes it does

It all comes down to personhood. If the fetus is a person, abortion is wrong. If the fetus is not a person, abortion is a merely a medical choice.

Agreed?

[Rex]

173. A fetus is not a person, it is a lifeform - kinda like all other life

but not independent from it's host. You can rationalize all you want to about life and death. It is still not your choice. Not unless you want to regulate reproduction/recreation of another person's way of life.

Not me.

[iverglas]

264. you forgot a few

It all comes down to personhood. If the fetus is a person, abortion is wrong. If the fetus is not a person, abortion is a merely a medical choice.

Agreed?


Absolutely.

If there are faeries at the bottom of my garden, then round-uping the weeds is wrong.

If the moon is made of green cheese, then stopping the cow from jumping over it is wrong.

If I am the Queen of Romania, then failing to pay me tribute is wrong.

If things fall up, then dropping a piano under your neighbour's eaves is wrong.

We could play this all day. You got any more?

[Madspirit]

146. Nope

An infant can be given up for adoption. Other people can take care of it. A fetus REQUIRES THE USE OF MY BODY ergo, up to me.
Lee

[Rex]

174. I fail to see how people can't connect A to B.

Really disappointing seeing it here on DU. Yet I believe in freedom of speech; if people want to stay disconnected from reality, then I guess it is their choice. Sad, but there it is.

Spot on BTW! :)

[grace0418]

292. Not true at all. An infant can be cared for by anyone. It doesn't have to be the mother.

When I can hand over my uterus to someone else for nine months while the baby grows, then it will be the same thing.

[Kelly Rupert]

102. The problem with this argument is that

it sounds like you are granting the fetus personhood. Nobody doubts it's alive; the question is over the point at which it becomes a legal entity. In your construct, you admit it is a living human. As such, as long as it is viable, its right to continued survival must be weighed against your right to avoid the inconveniences and dangers of pregnancy. Unfortunately, when you set up the argument that way, the fetus is going to win, for the same reasons that you cannot abandon a week-old infant by the side of the road if you decide you don't want to deal with it anymore.

And, unfortunately, your arguments could be used equally appropriately to infanticide. Having to spend massive amounts of time and energy caring for a lump of shrieking flesh simply because you are legally bound to certainly amounts to slavery. You cannot be required to donate or give up the use of your body (say, your breasts, or your arms or legs or voice) or money for the benefit of any other living being, unless you choose to. Your household is not a democracy, and it has to be up to you and nobody else or women are no more than chattel.

Obviously these arguments fail, since your right to an unimpeded life fails when weighed against the right to survival that the infant for whom you are legally responsible possesses. That is the crux of the issue--parents are legally responsible for their offspring. As long as the fetus is a person, the mother and father have legal responsibilities towards it. And, unfortunately, when you set up the argument to give the fetus personhood, you set yourself up for arguments such as the above.

Oh, and "crawling up inside?" Again, you leave yourself open for counterattack. By engaging in consensual sexual activity (not talking about the standard rape/incest exemptions, few would disallow those), the parents have placed the fetus there themselves, and have responsibility over it--if it is considered a legal person. Yes, birth control can fail. That is a risk of birth control. By engaging in any sexual activity of any type, any hetero couple is willingly taking on the risk of a pregnancy. They knew they might create a person inside the woman. They have obligations towards it--if it is a legal person.

Indeed, the argument must be when "life"--or, more precisely, personhood--begins. If the fetus is alive and not a person, then abortion becomes an inalienable right the mother must possess. If the fetus is alive and is a person, then abortion becomes infanticide, which most find unacceptable. Pro-choicers and health professionals recognize that a lump of tissue without a functional brain is not a person. "Pro-lifers" believe it is.

I fundamentally agree with your position; don't get me wrong. I'm not disagreeing with you that you have the right to an abortion. I'm saying that your arguments won't hold much water with anyone who doesn't already believe them.

[Madspirit]

149. I Know You Are Right

I was just pointing something out. I don't care if it's a life or not. It's up to me whether I choose to carry it in my body or not.
Lee

[JuniperLea]

175. Well said

Not only do the arguments fail to hold water, they make us look callous and ignorant.

We're much better off standing for pro-choice, and not making a fuss as to the reason why. No woman should be forced to keep a pregnancy she doesn't want, and she shouldn't be forced to give a reason for wanting an abortion. I think it's all better left unsaid.

Throwing gasoline on a fire never put it out.

[lostinacause]

220. Congratulations on the first post that shows a deep understanding of the issue at hand. nt

[gollygee]

276. I disagree with this

Any adult could care for any given infant. If someone has given birth to a baby and decides she doesn't want to take care of the baby, she has other options. She could place the baby for adoption, or the state could hire someone to care for the child. No particular adult is forced at any time to care for the child or give use of any part of its body. Any adult can do it. A woman who is pregnant is forced to give use of her body specifically. It isn't a case of finding a willing adult to care for the fetus - that specific woman's body is the only way the fetus can survive.

[Kelly Rupert]

288. Suppose you live in rural WV,

and you don't have a car or a phone. You do not speak English; you are an immigrant. You can walk down to the local store, and buy food and such, and you can clean a few neighbors' houses for money, but that's it. You do not have realistic access to social services. (This is a rather unrealistic construct, but let's pretend it's real for a second.) You are therefore unable to contact state services or an adoption provider, and you cannot get your neighbors to understand your problem. And you decide you don't feel like taking care of your baby any more.

It is still illegal for you to leave your baby for dead on the side of the road. You are its legal guardian, and allowing or creating the death of a person for whom you have responsibility is a crime, regardless of whether you want to or not. After all, it's not like the fetus decided of its own accord to take over the woman's womb; she and the father put it there willingly by engaging in sexual activity (birth control or no, everyone knows there's always a risk of pregnancy). She may not revoke the fetus's right to survival as long as the fetus is considered a person. That would be murder, exactly as shooting an infant would be. It is only if the fetus is not considered a person (which is perfectly reasonable; it's only a lump of nonthinking, nonfeeling tissue) that abortion is legal.

The abortion debate can only rest on the point at which a fetus is a person. One person's right to survival always trumps another's right to convenience. For abortion to remain legal (which it ought to), a fetus must not be considered a person. Any other argument fails.

If a fetus is a person, abortion is murder.
If a fetus is not a person, abortion is an inalienable human right.

[gollygee]

295. You have a responsibility to find another adult or leave it at an allowed location

You are legally allowed to leave a baby at any hospital, fire station, police station . . . I'm not sure of every location but there are tons. You don't have to care for it any more at that point if you don't want to.

Your example is so far out there it is completely irrelevant

[Kelly Rupert]

299. It doesn't matter if it's not practical.

That's not the issue at hand. Your real responsibility is not to "find an adult," it is to "ensure the survival of the person for whom you are responsible." If a fetus is a person, you must ensure its survival. If it isn't, aborting it is okay. Why is that hard to accept? Is it that you believe a fetus should be considered a legal person?

Seriously. Let's go totally extreme. This is a pure hypothetical. Put the mom and her month-old baby on a desert island, with a near-infinite supply of food and water, and adequate shelter. Say she knows for a fact that she'll be rescued in ten years' time; it's not like they'll be there forever. Now, the baby is being a serious pain in the ass. She doesn't feel like being its slave. Can mom throw it in the water? If no, why not, and does that at all reconcile with your position on abortion?

The only way that abortion is morally and legally justified is if a fetus is not a person. (Fortunately, it isn't.)

[AuntPatsy]

109. solemly agree

[joshcryer]

132. Roe v. Wade makes explicit statements about when life can survive outside of the womb.

This is an irrecovible fact. Those who reject this aspect of Roe v. Wade may as well reject the whole decision, because you can't just pick it apart.

BTW what's up with all the abortion threads the past few weeks?

[Madspirit]

143. Jeez

Yeah...what's with us silly women discussing our human rights issues. I mean really. It could be the whittling of Roe vs. Wade. Ya think?
Lee

[joshcryer]

148. Absolutely.

When people who don't understand Roe v. Wade start talking about rights not conferred by the precedent, they are weakening their overall position, not strengthening it.

[momster]

223. The Supreme Court's Recent Decision

regarding "Partial Birth Abortion" reminded us that the rights we take for granted are, in fact, imperiled by the 'nice old men, in the clean black robes' who are coming to take them away. Start talking about one aspect of abortion rights and a whole lot of other stuff comes bubbling up.

[iverglas]

250. an irrecovible fact

I wish I had me some of them. I have a feeling they might come in handy when talking to you.

Roe v. Wade makes explicit statements about when life can survive outside of the womb.

I think I'm finally grasping what I think must be your point.

Your Supreme Court made a ruling about when a fetus is viable. ("Life", again, doesn't do anything -- but the anti-choice right wing sure does like to obfuscate by using words like that.)

You seem to be labouring under the misconception that your Supreme Court -- or anybody's any kind of court -- is authoritative on scientific/medical questions.

I assure you. Really. It is not.

Your Supreme Court is not authoritative on the question of when fetuses (let alone, of course, any particular fetus) are viable. It is also not authoritative on what time it is, you might want to note.

The irrevocable fact here is that your Supreme Court based its decision on a finding of fact that it made based on the evidence submitted to it. Imagine if the Court had asked one of counsel the time, and counsel's watch had been broken ...


Those who reject this aspect of Roe v. Wade may as well reject the whole decision, because you can't just pick it apart.

Those who want to claim in public that their courts are authoritative on the question of when a fetus is / fetuses are viable, or on anything else involving the medical arts or the sciences, really do need to go to law school.

[yurbud]

134. yep--though it sounds cold and selfish when you say it like that.

[Madspirit]

138. No it does NOT

How does it sound cold and selfish? Jeez, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. It is neither cold nor selfish for me to control my own body.
Lee

[yurbud]

211. so someone not only has to agree with you in principle but smile and say abortion is wonderful?

that's kind of fucked up.

You could at least be intellectually honest and say abortion is at best the best of bad choices available to some women.

It seems like the pro-choice people already raise it to the level of a sacrament.

I support it exactly the way I support your right to smoke. I don't like it, but it would do more damage to society if I tried to stop you from doing it.

[iverglas]

252. so what's your problem?

I support it exactly the way I support your right to smoke. I don't like it, but it would do more damage to society if I tried to stop you from doing it.

People who rely on harm reduction arguments to advocate for a position don't usually turn around and do everything they can to undermine that position.

People who care about reducing a harm actually do things that might result in reducing the harm.

I just can't figure out how badmouthing women who have abortions, and women who advocate for women's right to do so, is likely to achieve that end.


abortion is at best the best of bad choices available to some women.

So is a kidney transplant the best of bad choices available to people in kidney failure.

What's your point?

[yurbud]

136. I agree with you at the moment of conception, then to a diminishing to degree as pregnancy goes on

down to 0% at viability.

[joshcryer]

140. Oh snap, you better put on your flame suite.

'cause you're about to get flamed.

[yurbud]

177. c'est la vie

[gollygee]

142. Roe v. Wade doesn't allow elective abortion after the point of viability

0% even if the woman's life is in danger? When there is a problem with the fetus and it won't live outside the womb? I don't think you really mean 0% at the point of viability unless you mean 0% for elective abortions.

[joshcryer]

145. I think that's what they mean.

But Roe v. Wade does allow elective abortions after viablity, it merely leaves it up to the states to make that decision or not (ie, it basically says states can ban it at viablity, which many states have done). So what you have are women going to other states to get elective abortions past some states' (and scientific consensus') point of viablity.

[gollygee]

147. How many women have done this?

if it is happening, it is extraordinarily rare. Almost all abortions, including elective, are performed in the first trimester.

[joshcryer]

151. According to the NCAP a few thousand about 10 years ago.

However, you will find it extremely hard to get actual statistics on this subject, because the providers simply don't put them out there. So it is relatively easy to dismiss my argument.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied.pdf

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20activists%20lied.pdf

[Madspirit]

185. Truthfully

I'm sick of your opinions until which time...YOU GROW A UTERUS.
My uterus is not a democracy. I am the sole decider...whether your laws support it or not. No power in the 'verse could make me have a baby I don't WANT.
Lee

[joshcryer]

188. Hey, I'm just looking for answers.

I'm discovering that they're incredibly difficult to find in this case.

[ismnotwasm]

207. And?

I don't understand a search for type or amount abortions . Unless you are anti-choice, then a simple google search should provide lots of anti-choice fodder.

[iverglas]

257. "So it is relatively easy to dismiss my argument."

Yeah. That's probably why it's been done. Repeatedly.

Of course, you're not the only one. Or the last one. Shell games are endlessly fascinating, aren't they?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=836306&mesg_id=847608


oh, and on edit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=836306&mesg_id=847721

[joshcryer]

260. Dismissing an argument because you don't have statistics pretty much proves...

...that you have very little data to back up the dismissal either. It's essentially an argumentative 'draw.'

[iverglas]

262. didn't read those links, didya?

Oh well. Now you can pretend they don't exist.

[joshcryer]

265. Yes I did.

He's talking about late term abortions, ie, abortions past the 20 week mark according to the JAMA, which so hopelessly leave out in the first link.

[iverglas]

267. the thing is: who the fuck cares?

late term abortions, ie, abortions past the 20 week mark according to the JAMA

I'll leave aside who's recycling the repeatedly rebutted selective quotations here, and just ask that question.

Who the fuck cares what somebody calls a 20+ week abortion?

A 20-week pregnancy does not fall into the (c) element of the disposition in Roe v. Wade.

A 20-week pregnancy -- and a 21-week pregnancy, and a 22-week pregnancy, at the bare minimum -- fall entirely outside the reach of the state, other than with respect to regulations that may be made in the woman's interests.

So why do you care what somebody or its dog calls them?

Could it be ... because that way, when you make allegations about "late-term abortions" and are called on them by someone who prefers to use language to convey meaning, rather than to deceive, you can say "but but but I'm talking about 20-week abortions!!"?

Methinks.

If he was talking about 20-week abortions, he was SAYING NOTHING. Nothing of any concern to anyone at all. And that includes you, and the government of every state in the USAmerican union, and its federal government.

[joshcryer]

268. Anyone who supports Roe v. Wade should care.

Since that's nearing the scientific metric for viablity. But since you're seemingly not a USAian and self admittedly don't care about Roe v. Wade (even going so far as saying it isn't pro-choice) then the only thing I can take from this is that you don't want to participate in geniune discussion.

I am perfectly willing to say "20 week abortions" but I think I can use JAMA terminology and still be correct in my terminoology.

Also, 20 weeks *does* fall into (c) of Roe v. Wade:

For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

There is nothing in Roe .v Wade about "third trimester" BS, because that's just something people use to dismiss that viablity happens (late) in the second trimester. My brother was born at 28 weeks. If he was born a week earlier he would've had decent chances of survival. Yet he would've been "second trimester."

[iverglas]

269. could you tell the truth occasionally?

But since you're seemingly not a USAian and self admittedly don't care about Roe v. Wade (even going so far as saying it isn't pro-choice) ...

Actually, I said it was purple.

I don't make meaningless statements like "a decision of a constitutional court is not pro-choice". As, you'll recall, I stated quite clearly.

But hey, don't let that stop you from, er, stating the opposite of the truth.

Also, 20 weeks *does* fall into (c) of Roe v. Wade:
For the stage subsequent to viability, ...

Perhaps what you need is a dictionary. Too many syllables in "subsequent" for you?

There is nothing in Roe .v Wade about "third trimester" BS, because that's just something people use to dismiss that viablity happens (late) in the second trimester.

Here, you appear to be speaking to someone not present.

Carry on.


And of course, viability "happens" when a fetus is successfully born. Kinda like a snowstorm happens when it snows, and not when the weatherperson says it's going to snow. Funny how that works.

[joshcryer]

270. Hmm...

I misread subsequent, my bad. :) No false intention there, I really did misread it.

JAMA places viablity near 20 weeks, though. So I still don't understand what you're arguing about.

[iverglas]

271. JAMA, perhaps you don't realize,

is a publication. Not an authority, not a decision-making body, not the maker of rules about anything.

JAMA places viablity near 20 weeks, though.

Yeah. It probably places Newfoundland near Labrador, too. It's still a long cold swim.

How dare you; really, how dare you?

"Near 20 weeks". What disingenuous bullshit.

You know absolutely perfectly well that no fetus with a gestational age of 20 weeks will ever, ever survive ex utero. Not until we invent a way of putting it in another uterus, whether mechanical or human.

[iverglas]

273. btw, I'm sorry, but

I don't question that you had no evil intent there, when you misused Roe to make a point.

The problem would be that you so misunderstood Roe that you could even imagine that it meant what you were thinking it meant, i.e. just about the opposite of what it does mean.

[yurbud]

165. I would agree in those cases. Those stil aren't anywhere close to the majority even for late ones.

[gollygee]

170. You think the majority of late-term abortions are elective?

where did you hear that?

[yurbud]

209. It's hard to tell how many are since the chief witness is the same for both sides

Ron Fitzsimmons.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F17FE3C550C758EDDAB0894DF494D81

[uppityperson]

240. any other source for your assertion than a 10 yr old article saying

"This is how it is. No, I lied. Believe me now, not then."? Quoting a questionable source is questionable. You need to find an accurate source or you have no source.

[iverglas]

253. hey, maybe by now he's read the rebuttal of that crud

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=836306&mesg_id=847608

Hell, maybe he'll even acknowledge he's read it.

Or maybe he'll just keep spewing the same shit, from thread to thread.

Kinda like that "men are more pro-choice than women" claim made upthread a ways by a fellow traveller ...

[joshcryer]

258. iverglas, you know that you're distorting the quote there.

That's not a rebuttal. That's selective quoting and distortion. No one has yet to show that the NCAP's position is different from what it was 10 years ago, and there is no reason to believe that it is.

[iverglas]

261. joshie, you know it's a loser's game yer playing

But if you want to keep spewing those falsehoods and misrepresentations, you go right ahead.

[joshcryer]

266. You're the one spewing falsehoods and distortions.

Not me. I actually read my sources rather than quote them selectively like you are fond of doing.

[joshcryer]

259. He was backed up by other activists on his statement.

That makes his correction or confession more than adequate.

[iverglas]

274. yeah, there are really lots of almost-people

and half-people and 99%-people in human history, and the collective human mind.

I wonder how someone with 1% of a right to life would exercise it. Or hey, 54%.

[piedmont]

169. The egg is alive. The sperm is alive. The zygote has life...

but the question is when does the developing human become a person, with all the rights of a person?

[Qutzupalotl]

171. Life begins at birth. It ends at death.

It's just as wrong to say life begins with the formation of a body as it would be to say life ends when the body decomposes. The formation of a body, although a process of life, does not constitute a person.

Cellular life exists even before conception. So while a fetus can be said to be "alive", much as the cells in my kidney are alive, a fetus cannot be called an independent life form. Independent life begins at birth, and that is central to the issue.

[BlackVelvet04]

190. Interesting you should say that....

good point, BTW.

As a Christian I find no Biblical basis for life starting at conception. After all according to Genesis Adam was a fully formed being but not alive until God breathed into him. It was breath that made Adam a living person.

[Qutzupalotl]

205. Indeed, that's very much where I am coming from.

;-)

God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, THEN man became a living soul.

Many people assume that the Bible does not support a pro-choice position, simply because most churches do not. This has more to do with religious leaders seeking a wedge issue than with any biblical admonition.

The closest thing to abortion mentioned in Leviticus is "causing a woman to miscarry". The penalty for that is not specified, unlike murder, for which a harsh penalty is specified. If the penalties are different, it would be unreasonable to assert that the Bible equates abortion with murder.

[Madspirit]

206. Atheist here

...but I still appreciate your point. A lot of anti-choice people, though not all, do use god as their reason.
Lee

[ismnotwasm]

178. Well said

I have a hard time understanding the anti-choice folk. None of the arguments make much sense to me. I have a daughter who "would never" get an abortion, but is very clear that it's HER choice. Thus my grandson. I have another daughter who made a different choice. And I'm grateful that both of them had the opportunity to choose and I'm very frightened that choice is going to be taken away.

I'm not out of my breeding years either, at least physically. I shudder to think what would happen If birth control failed and I had no choice. Horrible.

[tnlefty]

187. From my perspective, when a fetus becomes a neonate and takes a

breath. I've read through parts of this thread and read that viability word, but in my state viability is at 24 weeks gestation. I delivered my 1st son at 33 wks. and 5 days after days in the hospital being pumped full of drugs to stop labor, absolute and total bedrest (no bathroom privileges). He was in much better shape than we were told to expect, but he still did 2 wks. in the neonatal unit, we had home health nurses coming to the house, and appointments at the pediatrician's office at 6 a.m. so we wouldn't be exposed to the sick young'uns coming in. Without intervention, he wouldn't be the bright young man that he is today!

I delivered another boy at 24 wks. 5 days and he died within minutes of his birth. Term pregnancies end in the death of fetus' so from my experience, and working with other parents, viability must be at birth when a living neonate leaves the hospital and can survive at home, even if help is required.

I don't remember thinking of my boys as parasites too often, while it is true.

And as a side note: I wasn't smoking, drinking, taking illegal drugs, and being very careful to consult my OB about ANY over the counter meds. So I've NEVER understood why anoyone would want to force a woman to continue a pregnancy that she isn't vested in. If someone told me that I was going to be forced to carry a fetus that I didn't feel a vested interest in, I don't think that I would be so careful...

[joshcryer]

199. My brother was born at 28 weeks, he's doing fine. :D

Roe v. Wade says states can set the viability limit, and a lot of states set it way too low.

[uppityperson]

192. What is "life" and it is irrelevant.

Is "life" defined as when a soul enters a body, or does a cell being alive mean it has "life"? I see the argument of "when life begins" as irrelevant to the pro-choice anti-choice anti-any-abortion anti-some-abortion argument. Unless those saying "life" mean a soul. Which I don't.

[Madspirit]

195. Yup!...n/t

[followthemoney]

213. Life begins before ejaculation.

I hold the moral high ground over those immoral people who think life begins as a fetus.

The man who murders his sperm contributes to the bloody death of menstruation. Every egg that fails to become a fetus is a death on the hands of the spermicidal maniac who allowed the sacred life of the ovum to pass through the fallopian tube unfertilized.

Menstruation is a crime against nature. To all those who carry pictures of an aborted fetus in their so-called right to life protests, I present to you the photo of the ejaculation, the crime you refuse to acknowledge in your moral primitivism, the abstention from copulation.

More copulation, more souls for the glory of God. Every menstruation is a death that must be atoned. So start doing that bunny thing or you are going to hell.

Or, maybe the fetus being a person is more about what the mother thinks, a state of mind and her own business.I'm ok with that too.

[Forkboy]

218. Too awesome!

:D

[Thirtieschild]

224. Conflicted.

I absolutely support a woman's right to choose - have had at least four grandchildren, one niece/nephew, one possible godchild aborted, have no reservations about the rightness of any of them. And if my daughter had gotten pregnant when she was raped, I would have been first in line to call for an abortion. Also would have called for one if either daughter's life was in danger.

That said, dom't think I could ever have done it myself, although if I'd been in similar situations probably would have - after all I was a teenager in the late 40s, early 50s when nothing, nothing, was worse than unwed pregnancy. However, and this is an attitude I don't understand, in my heart of hearts I think it's murder. The two ideas -supporting abortion yet deep down thinking it's murder - oppose each other so strongly that I question my reason. Or my courage.

Am I the only one who sees/feels it both ways?

[On the Road]

232. I Agree with You That "When Life Begins" is a Slippery Question

and can be misleading. The question should be rephrased as to when a fetus has sufficiently developed to have standing as a human being. Having fingers and toes and a beating heart is not enough. There should be some evidence of consciousness or higher brain functions. There certainly are during the final trimester. The question is where is begins.

The Supreme Court may have given the right answer, but for the wrong reason. I understand that in Europe the date is set a month or two earlier, which might accord better with the science. Wherever the bar is set, abortions should allowed and fully funded before that point, but prohibited afterwards, because the fetus is no longer a piece of tissue at that point.

The problem with your argument is that the logic applies to any point in the pregnancy, from the first to the ninth month. I certainly hope you don't mean that. I generally dismiss accusations of babykilling by anti-abortion people as hysterical exaggeration. After reading your post, I'm not so sure.

[Madspirit]

234. I would never

I would never get a third trimester abortion unless my life was in great and grave danger or something horrible was wrong with the baby.

I still would hold for abortion on demand at any time. The extremely RARE elective third trimester abortion does not outweigh the number of dead women from back alley abortions if they keep whittling at RvsW.

Lastly, I am not here for your approval. It IS my body and no power in the 'verse can stop me from doing whatever I want with it...and anything in it.
Lee

[On the Road]

237. You Might Not Personally Have a Third-Term Abortion

but the argument you used is based not on the fetus's humanity but on its location inside the womb.

If that is your reasoning, why not have an abortion in the eighth month? Because the fetus is unsettlingly human by that point? That's the question you started out not wanting to address.

I can't see how anyone can claim the moral high ground by asserting that privacy trumps life. As far as I'm concerned, the anti-abortion people are asking the right question when they say that it's a child, not a choice. It's just that their belief structure gives them the wrong answer.

You can make a persuasive case that a fetus should not be given human status until the third term, but for some reason supporters of abortion right go out their away to avoid the issue. It makes the entire position look evasive and an excuse for killing babies. The Planned Parenthood, for example, has a fine argument for why a fetus should not be considered human until the third trimester. But it's hidden way down in the website so you have to search to find it.

Women absolutely have a right over their own bodies. But rights are always balanced against each other. The right to privacy would seem to be trumped by the right to life when it applies. It's a question of at what point it should apply. Personally, I suspect it should be pushed back a little, but in the current climate it's difficult to have a dialog which actually deals with the science.

Roe v. Wade was right to overrule anti-abortion laws, but as far as I'm concerned used the wrong reasoning to set a standard by basing it on survivability rather than humanity.

[iverglas]

254. hmm, I think you've misread

I can't see how anyone can claim the moral high ground by asserting that privacy trumps life.

Oh, that is such a dog's breakfast of obfuscating code-speech ... but we'll give it a shot.

First, I think you're mistaking MadSpirit for the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court said that a woman's privacy rights were the protection for reproductive choice. MadSpirit, on the other hand, said:

I am not a slave; I am not a vessel; I am not an incubator. ... This is most certainly a human rights issue.

Human rights: life, liberty, like that. In many international human rights instruments, and up here in the constitution of Canada, we include "security of the person".

Your Supreme Court's decision was that women's privacy interests trump the state's interest in pregnancy (variously described by the Court as its interest in "pre-natal life", the "potentiality of human life", blah blah). NOT "life".

If you're going to talk about what the Court said, you don't actually get to rewrite its decision.


If that is your reasoning, why not have an abortion in the eighth month? Because the fetus is unsettlingly human by that point?

Hmm. I wouldn't want to cut down an old-growth redwood, or keep my cat in a 2-foot cube. Is this because they are unsettlingly human?

I would really think that the reason why most women would not want to terminate a pregnancy in the eighth month would be because they wanted to have a baby. Women who didn't want to have a baby would likely have figured it out well before then.

Yes, this is not an answer to the question of whether abortions in the eighth month should be legal. But it does raise a question that needs answering: why should they be illegal? Are laws commonly made against things that are not done? And that, when done, are done for reasons that would make it wholly improper to outlaw them?

But rights are always balanced against each other. The right to privacy would seem to be trumped by the right to life when it applies. It's a question of at what point it should apply.

Well, your Supreme Court said that the right to life applies at birth. Seems reasonable to me, and entirely consistent with the whole of human history -- in fact, that is what your Court based its finding in that regard on. The right to life is a human right -- a right held by human beings -- the human things that exist once they are born, and while they are still alive.

You apparently have a problem with the Court's decision. You seem to want to propose that a fetus (not an embryo? a zygote? but why not??) have rights. So why don't you, the one whose proposition it is, argue for it?

Why don't you tell us how it's gonna work? If you did, you would be the first I have ever met who was equal to the challenge.

How's it gonna work ... when a woman is diagnosed with a cancer, at a late stage of pregnancy, that must be treated now because she will die soon after delivery otherwise ... and the treatment requires termination of the pregnancy, or will result in fetal death ...? What due process will you design to enable a court to determine who dies? Which of the two is the guilty party? Guiltier, even? Who gets the death sentence?

Why do you feel the need to get involved in these decisions? If you are going to say "the woman lives" (even though the fetus, per you, has a right to life, and it would be deprived of life without due process), why don't you just keep your paws off -- since that's exactly what would happen anyway, if that's what the woman chose?

Heavens ... if the woman chose to forego treatment so that the fetus would survive to birth (no guarantee of surviving delivery, mind), there would surely still have to be a trial. The woman too is entitled to due process. The fetus, as an independent party who would benefit from her death, must surely have its rights balanced against the woman's. And would it lose, and the woman be forced to terminate the pregnancy?

Dog's breakfast. Big steaming heap of dog's breakfast.

But hey, if you want to be the first, I'm all ears.


It makes the entire position look evasive and an excuse for killing babies.

Yeah. "Killing babies", a known event. Unless it's like "flying to the moon". Do people often offer excuses for flying to the moon? No? Could it be because no one flies to the moon? But hey, if I oppose laws against flying to the moon on the grounds that legislatures should not make pointless laws, am I excusing flying to the moon?

Your words make your entire position look offensive and an excuse for vilifying women.

[Madspirit]

297. Iverglas is SOOOO cool!!...

...and explains things better than I do.
Lee

[On the Road]

300. Thank You for the Cogent Response

To tell you the truth, I am reluctant to engage in abortion discussions because they usually generate more heat than light. To answer some of your comments:

I would really think that the reason why most women would not want to terminate a pregnancy in the eighth month would be because they wanted to have a baby.

That is undoubtedly true. It is also true that late-term abortions are used as an emotional club by anti-abortions to trick people into opposing all abortions.

But the issue is that the justification MadSpirit gave allows for voluntary late-term abortions. She compounded that by insisting on not discussing the question of when a human life begins, which as far as I'm concerned is the key to the entire issue.

Well, your Supreme Court said that the right to life applies at birth... You apparently have a problem with the Court's decision.

I do have a problem with the the rationale the court used. Unlike a first-trimester fetus, a late-term fetus has developed sufficiently to be regarded as having human life. A premature baby delivered in the seventh month and living in an incubator is regarded as a human being with full rights. However, under the Supreme Court ruling, if the baby had not been prematurely born it would not qualify for any rights, even though it's exactly the same being in the same stage of development. Please correct me if I misunderstand the ruling, but this seems to me perverse and inconsistent.

Why don't you tell us how it's gonna work?

I do not understand the point. It would not require any changes.

In the case you mentioned regarding cancer treatment, the mother should receive lifesaving treatment even if it killed the fetus. There should absolutely be an exception for the life of the mother. A cancer diagnosis dramatically changes the equation, and pits the rights to life of two parties against each other. In that case, the mother's life should take precedence.

I wouldn't want to cut down an old-growth redwood, or keep my cat in a 2-foot cube. Is this because they are unsettlingly human?

The point I was trying to make is:

Anti-abortion arguments are much more persuasive when they concern late-term abortions. But the earlier you get in the pregnancy, they more of a stretch they seem. Some people would even want to award full human rights to a fertilized egg, although most people would agree that that's ridiculous.

By the same token, pro-abortion arguments are much more persuasive when dealing with early first-term abortions, because the fetus has not even developed the brain and nervous system required for consciousness or humanity. But those same arguments ring hollow when the fetus is about to be delivered as a full-term baby. (That's what 'unsettlingly human' referred to.)

I believe the reason for this impasse is that survivability outside the womb should not be the standard. Supporters of abortion rights are on much firmer moral and legal ground by engaging the argument on the grounds of humanity, and not changing the subject whenever that argument is raised.

[gollygee]

275. Why not have an abortion of a healthy fetus at 8 months then?

Easy. Because its existence doesn't require the woman's body at that point. If she's opposed to having a baby use her body at that point, she has the ability to give birth and place the baby for adoption.

It isn't it's location so much as the fact that a woman gets to choose whether to share her body. At 8 months, she doesn't need to share her body anymore.

Not that women get to 8 months in pregnancy unless they WANT A BABY. I think it's crazy that people think women are going through the physical discomfort and size changes of pregnancy when they don't want a baby. For one thing, someone who doesn't want a baby wouldn't want the rest of the world knowing she was pregnant. For another thing, she wouldn't want the extra 20 pounds and stretch marks. The fact is that women who simply don't want babies have abortions early. When a woman reaches 8 months and then considers abortion, it's because there is some desperate situation - a health crisis, a problem with the fetus, something like that. And good luck finding a doctor to perform an abortion on a healthy 8-month fetus anyway. I sincerely doubt any doctor would do that.

[enki23]

238. so far as we know, life only begain once

it's a pretty safe bet that life is not, at least tonight, beginning anywhere on the planet.

on edit: nevermind. someone beat me to that punch. if you think about it carefully, however, there really is some insight to be gained from it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

272. But All That Is Still Up To Matter Of Opinion.

You have made it clear your passion of the side of the issue you're on, so it only makes sense that you would declare such things as if they were fact.

But they really are just the product of passionate opinion. In reality, there are many that absolutely believe that the concept of the fetus being life is monumentally relevant to the abortion discussion. There are those that due to that feel that it is not only up to you, but that the child itself requires some level of protection. I know you don't agree with that and for the most part neither do I, but our position is still the product of an opinion as is theirs, so it is not really accurate to declare as fact that those angles of the argument are irrelevant. They are relevant. You just simply disagree with them.

As far as all the dramatic terminology and concepts such as being a slave etc, that just seems a bit over the top to me and a wayyyyyyyyy dark tone for what pregnancy actually is.

[mudesi]

279. It's mindless rhetoric

Calling it a parasite, or saying a pregnant woman is a slave is not just "over the top", but categorically false. Pregnancy is the biological mechanism that all mammals use to reproduce. I wonder what how these demagogues would feel about abortion if humans were reptiles and laid eggs. Would it be OK to destroy the fertilized egg even though it's not inside the woman's body?

Not to mention that this rhetoric can be quite insulting to the millions of people who want children but have trouble getting pregnant.

[iverglas]

282. oooooo - demagogues

Such a big word, and in response to such an incoherent post, too. Practising? Now if only we could use it meaningfully in a sentence.

Not to mention that this rhetoric can be quite insulting to the millions of people who want children but have trouble getting pregnant.

Poor darlings. Are they involved in this discussion somehow? Like, are they trying to prevent somebody else from exercising reproductive choice? I haven't seen any hereabouts. Bring some on, and I'll carefully explain to them that this discussion has the utmost of nothing to do with them. Just in case they weren't actually bright enough not to have thought it did.

Would it be OK to destroy the fertilized egg even though it's not inside the woman's body?

Phew, wouldn't that be great?? Whaddayawanna bet, though, that the boy lizards, or the right-wing asshole lizards, would still come up with some way of making girl lizards subservient. Hey, you've produced that egg! It's a life in progress! You *must* allow me to fertilize it now!!!

Plus ça changerait, plus ça serait la même chose, I fear.

[mudesi]

290. Tell me if this offends you:

"If you had an abortion, you murdered a baby".

Does that offend you? Because it's someone who uses that type of rhetoric that the word "demagogue" is defined to describe.

Calling a fetus a parasite, saying pregnant women are slaves, etc. is offensive to the women out there who can't get pregnant. No, they're not really involved in the discussion, but I'm not addressing the abortion debate, I'm addressing the people here to use this type of language. For example:

Poor darlings...

Do you even realize how insulting that is?

[iverglas]

291. indeed, it hurteth mine eyes and my brain

The idea that someone telling *me*, a stand-in for a woman who had an abortion, that I am a murderer is somehow equivalent to someone stating that fetuses are parasitic and women compelled to complete pregnancies against their will are denied their freedom ... yes, it's hugely offensive.

Somehow, it just leaps off the page at me that the first assertion is a calumnious and scandalous libel, expressed for the sole purpose of demonizing someone by falsehood ... and that the second assertion is a description of a fact situation that is intended to insult no one, and in fact insults no one. I mean, unless people trying to compel other women to complete pregnancies against their will are insulted at being called what they, by implication, are. Which would be really too bad.


Poor darlings...
Do you even realize how insulting that is?

Did you somehow miss that I was talking to you about something annoying you said about some imaginary people, and not actually about any real persons at all? If you found it insulting to yourself, well, that would be a shame, but easily avoided in future.

Now as I said, if any real person did want to come whining about how insulting it was for someone to call that person's non-existent fetus parasitic, and that person's non-existent unwanted forced pregnancy a denial of freedom tantamount to slavery ... well, I would be gentle. But firm.


Lord fucking god; I mean, this takes the cake. Not only are women's bodies the property of the public in general, but now they are the property of some hard-done-by small segment of the public in particular, to define as said small segment chooses, to the exclusion of the women whose bodies they are. Quite unbelievable. That someone's feeeelings about her non-existent fetus and non-existent pregnancy, which are not in issue in any discussion, not least of all because they are non-existent, should trump someone else's interest in framing the discourse about women's reproductive rights in the most effective and most accurate and most truthful way ... yeesh.

Except, of course, again, that I haven't actually seen said small segment saying anything.

[Scout]

286. "insulting to the millions of people who want children but have trouble getting pregnant"

yeah, 'cuz there's just a bunch of breeders out here aborting good babies that other people want!

Too bad, so sad that some women can't get pregnant. I wanted to be born to a rich family with skinny genes, but we don't get to have our way in life all the time, do we.

[mudesi]

289. Why are you so offended?

I wonder what you think it feels like for a woman who can't get pregnant to hear someone call a fetus a parasite. That's all I'm addressing, here.

And your dismissive attitude ("too bad, so sad") is not exactly the most comforting language, either.

[iverglas]

283. lesson number one in how to distinguish "opinions" from other things

We start with "constitutions", today. You have one, I believe. Preparatory work for the lesson will be to read it.

As far as all the dramatic terminology and concepts such as being a slave etc, that just seems a bit over the top to me and a wayyyyyyyyy dark tone for what pregnancy actually is.

I gather that some of Tom Jefferson's slaves had a pretty cushy life of it. Too bad you weren't around to chide them if they complained about that whole no liberty, no security of their persons business, eh?

[Scout]

285. "what pregnancy actually is"

what, pray tell o great one, would that be?

Shall you entertain us with light, happy, warm and fuzzy terminology about what pregnancy really is?

I'll be holding my breath, anxiously awaiting you to enlighten me and all those other women... :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

296. Umm, Gee, I Dunno, Maybe The Natural Method Of Which A New Beautiful Child Enters The World?

And you can stop holding your breath now. It appears that holding it for that long made you turn green and your eyes go twitchy. :hi:

[Sapere aude]

293. Know one can know for sure what the truth is in your explanation so a law saying there can be no

abortions is the acceptance of the beliefs of some of the people. I think that would be legislating an unknown to be a known and is wrong. Better to let the person it effects, the mother decide what to do and not accept one belief over an other. No government has an interest in promoting one belief over another.